The Queen

By Simon Woodhouse

It's a very brave move to tell a fictitious story about someone who's still alive. And doubly brave if that person is very, very high profile. Not only high profile, but also very well loved. It'd be easy for this sort of film to be nothing more than a 'we love you' bio-pic, in which the main character is turned into a virtual saint. Not only would that sort of movie make for very dull entertainment, it'd also be patronizing on the part of the film maker to expect the audience to swallow it. Faced with these sorts of challenges, it's hardly surprising that warts-and-all bio-pics about living people rarely make it onto the screen. If one does, however, and it's good, it leaves a very distinct impression with the audience.

Set around the circumstances in which Princess Diana died in 1997, The Queen tells the story of how the British Royal Family coped (or didn't) with the whole situation. Rather than diving straight into the tragic, the film begins with a brief look at the ridiculousness of royal protocol. Diana died in August, but in May of the same year Britain elected a new Prime Minister - Tony Blair (Michael Sheen). The scene is set with the Queen (Helen Mirren) having her first Queen to Prime Minister chat with Mr Blair. At this point the movie has a light-hearted feel about it, with amusing observations on daily royal life.

As the events surrounding Diana's death unfold, the mood changes. News footage from the day is inter-cut with the film's narrative, and we see the Royal Family reacting to what happened in Paris. This is done in an unbiased way. The film makers present no moral judgment on the behavior of the main characters, but rather just present their version of events and let the audience make up their own minds. There's also no overly sentimental worshiping of Diana.

Because the tragedy happened during the summer, the Royal Family (as is customary) are holidaying at Balmoral, the Queen's enormous estate in Scotland. But this is where the conflict within the film starts to come into affect. The Queen feels (quite rightly) that Diana's two young sons will cope with the whole situation much better if they're kept out of the public eye, and allowed to come to terms with what's happened surrounded only by their immediate family. But fuelled by a self-righteous tabloid press, the 'British Public' want the royals to return to London and help the 'Nation' grieve.

Depending on your views of the Monarchy, and particularly events surrounding Diana's death, the film will either draw you in or seem rather trivial. However you look at it, the performances by the main players are brilliant. As far as facial expressions and mannerisms are concerned, Helen Mirren's a dead ringer for the Queen. But because the Monarch is such a private person, we'll never know if she got the personality right. She plays the Queen in the way we imagine her to be, so from that point of view she's got it right. Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) is also portrayed very much in the way you'd imagine him to be. This formula is deviated from when it comes to Prince Charles (Alex Jennings). All the familiar mannerisms are there, but he's given a degree of emotional outpouring not afforded to any other members of the cast. But when the royals do show some emotion, it makes for the film's most powerful scenes. Chief amongst these are Prince Charles' reaction when seeing Diana's body in the hospital in Paris, and also the Queen's tearful moment whilst sat alone in the Balmoral countryside.

As the film moves on we're shown how the Queen's life is a constant balancing act between doing what she thinks is right from a traditional point of view, whilst at the same time trying to keep the fickle British Public happy. I would imagine (and hope) that in retrospect, anyone watching the film who criticized the Monarch's behavior at the time will now realize just how selfish they were being.

In the end the Queen does come out of the film as a sympathetic character. Perhaps the only member of the Royal Family who doesn't is Prince Charles. As this is a fictitious piece of work (at least from the point of view of royal life behind closed doors), it's hard to say whether the portrayal of Charles' character is accurate. If it is, then he's a slightly paranoid, non-confrontational ditherer.

Who will this film appeal to? If you're a Diana worshipper, you might not enjoy it. If you're a reader of tabloid newspapers, you'll perhaps see your unreasonable self in it. But if you can put the subject matter aside and just enjoy the performances, it's a cracking piece of work. That Helen Mirren is up for an Oscar comes as no surprise, and hers is an acting accomplishment that certainly deserves a golden statuette. There are moments of cutting wit and genuine emotion, and apart from a couple of overly sentimental scenes (especially where the Queen spots a stag at Balmoral), the film keeps its feet on the ground. It doesn't really matter if you're a fan of the British Monarchy or not, because if you like good acting, a tight script and involving story, you'll enjoy The Queen.

The Brady Bunch Movie (1995)

I'll be the first to admit it: most movie remakes of old television series' fall flat. But, being a huge fan of the sappy old 1970's TV series "The Brady Bunch", I was willing to take the risk when the big screen feature came out over a decade ago.

"The Brady Bunch" movie is hilarious. At least I think so. The movie is set in the mid-1990's, but the Brady's are still living and dressing like it's the 1970's. They wear 70's clothes and "dig" 70's things. They say words like "groovy" and "far out" and are just out and out corny.

The casting for this movie was perfect. Gary Cole and Shelly Long play Mike and Carol Brady. Long has mastered the two-syllable "Mike" that Florence Henderson was known for.

Christine Taylor (now also known as the wife of actor Ben Stiller) looks like she was cloned from the original Marcia Brady, Maureen McCormick. Michael McKean (Lenny from "Laverne and Shirley) does great as the evil next door neighbor, Larry Dittmeyer. And there are several cameos from original Brady Bunch cast members-- Barry Williams, Florence Henderson and Ann B. Davis all make appearances in this movie.

As a fan of the original Brady Bunch, I don't think they could have done any better with this movie. I laugh out loud every time I watch it. When Marcia tries to get Davey Jones to sing at the school dance, he resurrects his old song "Girl", but the band add a 90's grunge feel to the backup.

Jack Noseworthy does great as the bad boy next door Eric Dittmeyer, who lives to torment squirrelly Peter Brady. I love Jack and I was totally excited to see him in this movie!

Many of the "classic" Brady Bunch moments are featured in this movie. It is obvious that the writers of this film were either Brady Bunch fans or did a ton of research on the series. Marcia getting hit in the face with a football, the kids singing on a TV talent show, Bobby acting like a safety monitor and barking codes and regulations at everyone, Jan hating her glasses and being completely jealous of older sister Marcia-- it's all in there!

The basic premise of the movie is this: Next door neighbor Dittmeyer wants the whole block to sell their homes for a huge profit, so a builder can take over the land. The Brady's refuse to sell. When Dittmeyer find out the Brady's owe a huge tax bill, he does what he can to sabotage their paying it. In the end, the Brady kids join together to get the money to pay the tax bill and the Brady house is saved.

But along the way we're treated to tons of 1970's (and 1990's) cliches, as well as a bunch of the memorable characters from the original TV series. Doug Simspon, "the big man on campus" is the boy that Marcia wants to date-- but he's even more of a creep in the 90's! And the old TV group The Monkees even make a quick cameo appearance.

And then there's those Brady's. Jan Brady, trying to change her image, goes to the school counselor who's expecting to hear her problem with teen pregnancy or bulimia. Instead, Jan's lamenting over her stupid glasses! And as a side note, the counselor is played by Ru Paul. Peter Brady talks in a cracking voice-- until he sticks up to Eric Dittemyer and then his voice changes to a deep, manly voice. And Cindy, that annoying youngest Brady child, is ultra-annoying in this movie. With her constant lisping and her braided hair, Next door neighbor Dittmeyer tells her to "hop back on the Swiss Miss package where she came from".

Keep your eyes and ears open during the movie because there are tons of visual gags and double-entendre jokes.

I think as far as remakes goes, this is one of the funniest ones out there. While not trying to pretend to be the original series, this movie instead makes fun of it-- but in a kind, gentle way. Because let's face it-- any one who knows the series knows it was syrupy and sappy and not a bit realistic. Still, we're nostalgic for it. "The Brady Bunch" movie takes us back there while still keeping up with modern times. And truthfully, that's the best way to present a movie such as this.

Bambi II (2006)

It's an unwritten rule that Disney's direct-to-DVD movies are best left unwatched. This especially goes for sequels to popular films but the worst are unwanted follow-ups to timeless classics like Cinderella. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that Bambi II surpassed expectations.

It's not better than the 1942 masterpiece, it doesn't even come close and it's essentially a children's film. But as an animated film unto itself and a direct-to-DVD fare it is much better than expected with excellent animation. Actually this isn't a true sequel to the original Bambi because this film takes place during the original film. It fills in the gaps from when Bambi's mother was shot by hunters and when he emerges as a young buck in shortly thereafter.

This film opens just after Bambi (voiced by Alexander Gould), a young fawn in a forest, has found out that his mother was killed. He's informed of this sad news by his father, the near-mythical Great Prince of the Forest (in this film voiced by Patrick Stewart), and is taken under his father's tutelage. Whereas in the original film, the Great Prince was an ethereal, mysteriously distant yet strong father figure, this film brings him back down to earth. The result is that the Great Prince is shown to be more flawed. He instructs his son of how a Great Prince must act in front of the other deer and how to survive especially against the threat of Man. He is too easy to admonish Bambi for making mistakes and he is afraid to show his feelings to his son. Chiefly, the Great Prince doubts his ability to raise Bambi and asks Friend Owl to find a surrogate mother to take over Bambi's upbringing. All this adds more dimension to the Great Prince.

As the scene where Bambi learns of his mother's death represents the end of his innocence and childhood, this sequel represents the transition between childhood and adolescence. By the end of the film, Bambi isn't the young strapping buck seen near the end of the original film but he has definitely undergone the changes that will prepare him for the next phase of his life. Interestingly, this film implies that a lot more time passed in the first film between the time of his mother's death and when he next appears as a buck. When his mother died, it was clearly stated that winter was ending, evidenced by the new grass they were finding. By the time when Bambi next appears without his spots and sporting antlers spring is in full bloom. With Bambi II, the Groundhog Day event occurs which would place the film in mid-winter. As to why animals with a vague concept of Man would observe an event observed only by humanity isn't answered and is a flaw. It's implied at the end of Bambi II that summer has arrived and Bambi still hasn't transformed into a buck. So it can be inferred that a year passes by in the first film between those two periods. But this is only a minor quibble.

Viewers are re-introduced to returning characters like Thumper (unfortunately the voice by Brendon Baerg isn't as captivating and joyful as the original actor but is otherwise fine), Flower, Feline and Bambi's nemesis Ronno, the rival buck later in the first film who duels with Bambi for Feline. Fans of those characters will be overjoyed to see them again in animation form. The new characters like Porcupine and the Groundhog aren't as memorable and seem shoehorned into the plot somehow disrupting the timeless feel of the films. Actually the disruption is more apparent when the filmmakers stick in a pop tune during the film that cannot compete with the original's classic tunes like "Time is a Song That Never Ends" and it's too bad. There wasn't any way the newer music could improve on the original and in the end will just date the movie later on. Mercifully the musical sequence is very short and forgotten quickly as the plot advances.

As Bambi and his father learn to adjust to each other, Bambi is still grieving for his mother and the threat of Man is still ever-present. This threat leads to a retread taken from the climax of the original film when Man's surrogates the hunting dogs appear once more. Also the rivalry between Bambi and Ronno is more present in this film although Ronno is far less menacing than in the original film. In that movie, Ronno was a silent threat but in Bambi II is given dialogue and many flaws culminating in giving him an appearance of a spoiled brat who gets in way over his head. It takes away some of the menace of the original Ronno but since this movie takes place before his initial appearance in the original it can be deduced that at some point he developed a harder edge. All the while Bambi learns to move on and enjoy life while learning the finer points of being a deer. The film's emotional crisis is when a replacement for Bambi's mother is found and the aftermath. The Great Prince has bonded with his son and is conflicted over sending Bambi away, while the young deer is confused and upset by this turn of events. But this dilemma will lead to his learning to face danger and his fears as the film nears its end.

Simply put, Bambi II is a basic coming-of-age story which will be enjoyed by Disney fans with its better-than-average animation and plot. - - J. L. Soto

Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)

The Story: On the 23rd and final day of its feeding frenzy, a vengeful father prepares to destroy the demonic Creeper that abducted his son as it terrorizes a stranded busload of teenagers.

While it certainly got people talking, horror fans were divided in their reactions when controversial director Victor Salva's Jeepers Creepers first attacked theaters back in the summer of 2001. Whether or not you will enjoy this simple-minded sequel will primarily depend on how much you like The Creeper itself as it eschews the aura of mystery and dread prevalent in the first two-thirds of the original in favor of a straight forward monster-on-the-rampage approach.

In an atmospheric opening sequence, a scarecrow dismounts its post and abducts the young son of grizzled farmer, Jack Taggert (Ray Wise). After a harrowing chase through a cornfield, Taggert and his eldest son can only stare in horrified disbelief as the abductor amazingly takes flight, disappearing from sight with his boy. Cut to a busload of corn-fed basketball jocks and their cheerleader girlfriends on the way home from winning a big game. When one of the tires blow, the bus driver and coaches discover what can only be described as a custom made throwing star stuck in the rubber. As night begins to fall, the adults decide to try and "limp" back to school after failing to contact help using the bus radio. After losing another tire, it becomes apparent that something is terribly wrong as the adults are snatched up one by one, leaving the obnoxious kids to fend for themselves. With the bus under siege by a winged, regenerating horror, it's up to the vengeful farmer to stop the merciless onslaught of The Creeper (Jonathan Breck).

As with a lot of horror films, one can spend all day picking out the many flaws in Jeepers Creepers 2 (JC2), diminishing much of the fun in this undemanding monster mash, or you can check your brain at the door and try to enjoy it for what it is: a shallow, crowd-pleasing creature feature. With the exception of the impressive opening scene, the overwhelming sense of impending doom and mounting terror that drew me into the original is all but gone, relying instead on physical action to move things along. That's unfortunate, because that fear of the unknown is what made the original such a memorable, if not completely agreeable, experience.

The biggest problem plaguing JC2 is Salva's bewildering decision to center what little story there is on a large group of unlikable teens instead of Taggert's personal vendetta. Having an older sister, I could easily identify with the siblings in the original; whereas in the sequel, I had a hard time investing in any one of the many uncooperative, hot-headed numbskulls. As the team comes to realize the amount of danger they're in, they react with an understandable degree of confusion and fear; however, it's only a matter of time before they begin doing the most amazingly stupid things imaginable as exhibited by one girl who actually sticks her head through the same hole some jock just died under. You'll also be amazed by an extremely powerful cheerleader's deadly prowess with a javelin and the short amount of time in which a simple farmer can build an ingenious contraption to hunt the creature.

Since almost everyone who's going to see this already knows The Creeper's deal, one cheerleader's sudden psychic visions are useless as a plot device. However, if you're in the mood for a movie about a flesh-eating gargoyle terrorizing a bunch of disposable idiots, and I usually am, then this might be your thing as it's all about The Creeper in full-on demon mode. Another disappointing aspect is Salva's failure to expand on The Creeper's mythology. Although more than a few folks were turned off by the original's monstrous final third, I was sold on it. Seemingly drawing from every urban legend imaginable (thunderbirds, moth/birdmen, highway stalkers, organ thieves - I could go on), The Creeper was the ultimate incarnation of every fireside tale that ever scared you. Here, he's reduced to yet another unstoppable, malevolent force, stripped of the traits that made his character an instant horror icon: that intimidating truck, the briefly seen medieval arsenal, and his penchant for whistling a favorite tune. At least he appears to be enjoying himself as he scares the kids witless, taunting and glaring at them through the windows as he sniffs out his favorite parts.

Initially, I was fairly satisfied with the action-oriented approach when I saw it on opening night with a packed house of cheering lunatics, but after a second viewing with a more subdued crowd, I found my enthusiasm waning. While I haven't made this sound all that appealing, some well-staged attack sequences, an improved Creeper design, a few good laughs, and couple of nice gore-gags keep JC2 from being an utter waste of time. Judging from the excited responses at both showings I attended, for good or ill, we haven't heard the last of The Creeper.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

The Story: A brother and sister are hounded by a mysterious creature on a lonely highway.

Our story opens with Darry (Justin Long) driving his sister Trish (Gina Philips) home for her collegiate Spring Break. They have a game going in which they call license numbers, and Darry is trailing. They drive upon a slow going motor home and pass it. As they discuss the game rules further, the motor home turns off behind them.

Still in discussion, the siblings fail to notice a large, rusty beast of a truck gaining on them. Before they know it, the truck is right on their fender, it's horn roaring like some jurassic monster. After a few scary minutes, the truck finally passes them by and disappears down the road at a high rate of speed.

Before too long, they drive past a dilapidated house where Darry sees the strange truck. As Darry and Trish watch on, they see a tall, dark figure in a floppy hat and trench coat dump what appears to be a body wapped in a sheet into an above ground sewage pipe. They decide to hightail it down the road, but find themselves pursued once again by the monstrous truck, which this time runs them off the road where they stall out in a small field, while the truck continues on down the road.

Darry thinks the two should go back and see if it was actually a body that was dumped into the sewer pipe, while Trish insists they move on to the nearest phone and call the police. Darry ponders that if it was a person, they might still be alive. Trish still won't budge. Finally, Darry asks what if it were her back there in that pipe, and Trish reluctantly agrees.
They go back to the house and Darry works himself into the sewage pipe. Once down there, he finds that there are hundreds of bodies in the cave at the end of the pipe, and it mortifies him to speechlessness. Finally, Trish gets her way and they drive off into the next town.

They make it to a diner and as they get out of the car, the ominous truck once again drives by. The siblings rush into the diner where Darry answers a ringing pay phone and is warned of terrible danger if he hears the song, "Jeepers Creepers," and something about a creature catching Darry's scent. Freaked out, Darry hangs up the phone and finally the police are called.

Soon the police arrive and take Darry's story. One of the waitresses from the diner suddenly runs in and says there was a strange man going through Darry and Trish's car. When they go outside, Darry's clothes, which were in the backseat, are scattered everywhere and the waitress says the strange man was smelling them.
The cops escort Trish and Darry back onto the highway and follow along. As Trish and Darry are suddenly shocked at the sound of "Jeepers Creepers" playing on the radio, the patrol car behind them is attacked by the driver of the creepy truck (Jonathan Breck). He takes out the cops, and now the kids are on their own...

Filmed in Florida, Jeepers Creepers is a pretty decent monster movie. It has characters you care about, though they do occasionally perpetrate the typical "dumb horror film character" blunders such as not running off right away when the monster attacks. But director Salva, who also wrote the screenplay, does something very smart; he takes his time introducing us to the siblings and getting us to care for them before putting them in a deadly situation. The fact that you don't want to see them die is what keeps you hooked, even when the story slips into its less plausible parts. Plus, the monster doesn't even physically show up onscreen until near the half-hour mark, which adds to the spookiness.

The monster himself is well done, if not entirely convincing, but that's okay. Sure, it's a man in a suit, but this is explained in the story as the demon attempting to look human. How does the demon do this? By eating the human parts he needs to pass as more human. If he needs a leg, he eats a leg, eating a heart gives him a heart, etc.
Another thing I liked is that Salva cast a pair of unknowns for the sibling leads. Both do exceptionally good jobs, and the fact that they're not instantly recognizable makes them seem more realistic. Kudos to Salva for not following the now typical style of casting hot young actors already recognizable from some sappy teen drama.

But what I probably like most about this movie is that the monster does what monsters are supposed to do; hack people up and eat 'em. There's no romanticizing it like they do with vampire movies, no "Jekyll and Hyde"-style Dionysian aspect of inner evil, and no "man playing god" Frankenstein nonsense. It's simply a monster. No explanation needed.

But there are flaws, to be sure. The lady who calls Darry on the pay phone diner and warns him eventually shows up, but she kind of gets in the way once she does. It was only logical that she make an appearance after being such major plot point, but she doesn't really have any importance when she arrives. Also, the climax takes place in a crowded police station. Does the monster treat itself and "pig" out on the police? Nope. He only gets rid of a couple of them and at one point you think he’s finished the others off-screen, but sure enough they all reappear, this time in SWAT gear.

But the unforeseen ending packs a nice jolt, although it doesn't fully make up the sillier aspects of rest of the film. I'm not going to ruin it for you, but it is very effective.

Overall, Jeepers Creepers is an effective monster-romp which is unfortunately hindered by a few implausible sequences. But, it's still a good flick for those looking for some well done monster chills. Worth a rental.

Hannibal (2001)

The Story: Dr. Hannibal Lecter returns to the United States after a comfortable ten-year vacation, only to find himself running from an "old pal" at the FBI and quite a handsome former patient.

It's refreshing to hear and see Barney (Frankie Faison) as this film begins. Barney stood guard outside of Lecter's cell for years and is now in the business of selling Lecter "collectables" to Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a former patient and the only surviving victim of Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). We see Verger's horrific face early on in the film and learn that Lecter was a large part of its deformity. While high on amyls, Lecter asked Verger to peel his face off with a piece of broken mirror and feed it to his dogs. Verger followed through and Lecter even gave him a hand.

We cut to Special Agent Clarice Starling (Jullianne Moore), who achieved celebrity fame for her involvement with the Lecter case ten years ago. We get to see her in action as she and her colleagues take down an HIV-positive drug queen who uses a baby and her disease as protection. An intense shoot-out quickly unfolds and Starling is forced to make a decision. Does she let this drug queen kill her or does she risk shooting an innocent child to save her own life? Starling chooses her life, a choice for which she could pay with her job and her reputation. She is later suspended from her position at the FBI for her unorthodox involvement in the Lecter case. Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) at the Justice Department orchestrates much of Starling's dismissal in a twist surprisingly involving Verger.

Meanwhile, Lecter is living as the sophisticated Dr. Fell somewhere in Florence. Inspector Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) knows who Dr. Fell really is and attempts to capture him for the large reward that is being offered for his arrest. Pazzi's methods soon place him face to face with Lecter, who is "giving very serious thought to eating his wife." Lecter kills Pazzi in quite a symbolic fashion and then returns to the United States, ready to come out of "hibernation." Krendler and Starling find themselves guests at the same formal dinner, hosted by none other than the good doctor himself. Will they survive the main course? Do yourself a favor and find out.

Director Ridley Scott gives us some of the most beautiful and disgusting scenes I've ever had the privilege of watching. The prominent opera in the film was composed specifically for this film and its melody will haunt you days later. On the flipside, we see wild boars devour human beings and we watch a man's bowels fall out of his body as he is hanged. Fans of gore, start your engines!

I have to admit, I was very skeptical that Julianne Moore could pull off the role of Starling as brilliantly as Foster did in The Silence of the Lambs. I had no need to be skeptical as Moore not only pulls it off, but pulls it off well. Her emotions are off the charts and her relationship with Lecter reflects the history that Foster originally created. Hopkins, now a little balder and pudgier, comes through in reprising his role. As a fan of The Silence of the Lambs, I was very pleased to see Lecter out of his cell and back in the action in which we were not able to see him previously. Liotta plays the misogynistic bureaucrat and does so very convincingly. The scene in which he loses his head, so to speak, is particularly memorable.

The tongue-in-cheek jokes are just enough and never too much. You can't help but smile a little when Lecter recalls having "enjoyed many excellent meals" in the states. Extremely creepy are the scenes with Oldman, whose portrayal of the severely deformed and now deranged Verger is magnificent. We sympathize with the cruel ways in which his character seeks revenge on Lecter every time we are forced to look at his hideous face and hear his slurred speech. So, what's wrong with Hannibal? While I would have enjoyed seeing more attention given to Verger's strange little assistant, Cordell (Zeljko Ivanek), I can't say much in the way of negative about Hannibal as a film.

Although the first part of the film moves a little slow as we are forced to see and hear flashbacks from The Silence of the Lambs, I can appreciate the reasoning behind such flashbacks. We must remember the relationship between Starling and Lecter in order to appreciate a reprisal of such history in the later scenes. True, it's not The Silence of the Lambs, but it's a brilliant follow-up with excellent direction, terrific sound, and superior acting.

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

The Story: The FBI scrambles to capture a psychotic serial killer before he can kill his latest abductee.

FBI Agent-In-Training Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is pulled from her morning run by the head of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn). In his office, he drills her on an at-large serial killer the papers have been calling Buffalo Bill. After explaining that thus far the FBI has been unable to get a slant on Buffalo Bill's psychological profile, Crawford offers her the opportunity for advancement she so craves by assigning her to interview an imprisoned, formerly renowned psychologist - who also just so happens to be a demented cannibal - in an attempt to get his view on this latest murderer.

Starling is sent to the imprisoned lunatic's asylum and after fending off advances from the asylum's CEO, a weasel named Dr. Chilton (Anthony Heald), Starling is lead into the bowels of the institution to find her subject, Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) waiting patiently for her. Though highly intelligent and having been grilled on how to handle Lecter, Starling clumsily drops the ball and agitates Lecter, who utilizes his keen, razor-sharp insight to dissect her. Feeling embarrassed and violated, Starling goes to leave when the patient in the cell next to Lecter's tosses a wad of semen at her face. Before she can rush out, Lecter calls her back, apologizing fervently for his fellow inmate's brashness, and as a consolation gives her a lead to put her on Buffalo Bill's trail.

Under Crawford's guidance, Starling takes to the case like a bloodhound following up clues and leads, while also periodically returning for more psychological insight on Buffalo Bill from Lecter. Having been imprisoned for nearly a decade, Lecter takes a liking to Starling and develops an almost mentor-like relationship with her. As the hunt for Buffalo Bill continues, deals are made and broken, secrets are learned and ultimately Starling's hunt for ol' Bill will lead her into a life or death confrontation with the psychopathic madman himself - in the pitch black, and without back-up.

Silence of the Lambs, the last major hit from Orion Pictures before their bankruptcy, is a highly suspenseful, highly intelligent and gruesome thriller. Performances across the board are extraordinary, from Foster's ambitious yet naive Starling to Anthony Hopkins' slithering portrayal of the sociopathic Hannibal Lecter. His performance was so amazing that it painted in the minds of the nation's filmgoers a flesh and blood rendition of The Bogey Man. Levine, as Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb, is very effective, as well. Though not given near as much screen time as Foster or Hopkins, Levine's characterization of the killer who "likes to skin his humps" is frightening, while also oddly sympathetic. Thomas Harris, upon whose novel the film is based, explained that Buffalo Bill was actually an amalgamation of numerous true-life serial killers including Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey and Henry Lee Lucas.

Demme's direction makes the most of the gothic asylum locations and the rural communities through which Starling's investigation leads her. In fact, the cinematography and set decoration seem to have inspired the television series The X-Files, right down to the super-imposed locations appearing across the bottom of the screen. Demme shows a real flair for directing his actors and allows the camera to linger on their faces as they look directly at us, the viewers, making their words take that much deeper a root in our minds. When Lecter leans forward during the infamous "fava beans" sequence and sucks his teeth, he's not just creeping out Starling; he's creeping out us, the viewers, as he looks right at us. Incidentally, Hopkins admits that this chill-inducing moment was completely improvised when director Demme failed to yell "Cut" after his dialogue. A testament to Hopkins' skills, I'd call it, as this moment is one of the most memorable moments of the film.

Based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name, The Silence of the Lambs is also the first horror film to ever sweep the Academy Awards by winning every major Oscar, including Best Actor (Hopkins), Actress (Foster), Director (Demme) and Adapted Screenplay (by Ted Tally). Anyone who's not seen the film has obviously been living in a sealed off bunker or a cordoned-off cell of some type, or you just don't like horror movies. Which means cameos by such genre luminaries as Roger Corman and George Romero will go unnoticed by you. For shame!

Overall, The Silence of the Lambs is a gripping, white-knuckle excursion into the minds of psychopathic madmen and why they do what they do. Though many would argue against the film's qualifications for "horror movie" status, these qualifications are quite obvious. You have your psycho killer (in this case, two), loads of suspense, plenty of scares, bloody kills and heaping handfuls of morbid underpinnings and subtext. Bluntly put, if this film isn't a horror film then I don't know what is.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go... I'm having an old friend for lunch.

King Kong (2005)

By Simon Woodhouse

Some movies suffer from the Titanic syndrome, i.e. everyone knows the end even before the opening credits start to roll. Does this affect everything that comes before the final few reels? Yes, but if handled properly, that can be a good thing. Knowing the ultimate fate of a character (especially if it's tragic) right from the get go means there's instant sympathy. Armed with readymade, dread-filled foreshadowing, the makers of such a movie should be able to use it to their advantage. There's no need for excessive sappiness or truckloads of schmaltz. A gritty, more realistic approach can be used, especially if it means breathing new life into a familiar story. But unfortunately, because this is a riskier way of doing things, it's very rarely attempted. Especially if it means not making such a huge mega-profit.

Returning the story to its roots, this version of King Kong is set in the 1930s. It's depression era America, where only the wealthy have anything to smile about. Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is a struggling actress, who's just about managing to get by. But life becomes a whole lot harder when the vaudeville style show she's in shuts down. At the same time, movie director Carl Denham (Jack Black) is finding it very difficult to convince studio execs to keep bankrolling his current project. These two meet by chance, and before you know it, Carl has convinced Ann to play the lead in his new movie. A rather motley cast and crew set sail from New York for Skull Island, a never-before-seen lump of rock shown on a mysterious map that's come into Carl's possession. For some reason, he thinks it'll make the perfect location for his movie. Also onboard the ship is Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), a screenwriter hired buy Carl to pen the script.

Considering Kong is a remake, and therefore full of familiar characters, this version takes its time to introduce the various players. But that doesn't mean it's an exercise in character development. Naomi Watts gives Ann a constant puppy dog look. Jack Black suffers from an over exuberant screen presence (reminiscent of Robin Williams, and we all know how irritating he is). Whilst Adrian Brody seems totally miscast as the screenwriter, a character that's part wimp, part he-man action hero. However, all the human players are really only there to push the story towards the film's main star. After about an hour of rather dull build up, Kong himself makes an appearance.

Things go badly on Skull Island. Ann is kidnapped by the natives and offered up as a sacrifice to their god. The god in question is a twenty-five foot tall male gorilla. Previous versions of the giant ape have consisted of a stop-start motion miniature (1933) and a guy in a gorilla suit (1976). In the digital age Kong is a super-realistic CGI monster. However, this takes away some of his mysticism. Because both previous Kongs didn't look much like a real gorilla, they had a sort of other-worldliness about them. This also allowed them to behave (convincingly) in a manner that perhaps a real gorilla wouldn't. CGI Kong is all ape, which means he has to act like a real gorilla and nothing else.

Kong takes Ann deep into the island's interior, where thanks to a rather silly scene involving her performing vaudeville style tricks for him, she manages to save herself from being squished. The pace of the movie suddenly picks up here. The island is not only home to Kong, but also numerous varieties of dinosaur (most of which want to eat Ann). Ape and lizard duke it out in an extended fight scene that sees Kong save Ann from certain death.

As if trying to make up for the film's slow first hour, once the action starts it hardly stops. Some of these sequences, however, seem unnecessary (especially the bit that sees Carl and Jack trapped in a canyon full of giant insects). Various lesser members of the cast meet a grizzly end on the island, but this doesn't really register on the emotion-o-meter. They're cardboard, generic characters who can really only be described as ballast.

Thanks to Kong's devotion to Ann, he ends up being captured by Carl and co. and transported back to New York. He escapes (of course), and after rampaging through the city, finds Ann and makes his iconic ascension of the Empire State Building.

This is a long film (three hours plus), but it can be easily split into thirds. The first third is the pretty boring, overly long setup. The middle third features the dino fights and all the action on Skull Island. The last chunk is the stuff set in New York. If you want to only watch the best bits, stick to the middle third. Though there's action in the last section, it's tempered with masses of overly contrived schmaltz. There's tons of the stuff, poured on so thick it's almost choking.

Stripped of what made him more than just a big gorilla by the CGI realism, this version of Kong doesn't generate the sympathy of his predecessors. When the inevitable ending comes around, I didn't feel what I did when first watching the 1933 original. Even the 1976 remake had a more emotional ending. The 2005 Kong does all that's required of him - stands atop the Empire State and thrashes it out with circling biplanes, but (and this might make me sound a bit heartless) he just doesn't suffer enough. Previous Kongs took a real beating during the finale. Modern Kong grunts, growls and groans, but there's no heart.

All said and done, the movie is just too long. Had it been anything up to an hour shorter, it would have been a better film. Whole chunks from the beginning (especially) the middle and the end could have been jettisoned and the story wouldn't have suffered. A shorter movie would have also done away with the cloying sentimentality, the paper-thin minor characters and the unnecessary CGI creepy crawlies on Skull Island.

Is it all bad? No. In certain scenes Kong is an endearing creation. Some of the dinosaurs on Skull Island are also quite good (even though we've seen them all before thanks to Jurassic Park). The principle players have their moments, but on the whole they just seem miscast and overshadowed by the great ape. As with so many modern blockbusters, King Kong is a missed opportunity. All the pieces were there, but they were arranged wrongly. Perhaps in a few years time when someone else has a go, they'll get it really right.

The Dead next door (1989)

The Story: A virus has infected the dead, animating them so the corpses can feed on human flesh, thus feeding the virus.

The dead have overrun the Earth and the cities have become war zones. The Government sets up a team of crack soldiers called The Zombie Squad, to protect humans and hunt down the dead. An escaped virus, one in which a Doctor Bow was working on, has revived the dead. It animates the corpses and uses it to feed on humans, feeding the virus itself.

Without human flesh the virus will feed on the corpse and die. Doctor Moulsson (Bogdan Pecic) is trying to create an antidote that makes the virus feed on the corpses right away, thus destroying the threat. He needs Doctor Bow's notes to complete the job so with the zombie squad, commanded by Captain Raimi (Peter Ferry), they head for the Doctors house. Unfortunately it's not just the dead they have to contend with. A religious cult has formed, led by Rev Jones (Robert Kokai), who think the dead are a divine punishment and will fight to stop them being destroyed and thus cleansing the world!

Shot on Super-8mm, this was J R Bookwalters' first film. He has since gone on to more ambitious projects (sometimes too ambitious for his budget) such as Ozone and Polymorph, but it's with this cheap and cheerful zombie film he is probably still best known.

The budget was originally $4000 but after leaving a message on the Renaissance Pictures answering machine, Bookwalter eventually met up with Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead) who offered to help with the project. Raimi increased the budget and shooting began. Supposedly, Raimi later disowned the film. I can't confirm this, certainly Bookwalter does not mention it in the production notes to the film on the VHS used here, but Raimi's name does not appear anywhere in the credits.

Given what Bookwalter and his dedicated team had to work with, they have pulled off some commendable work. The amount of extras on screen is larger than most Indie productions have to play with and this helps add a bit of scale to the zombie take-over. Shooting on location in Washington, adds to the authentic look of the project.

The zombie makeup, in most of the cases, is excellent with some agreeably horrid looking corpses. The gore is plentiful and is extremely well done, with spurting wounds, stretching flesh and stringy intestines being thrown into the story with great aplomb! It's clear that a lot of the budget was used on here. But it's in trying to do more complex creations that the budgetary constraints show, and some are jarring. The use of animatronic/puppet zombie heads for certain scenes is an idea too far and look very bad. It would have been better to stick to more complex latex effects than to attempt, without any hope of a satisfactory outcome, some of the work that desperately needs a much bigger budget to pull off. Given the outstanding work everywhere else, these puppet heads stand out badly and add some unintentional humour to certain scenes.

The acting is as bad as you would expect, but some performances are a lot of fun, such as Pecic as the loony Dr Moulsson who wears a baseball cap with 'Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken' scrawled on it. Michael Gross as the ill fated squad member Mercer, who also sports some excellent zombie make up. If the voice of Captain Raimi (yes, we shall get back to the names) sounds familiar that's because it's none other than Bruce Campbell! Campbell, as well as dubbing the lead also helped on the audio post production. Director and Raimi collaborator Scott Spiegel also appears as a squad member, and strangely one of the cult members is dressed exactly, including the wig, as Raimi's cult leader in Spiegel's production of "Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except", which was being filmed at roughly the same time.

The names of the characters also brings us to the biggest and sadly almost fatal fault with this film, the humour. You can forgive the naming of characters after famous horror personalities as production started around 1985/6 and this was not then such a cliche. And of course they are all here, Raimi, Romero, King, Savini and a character called Carpenter who has the most horrific mullet hairstyle this side of Bon Jovi! It's in the general humour that the film can sometimes become cringe worthy.

With supposedly witty dialogue and self-conscious horror in-jokes dragging the film down. Add some appalling line reading to put unintentional humour onto the unfunny intentional humour and the film does start to try the patience of the viewer. And was it part of the humour to make the squad members amazingly stupid? One gets bitten because he leans on the table where a zombie is strapped down! Another is killed while trying to get three zombies out the back of a car, into a ridiculously rickety cage, because his partner rolls the window down too far!

Some of the homage humour works, and it's nice to see certain familiar "Day of the Dead" zombies recreated! In fact, except for the squad which reminds you of the "Dawn of the Dead" SWAT units, this film owes more to "Day" than anything. Dr Moullson's laboratory, complete with strapped down cut up zombies is like Dr Logan's as does the keeping the zombies in cages, and Rev Jones's dead son who comes across as being based on Bub.

The addition to the basic zombie plot of the religious cult also makes for some messy plot development and slows the pace down too a crawl at a time when it should be building. But it at least shows a willingness to not simply concentrate on the more simplistic hunt the zombies story line.

The music is pretty good and is only let down by the hysterically bad song other the end credits! The transfer, at least on the VHS, is overly dark and takes away from some of the gore effects.

Overall, though it's certainly a project that was obviously close to the hearts of everyone involved and great effort has gone into it's creation, it can only really be classed as a valiant failure.

Check it out though for the zombie make up, gore effects and a sense of love for the horror genre that seems so sadly missing in today's big budget Hollywood efforts.

Cherry Falls (2000)

The Story: A psychotic slasher kills off virgins in the peaceful town of Cherry Falls, Virginia.

In the history of horror films, very few have had as much trouble reaching the screen as the film Cherry Falls. Directed by Wright, who also directed the excellent and violent skinhead film Romper Stomper, this late entry into the revivified teen slasher sub-genre was threatened with an NC-17 rating, and submitted to the MPAA a whopping five times for cuts. The original film was so full of bloody violence and explicit sexuality that by the time the ratings board was done with it, all the things that promised to make this one of the best slasher movies ever had been nipped and tucked worse than an LA socialite.

A total of eight minutes was removed to garner the 92 minute R rated version and the film was ultimately picked up by the USA Network, who cut it yet again for content so they could premiere it on their cable network, removing two or three more minutes of already censored carnage and sexuality. All this while the film was enjoying a reasonably successful run overseas. To say this film was kicked around like a red headed step child is a vast understatement; this film was completely gutted, period. Thus, it would be a waste of time to review the final TV print, so instead I'm going with the badly trimmed R rated video version which was unjustly slapped onto a double feature video with the lame John Ritter film Terror Tract (not going to waste my time reviewing that stinker). Let's take a look.

We start the film off with a young guy and gal making out in a car parked in the woods. She thwarts his every attempt to get more intimate, so the guy steps out of the car to let off some steam. Next thing you know, the girl is attacked and killed by a long haired, high heeled psycho woman and the word "virgin" carved into her skin.

Sheriff Marken (Michael Biehn) is on the case and soon comes to find out that there's a slasher running loose, carving up virgins. He begins worrying about his own teenage daughter, Jody (Brittany Murphy), and calls a town meeting at the local high school to inform parents of the situation. The thought of virgins being murdered seems unfathomable to the parents, yet while the meeting proceeds, no one notices that Jody and a friend are listening in the wings. While the meeting continues, Jody and her friend are attacked by the lady killer, and the chase leads them into a class room where Jody barely manages to escape a grisly death.

Soon, word of the virgin killer spreads throughout the school, and students hoping to escape a violent death organize a massive orgy to ensure that no virgin is left unturned, so to speak. In the meantime, the concerned Sheriff Marken asks his daughter just how far she and her boyfriend have gone intimately. For the first time in probably the history of the world as we know it, the father is actually upset that his daughter has yet to lose her flower, making her a prime candidate for an early grave. Will Jody manage to save herself by losing her virginity? What exactly is the connection between Sheriff Marken and the female murderer? What are all those kids gonna do when the psycho suddenly turns up at the teenage sexathon? And what's the deal with the overly sensitive teacher Mr. Marliston (Jay Mohr)? You'll have to watch to find out.

Even in the heavily cut R rated edition, Cherry Falls is a fresh, entertaining slasher flick that takes all the typical slasher rules and turns them on their ear. There are no rules here, folks: sex does not equal death, our main heroine is not your typical girl next door, and the killer is not the slow walking type. One of the most thrilling moments in the film is during the scene where Jody is first attacked - the killer actually pours it on, full steam ahead, bounding across the floor like a steroid-fueled track star as our petite heroine suddenly has to scramble for her life. There are terrible family secrets and a performance by Murphy that keeps you guessing. You don't know what she's going to do next, and this sets her far above her co-stars with the exception of Biehn, whose revelation of a long hidden secret will surprise you.

And the idea of the movie itself is hilarious when you think about it. Virgins getting killed. In a town called "Cherry Falls" (a sneaky way of saying "losing your cherry"). In "Virgin"ia. Or, I don't know, maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

All the aforementioned cut scenes are obvious in the film. You can see where scenes of gore were either trimmed or removed, where some shots were panned and scanned or zoomed in on to avoid showing explicit nudity, and even entire scenes omitted. But seeing this R rated version simply heightened my desire to see a fully uncut version, with all the gore and sexuality intact. If they were to ever release this version, I guarantee you we'd have a new classic slasher flick on our hands. But USA would have to pull its head out of its ass to do this. And I'm not going to hold my breath - this is the network responsible for for the ghastly La Femme Nikita TV series, and that alone tells me they don't have the slightest idea of what entertainment is.

Full of sly sex jokes (as well as some blatantly obvious ones), a new twist on the slasher plot and characters you actually give a damn about, Cherry Falls, though not great in its R rated form, is still an entertaining sojourn into the world of teen horror. Keep an eye on the closing credits for a funny twist on the old "no animals were harmed during the making of this film" disclaimer. And dammit, let's tell USA we want an Uncut release!

Hitch (2005)

I was excited to watch the 2005 Will Smith film Hitch because it was a romantic comedy with a twist. Instead of being told from the point of view of a female character, as is usually the case with these kinds of movies (thus the term "chick flick"), Hitch would be from the guy's point of view. Plus, there was a lot of buzz surrounding the screenwriter, Kevin Bisch, because he was new to the game and was able to make it to the big leagues with just his third script ever. These two factors were enough to get me to rent Hitch the other evening.

Smith stars as Alex Hitchens, a so-called "Date Doctor" who works with men to help them navigate through the notoriously challenging New York City dating scene. Hitch coaches his clients on how to act, what to say, and, most importantly, how to listen to the women they go out with. What makes Hitch different from, say, a Cyrano de Bergerac, is that he doesn't put specific words in his clients' mouths. He guides them, but in the end, the clients are on their own for their dates. So the women they're with see the real personality, not some sham.

The movie opens with a few establishing scenes that show us how Hitch works his magic with women. Then we get to his newest client, an overweight, accident-prone accountant named Albert (played by Kevin James). Albert has always had trouble with women because of his appearance and his clumsiness, so he has finally decided to turn to the Date Doctor for help. The only problem is, Albert's dream woman happens to be Allegra Cole (Amber Valetta), a young, rich, beautiful socialite who is a client at Albert's firm. Allegra has been linked to playboys in the past, so Hitch certainly has his work cut out for him in order to get Albert a chance with Allegra.

Meanwhile, there's a parallel storyline involving Hitch's own love life. It seems that although his advice works wonders for his clients, it doesn't do much for advancing his own interests. Currently, Hitch is pursuing a woman named Sara (Eva Mendes), an attractive, cynical journalist who thus far has paid more attention to her career than to her personal life.

Sara at first rebuffs Hitch's advances, but eventually gives in and goes on a date with him. Hitch does his very best to be the romantic, sweet, endearing man of Sara's dreams, but everything goes horribly wrong. Instead of a smooth talker, Hitch turns into a stuttering fool around Sara and hardly knows what to say. But, this being a romantic comedy, we get the feeling that things will work out in the end for everyone involved.

Overall, I thought Hitch was a very likable film. It wasn't as original as the previews and hype made it out to be, but I was still able to enjoy it. A great deal of that enjoyment stemmed from the actors involved in the film. I thought Will Smith was a great choice to play the lead role. He was charming and good-looking, and I could readily accept him as a date doctor. Kevin James was also very good in his role as Albert. While it was a bit harder for me to believe that any woman like Allegra Cole would give Albert so much as the time of day, that didn't detract from the movie as a whole.

The only character I didn't particularly care for was Sara. What she did to Hitch towards the end of the film was pretty unforgivable in my book, and she didn't even do anything to redeem herself or make up for her actions. As a result, I didn't think she deserved what she got in the end. At first, I thought I was being a bit hard on the character, but I re-watched the final 20 minutes of the film and stand by my original conclusion.

Hitch isn't a great movie, but it does deliver some laughs and fun along the way. I think it's a nice date movie, and provided enough entertainment that I didn't feel I had wasted my time. That's pretty much all I expected, so I wasn't disappointed in the least.

The Cat People (1945)

This was the first of a string of great films produced by the brilliant Val Lewton (The Body Snatcher, I Walked With a Zombie), and an early triumph for director Jacques Tourneur, who also directed Curse of the Demon, I Walked With a Zombie and The Leopard People. Lewton was originally given nothing but the title "The Cat People" and vague instructions to come up with an exploitative B movie to compete with the likes of The Wolf Man. Well, he and Tourneur royally screwed it up and even with (or perhaps due to) a painfully low budget managed to concoct a beautiful, subtle psychological horror film that resonates in the memory long after its noisier cousins have faded into insignificance. Oops.

While The Cat People isn't up to the stark visual standards of Tourneur's noir classic Out of the Past with Robert Mitchum, it does set quite high standards for pure suggestive terror that has very rarely been equaled, least of all by Paul Schrader's glossy but dull and virtually worthless 1982 remake.

The story: Achingly beautiful but painfully shy Irena (Simone Simon) marries handsome but dull Oliver (Kent Smith) only to have poor Oliver discover that Irena is afraid to consummate their marriage. It seems that she believes that she is one of a line of werecats, who remain human but become panthers if aroused by strong emotions. Oliver, showing superhumanly unbelievable patience, is understanding (Okay, maybe this isn't the most plausible plot you've ever heard, but let's carry on) for some time but eventually turns to an ex-girlfriend (Jane Randolph) for comfort. Somehow Tourneur manages to make everyone here believable and sympathetic and gets away with some quite mature themes for 1942.

Well, this movie IS called The Cat People, so it would seem that Irena's jealousy begins to get the better of her and her worst fears become realized. Or do they? Part of this film's brilliance is in allowing the viewers to make up their own mind about whether or not the curse is real or indeed if there even is a panther until the climax, and I won't be the one to spoil that for you. Suffice it to say that while this movie starts off on the slow side by modern horror standards, there are some fine, thrilling moments that are only muted in comparison to the myriad imitations and more graphic variations that have sprung up over the years. Two set pieces in particular, one set at an indoor pool and another a spine-tingling walk through the park with an unseen pursuer, are quite rightfully renowned as blueprints for finely tuned suggestive horror. All builds to a satisfyingly tense and quite sad climax.

Tourneur had an unequalled instinct of how to use light, shadow and sound to produce an almost subliminal sense of mystery and menace. He also used deliberate, methodical pacing to build up to his most tense scenes with long unbroken shots that quite possibly were an inspiration for modern masters of mood such as Argento and Carpenter. Sadly, this kind of style has mostly fallen out of favor in recent years and may seem quaint and old fashioned to the impatient. I'm afraid that the younger gorehound may be bored and turned off by The Cat People, but that says more about today's MTV-fried and slasher film-bludgeoned attention spans than it does about this fine, delicately crafted film.

This is a quite low-key and atmospheric effort for those who have been numbed by the flashy and noisy kind of obvious Jason and Freddy horror. However, a thinking film enthusiast with patience and an occasional taste for moody and shadowy, subtle terror should find it a true treasure. The only negatives that come to my mind while watching this film are some of the common complaints about many of its contemporaries: The characters are at times a bit broad (though not as much as most modern horror), some of the more adult themes are handled quite obtusely and obscurely to comply with the censorship standards of the day, and the dialogue is often a bit stiff and labored. Otherwise, this is a nearly perfect terror film and one that everyone with a taste for classic fright should see at least once. Those with a taste for the subtle, intelligent and artful will probably want to eventually own a copy.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

I'm a big Vince Vaughn fan, so I'll usually go see any movie that he's in. Even if the story is terrible, I know I can count on Vaughn's character to deliver a few laughs along the way. So even though I don't particularly like Owen Wilson and even though I was a bit wary of all the hype surround 2005's blockbuster Wedding Crashers, I finally gave in and rented it the other day. The film grossed more than $205 million dollars, so it couldn't be that bad, right?

Vaugh and Wilson play friends named Jeremy and John, respectively. The two work as mediators (or lawyers -- it wasn't made totally clear) at the same firm and try to hammer out divorce settlements for disgruntled clients. In their spare time, Jeremy and John like to crash weddings (meaning they show up at weddings even though they weren't invited). We get the idea that they've been doing this for a long time. In fact, they've gotten to the point where they have their own coded language and can pick up on each other's cues without giving anything away to people within earshot.

The point of crashing all these weddings is to meet "vulnerable women." Jeremy and John think that weddings are the perfect place to meet single, eligible women because the women will be in a sentimental mood due to the ceremony, thus becoming easy prey for single men who swoop in and pretend to be sensitive and caring.

Everything goes smoothly for Jeremy and John until they crash the biggest wedding of the season, that of Treasury Secretary Cleary's daughter. Secretary Cleary (played by Christopher Walken) is the patriarch of an old, established clan that is supposed to remind viewers of the Kennedys (the touch football scene at the summer retreat is a clear example of this). Cleary has two single daughters remaining, Gloria (Isla Fisher) and Claire (Rachel McAdams). These just happen to be the two young women that Jeremy and John set their sights on.

Jeremy hooks up with Gloria on the beach during the reception and thinks that will be the end for them. But Gloria turns out to be a bit psycho and thinks that she and Jeremy will have a lasting relationship. So for the rest of the film, she pursues him and tries to force her will on him.

As for Claire, it seems that she and John really share a connection, but -- as is usual in films like this -- she has an obnoxious, overbearing, verbally-abusive boyfriend already. So John spends the rest of the film trying to win Claire over from Sack (Bradley Cooper).

Like I said before, I was looking forward to Wedding Crashers because of Vaughn's involvement in the project. But I was extremely disappointed with what I saw on the screen. There were several major problems with the movie, which I'll try to cover now.

First of all, I thought the pacing of the whole thing was off. The beginning just kind of glossed over Jeremy and John's wedding crashing activities, but I thought we should have seen more of that. The middle (at the Cleary estate) was way too long and boring. Nothing happened there and it felt like the plot came to a standstill. Then the ending developed way too slowly. I thought the film should have started wrapping up after the weekend retreat, but instead it inexplicably went off into another minor storyline.

The second problem I had with this movie was that it wasn't very funny. I was expecting to be treated to several belly laughs, but that never happened. I thought the jokes were tasteless and overdone. Plus, I didn't like the way the script made light of Gloria's aggressive actions. Would those things have been funny if the tables were turned and Jeremy was doing that to her? Not at all: so why should we accept a double standard here?

And finally, I thought the acting in this film was just average. No one really stood out as giving a good performance, which was disappointing considering some of the names in the cast.

If you haven't seen Wedding Crashers yet, I can't think of a compelling reason for you to do so. I'd skip this one if I were you!

Phantom of the Opera (1925)

The Story: The "ghost" of the Paris Opera House extorts the starring role for his unknown protege Christine Daae. For his benefaction he demands her love, but she loves another. A scorned madman, his malevolence is boundless, endangering all who dare come near the opera.

Seventy-eight years after its release, The Phantom of the Opera starring Lon Chaney still stands as one of the seminal works in the horror genre and is quite probably the most famous silent film known today.

Unfortunately, it's not the best. It's a bit choppy, overwrought, and superficial. But it's still around and there's good reason for that.

The Phantom of the Opera, both the film and the character, underwent more than one tribulation on the way to immortality. Director Rupert Julian's original cut of the film was so unsatisfying to Universal President Carl Laemmle, he ordered more scenes shot and the end completely redone by a different director. Julian pushed his actors to theatrical extremes making the acting stilted and stagy even by the standards of twenties. Julian had a history of being a bully of a director, and had been so even to Lon Chaney during their partnerships on The Small Girl and Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin. Even though he turned in a performance for the ages, the actor's great talent was underutilized and misdirected. Chaney's self-devised makeup, astonishing to this day, and the strength of his characterization are what has carried the film into history, despite its flaws.

The story centers on the Opera House; upon the film's opening, the new owners of the theater are informed by the former owners about the "Opera Ghost." Dismissed by the unfamiliar proprietors as nonsense, we are shown backstage at the opera that the ghost is not dismissed by those who've worked there long enough to know the truth. He strikes fear into all who move backstage. Only one person had ever seen the ghost and to those who asked, he related a horrible description of a living skull!

It doesn't take long for the ghost to introduce himself as the "Phantom of the Opera," and demands the opera''s prima donna Carlotta, step aside and allow an unknown girl from the chorus to sing the lead. Falling mysteriously ill, Carlotta indeed steps down for the next performance. The Phantom's choice, Christine Daae (Mary Philbin), wowed the crowd, including her suitor, a young nobleman, the Viscount Raoul DeChagny (Norman Kerry).

For the next performance however, Carlotta returns to the role, despite the Phantom's numerous threats. As Carlotta takes the stage, the giant chandelier hanging above the auditorium is dropped in a fairly impressive bit of special effects (I rewound and watched it about three times in a row) onto scattering, frightened, and flattened patrons. In the midst of the confusion, Christine slips away, back to her dressing room. Hearing the voice of the Phantom beckon her sweetly, she walks toward her mirror, and through it! For the first time she sees her benefactor; he's cloaked all in black, his face hidden by a mask.

Catacombs flicker with torch-light as the two descend into the sepulchral domain ruled by the Phantom in the winding tunnels beneath the city. Almost like Charon the boatman of the dead in Greek mythology, the Phantom takes Christine across a stygian lake that separates his inner sanctum from the rest of the Parisian underground.

Christine had been listening to the voice of the Phantom for years through the walls of the Opera House. He'd guided her and trained her, but she'd never known he was the Phantom. How she hadn't figured it out yet is a little beyond me, but she's not portrayed as the sharpest stick in the woods. When Christine finally does figure out her mysterious benefactor's true identity, she collapses in fright. Coming to, she slowly approaches the masked Phantom from behind. In one of the single most enduring images of fright filmdom, Christine quickly unmasks the Phantom, revealing his horrifying visage. Standing and turning, he lashes out at the terrified girl. He tells her she shall stay with him forever in his kingdom beneath the city. As Christine begs to be free, he partially concedes, granting her one last visit to say goodbye to the world; she must not, however see her lover Raoul. This, the Phantom gravely forbids.

At the grand Bal Masque (a masquerade ball), shot in an impressive, early, two-color Technicolor process, Christine finds Raoul. In a grandiose entrance, the Phantom coolly strolls into the Bal, dressed as Edgar Allen Poe's depiction of the Red Death. With a great flowing red cape and a skull-headed walking stick (to match his skull-head mask) he commands the attention of all in the great hall. As they stop and stare and the ominous, blood-colored ghoul, he scorns them for reveling atop the bodies of those tortured and buried in the tunnels below. While the Phantom delivers his mad tirade, Christine and Raoul duck away to the roof speak for the first time since her disappearance.

Little did the love birds know, the Phantom slipped away behind them and sat atop the Opera House listening to their plan to flee.

As the curtain rises on another performance at the Opera House, the Phantom blacks out the theater and abducts Christine! Raoul, along with a mysterious man from the Phantom's past (Arthur Edmund Carewe) discover the entrance to his lair and descend to rescue Christine.

Can the men survive the many dangerous traps set by the Phantom? Will Christine be forced to succumb to a madman for the rest of her days? Does the Phantom reign triumphant?

God love Lon Chaney. The old joke around the days of his highest popularity was if you saw something crawling, "Don't step on it, it might be Lon Chaney." With a simple makeup kit of standard items he created that bug-eyed, grinning, no-nosed ghoul and it has stood the test of time. And let me tell you, after all the changes the movie has been through over the years, that makeup is the one thing that has always stayed the same, and always been the best thing about the movie. A great deal of speculation has gone on over how Chaney actually achieved that ghastly look. Poplular myth has him sliding disks up his nose to point it; another story tells he glued a thin strip of latex or fish skin, yes fish skin, to the tip of his nose, pulled it tight, and glued it to his forehead. The prevailing story of those eyes is fairly constant, however. Chaney looped wires around his eye-sockets to make that wide-eyed, cadaverous gaze. In the end, I'm glad we aren't sure how he did it. In the age of CGI, it's nice to still see some magic in a movie.

What might be the biggest problem with viewing the Phantom of the Opera is knowing what version you are watching. It's quite hard to tell because it was re-released in 1929 with sound and extra footage. Notoriously wasteful, Universal lost all original copies of the print or processed it for the silver nitrate in the film (that's where 'silver screen' comes from). Over the years a foreign copy of the sound release, minus the soundtrack, was recovered and restored... several times, in several different ways. Universal let the copyright run out in 1953 allowing the film to fall into public domain, further muddying the waters. So depending upon which version you watch you might see Carlotta on screen, or she might be referred to as Carlotta's mother. That scene was added for the '29 release and was not seen in 1925. You might also see Raoul's brother who wasn't in the '25 version, or you might see a honeymoon scene at the end of the film (I won't spoil who's). No matter what version you watch though, what you always see is that historic unmasking and the horrible face, and that's what stays with you.

Unfortunately, Lon Chaney's presence in the first half of the movie is implied in order to build mystery around the Phantom. The most we see of him are his hands. The master pantomimist uses them to full effect, but they just don't convey emotion like his face. I completely understand that choice, but it's an enormous waste of Chaney's ability. Speaking of wastes of abilities, Mary Philbin was so far over the top, I half expected to see Snidely Whiplash jump out and threaten to tie her to railroad track. Norman Kerry was Norman Kerry. Not much ever changed with him from one movie to the next except costumes.

While Norman Kerry may not have changed much from film to film, this film changed a lot from director to director. Rupert Julian's replacement was comedy director Edward Sedgwick who inserted the chase through the streets of Paris, and a great deal of comedy. The comedy was scrapped before the release in 1925. The movie just had problems.

The color sequence at the Bal Masque, while dull compared to the sharp brilliant colors we're all used to now, is impressive. There were more color scenes in the original version, but over the years before the film's restoration all were lost. The color tinting of the Phantom's flowing red cape as he sat atop the Opera House was originally achieved by hand painting the film, today we see a computer-colored version. Still nice, but it's like having a replica of the original radio in your classic '57Chevy. It's just not as good as the original.

So, the Phantom of the Opera is not the best movie ever made. It's not the best silent movie ever made. It's not even the best Lon Chaney movie ever made. But it IS worth seeing, even worth owning if not for historical value, then to pop in the DVD player whenever you get sick of seeing CGI monsters and cheesy rubber masks. Watch Chaney grin and glare a few minutes and you'll be better in no time. Impressive to this day, but still a flawed piece of cinema, it's not as good as it could be, alas. But never mind.

This beats the hell out of Andrew Lloyd Weber's stage version.

Plan 9 from outer space (1959)

The Story: Aliens, having failed eight times in taming the warlike people of Earth, resort to turning the recently deceased into zombies to eliminate humanity's threat to the rest of the Universe. A few heroic people stand in their way.

Is this one of the greatest films ever made? To be sure, there are nearly as many opinions about this as there are films, but any reasonably objective list of cinema's masterpieces must include this science fiction/horror epic (with its heartfelt and poignant anti-war message) somewhere near the top. This is the towering achievement in the fruitful career of Ed Wood, the brilliant but relatively unsung and under appreciated B movie king of cinema's science fiction/horror golden era. So singular was his vision that Tim Burton saw fit to make a reverent film of his life in one of the greatest movies of the 1990's, the aptly titled "Ed Wood."

Enough about the man in cashmere, as it is his film we come to praise: We begin with the ominous Criswell speaking directly to the camera with a simply stated but powerfully portentious speech: "Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future."

We then meet an elderly man (Bela Lugosi), who is a shadow of his former self, having recently lost his wife. But this is just the beginning of the horrors to come, as we find that alien invaders have tried eight different plans to tame the warlike people of Earth. It seems that humans, who have discovered the terrible power of atomic energy, may soon discover the unspeakably destructive potential to be harnessed by splitting the very particles of sunlight itself! So unthinkable is this possibility that the aliens have only one hope to save the universe: Bring the dead back to life and turn them against the living! They only manage to come up with three zombies, two of which are the old man and his wife, but when you see them you'll know they are enough. Keep in mind that this groundbreaking film came a decade before "Night of the Living Dead." As the man says, "There comes a time in every man's life when he cannot believe what his eyes see." It is now up to a few good, unwar like people of Earth (Led by Gregory Walcott and Mona McKinnon) to save mankind. Will they succeed? Certainly I will not be the one to ruin this for you. You will simply have to see the film to find out for yourself.

This film has something for everyone: Romance, thrills, futuristic spacecraft, hair-raising suspense and yes, even a few laughs. In fact, there are moments when you will laugh until you nearly cry and wonder why a talent such as Wood's is not to be found these days. This is modern cinema's loss but there are still a few films such as this one left to remind us of what used to be.

Is this a perfect film? Of course it isn't, but sometimes with low-budget films we should overlook a few shortcomings. Sure, there are a few moments when the obviously cardboard sets topple as people bump into them. Certainly, the flying saucers look like wobbling paper plates on visible strings. And yes, the unfortunate Bela Lugosi DID die before Wood started filming his masterpiece but a chiropractor friend of his who was no more than a foot taller than Lugosi was able to fill in quite nicely. All he had to do was hold a cape over his face for the whole movie. We can forgive that and may not even notice if it isn't pointed out to us. At least we have that narrated footage of The Great One spliced in to make the illusion more real. And yes, because of budgetary constraints, the cockpit of a plane was made up of a couple of cheap props and a shower curtain behind the pilots and the spaceship interior is similarly constructed. We could nit-pick about such meaningless trifles for days. In fact, I have read whole articles overflowing with such finicky complaints, written by people who even seemed to think that this was not a good film. Such critics are not to be scolded or scoffed at, but to be pitied for their narrow-mindedness.

In the end, if it is a good film, who cares if the alien ruler (John "Bunny" Breckenridge) is obviously reading directly from his script which he makes no effort to conceal? This film was made on a short timetable, and as the poor man appears to have done this film while under the influence of alcohol, who could expect him to memorize Wood's rich and complicated dialogue? Who cares if scenes change from night to day and day to night in mere seconds, and who cares if a detective absentmindedly scratches his forehead with the barrel of his revolver as he mutters the immortal line, "Inspector Clay is dead! Murdered! And someone's responsible!" Certainly not I, and in fact I praise Wood and his cast and crew for having the artistic integrity to carry on in the face of such trivial matters.

I leave you with some unforgettable lines of dialogue from this timeless wonder of classic horror filmmaking, as they more than speak for themselves:

Alien Ruler: "Plan 9? Ah, yes. (Picks up script and begins to read) Plan 9 deals with the resurrection of the dead. Long distance electrodes shot into the pineal and pituitary gland of the recently dead."

Paula Trent (Mona McKinnon): "I've never seen you in this mood before." Jeff Trent (Gregory Walcott): "I guess that's because I've never been in this mood before."

Gravedigger: "I don't like hearing noises, especially when there ain't supposed to be any."

Criswell: "The ever-beautiful flowers she had planted with her own hands became nothing more than the lost roses of her cheeks."

Air Force Captain: "Visits? That would indicate visitors!"

And last, but not least: "For a time we tried to contact them by radio but no response. Then they attacked a town, a small town I'll admit, but nevertheless a town of people, people who died."

Can you prove it didn't happen? Plan 9 From Outer Space: It's not just a film, it's a movie. Don't miss it

Eragon

By Christina VanGinkel

Christmas day seemed like the perfect time to go and see the movie Eragon at the local theater. I had read several reviews of the movie, actually something I try not to do when I have already read the accompanying book and decided that I want to see a movie, regardless of what others are saying about it. I will ask family and friends their opinions though, and was surprised at the mixed reviews I was hearing and reading.

Some liked the movie, while others thought it was humdrum at best. Written reviews seemed to rip it apart, comparing it to some of my favorite movies (Lord of the Rings trilogy) but in a negative way. I figured the only way I would ever know the truth would be if I went and saw the movie myself.

To get right to the point, I liked the show. I realize that this is just the opposite of the majority of the reviews out there, but I did. I have two issues with the movie though. My one criticism was I wish they had done something different when filming the character Durza. His parts seemed cheaper in some way than the rest of the film. Keep this in mind if you choose to go and see the film. The dragon, Saphira, is stunning, yet Durza just seems a bit fake. My second criticism is that those who read the book will wonder what the heck. The book and the movie are quite different. Unlike the Lord's of the Ring trilogy, where the makers of the movies held fast to the storylines of the books, this movie is not even close. Still, it was an enjoyable movie, as far as fantasy flicks go.

Eragon, the movie, is a fantasy that portrays the story of Eragon, a farm boy. It begins outside of his village where he has gone deer hunting to bring meat back to his family, which includes his uncle and cousin. So poor are they, that shopping at the butcher in the village is not an option. Game is scarce, so Eragon heads deeper into the forest than most are willing to travel. Unbeknownst to him though, is the fact that somewhere in the distance, an event that is about to alter the course of his life is unfolding.

Young Arya rides through the forest with two guards. She is carrying what is to many, their last chance at a future not ruled by evil King Galbatorix. It appears to be a vividly colored blue stone. What she and the others know though, is that it is a dragon egg. She is but one of many who have been passing the egg to others in hopes that it will find its rider. Dragon eggs will only hatch when they find the one person who is meant to be theirs. As she and her guards are attacked, she casts the egg with magic, into the distance, in hopes that it will at least not land in the hands of Durza and King Galbatorix. As Eragon takes a shot at a doe, the woods erupt in a flash, and his arrow finds a mark on a tree, strangely, it is now flaming. It had passed through the same spot where the burst of light came from, where the blue egg now lies. Eragon approaches it with caution, and assumes it is but a stone.

The doe is gone though, scared by the flash of light, so Eragon timidly picks up the stone, hoping to at least be able to trade it for some meat. When he gets to the butcher shop, the butcher is at first willing to make a trade, until he hears where the stone came from. Defeated, Eragon heads for home. He encounters Brom before leaving the village though. Brom is an elusive man, willing to argue with the King's men, when others shudder in fear. Eragon is not sure what to make of him though, so he heads home.

Back at the farm that he shares with his uncle and cousin, Eragon comes to realize that the stone is not what it appears. When it cracks open, a blast is sent throughout the land, and those who know what it is, realize that a new dragon has hatched. Saphira has chosen Eragon to be her rider. She grows quickly, and though not yet old enough to blow fire, is soon ready to fly.

Eager for answers, Eragon goes back into town to talk to Brom, the one person he feels may have answers, and ends up overseeing something terrible at the butchers. He also hears the butcher tell the evil beings that he, Eragon, had the egg, and where he lives. As he realizes that, he must hurry back to the farm, Saphira comes to help, though neither has yet flown together. Back at the farm, it is too late. Eragon's uncle is dead. Eragon blames Saphira, but quickly realizes that she is not at fault. Brom comes to their aid, and together, the three of them set off on a journey that will either be the death of them all or help them reach the far off land that holds both the answers to their destinations, and more troubles than any of them had ever thought possible.

Without giving away the end of this movie, I will tell you that it's ending leaves viewers with the knowledge that more awaits those wanting to know what happens next to Saphira and Eragon.

ASSIGNMENT TERROR (1969)

Paul Naschy remains an anomaly in the realm of film history. While he was a major star in Europe from 1967 to 1975 from his multitude of horror films in which he wrote and starred in starting with his landmark classic MARCA DEL HOMBRE LOBO (FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR in USA, HELL'S CREATURES in the UK, THE VAMPIRE OF DR. DRACULA in Germany). Filmed in three dimension and in Super 70mm, Naschy's debut introduced the world to the long suffering werewolf Waldemar Danisky. The film was a huge hit was a sequel was commissioned.

This is where the tale gets murky as for years the first sequel to the film was believed to be THE NIGHTS OF THE WEREWOLF, a lost film that was alleged to have been filmed in France circa 1968. Because the rights to the film were in question, it was never released and the existing prints of the film have become lost. Well, at least that was the story that circulated for three decades. Today, many believe that the film was never actually made. If that is the case, then the first sequel to LA MARCA DEL HOMBRE LOBO would be 1969's LOS MONSTROUS DEL TERROR which was originally titled THE MAN WHO CAME FROM UMMO and was released in the United States directly to TV under its most famous name ASSIGNMENT TERROR. (It was released on video years ago under its British name DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN)

To put it mildly, ASSIGNMENT TERROR is a mess, but it is a very fun mess. The insane plot deals with aliens from the planet Ummo who wish to conquer the Earth, but feel that using atomic weapons would not be the right way to go so they capture various monsters of fear and hope to make thousands of them so as to unleash them on the world. So, we get Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolfman and the Mummy all in one package (!) and it is up to a hardboiled police officer to crack the case.

Yes, the whole thing is somewhat insane and the first half of it is pretty dull except for when the werewolf attacks, but the ending of the film is phenomenal as the werewolf has two long, protracted battles with the Frankenstein Monster and with the Mummy. (The fight with the Mummy is off the charts cool!) One caveat: Dracula has very little to do and appears only briefly. We never see him mix it up with the other monsters despite the alternate DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN title. (Side note: The Independent International company had a different film named DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN and distributors simply borrowed the name and publicity from that film and released ASSIGNMENT TERROR under the variant name) At least in the United Kingdom, Spain ad the rest of Europe, the film saw a release on the big screen. Horror film aficionados in the United States were denied such an opportunity. It is doubtful that 16mm prints of the film were screened publicly, even by diehard fans of Paul Naschy and his films.

ASSIGNMENT TERROR was dumped into TV syndication by American International Pictures for inexplicable reasons. Had this film been released on the drive in circuit, it would have been a cool B Movie hit. Instead, it landed on the local horror movie host UHF circuit where it stood out as one of the rare monster movies shot in color (Godzilla notwithstanding) that would air on those programs. This alone makes it somewhat memorable.

Whether one discovered the film on Saturday afternoons or the late, late show on Friday or Saturday evenings (anyone remember the old Late, Late Show of decades past?) ASSIGNMENT TERROR remains an unforgettable experience. While there are those who are put off by its patent absurdity, it is a fun film and looks spectacular. Unfortunately, the finished film saw the director quit before production finished and the budget was cut. A few scenes were not shot and the film was rushed into completion. Had it been allowed to finish production as had been originally intended, it may have ended up being a spectacular film along the lines of LA MARCA DEL HOMBRE LOBO. Instead, we get a flawed, but memorable film.

Proof (2005)

As a movie fan, I make my viewing choices based upon a film's lead actors just as much as upon its subject matter. A strong cast can often help make a boring film interesting or simply strengthen the story altogether. That's why I decided to watch the 2005 film Proof despite the fact that one of its main subject matters is mathematics. I figured that Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Anthony Hopkins were well worth the risk of a potentially boring movie.

Paltrow stars as Catherine, a young woman whose father Robert (Hopkins) has recently died. Robert was an award-winning mathematician who did groundbreaking work before he was 25, but who had been in something of a mental decline ever since then. The last few years of his life were marred by dementia and brightened by only a few occasional lucid moments.

Catherine basically put her education, career, and life on hold in order to move back home to take care of her father during his decline so that he wouldn't have to be institutionalized. During that time, she starts to wonder if perhaps she might inherit Robert's madness at some point in her life. Indeed, in the opening scenes of the movie, Catherine sees a vision of her already-dead father and even has a conversation with him. Catherine then wrestles with the question of whether she's just going through a natural grieving process or whether she's slipping into the same blackness that enveloped her father's final years.

Catherine receives input and offers of assistance from two different people who come around after Robert's death. One is her sister, Claire (played by Hope Davis), who carried on with her life in New York and didn't share Catherine's burden of caring for Robert. Catherine is more than a little bitter about this, but Claire brushes Catherine's feelings aside, saying that Robert belonged in an institution and that no one forced Catherine to give up so much. Claire tries to convince her sister to come back to New York and start a new life there.

The other person involved in the story is a University of Chicago mathematics professor named Hal (Gyllenhaal). Hal used to be a student of Robert's and would like to go over the hundreds of notebooks Robert left behind after his death. Hal hopes that he can find some interesting material in the notebooks, public the information, and basically launch his career from that. He openly explains all this to Catherine because he doesn't think there's anything crass about that plan. Catherine, who remembers Hal from when Robert was well, at first doesn't want anyone to have access to the notebooks, but then reluctantly agrees. It should also be mentioned that Hal and Catherine have a bit of a fling. Hal would like it to become much more, but Catherine keeps him at a distance.

As the film progresses, Hal discovers a notebook containing a mathematical proof so innovative that it could have profound effects on the entire field. At first, he thinks it must be Robert's work, but then comes to realize that Catherine could very well be the author. A good part of the film is devoted to trying to identify the author and verify the proof.

Overall, I found that the great cast couldn't save Proof from being a boring movie in the end. In fact, I thought that the cast actually detracted from the film somewhat. For example, I didn't think that Jake Gyllenhaal was the right actor to play a mathematics professor because he simply doesn't look the part, and I thought Gwyneth Paltrow was way too brooding and despondent in her role as Catherine. Was she really supposed to be crazy or was she actually sane? I think the filmmakers took the angle that she was sane, but from the way she moped around, I would have tried putting her in an institution too!

I have to say that Hope Davis was a pleasant surprise as Claire, and positively stole all the scenes she was in. Hopkins was good, but didn't appear in enough scenes to make a real difference in the film.

Due to these factors, I wouldn't recommend watching Proof. I think it could have been a good movie, but ends up falling flat because of the execution.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a film loosely based on the true story of the death of a German girl named Anneliese Michel who died in 1976. I usually enjoy movies that are based on true stories, so I was really looking forward to seeing this film. Plus, Laura Linney was in this, and I've grown rather fond of her work recently.

In this film, Emily Rose (played by Jennifer Carpenter) is a young woman excited about the prospect of going off to college on a full scholarship. Her mother and father are devout Catholics and they worry about Emily being all alone, but they allow her to go because it's her dream.

While at school, strange things start to happen to Emily. She suffers from sudden muscular contractions, fits, and hallucinations. She's not sure what's going on, so she reaches out for help. Medical doctors feel that she could be suffering from epilepsy and perhaps some psychosis, so they prescribe various drugs for her. However, those drugs are ineffective, and that's when Emily and the family priest, Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) speculate that Emily might be possessed by demons. Father Moore then sets up an exorcism, but it goes horribly wrong and Emily ends up dying.

Father Moore is arrested and put on trial for negligent homicide. At first he's assigned a public defender, but the archdiocese doesn't want to risk the bad publicity that would come along with a conviction, so Father Moore gets a high-powered attorney named Erin Bruner (Linney). Bruner is opposed in court by prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott), a man of faith who nevertheless thinks that Father Moore's attempted exorcism directly led to Emily's death.

The main focus of the film is on Father Moore's trial, so the movie never encroaches on the territory covered by 1973's The Exorcist. In a way this was a good move by the director (Scott Derrickson) because it would be a very tall order for any film to compete with The Exorcist on the same battlefield. But at the same time, the courtroom scenes were a bit boring and made the action seem much more distant.

Indeed, everything having to do with Emily is told in disjointed flashbacks. Viewers are only able to piece together her story a bit at a time, which made it difficult to develop any real sympathy for the character or any real interest in her plight. This was a strange situation because it seemed as though the filmmakers wanted Emily to be the focal point of the movie. I certainly wouldn't consider Erin Bruner or Father Moore the main characters, so that leaves Emily.

I thought the movie did a good job of presenting a balanced view of Emily's death in the courtroom scenes. There was compelling evidence for both the prosecution and the defense as to the cause of Emily's death, and it was interesting as a viewer to hear these arguments. I kept wondering how I would have voted had I been on the jury, and I couldn't really tell; however, I was leaning towards the same verdict that the jury eventually arrived at, so that was good.

I thought Laura Linney and Campbell Scott were both terrific in their roles. As I mentioned above, Linney has become one of my favorite actresses recently and she always seems to do outstanding work. I haven't seen Campbell Scott in much of anything since 1991's Dying Young, so I barely recognized him here, but he provided a nice counterpart to Linney's character.

On the whole, however, I didn't think that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was a very strong movie. I sat down to watch it expecting one kind of film, but got a completely different one, one that wasn't very effective in my opinion. In the movie, Father Moore repeatedly says that he wants "to tell Emily's story," but I don't think he succeeded in that. Instead of coming away with a better understanding of what Emily went through or of what might have contributed to her demise, she remains a somewhat shadowy figure whose death is still shrouded in mystery. If that's what happened with Anneliese Michel, then I can't fault the filmmakers; but I still wish this story would have been a bit more concrete.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

The Fast and the Furious franchise has done a lot to bring the world of souped-up sports cars and street drag racing to the mainstream consciousness. The two previous movies starred Paul Walker and featured a bit of continuity in terms of the main character and the background story. In The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, the filmmakers abandon the Brian O'Connor character and the undercover cop angle altogether.

This film stars Lucas Black (the actor who played opposite Billy Bob Thornton in 1996's Slingblade) as a troubled high school student named Sean Boswell. Sean and his mother have moved several times in the past few years, mostly because Sean keeps getting in trouble and getting kicked out of school.

Within five minutes of the opening credits, we see why Sean gets in trouble: he has an affinity for drag racing. When he gets into a confrontation with one of the other students about a girl, they decide to settle the score by racing. They choose a subdivision area that's still under construction, break in, and race. Sean and the other boy not only wreck their own cars, but do a lot of damage to the subdivision as well. This time, Sean is facing jail, so his mother sends him to Tokyo to live with his father, who's stationed over there with the U.S. Navy.

It's not long before Sean discovers the car racing scene in Tokyo as well, despite his father's warning that he stay away from cars. Tokyo style racing is different than anything Sean has ever seen. Because there's no hope of finding a long enough stretch of unused road in Tokyo to have a race, the would-be racers instead test their skills in parking garages and on winding mountain roads. They engage in something called "drifting," whereby drivers navigate sharp turns by shifting, using the handbrake, and then sliding around the turn.

On Sean's very first night at the Tokyo races, he gets into a confrontation with "DK" (played by Brian Tee), the reigning Drift King of the region. DK challenges Sean to a race, and another guy named Han (Sung Kang) loans Sean a car for the challenge. Of course DK shows off all his brilliant moves, while all Sean can do is smash up Han's car into a worthless pile of junk. After that, Sean hangs with Han in order to work off his debt and also get some drift lessons.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this storyline is headed. Of course Sean is going to learn how to drift and of course there's going to be a rematch with DK during the last part o the movie. And I'm sure you can guess the outcome of the race before it even starts. Do you feel like you've seen this sort of thing before? Of course you have!

I thought The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift was one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and remember, I recently watched that Ben Affleck bomb, Surviving Christmas). There were so many problems with the movie that I hardly know where to begin. The plot is completely ridiculous, so it's not even worth picking it apart. Instead, I'll start with Lucas Black.

First of all, there's no way this actor could pass for an 18-year-old high school student. I mean, in real life Black is 24 years old, and he looks even older than that thanks to his receding hairline. I'm not sure why the filmmakers couldn't find someone that looked like a high school kid to play the lead. It couldn't have been because they were attracted by Black's acting talent, because he has none if this movie is any indication. He was terrible in this role and his performance served to irritate me in nearly every single scene.

I do have to admit that most of the racing sequences were exciting to watch, but that's not enough to carry the whole film. If I had to recommend this movie to a friend, I'd be very tempted to tell him or her to just watch the race scenes and fast forward through everything else. They wouldn't miss much of the plot anyway!

Save your money and an hour and 40 minutes of your life by skipping The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.

Surviving Christmas (2004)

'Tis the season for Christmas movies, and though I know I should probably rent classics such as It's A Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th Street, I opted for something more modern. So when I went to the video store the other day, I decided to give Surviving Christmas, the 2004 film starring Ben Affleck and James Gandolfini, a try.

Surviving Christmas is a comedy, and I should probably admit right from the start that I'm rather hard to please when it comes to this genre. For example, I hate it when the film has a running joke because chances are it ceases to be funny after about 10 minutes, so I certainly don't want to suffer through an hour and a half of the same tired punchlines. But other than that, I'm always ready to laugh at a movie -- provided that it's funny, of course!

In Surviving Christmas, Affleck stars as a young, rich advertising exec named Drew Latham. It's the holidays, and Latham decides to surprise his girlfriend Missy (Jennifer Morrison) with first-class tickets to Fiji. Instead of being wowed by the romantic gesture of the gift, Missy is horrified that Drew could even think of spending Christmas away from his family. She breaks up with him on the spot and says that she'll be with her family on Christmas.

Drew suddenly starts feeling lonely and calls everyone in his phone book to see if he can find someone to spend Christmas with. We get the feeling that he doesn't have any good friends, so that idea turns up nothing. Then Drew sees Missy's therapist at the airport, and he recommends that Drew make peace with his past by going to his childhood home and burning a list of grievances on the spot. Since Drew has nothing better to do, he goes along with this.

Once Drew gets to his childhood home, he starts acting crazy out in the front yard. This attracts the attention of the current residents, Tom and Christine Valco (Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara). After some misunderstandings as to Drew's intentions, the Valcos realize that Drew is doing and allow him to stay awhile and tour the house. That's when Drew dreams up the idea of "adopting" the Valcos as a surrogate family. Drew offers to pay them $250,000 if they let him stay in the home and act like his family for the holidays. He wants to call them Mom and Dad, wants to call their son Brian (Josh Zuckerman) his brother, and their daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) his sister. Yeah, Drew is a just a bit eccentric.

The rest of the film then deals with various incidents that happen while Drew is staying with the family. None of the occurrences are original, creative, or funny, which made the 90-minute movie feel much longer than that.

I went into Surviving Christmas ready to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. I thought there was no way it could be as bad as all the critics said, and figured that the actors could at least make the movie worth watching even if the script was a dud. But no, I was completely wrong about that!

The movie really had no point and seemed to be a bunch of disconnected scenes thrown together to make a whole. The jokes were dumb, and some were drawn out to uncomfortable lengths. At times I felt like I was watching a "Saturday Night Live" skit gone horribly wrong. Plus, there was a very tasteless "joke" in the opening sequence that showed an elderly woman turning on her oven and putting her head inside, presumably to commit suicide. There are many acceptable things to joke about in a holiday movie, but I personally don't think suicide should be one of them.

Finally, I thought Ben Affleck reached a new acting low in this film. He was so incredibly annoying and obnoxious as Drew that I just wanted to punch him in the face! He wasn't funny at all and ruined the entire movie for me. Plus, he had zero chemistry with Christina Applegate, so I didn't buy that blossoming romance either.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of tried and true Christmas movies out there that will help get you into the holiday spirit, but Surviving Christmas isn't one of them!

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

The Story: A soon-to-be mother suspects a coven of witches is after her unborn baby.

Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) move into a New York apartment building with a notoriously bad history. They seem to be a happy couple; Guy is a struggling actor while Rosemary is a quaint housewife. When Rosemary tells her old friend Hutch (Maurice Evans) of their new apartment, Hutch tells her about the building's history. It seems that there have been several gruesome occurences there, including the Trench sisters eating the flesh of children.

One night while doing laundry in the buiding's basement, Rosemary meets Terry (Angela Dorian), a street hood who was taken in by the Woodhouse's neighbors, an elderly couple named the Castevets. Terry beams about how well the Castevets have treated her and shows Rosemary a good luck charm the couple made for her.

As it turns out, the charm must not have worked very well because the next night as they are coming home from a night out, Guy and Rosemary push through a crowd in front of their building and are shocked to see Terry splattered on the concrete. The cops call it a suicide.

With Terry gone, Minnie Castevet begins dedicating all her time to Rosemary. Rosemary finds her affable enough, though a bit nosey and pushy. Minnie invites Rosemary and Guy over to dinner soon after, and Rosemary, a lapsed Catholic, tries to hide her offense when Roman Castevet begins badmouthing organized religion. Rosemary is wary of Minnie a bit, but Guy and Roman seem to have hit it off very well.

Before long, Guy is spending a lot of time at the Castevets. He begins behaving strangely, acting distant, ignoring Rosemary. It turns out, Guy is up for a part against his main acting competition. Then one day, Guy receives a call that the part, which he had at first lost, was now available to him because his competition has suddenly and mysteriously gone blind.

Within weeks, Guy's acting career has picked up steam. He apologizes to Rosemary for his behavior by suggesting the two have a baby. Rosemary is ecstatic at the thought and the two have a romantic dinner. Next thing you know, Minnie is knocking at the door. She leaves a homemade pudding for the couple yet when Rosemary eats it, she finds it has a strange undertaste. Guy becomes almost defensive and practically connives her into eating the pudding anyway. Rosemary dumps it when he's not looking.

Later that night, Rosemary begins feeling weak and dizzy. Guy puts her to bed and she dreams that she's being raped by the Devil. So real does the dream seem to her that at one point she shrieks, "This is no dream, this is really happening!"

Before long, Rosemary is convinced that her new neighbors are actually members of a witch's coven, and that Guy promised the coven their baby in exchange for a successful acting career. Things go from bad to worse when Rosemary receives a book from her friend Hutch, who soon mysteriously lapses into a coma and eventually dies. Rosemary is terrified that the coven is going to get her baby...

And that's all I'm telling you about the story.

Needless to say, Rosemary's Baby is a modern classic. Adapted from the Ira Levin novel by director Roman Polanski, Rosemary's Baby is harrowing, suspenseful, claustrophobic and paranoid. Polanski did a brilliant job of adapting the novel into a film, and he makes it work on many levels, often at the same time. Is Rosemary's baby really the spawn of Satan? Or is Rosemary's paranoia simply the effect of her Catholic upbringing? Was Rosemary really raped by Satan in her dream, or was it really Guy who didn't want to miss the date they had made to try and conceive? Is that really Minnie's voice in the real world blending into Rosemary's dream world or is she imagining the whole thing? It's this fine line between "yes, it's really happening" and "no, she's just a loon" that Polanski walks so adeptly. It's not until the finale that you find out if there really was a coven or if Rosemary was simply being paranoid, and I'm not about to ruin the movie for you.

In this day of hip teen actors populating mass market genre movies, it's such a refreshing change of pace to see real, genuine thespians playing their trade. Farrow is letter perfect as the painfully awkward and fatally fragile Rosemary. Cassavetes, a great cult actor and screen writer, is also very effective as Guy. And Ruth Gordon was so good as the flaky and nosey Minnie Castevet that she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.

The fact that the movie plays largely on the notion of coincidence is also fitting, as the production was chock full of odd occurrences. For instance, did you know that infamous Satanic cult leader Anton Lavey was not only the film's technical advisor (no, really!), but he also played Satan himself in the dream rape scene. Oddly enough, a follower of Lavey's was a member of the Manson Cult, who in turn were responsible for the sadistic murder of actress Sharon Tate, director Polanski's wife.

The building the Woodhouses move into is actually a well known structure in New York called the Dakota, which years later would serve as the location of John Lennon's assassination.

A quick in-joke is also to be found. Angela Dorian, who played Terry, is actually the alias of an actress named Victoria Vetri. Vetri adopted the alias when she posed for Playboy and was the Playmate of the Year in 1967. Vetri also used the name for her credit in this film. The joke comes when Rosemary first meets Terry in the laundry room. "I'm sorry, you look a lot like the actress Victoria Vetri," Rosemary notes. "I get that a lot," Terry responds.

One more little anecdote: Farrow was involved with Polanski during the shooting of this film. After it's completion, Polanski fled the country after being caught having sex with an underaged girl. Geez, first Polanksi, then Woody Allen. Farrow sure knows how to pick 'em, eh?

At any rate, Rosemary's Baby is a film that no horror fan should miss. It's considered by many to be one of the greatest horror films ever made (and some would say it's anti-horror, a point that makes more sense than one would think) and for good reason. It's an intelligent film made by an intelligent filmmaker for intelligent viewers, and not a weakness is to be found throughout.

One thing about Ira Levin. He also wrote the book The Stepford Wives, which was also turned into a film. After seeing each film, you can see that the males in each have a knack for selling out their wives for their own benefit, regardless of what happens to the wives. Let me just say that so far as these two films go, I agree with all you broads out there who say men are pigs. Oink oink.

Rosemary's Baby should be a part of every horror fan's permanent video collection. If you haven't seen it, what the hell are you waiting for? A true classic that rightfully deserves all the praise it's received.

Salem's lot (1979)

The Story: Vampires run rampant in the small town of Salem's Lot, Maine.

Years after being away from home, Ben Mears (David Soul) returns to Salem's Lot to author a new book. Ben left Salem's Lot to pursue a writing career, and has since become a popular novelist. He soon finds shelter at a local boarding house and through his room's window he can see the Marsten House. The house itself has a checkered past and for some reason calls out to Ben.

Soon after Ben's arrival he drives up to the Marsten house to inspect it. It's here we see that the house has new occupants, Mr. Straker (James Mason) and Mr. Barlow. Straker owns a 'soon to open' antique shop and Barlow has yet to arrive, or so everyone is told by Straker. We're then introduced to Ben's love interest, Susan (Bonnie Bedelia). Susan is the daughter of the town Doctor and goes out with Ben the day they meet. Ben also strikes up a relationship with Susan's father and the two end up working together to find out why people are suddenly dying, or disappearing. The last key player in Salem's Lot is Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin). Mark is Salem's Lot's next 'BIG' writer and develops the theatre plays for the high school. Mark is also a heavy horror fan and his room is decorated with all sorts of classic horror goodies such as posters, masks and models.

It's not long until some of the townsfolk begin to feel ill (they've been bitten). Some of them even come up missing and murdered. All the while Ben is trying to figure out what exactly is going on. One night, during a meeting at Mark's house, everyone attending laughs at the fact that vampires could exist, and that they are the cause of the recent happenings. At this second, the house shakes and up from the floor raises the master vampire. After he kills Mark's parents, they realize the situation they're in and Mark vows to hunt the master and kill him. Ben and Mark then team up and together vow to rid Salem's Lot and the countryside of all vampires.

Do they succeed? Or does Salem's Lot become another breeding ground for the creatures of the night?

I'm about to show my age here, ahhh, but who cares. I first saw Salem's Lot when it aired on TV back in 1979. I was a Jr. in high school and fondly remember the movie scaring me quite a bit. In particular, the scenes of floating vampires outside of bedroom windows. There was just something creepy about dead kids scratching on the outside of a window in heavy fog wanting to be let in. In fact, if I had to pick one scary scene from the film today, that's what it would be. Sadly though, the film has not aged well and when compared to some of the horror films that followed it, it's quite tame. Sure there are moments of tension and moments of fright, but for the most part these are few and far between leaving the story to move along at a rather slow pace. And given the length of the film, just over 3 hours, this isn't something you'll likely watch too often.

Direction from Tobe Hooper is average at best. I'm not saying it's horrible, but many of the shots being setup, 'feel' setup. I also noticed in a couple of scenes that the shadow of a boom mic could be seen. On top of this, a couple of the sets look cheap and poorly built. Take for instance Mark Petrie's room. The walls look paper thin, and the furniture in the room looks as though it came from a dime store. The kitchen scene is another set that just looks poorly built. This is especially the case when the master vampire makes his visit. Speaking of the master vampire, we don't see enough of him. Although the make-up applied here isn't the best, it's also not the worst and it works for the brief time we see his face on screen.

To wrap it up, Salem's Lot was scary for its time, but it no longer holds up. If anything, it makes for a great popcorn movie on a Saturday afternoon.

NOTE: I have not had the opportunity to read King's novel so this review is based on that fact and is not a comparison of his writings. I'm sure, as usual, the book is better than the film.

Saw (2004)

The Story: Two men find themselves chained and at the mercy of a psychotic genius.

Saw jumps right into the action as Adam (Leigh Whannel) wakes to find himself chained in a squalid restroom. Across the room from him is another man, a surgeon named Larry (Cary Elwes, in a fantastic and realistic performance), who is also chained. A corpse lies on the floor just out of reach of the two, a cassette player in its hand, an empty revolver on the floor beside it and a bloody gunshot wound in its skull.

As they try to figure out how they got there, each finds a small cassette tape in his pocket and Larry also finds a single bullet. Adam manages to retrieve the recorder from the corpse's hand and plays his tape. When they play Larry's tape the recording states that Larry has until six o'clock to kill Adam or his wife and child will die.

We learn via flashback that Larry knows who has done this to them - a maniacal man the police have dubbed The Jigsaw Murderer. Larry explains that he himself was questioned about the murders mere months earlier by the two detectives working the case (Danny Glover and Ken Leung). The Jigsaw Murderer is a bit of a misnomer, however; you see, The Jigsaw Murderer doesn't kill people himself; rather, he simply puts them into situations where it's up to them if they survive or not. As Larry and Adam work together to find a way out of their predicament, clues left on their cassette tapes lead them to finding a pair of hacksaws in a toilet tank and a cellphone in the restroom wall. Adam's saw breaks as he tries to hack through his chain and the pair realize they're not supposed to saw through the chains, they're supposed to saw through - well, I'd best not say.

Meanwhile, the detectives working the case catch a lucky break from a woman who had survived her encounter with The Jigsaw Murderer. They locate the killer's hide-out (or so they think) but when they arrive there they find yet another victim of The Jigsaw Murderer trapped in a no-win situation. I'll not say more about this scene lest I drop a major spoiler into the mix.

In the meantime, Adam and Larry try to trick their captor into thinking Larry has killed Adam, but the psycho knows it's a ruse and jolts Adam with an electric shock channeled through his chain. Soon, the cell phone the pair had found receives a call and Larry answers it to find his wife and daughter pleading for their lives on the other end. Fuelled by desperation, Larry becomes determined to free himself and save his family, no matter the cost.

Lion's Gate Films is quickly becoming the studio for quality genre fare, and Saw is sure-fire proof. All hyperbole aside, Saw is jam-packed with nail-biting suspense, tension so thick you could cut it with a knife and one twist and turn after another. Right when you think you have the film figured out and are sure you've solved who's behind it all and what's going to happen next, another twist occurs and you suddenly find your heart skipping a beat and your skin crawling right off your bones. This movie, my friends, is what horror is all about.

James Wan's direction is solid and stylish, with the bare minimum of pretentious "modern" flourishes. He mixes cold, clynical point-and-shoot camera work with hand-held, quickly edited camera work and provides a delirious visual structure from which hang numerous nerve-rattling sequences and hypnotically lurid imagery. I should perhaps clarify - this isn't Kubrick. The direction isn't masterful, but it is incredibly effective and suits the bizarre and highly intelligent storyline to a proverbial "T".

Big time kudos to Cary Elwes for his performance. The former Dread Pirate Roberts takes on a role quite different than the usually whimsical roles he normally takes (Kiss the Girls not included) and delivers a thoroughly believable and memorable portrayal. Wahnnell is also good as Adam, and the supporting cast of Glover, Leung and Dina Meyer are above average. But as good as the rest of the cast are, this film belongs to Cary Elwes and I would rank it as one of this best performances. As you might have picked up on, I'm a big fan of Elwes and have been waiting a long time for him to get a role he could really sink his teeth into.

There's not a whole lot more I can go on about without dropping one hint too many and spoiling the film for you, regardless of how carefully I chose my words. Suffice it to say that if you're looking for suspense, scares and sheer, blank-faced terror, Saw is the film for you. I can't wait for what will likely be an "unrated director's cut with additional footage too scary to show in theaters" DVD release - you know, the kind we're seeing more and more of everyday.

This is the best genre film I've seen in a long time, so I can say with some amount of certainty that genre fans will not be disappointed.

Eragon

By Simon Woodhouse

Let's face it, dragons are pretty cool. They fly, they breathe fire, they look like a cross between a very big lion and a very big lizard. They've got it all going on. But alas, dragons are cursed, doomed to forever appear in terrible movies. Dragonheart - awful. Reign of Fire - abysmal. Dungeons & Dragons - unspeakably bad. There is a prophecy, however, that speaks of a time when a hero will rise, and a movie will come that'll forever free dragons from inept directors, amateur screenwriters and really, really bad actors. Could that film be Eargon? Er, no.

The hero in Eragon is Eragon (Ed Speleers), a young farm boy who lives with his Uncle Garrow (Alun Armstrong) and cousin Roran (Chris Egan). Home for these three is the land of Alagaesia, a place vaguely reminiscent of medieval Europe. Whilst out hunting in the woods one night, Eragon finds an egg. The egg hatches a few days later and out pops a baby dragon. Though this seems like a random act of chance, it's not. Dragons only hatch in the presence of their rider. Eragon doesn't know he's a dragon rider, but luckily Bram (Jeremy Irons), does. The two meet, and following the slaying of Eragon's uncle by a band of Ra'zac, set off to join the Varden freedom fighters. Along the way Eragon learns to communicate telepathically with his dragon, whose name is Saphira (voiced by Rachel Weisz).

Because every fantasy movie needs a bad guy and a maiden in distress, Eragon has King Galbatorix (John Malkovich) and Arya (Sienna Guillory). There's also a lesser baddie, in the form of Durza (Robert Carlyle). Once all the characters are in place, and the tried and trusted plot established, the movie turns into the standard fantasy quest/journey type tale.

Being a dragon movie, and part of a genre that so often produces real duds, Eragon doesn't have much to live up to. But even by comparison, it's not a very good film. And besides the curse of the dragon movie, it's suffers from another affliction - the plague of the terrible young actor in a fantasy film. This condition affects many others, the worst suffers being Harry Potter and Narnia. It's as if the casting director sent out a proclamation calling forth all the crappiest young actors in the land.

On the plus side, however, the dragon is pretty cool. It's not as scary as the lizards in Reign of Fire, or as sappy as Draco in Dragonheart. Saphira is a nice dragon, but she's still got balls. During the obligatory dragon movie money shot, when the beast sits atop a cliff, lifts its wings and roars, Saphira's got it going on. As soon as the acting starts again though, it's cringe time once more. Ed Speleers wins hands down as the worse player in the film, but perhaps he can be given some slack because he's so new to the business. John Malkovich, Robert Carlyle and Jeremy Irons, on the other hand, should all know better. Out of the three, Carlyle just beats Irons to the winners post, but that's only because his character is the most ridiculous of the two.

Sticking with the fantasy film formula right up until the last, Eragon ends with a battle. The Varden square up against the King's men, whilst Saphira and Eragon duke it out with Durza and his dark magic dragon. The dragon fighting bit isn't half bad, and had it been longer would have made for a brilliant finale. The dark magic dragon makes for a scary adversary, though if you're familiar with the Balrog in Lord of the Rings, you've already seen this beastie. As for the fighting between the Varden and the King's men, it's neither here nor there. The film offers nothing in the way of character development, and so it doesn't matter who out of the human characters lives, and who dies.

Plagiarism abounds in Eragon. When people compare its plot and cast of characters to Star Wars, they aren't kidding. There's not really an original idea in the whole movie. This may come from the fact that the book it's based on was written by a fifteen year old boy - Christopher Paolini. Much has been made of this, but Christopher's parents did own the publishing company that first released it, so perhaps he had a bit of help.

Unfortunately, the last few scenes of the movie have put in place all that's necessary for a sequel. If there's one thing worse than a terrible dragon movie, it's a terrible dragon movie sequel. And seeing as only two amongst the principle characters died, it's likely all the same cast will return - the curse lives on.

Scream (1996)

The Story: A masked slasher with a knowledge of horror movies stalks teens in a rural California town.

I know, most of you reading this have seen Scream many times and have already formed your opinion on it. But, it's my review, so pipe down and read on.

The story is set up perfectly from the opening scene; Casey (Drew Barrymore) receives a phone call as she's waiting for her boyfriend to come watch videos. It starts off innocently enough as Casey starts to flirt with the caller. Soon enough, she's being terrorized over the phone and made to play a game where she has to answer questions about horror movies. She ends up with one of the great shock scenes of the last several years, hanged and gutted from a tree in the front yard.

Cut to Sidney (Neve Campbell) trying to hide her obtrusive boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich) from her dad after Billy sneaks in through her window. We come to find out that the teens have something in common; both their moms are no longer around. The only difference is that Billy's mom left, while Sidney's mom was allegedly raped and murdered by the man Sidney helped convict.

Soon, Sidney herself becomes the target of the unknown killer who wears a stark white Ghost face mask. She's chased around her home by the killer. A good scene chock full of irony; when asked if she likes horror movies, Sidney replies, "Why? They're all the same, some big breasted woman who can't act runs up the stairs when she should be running for the front door." The irony comes when the killer attacks and Sidney, unable to make it through the front door, has to run upstairs.

When she makes it to her bedroom and tries to call 911 through her computer phone line, Billy surprisingly shows up. At first, Sidney suspects him, but gets over it when the police finally say it was Billy who scared the killer off. Or does she?
When the town is put on curfew, the local teens decide to throw a party at popular kid Stu's (Matthew Lillard, who's a gas) house. The killer shows up there as well, and the bodies start piling up. But the question remains, who is the killer?

A quick bit about writer Kevin Williamson. I think Scream is one of the smartest and straight up brilliant horror scripts ever written. It pokes fun at many a "slasher" convention, yet manages to be scary at the same time. However, Williamson stabbed himself in the back with his next film, I Know What You Did Last Summer. I just find it funny that he writes a script that's a rarity in that it's actually scary for a sub-genre who's heyday was twenty years ago, then turns around and writes exactly the kind of story that he just made fun of!

Now for the unavoidable. Being someone who frequents many a horror movie message board or chat room, I constantly hear people who describe themselves as "REAL" horror fans continuously trash this movie and the people who like it. Message board headings range from "Scream Haters Unite" to "Why did Wes Craven Sell Out?" On these message boards, fans of Scream or it's sequels are referred to as "pussies" or "not real horror fans." To these people I say, "slurp my butt." Scream not only brought on a horror movie resurgence for better or worse, but it also ranks as one of the best horror films of the nineties. The cast of mostly young actors give solid, convincing performances, and the final revelation of who the killer(s) are is a stunner.

Scream is chock full of great lines, and the references to many, many a horror film brought a smile to my face when I first saw it in theaters. Also are cameos by Linda "The Exorcist" Blair, Director Craven himself, and an uncredited role for Henry "The Fonze" Winkler. The film is funny without being slapstick, scary, smart, and bloody. Scream is a modern day classic.

Now, my only two complaints. They may seem minor to the indiscriminate viewer, but being a big fan of the likes of Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung, I loathe when an actor is obviously being doubled by their stunt person. As someone who pays attention to the slightest detail, it's something that really burns my ass. The indicator: any time you see someone fall down and they lift their arm or hand to cover their face, it's a stunt person. And Campbell's was used in a thing so minor as her character crawling out the back of a van! Call me petty, but that really sets my bells off.

Also of annoyance to me is Rose McGowan. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about her just rubs my rhubarb the wrong way. Maybe it's the way she delivers her lines, maybe it's the way she very obviously has to fight the urge of looking into the camera, but I think her part would have been better served by someone less, well, flaky.

However I do recommend to anyone who can overlook those two slight annoyances that they buy it, rent it, do what you gotta do to own it.

That thing You Do

Tom Hanks as the director and plays the part of Mr. White, the manager and the discoverer of bands under the Play-one records. Mr. White is a character that motivates and persuades all the characters to move along his plans. His influence in the beginning of the creation of the band until the very lives of each individual that lead to the story itself. Tom Hans aside from the brilliance in acting never cease to unwind moviegoers in the simple zest of romance, inspiration and the ability to dream. He made the film that makes us experience how simple people were during 1960's

"That thing you do"is the hit song that entitles the film that is a perfect strategy to easily remember the movie itself. The song makes a lasting impression for moviegoers, with the catchy up beat, ballad turned rock and roll. In that 1964 era where most hit band like "the Beetles" , evidently the movie was inspired by this band. The type of song genre used in this film is similar to the hit songs of The Beetles. There songs almost lived in decades, from one generation to the other and continually the fans embraced them and Tom Hanks is wise enough to relive the experience through this film.

The band is composed of Guy Patterson (Tom Everett Scott), a drummer who was famous for the sunglasses he used for trademark. Talented and sensitive guy who works in an appliance store where he used the basement for his drum lessons. There is Jimmy (Jonathan Schaech) the leader and the songwriter whose ambition of succeeding goes way beyond his head. The rest are Lenny (Steve Zhan) and Ethan Embry as the bass player. Originally, Guy was not part of the band only then when one of the band's member breaks his arm and replaced by him.

During the talent show where the band showed their first carrier single the audience instantly loved them or the ballad song turned rock and roll. Guy changed the tempo of the song that made it into big hit. A whirlwind of fame came crashing on them as fans followed their gigs to different clubs they are in. From a simple song recording using the church's equipment and into the actual selling of the album, radio jockeys and television shows caught up with their song. There was a turnover of management and Mr. White just brought them to fame.

However, fame got into the head of Jimmy, the once totally attached band come into separate ways as each one realizes their own interest. They end up breaking apart. The most interesting part of the movie is the love triangle between Guy, Jimmy and Liv Tyler. Liv playing Jimmy's girlfriend is the catch for Guy seeing them both having romantic compatibility. Liv is just the shadow fan of her boyfriend of whom Guy had noticed himself eventually to have fallen for her. Seeing her in her downiest moment and even noticing her in her best.

Tom Hanks really made it possible to create a mixture of romance, portraying society and the music of 1960's. Instead of focusing on the fame and how the band achieve their dream finally a point of conclusion that they made it to the end, Tom had a different view. He connected it to the reality on what really happened to them after succeeding without eliminating the essential part that is the love story of Guy and Liv. At least, Tom did not dismay the audience to the possible fans of that love story. Although the story is excessively obvious as you would had noticed in the beginning that who ends with whom and who might break up.

The movie is romance with the exuberance to music. Even after the movie, it really made me intrigue of the history of the band and even thought of acquiring the original copy. The song was enticing even though it was repeated almost a couple of times, and watching girls even throwing themselves following their songs. Every time Guy hits the drum, you could just feel the energy from the fans as if you were watching a band that exists today. There was not so much conflict in the story but simple how the group created the band and in the end after knowing they are having all the attention, got burned out and decides to separate ways. On that part, it made me quite feel poignant knowing that they could stay long in the limelight. At least the good ending of the story was that Guy and Liv knew that they had loved each other.

My Super Ex-girlfriend

Uma Thurman in her by freak accident a hero was born in a superhero costume. This is awe-exciting comedy film written by Don Payne and directed by Ivan Reitman is a holiday treat due to untamed comedies where scenes most cartoon characters actions were realistically made into a movie

My super ex-girlfriend is Uma Thurman as Jenny Johnson. One ordinary girl turned into G-girl who has powers saving people in times of calamities that need extra terrestrial powers, a crime-fighter and a flying superhero that saves the day. She has a bullet speed, laser eyes and hearing capabilities as well as unfathomable strength. However, as any other individual, they live in two different planes, one as a superhero and the one as the gallery owner. In this, she also possesses two personalities, one having undeniable strength and the other as the vulnerable woman.

In the comet crash accident in their nearby town, Jenny together with her boyfriend alone I the middle of the forest came to witness this extra ordinary experience Seeing the comet torn in pieces she was curious to touch the burning rock which lead to her super power transformation. A geek turned chic in their batch and leaving his boyfriend in insecurity. Jenny continued in this dual personality while his ex-boyfriend became her stalker. On the other hand, Luke Wilson experienced a lot of misfortunes with his past ex-girlfriends as he realizes that he always ends up with wrong girl.

Luke and Jenny saw each other in the subway train when a friend of Luke sees Jenny as a potential for a love affair. Luke came to ask her. Little does he know that Jenny is an outrageous woman. A full-blown lunatic jealousy, undeniable stalker herself and complicated personality in different ways.

Totally score off Luke ending up having an unnoticed feeling for his colleague Hannah (Anna Farris). After Jenny realizes that Luke is actually falling for Hananah, G-Girl can never be uglier than this. With the out of the box jealousy, one can never determine the possibilities of what a superhero can do. Luke caught red handed with Hannah, a large shark thrown up to their bedroom window. Luke's car smashed and thrown into the galaxy. A superhero exits from ceiling and out from to the roof. This ruins one ordinary Luke's day.

G-girl's power is still finite in the nature of science and Jenny's stalker can never be stopped. A villain Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), an obsessed secret lover of Jenny whose main objective is to bring G-girl's power down. He cannot get close to her due to her power so he used Luke as a ploy to his evil plan.

Professor Bedlam is an old time friend of Jenny way back their teenage years. An accident change their lives as soon as Jenny got her powers. For this, Bedlam found an antidote that is by placing the comet rock beside Jenny that will diminish her powers. To successfully pursue the plan, he made a connivance with Luke.

Luke signs into the agreement and plan for a single date with G-girl. A twist of even when Hannah appeared with Luke's best friend. However, G-girls powers were temporarily removed from her when the comet rock absorbed her powers but acquired by Hannah. Both Jenny too had the same powers as hers.

Now an even superhero cat fights doubles the stunts, special effects, gigantic war of powers and of course the never-ending jealousy. But all swells that end well, when Bedlam revealed his love for Jenny. Jenny and Bedlam got together same with Hannah and Luke.

Expectedly superheroes intend to be the character that saves the day. They are the ones we usually acknowledge as peacekeepers and not troublemakers. Nevertheless, for Jenny's story, a superhero is still human that is vulnerable to humanly feelings and this includes pain. They might tolerate physical pain but emotional pains cannot be easily healed. As we though it is advantageous to have super powers, there is still disadvantages of having extra strength, it is dangerous when used incorrectly.

G-girl has inferiority complex that hinders her from using her powers for greater good. As she runs by destructive feelings for Luke, she had used it to destroy Luke. If it were possible for one super hero having large capacity to do good has also the greater capability to do evil.

About a Boy

About a boy is a movie twisted stories most genre type films Hugh Grant loves to play as he is known for romantic-comedies. It is about the unlikely lifestyle by both single mothers and a single man who is afraid of commitment, both situation ironically opposite but meets half-way and complementary. It goes along with the lives of people who are going through hardships and overcoming pains.

Based on Nick Horinby's popular movie, this film proves different realities of society giving finesse discernments and sophisticated humor at the same time give grounds for discussion. About a boy in reality is entirely focused on the situation of a boy confused in the middle as a protect of her mother, who assumes as the man of the house even deciding for a normal life as boy.

Paul and Chris Weitz, director of the film has swiftly causes situations to be connected in an odd turn of events. I tit when Hugh Grant (as Will) supposed to be relaxed in his own pace found an interest to certain circle of moment. This film also introduces a set of families that is unconventional that others tag its as broken family but still considered as family. The story reveals truths of society in terms of divorce and the indifferences an individual experiences. However found the story as ruthless in silence, the director introduced it into a romantic comedy that exposes love.

Hugh Grant is a rich man who owns his time and uses a 30-minute itinerary that keeps his day. He is afraid of commitment but into a weird curiosity on single mom. He alone with the expense of his wealth and enjoys a dull moment in front of television keeping him busy changing channels in the remote control. Afraid to take pressures and live in the comfort of his home and hobbies.

In the moment of time, he got amused of single moms after chasing single parents in the grocery stores discovers a group called S.P.A.T. (Single Parent Alone Together). The curiosity brought him in the hallways of the club wherein he began considering this single moms as prospects for his dull love life. Being hooked by his lies pretending to single parent himself and creating a story brought sympathy from club members. Will's persistence caught the eye from Suzie, the beauty in the group.

In a date in the park with Suzie, Fiona's son, Marcus, intruded Will. In the unlikely accident, Marcus realizes that Will is perfect for his mom. Marcus mother Fiona is desperately alone who worries about anything and everything that she finds herself pathetic. With successive suicidal tendencies, Marcus realizes the need for a fatherly figure or someone who can fill the emptiness in his mother's heart.

Will on the other hand is a perfect candidate for that, single, who love's children as he seem to be and who likes single moms. Marcus after the connection he has made with Will in the park started to have daily trips into his house. Leaving Will confused on the intention of the boy but eventually accepted to accommodate him in his home. Will also owe the boy since it did not tell anyone in the club about his lies.

Will was also given favor by Marcus pretending that he is his father after being found in loved with Rachel (Rachel Weiz). Rachel is also a single mom who goes through issues of that Will has an ample knowledge about her hardships. But as the story goes, Rachel was skeptical about the real intention of Will after realizing that he really was not single parent at all.

Will returns to square one after being dumped by Rachel. The thought of him having a family for his own seem to be impossible as he thought it is. Will soon discovered his purpose seeing truth being prompted by the child to him. In the end Rachel and Will got back together.

About a boy gives us insight so much about life's purpose. Fiona a depressed mother of Marcus who seen life's happiness as vague. For that, Marcus also finds himself insufficient enough to give love for his mother to keep her living. Fro this also sees Will as someone who can fill the emptiness to his mother. However, Will himself sees himself having no purpose in life. Life has it schemes of disadvantages and advantages of that we are linked to each other of that each piece has its meaning.

About the boy entitles as it is since the boy himself teaches the older people about the meaning of life and family. Marcus is and adorable child who loves his mother dearly but struggles as to how he can fit to the missing piece.

At the same time, Will's character narrates and introduces the dilemma of every female single parent from her joys, pains and obligations. Bu the author made a very good impact using the boy's perspective.

The author of the movie creates it into romantic comedy without leading us to shallow discernments about life. Although he made scenes that are easy to swallow that will direct some points on the issues of the community.

A movie rated PG-13 since it gives strong language and explicit themes, directed by Paul and Chris Weitz, this movie is highly recommended for those studying on social backgrounds, family structure, and individuals in a diverse society.

My Fifty First Dates

Many fell in love with Adam Sandler in his previous films as the boy next door, getting allowing with most people with his well rounded humor and just his effortless acting. The compatible romance with Drew Barrymore, surely took part in the movie of 50 first dates, fans grueling over and falling in love with their romance. Adam depicted most ordinary guys that will do anything for love and sincerely doing it. A large audience or moviegoers are buying it even it came to a point where a guy can outrageously give his all.

Adam is a drop dead gorgeous and romantically fascinating person on all his films garnering him world hit films since a love story though mushy is still bearable and unceasing to excite us. As far as Adam and the producers of this film, the audience will continually watch a unique blend of love, romance and comedy.

50 first dates is an unprecedented courtship that dwells with time and memory where Adam against all odds proved to exceedingly deserve for his love of his life and amusing acts. An awe-inspiring film that teaches people especially those who are truly in love for the virtue of patience and constant appreciation despite uncertain circumstances. This movie is one wacky film you do not want to miss as Adam faces odds from nature, people and even the illness of Lucy.

The setting held in Oahu, Hawaii. One of the most down to earth place due to hospitable locals, culture and exotic plants and tourist spots where girls in their straw like skirt and bikinis. Aloha, to Hawaii this place is perfect for Adam as an animal-handler of Sea Life Park where there is Walnus exposure.

I practically fall out my seat as Walnus in his call of nature vomits into Alexa (Luisa Struss). It is somehow a trademark of Sandler's film having this slapsticks and shallow humor around. Adam as (Henry Roth) teasing on for about her gentles inserted some rude humor. Some shots in the sea-life Park however did not originally come in just one place nevertheless wild life underwater aquarium and Zoo Park though rated as PG-13 for rude sexual humor.

The movie kicks off when Henry Roth (Adam Sandler) took a coffee break in a local Hawaiian dine-on. Lucy Whitmore played by Drew came cute in pink and found to be the most liable person. At first sight, Henry knew that his going to like the girl and stared talking to her. All eyes on him but unconsciously did not know anything going on. Excited to see her again after the strangely comfortable conversation with the girl, he came to visit again.

In his surprise, Lucy doesn't remember anything that had happened the day after they talk. All memories of him where erased in one single sleep. Sue ( Amy Hill), the owner of the cafe came to explain to Henry the dilemma that Lucy is going through- a short term memory . This means nothing that is in the future will be stored in his mind but the memory of the past.

This becomes a challenge for Henry in his pursue for Lucy, an exhausting courtship and turn of events followed. In order for him to get to Lucy, he must persistently draw her attention to him and the hope of storing even a single memory of him to her.

This is amazing a large hindrance in a relationship the idea of just losing a memory. This explains the title story. Henry made 50 impossible and weirdest dates ever made by him just not to lose Lucy. Ironically, Henry on the first part of the film, his character is one chick guy who cannot commit into a relationship. The questions draws now to the sensible flow of the story why all of the sodden the naughty self confessed chick guy turns out totally in love with Lucy at first encounter.

Well to those hopeless romantic, this movie can give you many tips on how to ask a girl for a date. Definitely, Henry pulled out his creative lines and maneuvers smooth moves to keep a girl from not forgetting. Henry all obvious stunts paid off in the end but not that long. Everyday Henry starts in square one, keeping Lucy remember him.

It then goes back to where they started-strangers. Lucy returned from who she was and generally, everyday is a challenge for her. While Henry as a animal keeper also went to his same routine. But, for that single day, he came to visit Lucy in the hospital, it was revealed to him that though Lucy lost her memory still her heart remembers her.

Blood on Satan's claw (1970)

The Story: Satan attempts to return to the mortal realm by transplanting his flesh onto children and reassembling himself.

Don't let the extremely strange plot idea put you off or make you think you are about to watch a film of the silliest kind. "Blood On Satan's Claw" is a serious, bleak, nasty and yet stylish exercise in horror, that not only marks it as one of the best British terror movies ever made (by the short lived 'Tigon Films'), but a high point in the horror genre as a whole.

Set in 17th Century England, the film opens with Ralph Gower (Barry Andrews) uncovering a deformed skull, with one eye and strange fur upon it, while plowing a field. He gets the local judge (Patrick Wymark, who was cast after it was decided both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee would be too expensive, and who died the same year) to take a look at it. But the skull has vanished and the judge disregards Ralph's supernatural fears.

Peter Edmonton (Simon Williams) brings his Fiancee to visit his Aunt, where the judge is also staying, she is put up in the attic room. That night she is heard screaming and upon breaking down the door, Peter and the judge discover she has gone insane. While being taken away to the asylum, Peter notices her hand is like an animals claw. He investigates the attic and is grabbed by a clawed hand; he is later found hacking off his own hand that he believes has turned into the same hideous claw. The judge, now believing something demonic roams the sleepy village, leaves to gather help and knowledge to fight the growing evil.

Meanwhile the local children have started to act strange. They are rude and surly and start to play cruel games on the local Vicar (Anthony Ainley, best known for playing 'The Master' in the famous UK Sci-Fi show "Dr Who"). Their leader is Angel Blake (Linda Hayden, who also appeared in "Expose" with Udo Kier) who after finding a strange claw, slowly becomes more and more wayward. Soon, strange patches of fur start to grow on some of the children and on anyone who comes into contact with the vile skin. Skin that belongs to Satan. Skin that Angel and the now evil drenched teenagers are hacking from the young bodies of their former friends. And in the woods, as murder and depravity spreads amongst the children, something slowly takes on it's unholy form...

From the very start this film casts an eerie spell. After the camera has lingered on the jellied eye in the monstrous skull, we go into one of the most atmospheric title sequences created. As a raven sits in ominous silhouette, on a tree branch, the magnificent music (that has the same kind of feel as the superlative score by Paul Ferris for "Witchfinder General") by Marc Wilkinson drifts out over the viewer, giving a haunting feel to the mist shrouded English countryside.

The score will later become an essential part of the films oppressive, sinister atmosphere as the music seems to creep through the trees, with the wonderfully creepy oboe cues punctuating the lilting strings. There is also a more romantic piece that is occasionally combined into the main theme, but this combination gives it a sense of impending sadness and tragedy. Emotions this film does not shy away from.

The script, by Robert Wynne-Simmons (with Director Piers Haggard), delivers not only a wonderful 17th century atmosphere, with delightfully camp 'Ye Olde English' dialogue like "Oh Sir, I was so afeared", but also paints a harsh picture of the class attitude towards 'superstitious peasants' (The judge is at first a very unsympathetic character, before his enlightened change into the stern hero) and is uncompromising in it's brutality.

Haggard (best known for "Venom", a film itself best known for the snake that sneaks up Oliver Reed's trouser leg) handles the shock sequences and the atmosphere expertly. Moving the story along nicely while still having time to show the devastating effect the evil is having on the community.

Not only is the film at times searingly violent and cruel, but also constantly disturbing due to the fact it is children (Hayden herself was only 17 at the time) that are the sadistic murderers and perverted followers of Satan. And it's in this depiction of childhood perversion that the film really shocks. No other British horror movie ever came close to the uncompromisingly cruel teenage characters we are given here. Only the spanish film "Could You Kill A Child" comes close to the evil children that populate this film.

After killing a young boy, the children joke with his unknowing Mother, telling her that they shut him up in the woodshed, leading her into discovering the butchered body of her Son. They laugh and skip through the forest, leading their fellow children to their deaths.
This callous attitude is most explicitly shown in the films most notorious sequence where a girl is led by two boys to some ruins in the forest. There she is attacked by the other children who force her to the ground to cut off her bit of the Devil's skin. As the animal like Devil looks on, she is held down by her friends as one of the older boys' starts to strip. The other boys and even more shockingly, the girls, tear off her clothes and watch in ecstasy as she is raped. The rape serves no part in getting the skin, or carrying on the plot any further, it is purely an act of perverted sadism. The performance, by Wendy Padbury, in this role is heartbreakingly effective.

The look of pure disgust and shame as she is brutalized makes for a truly uncomfortable viewing experience in itself, but add to that the fact it's all being watched by the other children (and even a leering old couple) and you have what is perhaps the nastiest scenes ever to appear in British Cinema. By the time she is finally stabbed in the back by Angel with a pair of sheers (as she is held on top of the grinning rapist) a raw numbness settled on the viewer, and the atmosphere of corruption is almost palpable. If that wasn't enough, the film also features a squirm inducing sequence where one of the girls (Michelle Dotrice) has her patch of skin slowly cut off with a scalpel while fully conscious.

Due to this violence, the erotically charged nudity is made generally disturbing and is at its most effective in the sequence where Angel strips naked in front of the Vicar and attempts to seduce him. This is Hayden's scene all the way, and she shows that even at such a young age she is willing to give her all for the part. As she slowly walks, fully nude, towards the Vicar she breathlessly purrs at him "D'You wan' come play our games with us" making him turn away in shame.
Her performance is frightening, erotic and profoundly unsettling. Hayden is one of the unsung heroines of British horror/exploitation cinema, and in this film she shows just how good an actor you have to be, to create an effectively bad character. In fact all the performances are at least solid, with special mention to the young actors who add such an effective, childishly cruel streak to their roles and never hold back during the disturbing scenes.

Wymark, who only appears at the beginning and the end of the film, is in top form as well. With The Judge 'Tigon Films' give us a just, but extremely harsh, character that seems to be more realistic given the times, than the normal completely sympathetic hero of 'Hammers' films. And his final sequence shows just how powerful a character he is.

The few faults the film has are purely cosmetic. The Devil is a nicely different, almost medieval interpretation, but is rather cheap looking and the finale is perhaps a little too low key, despite an excellent use of freeze framing as The Judge does battle and seems to be compromised by the budget. But this is easily put into shade by the movies many triumphs.

A must see movie for any fan of British horror films, of 70's exploitation, and of top class horror in general. Blood on Satan's Claw is a powerful, viscous exercise in fear

The Black cat (1934)

The Story: A honeymooning couple become pawns in the ultimate confrontation between two old enemies.

Like many Edgar Allan Poe film adaptations, The Black Cat bears little or no resemblance to the story of the same name, despite the "suggested by" credit given to Poe during the opening credits. As in the case of the Corman/AIP films, though, the misnomer is easily forgiven as we are treated to a fine story that is brilliantly realized by an outstanding cast and crew.

Genre legend Bela Lugosi gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Dr. Vitus Verdegast, a recently released WWI prisoner en route to visiting an "old friend", as he explains to fellow travelers Peter and Joan Alison (played by genre regular David Manners and prolific thirties star Jacqueline Wells).

A freak bus accident results in Peter and Joan being forced to accompany Verdegast to his friend's residence, which is an amazing Bauhausian art deco masterpiece composed of glass, steel and mirrors built on the scene of a WWI battle that killed thousands. There we meet Verdegast's friend, Hjalmar Poelzig, portrayed by consummate professional Boris Karloff, and looking eerie in black robe, Mephistophelean hair cut and fine make-up by an un-credited Jack Pierce.

As it turns out, Verdegast somewhat exaggerated his friendship with Poelzig. In fact, Verdegast is out for revenge against Poelzig, who had caused Verdegast's imprisonment in order to steal away and marry his wife, and, later, his daughter. Verdegast's attempts to discover the fate of his family are complicated by the presence of the innocently unaware young couple who have accompanied him, as Poelzig is a Satanic High Priest who not only has wicked plans for Joan, but also has some muscle behind him in the form of cult members that include John Carradine.

Eventually the arch-enemies agree to settle their differences by means of a literal and figurative game of chess, with Joan's life (and, one suspects, her honor) as the prize.

The Black Cat is pretty clearly a film ahead of it's time, and it's no surprise director Ulmer cut his teeth with F.W. Murnau, who brought as the equally anachronistic Nosferatu. The use of striking geometrical themes ranging from the odd interior of a train's passenger car to the design of the sinks in Poelzig's bizarre home are a credit to both set designer Charles Hall and Ulmer himself, who was heavily involved in the designs. The disquieting feeling provided by the sets is added to by a score consisting mostly of Liszt, Tchaikovsky, and (naturally!) Bach's Toccata. Subtext is abundant for those who seek it, in both a physical sense (such as the recurring use of lilies) as well as the story itself, which subtlety explores a black magic versus science theme.

Had The Black Cat been released a year later, it would certainly have been fallen prey to the standards codes that were then implemented. Amazingly mature for it's time, the movie features a man being skinned alive, strong sexual overtones and a black mass complete with an inverted crucifix, though the intensity of the latter may be lost somewhat when we realize the ominous sounding Latin of Karloff translates to things like "beware of dog" and "take a grain of salt".

The real highlight of the film, of course, is the first on-screen pairing of Karloff and Lugosi, the two horror movie giants of not only the thirties, but perhaps all time as well. As one would expect, Karloff plays his role expertly, generating an almost palatable feeling of malevolence, particularly as his designs on Joan seem to become less than gentlemanly. It's Lugosi who's the real surprise here, bringing an intensity to his role that easily dwarfs his better known performances; Lugosi's talent in general may be questionable, but he certainly had the magic here. Both actor's dialogue seems to have been written for them, and the scenes of them verbally sparring are as memorable as they are brilliant.

Only a few minor points keep The Black Cat from reaching the levels of perfection attained by films like The Bride of Frankenstein. There are some rather obvious holes in the plot, such as the question of why the young couple don't simply run away when they realize evil is afoot. And in a constant error made by films from this period, comic relief is provided by the (thankfully brief) appearance of two inept policemen.

The good vastly outweighs the bad, though, making The Black Cat an absolute must-see for fans of classic horror movies, as well as those who appreciate the fine art of filmmaking in general.

Anatomie (2000)

The Story: A student at an elite medical school stumbles across a secret society of medical deviates.

Paula (Franka Potente), ranked number two in the country in her chosen field of study, has received enrollment into the elite and highly selective Heidelberg Medical Academy. But her family life is less than perfect; she adores her grandfather, who was a world reknown genius in the medical field and who lies near death in a hospital room. Yet her father, who is also a physician, wants nothing to do with him and thinks his daughter is only in the medical field for the money and is disgruntled over Paula wanting to follow in her grandfather's footsteps instead of his own.

Next we find ourselves in an autopsy room where a pair of surgically masked doctors are dissecting a body. The only thing is - the guy's still alive. And conscious.

Soon, Paula and some fellow classmates, including a voluptuous blonde named Gretchen, are on a train on the way to Heidelberg. Paula practices her skills on a young man named David who has a rare, advanced heart condition when he drops from a heart attack. After saving his life, Franka, David and Gretchen become friends and share the rest of the ride together.

After orientation, wherein we're introduced to a creepy instructor named Professor Grombek, the new students all meet at a pub to share a celebratory drink. David is there as well, but he's attacked when he makes a stop in the men's room. When he comes to he finds himself on the slab as the two surgically masked doctors prep in the near distance. His anesthesia having worn off, David manages to put up a fight. But not enough of one. Imagine Paula's surprise when she pulls the white sheet back for her first class autopsy and finds David laying tits up. Goaded on by her instructor, Paula gets up the nerve to begin the autopsy, yet when she finds a pair of stab wounds she sets out to prove that David didn't die from his advanced heart condition.

Her snoopiness soon causes her to cross paths with a psychotic member of a super-secret underground medical society formed during World War II which believes in the cost of the few for the lives of the many as they perform advanced medical experiments on unsuspecting patients. This Anti-Hippocratical Society deviate has a knack for turning his victims into plasticized, dissected anatomy models to display in the class's auditorium, and now he has his eyes on the meddling Paula.

I remember a few years ago when I read about Anatomie, a German film known in the states under the Anglicized title Anatomy, in Fangoria Magazine. The write up, a small paragraph in their annual coverage of the FantAsia Film Festival, mentioned that the film tried so hard to emulate American thrillers that they wouldn't be surprised if a remake popped up with Sandra Bullock. After watching it not long after having read that article, I would agree. But that's not a bad thing - afterall, Sandra Bullock is quite the hottie.

A lot can be said for and against the influence that the "American" style of horror films have had on foreign product, but let's focus for a moment on its influence on this film. Anatomie is a slick little thriller with plenty of style and some moments of great creepiness. Performances by stars Potente and Anna Loos are excellent, though Loos does steal the show at times as the foul-mouthed, over-sexed Gretchen who, as it turns out, is the number one top scorer above Paula. But it's still undeniably American influenced; photography and camera work are slick and glossy and the cast is the prerequisite beautiful group of young actors. The soundtrack is also obviously influenced as is rife with catchy pop songs including a bit by Fatboy Slim, a group whose hits include the video where Christopher Walken danced and flew through the air.

The story is engrossing enough but moves along at almost too quick a pace. This is made evident when the killer is revealed only half way through the film, which subtracts from the amount of suspense the film potentially might have had. Also, when the killer is revealed, it's so blandly done that there's no real shock value to it.

That having been said, there are plenty of gruesome delights along the way, the most impressive being the plasticized anatomy models. So well done are they that you get the creeps just looking at them, and for an extra bit of uneasiness many of them open up like a liquor cabinet to expose the organs inside. Other juicy bits include the scenes of victims being dissected by the two surgically masked fellows. The slicing and dicing is quite realistic (and painful) looking and the aforementioned queasiness really kicks in in these scenes.

But these horrific scenes are surrounded by a clutter of less than interesting expository scenes, or scenes of Paula and Gretchen being attracted (and not attracted) to the plentiful beefcakes in their class. The mystery Paula fights to unravel is given away far too soon with no real build up. If these scenes manage to work at all it's due to Potente's performance, coupled with her unconventional yet oh so lovely "girl next door" looks. The Bourne Identity notwithstanding, Potente's got a big future. Sadly, this future is more evident in the excellent German cult flick Run, Lola, Run than it is here.

Summing up, Anatomie is an at times gruesome though ultimately de rigeur "thriller" which suffers from its own lightning fast pace and the act of ignoring its own potential. Average at best, though I'm sure fans of Potente will likely seek it out. If you do, avoid the English dubbed version - the dubbing is atrocious.

Anaconda (1997)

The Story: A group of documentary filmmakers pick up a snake poacher hitchhiking on the Amazon River.

The early and mid-90s saw a resurgence in classic horror film characters given new life by "A-list" filmmakers. Shakespearean actor/director Kenneth Brannagh tackled the Frankenstein mythos, Francis Ford Coppola did Bram Stoker's Dracula more justice to its source novel than just about any other Drac film had done before, Jack Nicholson tipped his hat to Lon Chaney, Jr. with Wolf, and a few years later, Stephen Sommers "re-imagined" Boris Karloff's The Mummy. In the interim, they even remade The Creature From the Black Lagoon - but this time, they called it Anaconda.

Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. However, there is some truth to my bitterness. For many years, An American Werewolf in London director John Landis plotted a Black Lagoon updating which terminally lingered in development hell. Finally, due to the success of those films mentioned above in the mid-90s, the project seemed as though it might actually happen. Unfortunately, someone else tweaked the concept and rather than a return of everyone's favorite Gill Man, we were given instead this attempt at a horror thriller. Does a gigantic African snake make a good replacement for Rico Browning in a gill suit? Let's proceed and find out.

Dr. Steven Cale (Eric Stoltz) has brought along a documentary film crew in his efforts to locate a long-hidden tribe along the Amazon River. We're not give a lot of info on these folks - we know Cale has a romantic history with (not very) sexy and rump-heavy producer Terri (Jennifer Lopez), we know the camera man-slash-Token Black Guy (Ice Cube) is a stereotypical "brother from the hood", we know the soundman (Owen Wilson) and his sexy girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer) are destined to become Anaconda-food and we know the also stereotypical Pompous Brit (Jonathan Hyde) will look down his nose at the intellectually inferior 'Mericans until he, too, winds up snake chow. But what we don't know is how much fun the hitchhiking snake poacher Paul Sarone will be, as portrayed by cinematic legend John Voight. But I'll get to that in a few.

Basically, here's how the story goes; the documentary crew takes off down the river. They pick up stranded Sarone. Sarone tricks them into going off course so he can capture a B.A.S. (a big, fat no-prize to anyone who knows what those initials represent) to sell "for meellions" to a zoo. The crew catches on, but the wiley Sarone gets the upper hand. Eventually the crew is whittled down to just a few survivors (one of whom spends almost the entire film in a coma after a river mosquito flies down his throat, and then turns up quite conveniently when the shit hits the fan). Come the finale, it's two of the survivors (I won't say which survivors, as you'll know way ahead of time when you watch the flick) vs. Sarone and a second B.A.S. Who will win? Again, you already know.

As directed by Luis Lossa, Anaconda holds no surprises save for one - a gleefully malevolent and enjoyably tongue-in-cheek performance by John "Midnight Cowboy" Voight as the villainous Paul Sarone. Excellent character actor Eric Stoltz is given very little screentime to ply his trade, Jennifer Lopez (pre-media saturation) and her co-star (I'm talking about her voluminous ghetto-bootie) are merely acceptable, laconic Owen Wilson is miscast, sexy Kari Wuhrer doesn't shed any skin and Ice Cube must have thought he was in Boyz 'N the Hood 2, because if he's not recycling his performance as Dough Boy then I'm a three foot tall albino midget with a wooden leg named Willie (don't ask me what the other leg's name is - ba dum bum). To say these actors are merely going through the motions would be apropos but you know to expect more from old pro Voight, and he delivers.

I have to be honest here; Steve Johnson's anaconda FX puppets are about as jokey as they come. I can't say I've ever seen an Anaconda in real life (well, I could but I'd by lying) but I find it hard to believe that a snake so massive can move as quickly and gracefully as the titular creature does. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain anacondas don't screech like harpies. I'm also pretty sure that if an anaconda were to swallow a person whole, you wouldn't be able to see that person's facial features as lumps on the snake's belly - though I do admit that the scene which features this does give me a chuckle.

But for all the bad points - the bland acting, the gimmicky CGI and practical snake FX, the weak plot, etc. - I have to say that I did enjoy this movie. It's just one of those flicks, you know the type - dumb as a bag of hammers but brain-dead fun nonetheless. I wish the film hadn't killed the interest in Landis' much ballyhooed Lagoon updating, and I also wish it hadn't breathed new life into the "nature run amok" sub-genre which has given us a slew of giant snake movies ever since, but I suppose it could have been much worse. For instance, I don't think Vanilla Ice (who rocks the mic like a vandal, in case you didn't know) would have made as convincing a Token Black Guy as Ice Cube. Though, that does sound damned funny when I think about it.

Summing up - pretty silly movie with loads of flaws but which still manages to entertain, mostly due to a memorable performance by a legendary actor who knows he's in a B-Movie and makes the most of it. Still, I would have loved a Black Lagoon remake.

My Name is Nobody

By Christina VanGinkel

Last year, during the holiday shopping season, I purchased several older movies on DVD when I came across a store having a blowout sale of older movies. Amongst the mix, that I picked up were several of what I have often heard referred to as spaghetti westerns. A spaghetti western is a term used to refer to a series of comedic western movies filmed mostly during the 1960's into the early seventies by a wide range of movie studios, mostly Italian though, thus dubbed as the spaghetti westerns of the 60's and 70's. One such movie is the show My Name is Nobody, and was among those I bought that day. This same show also happened to be my first ever spaghetti western that I ever watched, and has continued to be one of my favorite, maybe due to the cast of characters, or possibly just due to the nature of the film itself.

If you have never watched this type of Western before, but generally enjoy a good old-fashioned Western romp on film, then I recommend that you give this type of Western a try. My Name is Nobody is a classic example of what this genre of film is all about, a mix of classic Western style, with plenty of comedy, sometimes subtle, but nonetheless funny, tossed into the mix for good measure. With many big name stars getting in start in such films, you also never know whose name you might come across as the star either of the show or as a supporting character.

My Name is Nobody was filmed in 1973, and released in 1974 and stars Terence Hill, Henry Fonda, and Geoffrey Lewis. Three men who had their fair share of starring roles in both spaghetti westerns and many other genres of film both before and well after the making of My Name is Nobody. My Name is Nobody also happens to be the last western that Henry Fonda ever starred in, bringing to a close the end of an era, or so it seemed to many of the fans who followed both his career and the careers of many of the stars of the spaghetti western shows. Personally, Terrance Hill was my favorite. His Trinity films are considered classics, and whiling away an afternoon or two watching his films is not very difficult to do.

The film, My Name is Nobody, follows the character of Jack Beauregard, portrayed by Henry Fonda, as a legendary gunfighter who covets one thing, retirement. He wants to leave the American West and all it has meant to him, behind, and retire in some peaceful location where no one knows who he is, and Europe seems like the ideal spot for such a place. Too bad all the other outlaws do not feel the same way. They all want their own blaze of glory and that includes shooting dead the legendary gunfighter Jack Beauregard.

Here is where Nobody steps in. Nobody idolizes the fastest gun in the west, Jack Beauregard, and thinks that stepping into retirement quietly would not do justice for his hero. He wants Jack to go down in a blaze of glory, befitting his legendary status. The Wild Bunch, a marauding gang of thieves and villains that numbers 150 members, seems like the perfect opponent for Jack Beauregard to go up against, or so Nobody thinks.

Nobody plots to bring the two forces together, with a bit of help and ingenuity of his own tossed in for good measure, defeating two purposes at once; killing off as many members of the Wild Bunch as he can with the help of Jack Beauregard, and helping Jack retire peacefully. He plans to achieve this by faking a gunfight where Nobody wins, and Jack is supposedly killed, thus allowing him to slip off to a boat that will carry him away to the peaceful retirement Jack was in search of.

If you have ever been a fan of Henry Fonda, (Once Upon a Time in the West, There Was a Crooked Man, Cheyenne Social Club) Terence Hill, (Ace High, Boot Hill, My Name is Trinity, Trinity is Still My Name, Rita of the West) Geoffrey Lewis, (High Plains Drifter, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Shoot the Sun Down, Bronco Billy), or any of the Spaghetti Western styles of comedic films, then My Name is Nobody is a must see film.

Children Of Men

By Simon Woodhouse

If the movies have taught us anything, it's that life in the near future isn't going to be much fun. We're all either slaves to machine overlords (The Matrix), living in dingy urban sprawls (Blade Runner) or being hunted by murderous robots in a post apocalyptic wasteland (The Terminator I, II & III). It's enough to make you never want to get out of bed again. I suppose happy, colorful future-scapes wouldn't make for exciting cinema. The only saving grace in films like these is the suggestion, usually once the baddie has been slain, that perhaps the future won't be quite so bad after all. However, every now and then a near future doom-fest comes along that doesn't even have a happy ending the save us all from wanting to kill ourselves.

Children Of Men is set in a near future version of England. Things are bad. Racial persecution is rampant, there's a plague that's made everyone sterile, terrorist factions are at work everywhere and the government has gone all fascist dictatorship. Trying to get by in this rather dreary world is Theo Faron (Clive Owen), an ordinary bloke who just wants to be left alone. However, a former girlfriend, Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore), is now part of an underground terrorist organization who wants his help. Theo's in a position to get hold of travel documents, that'll allow one of the terrorists to reach the south coast of England without being hassled by the police. Theo does what Julian wants (partly to get her off his back, but also because her organization pays him). But when the documents are issued, they're for two people, which means Theo has to go as well.

This is when he learns he'll be escorting the last pregnant woman on earth. Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), is quite literally worth her weight in gold. He's accompanied for part of the journey by Julian, and Kee's midwife Miriam (Pam Ferris)

Most of the opening scenes are set in a very run down version of London. To say it's a bit of a depressing place is an understatement. But there's a temporary reprieve when Theo and co. leave the city and head south. The English countryside has survived the plague, fascism etc. relatively unscathed. When I say it's a temporary reprieve, I wasn't kidding. The plot takes several twists and turns as the film rolls on. People who appeared friendly at first turn out to be anything but, and all these switchbacks eventually lead to Theo and Kee having to carry on alone. Not only alone, but being chased by any number of nasty people who want to get their hands on Kee.

Though the good guys become the bad guys, and the bad guys get worse, Theo sticks to the original plan. Kee's only hope of salvation is a boat that'll take her to the Human Project, a sanctuary located on the Azores Islands. The boat will wait off the seaside town of Bexhill, but not for long.

Besides the few brief moments of respite at the beginning of the trip south, the film is heavy going. There aren't a lot of laughs. Theo spends some time with his friend Jasper (Michael Caine), but you can just tell this is going to lead to something bad. The violence is quite graphic, and I don't think I've ever watched a film with quite so many F words in it. After a while all the swearing starts to get annoying. The expletives come so thick and fast they lose all meaning, which kind of defeats the object. And if you're hoping for a happy ending, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps that's a little unfair. There is a happy ending of sorts, but not everyone's happy.

For the most part, the acting's not bad. But it's not brilliant. Clive Owen is ok, but he had his work cut out for him trying to make Theo likeable. Julianne Moore turns in a workman like performance, but hers isn't a huge role. In fact, to say she stars in the film is almost false advertising. The desolate, urban landscape of inner city London pretty much sets the tone of the film. If you're after a bit of light entertainment, Children Of Men won't be for you. And I'd be hard pushed to say who it is for. There's not enough sci-fi to satisfy fan boys, but it's also too heavy for the casual observer. I almost get the impression the film makers were making it for themselves, which is ok, but they're probably going to be a bit miffed when they look at their bank accounts.

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

The Story: Doctor Henry Frankenstein's son returns to the family estate to claim his inheritance, only to discover that his father's famous creature is still alive.

As The Son Of Frankenstein opens, the infamous Frankenstein's son, Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) and his wife Elsa (Josephine Hutchinson) and young son Peter (Donnie Dunagan) show up in his father's hometown to claim his legacy. The locals, who are still horrified and hateful over the events of "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein," give them a very cold reception. Of course, it's always a dark and stormy night in these films, with the requisite thunder and lightning setting a deliciously sinister mood.

Soon, while exploring the estate, Frankenstein encounters Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a hairy lunatic with a twisted neck. Ygor explains to Frankenstein that he was hanged some years ago ("For stealing bodies... they said") and, believed to be dead, thrown into the ruins of the elder Frankenstein's laboratory. He has been living in the laboratory and its hidden corridors ever since. Ygor shows Frankenstein the monster, lying asleep on a table. "He's my friend," Ygor says, "He... does... things for me." The monster has been sleeping for quite some time and is unable to wake. Ygor quickly manages to persuade young Frankenstein crank up the old lab equipment to cure his flat-headed buddy and the fun and games begin anew...

It seems that six of the people responsible for Ygor's hanging have died in suspicious accidents that have been blamed on the "ghost" of the elderFrankenstein's creature. We witness another tragic "accident," and the town is once again up in arms against a Frankenstein and his pet. Will the pit of boiling sulfur in the basement of the old laboratory's ruins figure into the climax? You already know the answer of course, but how smoothly all the pieces fall together and how much suspense is wrung out of the inevitable climax is what is important. The film succeeds on these points and does it with great style and wit. This is the most fun of all the Frankenstein films, and at times the funniest as well.

This is again a triumph in classic horror from the days when it seemed that Universal Studios could do no wrong. The sets are, if anything, even more beautiful than the previous two entries in the series. This time, theinteriors have minimalist, starkly angular designs much like a more three-dimensional version of Doctor Caligari's sets. The lighting is sharpand everything and everyone casts eerie, surreal shadows. The camerawork and score are brilliant and the performances of the leads are all very fine, with none of the florid, mannered overacting that Colin Clive and others brought to the earlier Frankenstein films.

Boris Karloff doesn't do anything new with his role as the monster in this movie, but he certainly does the same old thing with the same power and depth he brought to his two previous performances. This was to be his last time in this particular role though it was not to be his last Frankenstein film. Speaking of acting, Bela Lugosi's gravel-voiced Ygor is the high point of this movie and in fact is perhaps the finest, creepiest role of his entire career. Some (me, for instance) would go so far as to claim that it even eclipses his role as Dracula, so fully does he lose himself in the character of this insane little creep and so complete is the transformation performed by makeup wizard Jack Pierce.

The negatives: Not many, as this film is nearly as fine as Bride of Frankenstein and some (me again) would claim it is even better than the first film of the series. The ending is once again quite abrupt but is still fairly satisfying and amusing. Though the performances are for the most part wonderful, the little boy that plays Frankenstein's son is an annoying little twit with a grating accent straight out of The Little Rascals. This would have been a nearly perfect film if he had been thrown in the sulfur pit at the beginning of the movie. Outside of those minor quibbles, and the fact that Karloff's monster has been reduced almost to a supporting role, this film is a worthy successor to the first two Universal Frankenstein films and the last of the undeniably great films featuring cinema's favorite patchwork man. Son of Frankenstein may not keep you up all night with bad dreams, but it is a wonderfully entertaining film and another fine artistic achievement from the golden age of monster movies.

Don't miss it.

THEM! (1954)

The story: The atomic bomb detonated in 1945 may result in our extinction as giant mutated ants take over the world!

Officers Peterson (James Whitmore) and Blackburn (Chris Drake) find a shocked young girl (Sandy Descher) walking through the dessert. This girl comes to life when a strange piercing sound echoes all around. The officers later travel to a general store to find the owner dead. Officer Blackburn is left alone at the store and is attacked by something outside, something big. We hear only a couple of gunshots and that spooky squealing sound as this officer meets his maker. Meanwhile, back at the police station, an autopsy shows that the store owner was brutually murdered (Duh!) and has an incredible amount of odd acid in his body.

FBI Agent Robert Graham (James Arness), Dr. Harold Medford (Edmund Gwenn), and his daughter, Dr. Patricia Medford (Joan Weldon) are mysteriously brought in to assist with the investigation. The mystery unravels slowly as the two doctors connect the large amount of acid found in the store owner to the first atomic bomb's detonation just nine years earlier in 1945. They place a small amount of the acid under the young girl's nose and it brings her out of her trance, screaming "THEM!" While investigating in the desert, we get our first glimpse of the monster, slowly rising over a cliff, ready to attack. It's a giant ant!

Dr. Medford explains that the atomic bomb has created a mutation of giant killer ants. With the military now involved, the investigators devise a plan to kill the ants by throwing cyanide into their huge underground nest. Their plan goes off without a hitch, but when they venture into the nest to confirm their kills, they discover that two queens have hatched and flown away. Will the investigators find the ants in time to kill them or will their offspring send human beings the way of the dinosaur?

Simply put, this is an entertaining movie. Like many films of the time, this one warns us of the dangers to come with technology and war. The moral of the film is not difficult to find as we are constantly reminded that these giant ants are only here as a result of our use of the atomic bomb. This film is more than a moral lesson, though.

The special FX are amazing for the time period. We see downright creepy overhread shots of the monstrous ants with human rib cages in their mouths. The intricate nest scenes are frightening as investigators go deeper underground with gas masks on to discover unborn ants squirming around inside unhatched eggs. Just as momentum dies down inside the nest, a wall breaks apart to reveal a survivor ant and the action picks right back up.

The suspense builds as the doctors continue to speak in codes about "it" and the possibility of a "nationwide panic" before we ever even see the ants. The first appearance of the big ant is truly scary and nicely put together. The acting is well above average and the little girl's performance as the shocked victim who freaks out at the smell of the strange acid is very convincing. The look on Drake's face right before his character's death is terrifying. We see stellar performances by Gwenn as the clumsy doctor and Weldon as the beautiful, intelligent woman.

As usual, I suspected that sexual tension would develop between the macho FBI guy and the pretty female doctor. I was right, but unlike other films of the era, this one pulls it off. It's not fake or annoying and it works. We even learn a little about the characters because of the sexual tension. For example, Graham forbids Patricia from venturing down into the dangers of the nest, where he says women shouldn't go. Patricia doesn't allow herself to be controlled and stands up for herself.

Although it is hard to believe that our investigators could successfully keep this secret from the public for as long as they do, I was able to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy this film for its many good qualities. Creepy special FX, tons of suspense, and even fine acting.

Pick up a copy of THEM today

Top 5 Christmas Movies

Brandi M. Seals

Everybody has their favorite Christmas movie. Some people like comedies like "Elf" starring Will Farrel. Others are traditionalists and prefer the movies they have seen every year since they were kids. Regardless of what category you fall into, you have to admit that some Christmas movies are better than others.

The Top 5 Christmas Movies

5.) National Lampoons: Christmas Vacation
This is one of my all time favorites. I watch it every year and it never gets old. Christmas Vacation is the story of the Griswald family and a Christmas gone wrong. Clark (Chevy Chase) does everything he can to have an old fashion, family Christmas. Unfortunately, the Christmas lights will not work, the turkey is dry, and anything that can go wrong does go wrong.

If you need to be cheered up or otherwise just want to see a Christmas that is guaranteed to be worse than yours, run out and rent National Lampoons: Christmas Vacation. My favorite is hillbilly cousin Eddie and his dog Snots. Watch and see just how bad Christmas can be.

4.) A Christmas Story
I love this movie but it is overplayed thanks to a 24 hour marathon every year. That makes some people hesitant to give the movie a chance which is really a shame. If you have not seen it before, give it a chance. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

A Christmas Story is the tale of one boy and his pursuit of the perfect gift - a BB gun. Unfortunately, everyone thinks he will shoot his eye out if he gets one. This tale will take you back to your childhood and all the embarrassing things that ever happened. It really is a great movie. Best scene in the whole movie comes when a pack of dogs rip through the house and feast on the family's turkey.

3.) The Polar Express
The Polar Express is a movie based on a book by Chris Van Allsburg. The movie came out just a couple of years ago, and stars Tom Hanks. The premise is that there is a magic train that takes a handful of children to Santa's workshop on Christmas Eve. They get to watch as the sleigh gets loaded with all of the presents for children around the world and they get to meet Santa Claus.

This enduring tale might just become the newest holiday classic. The Polar Express is a movie that kids and adults alike will enjoy watching. Follow the movie up with a gift of the book edition for the kids.

2.) Its A Wonderful Life
Its Wonderful Life is a classic. It was first released in 1946 and stars Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. The premise of the story is that good guy, George Bailey, spent his whole life giving up his dreams to benefit the town, but now he is depressed, even suicidal over misplacing an $8000 loan. His business is the only thing that is standing between the citizens of Bedford Falls and Mr. Potter, a grumpy old man who is trying to take over the town and now it is at risk. Luckily, George's guardian angel Clarence comes to the rescue. He shows George what life would be like if he had never been born. Soon George realizes that he really does have a wonderful life and everything works out.

1.) Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas
The famous children's author, Dr. Seuss wrote How the Grinch Stole Christmas and it was adapted into an animated movie in 1966. The half-hour film teaches viewers that Christmas is not about presents, it has to do with being together with family and friends.

The movie depicts a grinch that lives above Whoville. The cranky fellow wants to stop Christmas from coming so he dresses up as Santa and heads into town to steal every gift, decoration, and ounce of food. When all is said and done, the grinch returns home but hears the Whos celebrating. He is confused at first but soon learns the true meaning of the holiday.

This wonderful classic not only comes with a message, it is short and entertaining. Every kid I know absolutely loves How the Grinch Stole Christmas. And several adults are fans too.

Pride and Prejudice 1995 BBC Miniseries

By Brandi M. Seals

I have always loved Pride and Prejudice. I read the book by Jane Austen when I was 12 or so. In my mind I pictured Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. They seemed to be the perfect pair. It was years before I ever saw a movie version of this classic story. There are several versions out there. Some are much better than others. At the top of the list is the 1995 Pride and Prejudice BBC Miniseries. It is the first version I ever saw and it remains my favorite.

This version stars Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth. Two better actors could not be found for the roles. Their performances are breathtaking and dramatic. They are very similar to the characters I had pictured years before.

The story of Pride and Prejudice is one of love, misunderstanding, and friendship. The Bennetts are a family of 5 girls. Their eccentric mother's goal is to have them all married off to wealthy men (as they are part of the lower class) and their father would rather hide in the study than deal with his wife.

The girls: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty and Lydia are all very different. Jane is the oldest. She is beautiful and shy. Elizabeth is strong willed and very intelligent. Mary seems very shy and unsure of herself. The youngest two are flirtatious and naive.

Elizabeth is the star of the show. The story is of her and Mr. Darcy. The pair meets at a local ball and Elizabeth thinks Mr. Darcy is arrogant and rude. She hates him immediately.

Elizabeth's older sister Jane falls in love with Mr. Darcy's best friend Mr. Bingley, which means Elizabeth and Darcy spend some time together with the other two. Jane thinks that Mr. Bingley might ask her to marry him but he soon leaves town and grows very distant. Elizabeth thinks that Darcy has gotten to Mr. Bingley. There is a large class difference between the two families and to Mr. Bingley, marrying a Bennett could be embarrassing. Meanwhile, youngest sister Lydia throws herself at anyone in a uniform and is generally embarrassing to her family.

Elizabeth catches the attention of her cousin, Mr. Collins and shocks everyone when she rejects his advances. He seems to be an annoying sort of fellow that would drive her made. She seems taken with Mr. Wickham, but realizes he is not the man of her dreams. He is unscrupulous and often in the pursuit of money. He ends up married to Lydia after Mr. Darcy bribes him because he has soiled Lydia's good name by running off with her.

A lot happens through out the course of the story. In the end, Elizabeth realizes that Mr. Darcy is not all that bad. In fact, she loves him. While he is not one to brag about what he has done, he has helped the Bennett family out a lot. He convinced Mr. Bingley that he should marry the woman he loves (Jane), he helped Lydia out and he has been an all around good guy. Elizabeth just did not see him for who he was because she was prejudiced against him and he was too proud to really chase after her or toot his own horn.

Every version of this movie is slightly different, but if you are looking for one that seems the most fitting with the book, this version is for you. I first saw it while I was a sophomore in college and I could not stop watching it. I think I drove my roommates nuts. Since this version was originally a miniseries, it is quite a bit longer than most versions. It runs 6 hours and can take up quite a chunk of one's day, but it really is worth it.

This version gets 5 stars from me all the way. The actors selected are perfect in their roles. Colin Firth gives an excellent performance and I think he was born to play the role of awkward yet lovable Mr. Darcy. I am not familiar with any of the other actors in the movie, but they all did an excellent job. I think Jane Austen would be very pleased at this adaptation of her book.

Thank You for Smoking

By Brandi M. Seals

Thank You for Smoking, a satire about the cigarette industry, was released in 2005. At first glance I figured the film would be bad. My husband picked it out, the premise seemed so-so, but there were a number of big names attached to the film - such as Robert Duval, Rob Lowe, Katie Holmes and William H. Macy. So I sat back and gave the film a try.

Thank You for Smoking follows the life of Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a surprisingly likeable cigarette lobbyist. Nick has the power of persuasion. He can take anything and turn it around so that the cigarette industry comes out ahead. It is clear that he loves his job. He knows he is hated but loves that he can so effectively use twisted logic to argue his stance.

The relationship between Nick and his ten year old son is strained. Joey seems like the typical kid. He does what is asked of him and does not question authority. Joey does, however, question how his dad can do what he does. Nick quickly explains that everyone needs someone to speak up for them. He is merely doing that for the tobacco industry. He goes on to teach his son how to argue and encourages him to question what is right.

Nick spends his days being interviewed or responding to current situations in the media that are related to the tobacco industry. At one point, he goes on the Joan Lunden Show and actually gets a cancer-ridden teenager to see that the tobacco industry is there for him. He says that it is actually the anti-tobacco people that want the boy to die. That way they can ask for more donations. In turn, the tobacco industry would loose money because they lost a customer. It is twisted logic like this that Nick uses day in and day out to defend the industry.

So as not to feel too alone, Nick surrounds himself with others who are hated. They are the Merchants of Death squad. All of them are lobbyist for less than favorable industries. For example, Polly (Maria Bellos) works for the alcohol industry and Bobby Jay (David Koechner) is for guns. The group meets for lunch regularly and strategizes on how to deal with certain situations.

My favorite scene in the whole movie involves the Merchants of Death squad sitting around and bragging about how many people are killed by their particular industry each year. Cigarettes by far outweigh the other two, which is why Nick says that there are terrorist out after him and not after the other two.

This fast paced comedy does not seem like it runs an hour and a half but some how it does. It is witty and dripping with sarcasm. There are the requisite one-liners and spoofs that will leave viewers talking for days. Do not be confused, this movie does not promote the use of cigarettes. It is a satire poking fun of the questionable morals those within the tobacco industry must possess in order to do their jobs.

I was a little sad to see that all the big name players just had minor roles, but in the end I do not think it affected the quality of the film. William H. Macy is the perfect actor to play Senator Ortolan K. Finistirre. The senator from Vermont works to add a scull and crossbones label to cigarettes so that way everyone knows that they are poison. However, Nick counters saying that anything that can cause death should be labeled - including the artery-clogging cheddar cheese that the people of Vermont are unloading on other.

Thank You for Smoking is not a traditional comedy. You will not fall out of your seat laughing from this one, but it is rather amusing. While it is not one of my favorite movies, I would still give it 4 out of 5 stars. That is a hard rating to achieve these days as it seems movies in general have gone way downhill. I think it was well acted, the dialog was witty and entertaining, and the concept was great. It has been a long time since we have had a really good satire to watch. Well, this is one. So if you like satires go out and rent Thank You for Smoking.

A Prairie Home Companion

By Brandi M. Seals

Before I wrote this movie review, I decided to do a little research about how other people felt about the movie. The consensus seems to be you either love it or hate. I fall into the latter category. I tried to like A Prairie Home Companion but I found myself bored and uninterested in the film. I almost turned the movie off half way through when it became evident that there really was no storyline, but I manage to hang in there until the end. I would like to say that my patience was rewarded but that would be a lie. From beginning to end, I completely missed the point of this movie or it never had one to begin with. I am not sure.

I never listened to the Garrison Keillor's radio show that the film was based upon. I imagine if I had, I would have a better appreciation of A Prairie Home Companion. As it stands, I found the movie to be pointless with absolutely no plot whatsoever. There were entertain parts as characters joked and reminisced but the movie came across more as a typical get together. Complete with people talking over one another, restating the same thing over and over again. If you have ever spent time with an old married couple, you will know what I am talking about.

A Prairie Home Companion is the story of a radio show that has outlived all others. In a day and age where movies and television shows remain, this radio show has maintained a steady, although small, audience. The radio show is broadcasted from the Fitzgerald Theater in front of a live audience. The movie gives viewers a look into the last performance as the show gets canned by the new radio owner.

There is really nothing to exciting about the piece. It really is just like being backstage during a final performance. Very little is different. There is no strong storyline to draw viewers in. It is merely a glimpse into someone's world. However, that feeling is interrupted by one character, the mysterious woman in the white trench coat (Virginia Madsen). She is an angel that comes to the set on the last night as Chuck Akles (one of the performers) dies in his dressing room.

The angel wanders around the set and converses with several of the performers as if it is normal to be there. She talks about how she died while listening to the show. She lost control of her car during a hilarious story and died. No one seems at all shocked or alarmed. It as if she is a normal person there. This part of the storyline (what little storyline there is) does not seem to fit. To me it just seemed to come out of left field and it really had no place in this film. The only thing that made her presence worth while is she directed the new radio owner to take a short cut back to the airport. Along that route he dies. However, that did not stop the show from being canceled.

Garrison Keillor plays the lead character, GK. He is the main announcer for the show and often sings songs. Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep play the Johnson Sisters, a singing duo from Wisconsin. Meryl's character has a suicide-obsessed daughter played by Lindsay Lohan. Some people love Lohan's performance, but since she was barely on screen and was only a peripheral character, I am shocked people even noticed her at all.

My favorite was the cowboy duo of Dusty and Lefty. They were played by Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly respectively. They preformed humorous little ditties and peppered the show with really bad jokes. Kevin Kline also appears in the movie as a security guard. It is from his perspective that the story is told.

One thing I really did like was the wit and banter used through out the movie. The dialog was simple, almost monotonous but every once in awhile a truly silly remark would catch me off guard. I like the thought of this sort of simple humor; I just wish there had been some sort of point to the movie. I just as easily could have sat in a public area and watched people go by. I hear there are a lot of inside jokes, even tributes to the original characters from which the movie is based. Perhaps if I had been privy to this, I would have liked the film more.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

By Simon Woodhouse

Is nothing sacred? As far as Hollywood is concerned, the answer's no. If a film looks like it'll make money, it gets made. And if there's already a following out there, if the story exists in the form of a book, or a computer game, or a TV show, then all the better. Half the marketing has been done if the source material's already known and loved. And what's the worse that can happen? The film will be a flop and the studio will lose money. It's no biggie, it happens all the time. But there's more to it than that. If you make a film of a book, and the film is rubbish, it drags down the reputation of the book. Hollywood, however, doesn't care.

On paper, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy looks as though it'd make a great film. It's a very visual book, with lots of detailed descriptions. The main character is an everyman type of bloke, someone we can all relate to. It's funny, very funny in fact, and it's already been a successful radio series and TV show. Bearing all this in mind, you'd imagine that someone would actually have to try very hard to turn it into a terrible movie.

Hitchhiker's tells the story of Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), a very average English man. His life becomes very un-average when one day his house is demolished to make way for a bypass, and then his planet is demolished to make way for an even bigger bypass. But all is not lost. Unbeknownst to Arthur, his best friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), is an alien from a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. Because of this, Ford is able to save Arthur's life by getting him off the earth the moment before it's destroyed. This extraordinary event is the first step in Arthur's voyage around the galaxy. To help him understand what's happening, he's given a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy by Ford. A talking book (voiced by Stephen Fry), it offers helpful tips about life amongst the stars.

This opening section of the movie is very watch-able. Martin Freeman is not bad as Arthur, and Mos Def is pretty good as Ford (despite the fact he's very far removed from the character in the book). They have quite a good on-screen chemistry, and make an unlikely, but likeable, pair of heroes. Unfortunately, other characters don't fare so well.

An unlikely series of events sees Arthur and Ford end up on the Heart of Gold, the fastest ship in the galaxy. It's been stolen by the galactic president, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), as part of a plot that gets more and more complicated as the film rolls on. And this is one of the movie's many failings. Comedies don't really need plots. The funniest films can get by with micro thin storylines, because they're about jokes, not who did what to who, where and when. Hitchhiker's quickly becomes swamped by layers and layers of goings-on that smother the jokes.

Though Martin Freeman and Mos Def are good as Arthur and Ford, Sam Rockwell makes a terrible Zaphod. He's a generic character, the self-centred moron who's so often a staple of lesser comedies. There's also a bit too much in the way of a romantic subplot. Though the character of Trillian (Zooey Deschanel) appeared in the book, her involvement with Arthur was only fleeting. In the film, however, she's the driving force behind all his actions. Other key characters also seem to have been poorly rendered. Marvin the paranoid android (voiced by Alan Rickman) was an excellent character in the book, but in the film he's very under-used. Likewise, the Vogons have changed from loutish bullies into bureaucratic non-entities.

Anyway, the film stumbles along, lurching from one set piece to the next. The different set ups seem almost thrown together. It's as if the film makers didn't really know what to do with the CGI box of tricks they had at their disposal, and so went mad and included a bit of everything. John Malkovich puts in an appearance as Humma Kavula, a character whose presence only confuses the plot. The film tries to get back on track towards the end. Arthur, Ford, Zaphod and Trillian arrive at the legendary planet of Magrathea, and meet Slartibartfast (Bill Nighy). There's an attempt to explain the reason for everything that's happened to Arthur, but it's too little too late.

This really is a train-wreck of a movie. Even the narration by the voice of the book doesn't help to explain what's happening. To enjoy the film, it's better to switch off the part of your brain that wants to understand the plot, and just sit back and watch the special effects.

Part of a five volume series of books, Hitchhiker's the movie could have been the first of a whole collection of films. But let's hope not. Perhaps if the franchise is picked up by a different studio it could possibly be saved. As it is, however, I expect (and hope) this'll be the last chance Hollywood has of ruining such a beloved book.

The Miser

Liza Kollman

The Miser 2004

The Miser, a movie that was made several years ago, and produced by Theatre De La Juene Lune was a spectacular performance in my book. When I rented this movie, I had no idea of what I would find when I watched it. I was very intrigued by the performers, the set, and the story as well. My attention was drawn to the production in the very beginning, because of the phenomenal set up of the main title credits as they rolled. I thought that the actors in the movie, although not that well know (it was an independantly produced film) were absolutely supurb.

I think that the set design and lighting were the best aspects of the movie. The floor was very interesting, and I think that they had to use quite a bit of money out of their small, independant film budget to create the floor because it moved during the show, and I know from the aspects of small films that I have worked on, that this is something that is quite hard to do and is very difficult to pull off on a limited budget. I also liked the light as it came through the window. The way the lighting director made the day seem to go from morning to night by the use of the light coming through the window. The lighting structure and the set and prop pieces made the performance very interesting and created a wonderful atmosphere for the moive renter.

The costumes were also very interesting. I was pleased to see the son dressed in the flashy t-shirt that said "Millionare". This simple idea appeared to be, on the surface, a very literal definition of the character. However, in the more abstract sense, the costume was able to portray a much deeper aspect of the character. The sparkles on the words on the shirt looked good from a distance, but up close they looked very showy and not as perfect as they might seem. Costumes in movies are quite interesting, because you have to make them seem realistic, but you cannot make them too realistic, because, in reality, the things that people wear simply don't end up being that interesting. You have to take the things that a person from this time period would wear, and make them much more dramatic and interesting before they'll work on a movie set.

The acting, as a whole, was very good. I thought that this was especially intersting because the actors are all not well known and in fact are rather unknown as actors. I don't believe that I have seen most of them in much of anything else. Yet in this small independant film, they really showed their stuff. The actors created a tight knit ensemble that drew the audience into the production. The actors were able to play off of each others emotions and facial expressions, as well as their words and actual lines. The ensemble was amazing because they often seemed to be thinking the same things as the other. Many times, there was simply a look between cast members, and it was obvious that they had truly developed a wonderful rapport and were able to communicate without words. I love this aspect about many of the independant films that I watch. I feel that I am able to really undersatnd what is going on in these films just by watching the way that the characters interact with each other, even when they aren't speaking.

The direction of the production was very clearly articulated in the movements and blocking of the actors. Each movement seemed to have a definite purpose, and each aspect of blocking was very clearly laid out for the audience. It was obvious that the director had created definite reasons for the movements of the characters. The directorial aspect of the movie was very clear and definite. I especially thought that the character of the Miser had a very clear and definite reason for his movement.

The movie flowed very well from scene to scene. It was obvious that time was passing from the choices made by the lighting director and the scene changes. It was also obvious, however, that the movie was following a clear path from point a to point b. This had a lot to do, I'm sure, with the post production team. The scene changes within the movie meant that the scene flowed so easily between themeslves and to one another. It was very easy for me to see that each scene had been carefully timed and that just the right moments were being displayed on the film. I thought that when it came to post production, the team did an excellent job.

The text provided some interesting choices for the direction to make. Moliere provides very clear intentions for the Miser, which are that he is obsessed with money, and this is his ultimate downfall. However, by having such a clear cut obsession, Moliere leaves much to the director in terms of portrayal. This left the movie director with only one place that the actor who played the Miser could go. It must have been very intersting to hear him talk to his actor about the directorial choices he was making, because even though the play was written a long time ago, the movie seemed to make everything make sense in the present tense, and during the present day. I think that this is a great accomplishment.

The script was very rich. There were many very funny lines and moments that created an atmosphere that on the surface was very entertaining. However, the lines and movement in the script was actually VERY sad, when all was said and done. The characters were extremely credible, each of them seemed to have a clear cut purpose.I really like that this was one of those movies that you could watch where you end up crying and laughing in the same ten minute period. It was a tear jerker, and it was also completely hilarious. That made it absolutely fun to watch.

The acting of the character who played the Miser was phenomenal. His portrayal was extremely moving. The audience was really able to relate to his ideas even through the television screen... the greed, the wealth, and the search for the ultimate power. I feel that the character was very strongly portrayed by the actor. He was able to present the ideas that clearly define the Miser and the witnesses to these ideas, which are those that rent this movie and watch it in their homes, are able to relate to the character, because although the entire audience did not have as much money as the Miser, everyone can related to the idea of wanting to have money, no matter what they want to do with it. Money ended up being a great theme for this entire movie, which made it even more applicable today.

The character of the Miser was portrayed as an old man who wanted to keep his money and who was devastated at its loss.. and there was a certain hardness to the acting of the character. However, there were also moments during the production that the audience was able to see through the character of the Miser and notice that he is very human and interesting. The clarity of the character was portrayed in more and more ways as the movie progressed.

The directing was also wonderful. Each character had clear impulses and ideas. The director was truly able to portray ideas that were found in the original script. Many choices were made in each step of the directing process. The lights and sounds that were created in the movie truly enhanced the ideas of Moliere. Like I said before, there seems to be no difference between the origional play and this movie version, except that this movie takes the origional story and puts it into the present tense, which makes it very interesting and fun to watch and easy to relate to.

The production was a wonderful way to spend an evening. Each character was completely defined and interesting to watch, and the movie, as it evolved from the beginnings to the endings, was clearly intended to provide many different themes. Greed, love, misfortune, all of these were apparent in the production of the Miser.

Rocky Balboa

Some films are so memorable, they become more than mere films. They become part of the fabric of American culture and, in a way, help shape the identity of popular culture. The 1976 cinema masterpiece ROCKY remains one of the greatest achievements in film history when the unknown writer and bit part actor, Sylvester Stallone became a worldwide star after the film connected with the American public and struck a nerve with moviegoers.

After the success of ROCKY, Stallone starred in several excellent films that did disappointing box office: FIST, NIGHTHAWKS, and VICTORY. They were excellent films, they just did not do well. So, it was a desperation choice to film ROCKY II and that was a mega hit. 1981 saw a hit with FIRST BLOOD and then the success of ROCKY III and RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART TWO catapulted Stallone back to the A list, until a series of duds derailed his career.

There was a great deal of scoffing when Sylvester Stallone announced he wanted to make a new ROCKY film. Stallone had bounced the idea around Hollywood for a while and even wrote a very low budget script. Unfortunately, no one in Hollywood was interested as Stallone's last five or so movies bombed miserably and his career was long over. Stallone was a mega star from 1976 to about 1990 and beyond that, his career has been painful to watch with the only hit being CLIFFHANGER. JUDGE DREDD, DAYLIGHT, the remake of GET CARTER were all duds.

Stallone ended up heading to the small screen where it was thought his fame would help jump start the reality TV series THE CONTENDER. Unfortunately, THE CONTENDER was a dud in the ratings. However, it did put enough heat on Stallone so that someone decided to launch the one two punch of a new ROCKY film and a new RAMBO film. (The latter is currently in production)

Now, just because they can make a sequel and make it cheap does not mean that it is going to be any good. What makes a film good is writing, acting and directing. ROCKY BALBOA is great in all regards and is a surprise sleeper that is an excellent film and a great ending to the ROCKY legacy.

The first film was a classic. The fifth film was quite good. The second film was a retread. The third film was an entertaining comic book. The fourth film was a decidedly UNENTERTAINING comic book. With the sixth film, Stallone delivers an excellent drama that shows a lonely Rocky trying to have one last day in the spotlight. He wants to box, but not for money or even to win. He does it to close some of the emptiness he feels over his wife's death and his son's estrangement. While this may sound melodramatic, it is. But it is also fine melodrama that is inspiring and has a heart that is sorely missing from many movies today.

What makes the film so special is the effective use of the city of Philadelphia and how its history and ethnic make up is properly represented. Far too often, Hollywood films will shoot in a city such as Philadelphia (or San Francisco or Detroit, etc) and the true city is not visible. What one gets is the backdrop of the city that is apparently disconnected from the characters who are up there on the screen.

In ROCKY BALBOA, the true culture of Philadelphia and how the Italian American experience creates a great deal of the back drop of Philadelphia culture and this creates a very real feeling of drama that would not have been duplicated had the film not had such a interesting connection between its environment and the cultural roots of the characters who appear in the film.

ROCKY BALBOA is not the masterpiece that the original ROCKY was, but it is an excellent achievement. While it was nice to see Stallone play the lead villain role in the huge hit SPY KIDS 3D (which did $70 Million dollars at the box office), but Sly could do a lot better than that and ROCKY BALBOA is a film that is worthy of his talents. Let us all start the count down to RAMBO IV now, shall we?

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

By Simon Woodhouse

Despite heavy marketing campaigns, some really good films seem to slip by unnoticed. Or maybe they come out at the wrong time, when the people involved aren't quite well known enough, and therefore don't have the clout to create any real buzz. It's easy to see these sorts of films as failures, but they're not. They're slow burners, movies that need more word of mouth than slick ad campaigns. But when they do find an audience, it'll be a loyal one. Being told a film is great by a marketing men isn't anything like as satisfying as 'discovering' it for yourself.

I had this experience with Anchorman. I'd heard of it, had a vague idea it was a comedy, but that was all. Then during an excruciatingly long long-haul flight, I watched it on the tiny TV in the back of the seat in front of me. Now I'm a fan, and it's become one of my favorite funny films.

Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is a news anchorman for a cable TV station in San Diego. It's the 70s, and so women's lib is starting to gather momentum, but not in the world of cable TV news. Ron and his broadcasting buddies - Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ Kind (David Koecher) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) rule the roost at KVWN San Diego. They're a bunch of hard-partying, small-brained, generally harmless, male chauvinist pigs. Then one day their boss, Ed Harken (Fred Willard), introduces a new member of the team - Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). And so the scene is set for a battle of the sexes, with Ron and his none-too-clever pals on one side, and the sharp-as-a-tack Veronica on the other.

Comedies don't really need much in the way of a plot, and Anchorman is no different. It's a series of skits linked together by a simple storyline that acts as a vehicle for the jokes. What Anchorman has that lesser comedies don't, is a well-defined cast of fresh characters, none of which are a weak link in the chain. Brian Fantana is the roving reporter who thinks he's a bit of a ladies man. He specializes in collecting musk (his favorite being Sex Panther) and has names for his genitalia. Champ Kind mans the sports desk, and he's all about having what he calls fun - 'setting fire to someone's kitchen, going to Sea World and taking his pants off'. Brick Tamland, the weatherman, has an IQ of forty, and finds out later on in life that he is in fact 'mentally retarded'. A cast of characters such as these means the comedy is often surreal, but always funny. Odd moments include a street fight between Ron and co., and presenters from rival a TV station, during which Brick gets hold of a hand grenade and kills someone with a spear. Likewise, Ron's jazz flute recital is also pretty bizarre (but very funny).

Anyway, as the film rolls on, Ron gets over his initial dislike of Veronica and they start to date. But the course of true love never runs smooth, so they become rivals again. This reaches a peak when Veronica learns Ron will say anything that appears on the auto-cue. She fiddles with his lines so they include the F word, he says it live on air and is promptly fired. Shunned by the residents of San Diego, he takes to wandering the streets like a bum. Then Veronica is made lead anchor, and Ron's world totally falls a part.

Though as a character he's a bit of a chauvinist, it's difficult not to like Ron. And the same goes for the rest of his crew. I think this is part of what makes the film so good. All the characters, despite their obvious flaws, have a cheeky, school boy-ish quality about them. They're just big kids. Veronica, on the other hand, is the only sane, level-headed member of the news team. She's also got a sort of strict, matronly air about her, especially when she's having to deal with Ron and Champ's crank phone calls.

Being a comedy, the movie ends on a happy note. And it's one of those rare things in Hollywood - a film that actually deserves a sequel. There's certainly plenty of life left in the characters, to the point where the movie leaves you wanting more. The surreal, non-threatening nature of the humor has a sort of feel good factor about it. You want Ron to succeed, because he's such a harmless dope. Box office-wise the film did quite well, but only in the US. On a worldwide scale it only (only!) made $5m. If it were released today, I'm sure it would do a lot better. Will Ferrel's profile is such now that a film with his name attached to it attracts attention, which outside of the US wasn't the case with Anchorman. I can imagine this film going on to become a cult classic, and one that'll find a new audience every few years - it certainly deserves it.

King Kong (1976)

Those things that we love from our childhood are sometimes among the stranger things to love. Case in point: I loved my old 1976 KING KONG puzzle. It was a cool scene of the big ape destroying a giant elevated train. The movie would have been cooler had it the scene in which the puzzle was based upon actually occurred in the film as it is portrayed in the puzzle. Oh well, I guess you can not have everything. I got that puzzle Christmas time in 1978. While the movie had been out of theaters for a year, it had just debuted as a two part television special featuring LOTS of extra footage (45 minutes) so as to stretch the airings out to two nights. Groovy idea and a lost method of television hucksterism.

Now, there are those illiterate people who seem to repeatedly state that the film was a box office bomb. What it was, was a movie brutally panned by the critics, but not a bomb. The film's budget was around the $25 million range, a huge price tag in those days. The film did $55 million at the US box office and went on to do $125 million worldwide. That is just theatrical showings. There was also the mega millions from tie in merchandise such as the puzzle eloquently mentioned in the opening of this review.

Then there are those "Television event" airings as well. Lots of money here folks!
Truth be told, while I was a fan of the film, most of the people who did see the film found it pretty bad. Charles Grodin did not make a great villain. Jeff Bridges happy hippie role is silly. And, oh my, Jessica Lange replace Fay Wray with the worst possible dialogue in movie history. A rubber suited King Kong to replace the phenomenal stop motion animation of the 1933 classic? Geez.

But I still love the film. Sure, it was incredibly inferior to the screen classic it remakes. Yes, the dialogue was dumb and the film overlong. When you are a kid, however, none of that matters because the big ape and his rampage are kind of cool. Kids do not waste their time trivializing the dopey adults and their dialogue. (Watching the first part of the mini series was annoying as Kong only shows up at the end of part one to show off a TO BE CONTINUED notice. Oh well. I do miss those all TO BE CONTINUED alerts that classic TV used to have.

The 1976 version of KING KONG was one of the few event films of the day. STAR WARS and JAWS were considered smaller productions than KING KONG which was touted as one of the most expensive films ever made. Probably the only film that could compare with KING KONG in terms of reputation for cost and expense would be the 1978 SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE which cost $50 million, although they did also shoot a huge chunk of SUPERMAN II (1980) at the same time. KING KONG was considered a mist see motion picture because there was nothing else like it in theaters. In a way, this is accurate because there was nothing in theaters that was equally as silly much less silliness on the grandest scale. (They spent over a million dollars on a life size King Kong robot that only appears in a few seconds of screen time because it looked so unbelievably terrible.)

It was fairly sad to see the 1976 KING KONG ignored as bad as it was when the Peter Jackson remake was released. Sure, a widescreen DVD of the 1976 showed up on store shelves, but where was the hour of footage from the TV airings? Why no special edition of KONG? In France, the DVD release of the 1976 KING KONG was a two disk special edition that was the complete uncut theatrical version reedited with the extended footage from the network TV airing. Hopefully, the extended special edition of the 1976 remake will eventually show up.

The 1976 remake of KING KONG is far from great cinema, but it is an enjoyable and fun film that is undeserved of its bad reputation. Well worth watching again and again!

Robocop

By Simon Woodhouse

Each era since the invention of the motion picture can be summed up by a few keynote movies. For the latter half of the 80s, it's films like Wall Street (rise and fall of the yuppie), Platoon (post-post Vietnam blues), and Broadcast News (changing face of the media). All of these captured certain attitudes that shaped the end of the decade. They also featured top-notch acting, keen direction and powerful dialogue. But perhaps none of them really appealed to the younger generation, the movie going audience who just want a good time - explosions, fast cars etc., without having poignant messages rammed down their throats. For them, there was Robocop. Even though Robo delivered plenty of cheap thrills, it also passed comment on the 80s in a way that perhaps some of the audience missed.

There are violent films, there are very violent films, and then there's Robocop. However, it's not violence for violence sake. The bloodshed is part of the story. Although perhaps the same tale could have been told with a bit less splatter.

In the opening few scenes we meet Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), a loving father, diligent husband and passionate policeman. He lives and works in a near future version of Detroit. Following his transfer into the inner city precinct of Metro West, he's gunned down by a gang of thugs who've just robbed a security van. Though riddled with bullets (too many to count), he doesn't die.

In the meantime OCP, the private contractors who now run the police force in Detroit, are looking for a way to get rid of human police officers. They want to replace cops with something that doesn't bitch and whine, doesn't call in sick and most of all doesn't want a pay cheque at the end of every month. Enter the Robocop program. Murphy doesn't know it, but he's just 'volunteered' to be the first prototype.

The last we see of Murphy the man, is when he's pronounced dead in the emergency room. However, OCP take what's left of him (which isn't much), and attach it to a super-strong, super-tough robotic body. Though nothing about Robocop is subtle, the transformation from man to man-machine is shown with a degree of style. To start with all you see is what Robocop sees, which is the inside of a lab come computer workshop. Robo-vision is a blurred, video quality view of the world, over which his creators add all sorts of graphical layers, a bit like the heads up display in a fighter plane.

Weaved into the story as a whole is a subplot of corporate heartlessness, something that epitomised the late 80s. OCP care nothing for their employees. It's all about the bottom line, and as far as they're concerned Robocop is product. Had all gone according to plan, Robocop would have been as uncaring as the OCP execs. During the transformation process his memory was wiped, but despite this, something of Murphy lingers within the metal body. This is where the film steps beyond the boundaries of its ultra-violent premise. Robocop isn't just a one-dimensional killing machine; he's a troubled soul. Though bloodshed and splatter dominate the film, it's Robocop's genuine inner conflict that raises it above the level of something like The Terminator.

Anyway, the movie rolls on and Robocop eventually faces off against the same bad guys who killed Murphy. This bunch of heavies feature throughout most of the film, as they're on the payroll of one of the OCP execs, a subtext that suggests corporate America is only one step away from being a gang of thugs. Robo is aided during the final show down by Murphy's former partner, Officer Lewis (Nancy Allen). She's the only one who's had the insight to realise something of the man still exists within the machine.

Besides the violence and the emotional part of Murphy/Robocop's inner turmoil, the film also includes a healthy dose of black humor. This usually involves violence, but it's still funny. Most notable amongst these scenes is the testing of a pre-Robocop prototype in the OCP boardroom.

Though this is an out and out action flick, the acting isn't half bad. For the most part, Weller doesn't have much to say (Robocop is a machine of few words). The emotional side of Robo's struggle is conveyed through body language. The design of the Robocop costume means that most of Weller's face is hidden from view. But this doesn't stop him showing the audience just what he's feeling. It's a mime-like performance, the strength of which is most notable during a scene where Robo is being shot at by fellow police officers. Besides Weller, Kurtwood Smith turns in a fine performance as Clarence Boddicker, the leader of the thugs - surely one of the nastiest screen villains of the 80s. Miguel Ferrer plays the role of Bob Morton, the archetypal yuppie, whose rapid rise and crashing fall some up the business culture of the late 80s.

The film did reasonably well at the box office, which meant it spawned two dire sequels. As such, it's a movie that's best viewed as a standalone story. And if you want a slice of 80s culture at its heartless best, you won't go far wrong with Robocop.

American Psycho 2 (2002)

The Story: Sociopathic college student knocks off her rivals for a Teacher's Assistant position.

Way back in the early 90's, a book came out that caused quite a stink amongst both critics and readers. American Psycho, a scathing commentary on the money hungry, image conscious and excessive late 1980's was accused of being misogynistic, vulgar and was even dubbed by one critic as a handbook on murdering women. These people obviously didn't get the joke, and neither did the filmmakers behind this sequel.

Rachael Newman managed to kill the original American Psycho, Patrick Bateman, as he was carving up her babysitter when she was twelve. Investigators dubbed the crime unsolved (because like any other twelve year old, she was a criminal genius, it seems). Now a college student, Rachael seems a shoe-in for the coveted Teacher's Assistant position to legendary FBI investigator turned college teacher, Professor Starkman . Nine out of his last ten T.A.'s have gone on to be accepted by the FBI, and Rachael wants badly to be part of the FBI's Behavioral Science unit. But her murderous deed so many years ago has left her an unscrupulous sociopath, and she decides to rub out her closest rivals.

Kindhearted psychiatrist Dr. Daniels is inadvertently thrown into a game of catch-up when Starkman's assistant is found hanged in her room, because he's been led to believe the dead student was Rachael. Imagine his surprise when Rachael shows up for her shrink appointment.

Eventually Rachael drops not-so-innocently veiled threats towards the good doctor, and the cat and mouse game is on. Will Dr. Daniels be able to take her down? Does Rachael get the position she longed so much for? The answers to these questions are about as interesting as watching grass grow.

What we have here is a pathetic attempt at cashing in on the title American Psycho. The screener I received had a cover blurb which read, "The sequel to the box office sensation that grossed $37 million worldwide and killed on video". Yes, you read that correctly, "world wide." Hell, the pathetic Scream 3 made that much on its opening weekend, and that was just in the states. So why would anyone want to make a sequel to a movie that for all intents and purposes bombed? I can't answer that question; I'd have to lower my IQ by about 113 points. I can't afford to do that, I'm only packing about 75 as is. :^P

The first American Psycho, despite its terrible box office, is one of the best psycho-drama/satires of the last twenty years, and this ridiculous sequel is an insult to it. What made the first work so well was its blending of its main character's reality with his own delusions, its poking of fun with a bloody knife at 80's conventions and it's superb lead performance. American Psycho 2 has none of these. It's a completely unnecessary, useless sequel, and could easily have been made with a different title as it has almost no resemblance at all to the first American Psycho other than the gone like a fart in the breeze story point involving the original's yuppie slasher, Patrick Bateman.

The only good things about this film are Captain Kirk and the Forever Knight themselves, William Shatner and Geraint Wys Davies. Shatner is quite good as the elder Professor Starkman, and Davies is sympathetic and believable as Dr. Daniels. Kunis shows why her acting "ability" is limited to the small screen, and the supporting cast are your usual pretty faces with not a lick of talent.

From the less than capable lead performance to the totally inappropriate and out of place "happy" musical score, American Psycho 2: All American Girl is a film that's about as necessary as a third nipple. Shatner and Davies deserve much, much better.

If you're still at all interested in picking this DVD up (and shame on you if you are), extras include Production Commentary, Director Commentary, Deleted Scenes, Trailer, Interactive Menu and Scene Access. At least that's what the box says. My screener didn't have anything except "Play Movie". Maybe there's something in the extras that could shed further hidden meaning in regards to the film, but now that I've seen it I have no interest in finding out. Lame movie, but at least now I have a shiny new coaster for my living room table.

American Psycho (2000)

The Story: A sociopathic Wall Street executive practices murders and executions instead of mergers and acquisitions.

Often times things not lost in translation are lost instead in interpretation. Take, for example, the novel American Psycho. Written by Bret Easton Ellis, who also penned the novels Rules of Attraction and Less Than Zero which have also been adapted to film, American Psycho presented an incredibly scathing social satire on the money-grubbing, me-me-me and image conscious 1980s. It could have been written as a comedy, or an allegorical drama, but instead it's written as seen through the eyes of perhaps the most insane and sadistic character in literary history, 27 year old Wall Street executive Patrick Bateman.

The novel itself is page after page of nonlinear story-telling, incomplete thoughts, overlapping narratives, mind-numbingly boring descriptions of designer suits, in-depth dissertations on 1980s pop music and, most noticeably, incredibly detailed and repulsive murder set pieces. So graphic and explicit were these passages in the novel that to repeat them here would necessitate having to stamp this review with an "adults only" header.

But all these things are what made the novel, quite simply, brilliant. Never before had the literary world been rocked so powerfully or repulsed so effectively. And this is where the novel reached the point of brilliance; published in the 1991, it was far enough removed from the Decade of Excess to have gained some insight into the previous ten years, and what it exposed was the desensitization of modern America brought on by excessive commerciality and a reliance on the all-mighty buck as a sign of personal success. The truly vomit inducing and depraved murders in the novel were simply necessary as an allegory of being numbed by excess and having it all. The gore was perfectly integrated with theme, to coin a phrase from author John McCarty, and those critics who dubbed the novel a how-to book on killing and mutilating women simply and rather unfortunately didn't get the joke.

Now that a brief history of the novel has been presented, let's see if the film captures what made the novel as (in)famous as it is.

Christian Bale stars as Patrick Bateman, a disgustingly successful Wall Street executive. He's handsome, charming, perfectly built and insanely successful. On the surface, he's "boy-next-door" charming and congenial. But we really see what he's made of when he approaches a homeless bum in an alley. He offers to help the unfortunate fellow, but his idea of helping includes stabbing the man to death and then stomping the brains out of the man's dog.

Bateman's fiance Evelyn is gorgeous and the two seem a perfect match (his murderous tendencies notwithstanding) yet Bateman informs us via voice-over narration that she's having an affair with his best friend, and Bateman himself is having an affair with another executive's wife, Courtney. But none of this seems to affect the desensitized and disaffected Bateman, who has no problems with his life or his bloodlust.

That is, until he axes (literally) his rival, Paul Owen. Police detective Kimball traces Owen's disappearance back to our anti-hero, and soon Bateman's mask of sanity begins to slip. Can he keep it together long enough for the heat to blow over, or will his knack for picking up and mutilating prostitutes blow his cover? You'll have to watch to find out, 'cuz I ain't tellin'.

First off, Christian Bale is absolutely and completely perfect as the incredibly insane Patrick Bateman. He drops his native Welsh accent in favor of a shallow Upper Class Whitey pomp and his sometimes deadpan, sometimes over the top performance is at once hilarious, peppered with quirkiness and, amazingly, sympathetic - this despite the fact that he's portraying a remorseless butcher. Bale prepared rigorously for the role, a preparation which included working out for sometimes five hours a day to maintain that "perfect" Men's Health Magazine physique. So brilliant is he as the character that when I read the book again after seeing the film, I could not read without seeing Bale as the character.

And of course, I can't leave out what makes American Psycho fit within the confines of a horror film in the first place; the savage murders perpetrated by the lead character. Though nowhere near as graphic as the novel - an understatement if ever there was one - there's still plenty of mayhem to be seen. Aside from the aforementioned bum in the alley scene, we're also treated to murder by axe, a decapitated head in a refrigerator, death by chainsaw, and let us not forget death by bloody cunnilingus. When in murder mode, Bateman is a stark, raving lunatic and Bale's performance during the murder scenes add that much more of a horrific punch to the film.

The only real negatives in the film are the same as those of the source novel, mostly in that there is no linear narrative. We have no sense of time or procession, we don't know when scenes take place in the flow of the story due to the fact that for the most part, the film is just a collection of moments either real or fictional, or both, in the mind of Bateman. The only coherent part of the story involves Kimball's search for the missing Owen, and the ending is ambiguously left open for interpretation. We don't know for certain if Bateman really is killing all these people or not. In fact, we ultimately come to realize that he doesn't really know, either. But truth be told, I'm having difficulty in pegging these things as negatives, because they almost give you some idea of what it must be like to be someone whose every action may or may not have happened, whose thoughts and philosophies are all fraudulent and fabricated.

Those who've already read the source novel might be disappointed by the drastically reduced amount of violence in this film adaptation. But if one pays close enough attention, there is a scene near the end of the film where Bateman's secretary Jean is browsing through his journal only to find sketches of perverse and disgusting images. These are all images taken directly from the book, and represent the crimes Bateman attempts to confess to his lawyer in a hilarious yet psychotic confession to an answering machine.

Those wondering what differences there are between the R rated and unrated version can rest peacefully. The only differences are a few pelvic thrusts during a sex scene. Otherwise, the films are identical.

Despite critical response and though tremendously watered down from the source novel, American Psycho is an effective and accurate social satire of the "Me Decade" that was the 1980s and a funny yet harrowing psycho-drama cum black comedy which, luckily for us, is in the form of a horror film. So do yourselves a favor and pick this one up if you haven't already. If anything, you'll never be able to see Huey Lewis's "Hip to be Square" in the same light.

The Addams family (1991)

The Story: Everyone's favorite "all together ooky" family gets the big screen treatment.

The early nineties ushered in a trend that's become a bit hackneyed in Hollywood as of late, the practice of transforming popular television shows of yesteryear into full-length features. We suffered through The Flintstones, Dennis the Menace, Richie Rich, McHale's Navy, and countless other crates of crap. But in 1991, director Barry Sonnenfeld (in his directorial debut after many years as a cinematographer) actually got it right.

The story begins with a somber Gomez Addams (Raul Julia) lamenting the twenty-five year absence of his dear brother, Fester. Apparently, years ago, Gomez and Fester had a colossal argument that resulted in Fester abandoning the family. Gomez would do anything to see his brother again, and rekindle their once inseparable kinship.

Gomez receives a visitor in the form of Tully Alford (Dan Hedaya), a weasely bastard of a lawyer, or as I prefer to call him... a lawyer. After some friendly swordplay, Tully proposes establishing the Fester Addams Offshore Retirement Fund, which is essentially a ploy to embezzle funds from the Addams fortune. Gomez tells Tully that he'll consider the proposal at a later time. It seems the good lawyer is up to his neck in debt to one Abigail Craven (Elizabeth Wilson). When Tully begs Craven for more time to come up with the dough, he meets her son, Gordon (Christopher Lloyd), who just so happens to be the spitting image of the long-lost Fester Addams.

Enter Plan B: give Gordon a bit of a makeover, arrange a seance, and convince Gomez that Fester has returned, anxious to patch things up. Once Gomez has accepted "Fester" as his brother, he will inevitably lead him to the family vault, which will be quickly emptied by Tully and the Cravens.

As Gordon begins his assimilation into the Addams clan, he must face the skepticism of Morticia and Wednesday, as well as endure the everyday torture that is brotherly love. But as one would easily predict, Gordon starts to get comfortable playing the role of Fester. He slowly wins the admiration of Wednesday and Morticia, dances the Mamushka at a masquerade in his honor, and in what's possibly the funniest scene in the film, arranges a play for the children, complete with severed limbs and a blood-soaked audience.

Recognizing that her son is actually enjoying his ghoulish ruse, Craven gives Gordon an ultimatum, and he reluctantly sides with his mother. Tully informs the Addamses that Fester is the rightful heir to the family fortune, and tosses them out on the street. Morticia pays one final visit to try reasoning with them, and is taken hostage. Gomez is then forced to show Craven and company the way to the vault or else...

So does Gomez save the day? Does Gordon betray his band of rapscallions? Does the real Fester Addams ever show up? You'll have to see the movie to find out, and I highly recommend doing so.

The Addams Family is a highly enjoyable film, but there are just a couple of things that keep it from being great. The biggest gripe that I have with it is the ending. Almost every movie has what I commonly refer to as the (thanks largely to Spaceballs) "everybody got that?" scene. It's a scene in which the characters use unnatural dialogue to catch the audience up on what has happened. The Addams Family has a HUGE one that practically winks at you, and it's right at the end of the movie. Had the film been maybe two or three minutes longer, the scene could have been replaced with something a little more seamless.

Another point of frustration is the blatant product placement. From the enormous Tombstone Pizza billboard taking away from an otherwise funny scene, to Thing (the family's "helping hand") plugging FedEx. And now I can sleep at night, knowing what potato chips Gomez Addams prefers. It's an unfortunate practice that's become commonplace in Sonnenfeld pictures.

But luckily for us, for each thing wrong with the film, there are a dozen that knock the ball right out of the park. For one, the cast is outstanding. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of a film with more dead-on casting. Raul Julia steals every scene in which he appears. He's absolutely perfect. I always get a little sad when watching this movie, knowing that someone so full of life died at such a young age. Add Christopher Lloyd, Anjelica Huston, and a very young Christina Ricci to Julia's performance, and you have yourself one entertaining group of Addamses. Kudos to Caroline Thompson for delivering a wonderful script that gives these characters an even brighter sheen. Only with repeated viewings can one begin to catch all of the one-liners and background shenanigans.

On top of the marvelous performances, The Addams Family is a visual smorgasbord. The sets are second to none, with the mansion exhibiting the type of dreary splendor that looks like it was pulled directly from the brain of Tim Burton. Thing also looks great and gets his fair share of zany gags- from playing charades with Gomez, to getting a part-time job.

Another big plus is Marc Shaiman's fantastic score. It pays respect to Vic Mizzi's TV theme without using it as a crutch. It's sad music with a hint of mischief (think Edward Scissorhands with a little more spring in its step). In fact, Shaiman has even joked that his getting the job must have meant that Danny Elfman was too busy. It's now out of print, but if you can find a copy, this is a score well worth purchasing.

So is the Addams Family a horror movie? Not really, well maybe, for the sake of getting this review posted. Does it belong in every horror movie buff's collection? Absolutely. It's a hilarious dark comedy that the whole family can enjoy. Any movie that points out the humor and bliss of dismemberment, torture, and burying people alive is OK in my book. The Addams Family was one of the first television shows to combine elements of horror with slapstick, and the movie keeps that spirit alive, kicking and screaming.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

Cowritten by director Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is the story of a ficticious NASCAR driver, Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell). In addition to Ferrell, the ensemble includes many cameos from former Saturday Night Live cast members, which would lead you to believe that you're in for a treat when you sit down to watch this one. A laugh fest, for sure...it has to be! It's not. It's so bad it...along with the string of other bad movies that I've seen lately...has made me change my ratings system from a scale of 1 to 12 Monkeys to the Eye Roll Meter: a sliding scale based on how many times I roll my eyes in exasperation during a film. The less rolls, the better the movie. This idiotic attempt at a comedy gave me a headache from all the rolling, and now I have to go out and buy more ibuprofen. Not good, not good at all.

I'd try and explain the plot outline...but there really isn't one, so that's not going to work, eh? We begin with Ricky's birth in the backseat of his father's car...dad Reese loves to go fast, and he's speeding along and passes the hospital. Ricky is a bit stuck in the birth canal, so Reese slams on the brakes to solve THAT problem and out he pops. Yes, I kept watching after this. No, I'm not sure why. Reese takes off and leaves wife Lucy to raise Ricky, who is obsessed with the need to go fast. Next scene is Ricky at about 10, in school...and it's career day. Though he isn't expected to turn up, Ricky has listed his dad as a speaker. Lo and behold he DOES, and this is the first meeting between the two. Reese's advice for the kids? Win at all costs, because 'If you ain't first, you're last.', a motto Ricky will adopt and live by for the rest of his life.

Ricky goes on to work for a NASCAR pit crew and winds up subbing for a driver one day, going on to place third and is hired by Dennit racing, working as a tag team with his childhood friend Cal and hitting the highest of NASCAR fame and making a fortune. He marries a woman who flashes her boobs at him during a race...Carley. Her dream was to marry a successful NASCAR driver. I just rolled my eyes again there. Holy cow, I didn't realize just how bad this movie was until I tried to convey my thoughts to you all. Wow.

Ricky is challenged by a gay French driver named Girard, who goes on to beat him to a pulp on the track and becomes the NASCAR leader. The gay character is perhaps the only truly amusing part of the film, as if you know any NASCAR fans they're often a bit less than accommodating of alternate sexual lifestyles. I may be stereotyping a bit, but I'm speaking from personal experience here...so if you know any open minded fans, good for them. The fans I know have balked at the entrance of anything other than a white southern fellow into the pack, so the idea of a gay driver in a committed relationship being accepted tickled me. Imagine people wearing his name on their jackets and cars. HA! I suppose that was the point of placing this in the film, but since not much else made sense I'm not really sure...and it's only SORT OF funny.

Ricky winds up wrecking and being afraid to race again, and loses his money, his wife, and everything else. He falls for his assistant, gets back in the driver seat with the help of his father, and everything turns out just fine. Yawn. I only finished watching it so I could provide you all with an accurate warning. And because I kept telling myself that it HAD to get better. It didn't.

I'm not a NASCAR fan, so I thought that a satirical look at the sport would be fun for me to watch. It is far from a satire, mainly because something must have some sort of intelligent content to BE satirical. This is...fluff. Fodder. Junk. They took every chance to slip in a joke, and to develop a repetoire of catch phrases in an attempt to be comical, but it just...wasn't. Every single scene falls short of any marker, and some are so dumb I wondered how they got in the movie and didn't stay on the editing room floor where they belong. The whole movie is like a Saturday Night Live sketch that goes long and not only stops being interesting but makes you cringe. This one went over by about...an hour and fifteen minutes.

Rowan's Eyeroll Count: 57, resulting in a rotten headache. Thumbs WAY down.

Another Gay Movie

Another Gay Movie, directed by Todd Stephens (and also wrote the screen play) and starring Michael Carbonaro, follows the line with the series of Scary Movie films, by spoofing American Pie. This time, as the title leads you to believes, it takes on a decidedly homosexual theme and does so by incorporating scenes from other gay themed films.

The opening scene sets the tone of this hilariously funny, over the top movie. Andy, played by Carbanaro, is fantasizing about his math teacher, Mr. Puchov played by Graham Norton, which leads to Andy ending up having the teacher mount him atop of his desk in front of the entire class. This of course is a dream sequence, where we find Andy in his bedroom only to be walked in on by his mother, played by drag queen Lipsynka and his father played by Scott Thompson.

The movie does a very good job of introducing all of the major characters. It does so by peeping in on conversations of the friends moments after they have graduated from high school. Oddly enough, though they are very different characters, every facet of gay male teenage life can be found in one of the characters. There is the baseball jock, Jared, played by Jonathan Chase. Then there is “The Queen”, Nico, played by Jonah Blechman. The hot nerd, Griff, played by Mitch Morris and of course, the boy next door, Andy. The lovable but so far over the top, over sexed lesbian, Muffler, played by Ashlie Atkinson rounds out the high school friends.

Later that evening while all four friends attending Muffler's graduation party watch Jared’s failed attempt (more due to his state of drunkenness than his lack of beauty) to loose his virginity. Then after also witnessing several heterosexual couples copulate, not to mention Muffler conquering half the cheer leading squad, the four friends make a pact to lose their virginity to a man before the summer is over.

Of course, the first of the bunch to try to win the pact is the God-like jock Jared. After a playing a softball game against the neighborhood leather daddy's, Jared nags a date with the team's pitcher (no pun intended). Due to Jared's insecurities about the size of his own package, the game in the bedroom never gets past second base.

Though unlikely, the nerd comes very close to making good on the bet. In attempts to win the heart of Jarrod, Griff employs the services of a stripper at one of the local gay establishments to whip him into shape. Instead, the stripper, played by Noah's Ark’s Darryl Stephens, tries to get Griff into bed, but Griff thwarts his attempts in hopes that his first time will be with Jared.

Niko has about the same luck as the other two, but he decides to use the traditional way of meeting people, and that is by posting an advertisement on the internet. To his excitement, his ad is responded to by a well-endowed bodybuilding. On his date with the muscle bound behemoth, the date starts off bad and ends even worse. When all said and done, the date ends with a pair of paramedics in the living room giving the gym bunny mouth-to-mouth.

Now we come to the Andy's try at losing his virginity. This is by far the most unusual and funniest of the three. While trying to relieve himself while chatting on line, he starts up a conversation with an attractive man on the other end. The stranger on the other end starts to use acronyms that Andy is unfamiliar with and not wanting to seem too naïve, Andy says that he is knowledgeable of all of them and needless to say that when Andy goes to meet the person on the other end, much-unexpected things happen to him.

The time has come. The end of the summer is personified in another party at Muffler's house. As one could see, by the movie's near end, it seems that no one will end up with each other. But that would not make a good movie. I will not tell you how it ends, but like in most fairy tales, everyone lives happily ever after. The great thing about this film is that the four characters un-shamefully plug the possibility of a sequel. I can’t wait!

Walk the Line (2005)

I am not a country music fan, nor have I ever (knowingly) heard a Johnny Cash song. I'd heard of the man, of course, but didn't know a thing about him, his life, or his music. Nor was I interested in learning about those things. So why on earth would I choose to watch a movie -- Walk the Line -- that was expressly about those three things? Because both Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon were nominated for Oscars for their lead roles in the film. Witherspoon won for her portrayal of June Carter, and I'd heard nothing but great things about both of these actors since the movie was released.

Still, since Walk the Line was about Johnny Cash, I wasn't in a complete rush to get to it. I knew I'd eventually see it though, and that's exactly what happened today.

Walk the Line tells the story of how Johnny Cash rose up from humble beginnings to become one of the greatest music stars in recent memory. The movie opens with a shot Johnny waiting to go onstage at Folsom County Prison for what was to be a groundbreaking concert. As Johnny is waiting, he sees a table saw, which reminds him of a traumatic incident from his childhood. We then go back to his childhood and find out that Johnny's older brother was killed in a sawing accident at the age of 12. Johnny's father (played by Robert Patrick) never quite got over his eldest son's death and actually blamed Johnny for it. This guilt would fuel Johnny's musical fire as well as his ambition to succeed.

Like most other artists, Johnny went through a few struggles on his way to the top. He first went into the military and was stationed in Germany during the Korean War. It was during that time that he began jotting down some lyrics and strumming his guitar. Then he came back home, married a woman named Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and took a job as a door-to-door-salesman. He wasn't good at sales, but fortunately was able to audition for Sun Records, where he made an impression on Sam Phillips (Dallas Roberts). They soon put out Cash's first record in 1956 and he was on his way to becoming a star.

While touring to promote his new record and songs, Cash meets a woman named June Carter (Witherspoon). June comes from a musical family and has been on the stage ever since she was a little girl. Cash is immediately attracted to her, but June is involved with someone else, and of course Johnny is married. The two see a lot of each other over the next decade and it's not too long before Johnny realizes that he is completely in love with June. He repeatedly asks her to marry him, but she keeps putting him off because of his drug addiction and womanizing. Finally, 12 years after they first met, June agrees to become Johnny's wife. Their marriage lasted 35 years and is almost as legendary as their music.

I thought Walk the Line was a fantastic film. I can't believe I waited so long to see it, particularly since you don't need to be a Johnny Cash fan to enjoy what was happening on the screen. In fact, to me Phoenix and Witherspoon could have been playing two unknown musicians and the effect would have been the same because, above all else, this was a love story. Everyone can understand and appreciate true love, so we don't have to rely on famous people to make those kinds of stories interesting.

I can't say enough about how wonderful Witherspoon was as June Carter. Granted, I never saw or heard the real June Carter, so I don't know how accurate the portrayal was, but that didn't detract from my experience at all. I thought Phoenix was excellent too, but this movie belonged to Witherspoon. I just wish she had even more scenes (I don't think she appeared until about 30 minutes in).

Overall, I have to say that Walk the Line was one of the best movies I've seen this year. It has interesting storylines and compelling performances that are sure to keep you captivated throughout the entire film.

The Lake House (2006)

Starring Sandra Bullock, Keanu Reeves, Christopher Plummer and Dylan Walsh

Imagine moving out of a house you still feel drawn to so you decide to leave a letter for the next tenant and before you know it you begin exchanging letters on a regular basis with this person by way of hand delivering them to the mailbox at the end of the driveway. Suddenly you feel chemistry developing between the two of you through your written communication but then you realize that there is a huge discrepancy- the two of you are somehow living two years apart. So now the question is, what to do?

This is the premise of the heart warming romantic drama The Lake House starring none other than Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves. Sandra Bullock plays Doctor Kate Forrester, an independent woman who loves her job and loves being able to help people but feels isolated and lonely in her life, her main companion being her dog Jack who she even plays chess with. Kate is living in the year 2006.

As the movie begins we see Kate drive away from a house made almost entirely of glass, held up by stilts that extend into the lake. It is autumn as evidenced by the multicoloured leaves on the trees and the ground. We then see a blue pick up truck come from the opposite direction and snow now covers the ground. Enter Alex Wyler, a talented, serious minded architect with some family issues who seems a bit too lonely for his own good. Alex also has a dog named Jack and he looks the exact same as the dog Kate has. Coincidence? Perhaps. Alex incidentally is living in the year 2004. Confused yet?

This film goes back and forth between 2004 and 2006 in a way that could make any sane person insane. The time travel of sorts is creative but albeit terribly confusing at times. This is one of those movies where if you leave the room for two minutes and do not put it on pause, you will miss something. You have to pay attention if you want to understand everything that is happening in this film. If you get distracted easily you may need to watch this movie more than once, or unfortunately maybe even skip it all together.

Against the backdrop of the serenity of a lakefront property, which seems particularly isolating during a thunder and lightning storm, and also the streets of Chicago, which seem to always be bustling with activity, the story of the unusual time travel relationship of Kate and Alex plays out. There is one particularly endearing scene that takes place on a Saturday afternoon when Alex maps out a walk for Kate through the streets of Chicago to see some of the buildings he has played a part in constructing. At the end of her walk Kate comes to a cement wall and sees the words- Kate I am here with you. Thanks for the Saturday together- written in big letters. That brings a smile to her lips.

Once again the chemistry between these two fine actors is revealed. The two have not starred in a movie together since 1994 when Speed brought us heart pounding drama as a city bus barrelled towards potential disaster. Now in The Lake House they have done it again but in a softer, gentler kind of way. They are both older and more experienced but the onscreen chemistry is still very much alive and well, even in the scenes when they are together in an emotional sense but not in a physical sense.

Co-starring in The Lake House is Christopher Plummer who plays the father of Alex, Simon Wyler, who is a self-absorbed architect and a rigid father who never had much time to love his two sons. Alex has a younger brother named Henry who is eight years his junior. Henry Wyler is played by a virtual unknown actor by the name of Ebon Moss-Bachrach who is also an architect. This type of work seems to run in the family of Wyler men.

Also co-starring is Dylan Walsh of Nip and Tuck fame. The appeal he has on the hit series has not been transferred to his role as Morgan, the boyfriend of Kate in parts of the movie. He is seen in parts of 2004 and then resurfaces in the life of the independent doctor in 2006. While well meaning, his feelings for Kate are real but she does not feel the pull to be with him as she does to be with Alex.

Kate realizes on her birthday in 2006 that she did meet Alex in the past and it was in 2004 at a party held in her honor. They sit outside on the step in 2004 and talk about life and interestingly enough, the book Persuasion by Jane Austen, which happens to be a favourite of Doctor Kate Forrester. They even share a kiss, which is interrupted by none other than annoying Morgan. Evidently it was that kiss, among other things that ended the relationship between Kate and Morgan. They both moved on with their lives, as did Alex but now, through pure happenstance, these two ill fated potential lovers have met again, thanks to a lake house and a rickety old mailbox.

This movie contains its share of conflict, as well as sad moments but it is not without its share of joy as well. What starts out as very basic human communication through letters turns into a sharing on so many different levels. It is letter writing in a way that has not been done since the Internet first came on the scene. In fact it is such a relief that the writers in this movie did not decide to have these two modern people communicate by way of e-mail instead of the old fashioned handwritten letter way. The old way is more poignant and personal and therefore it was the best choice.

Kate tells Alex that she misses the trees out by the lake house so Alex uproots one of the trees by the house and you see him driving with the tree in the back of the truck. He goes to the location where her apartment building is in 2006, but is only in the pre construction phase in 2004, and there out front of the building he plants the tree. In many frames of the movie you see Kate walking by that tree. In one scene at night, lightning flashes across the sky as Kate makes a run for the door and the tree is lit up in all of its brilliance. And of course it has grown taller in the two years since Alex planted it.

I will not give away the ending but you do have to suspend your mind and your concept of time to truly enjoy this movie. I did and hopefully you will too. Just make sure to watch it with someone you love. This movie is yet again another winner for Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves. It gets a thumbs up from me.

28 days later (2002)

The Story: In the United Kingdom, a plague that causes inhuman rage in its victims is accidentally released, and quickly spreads...

The new film from "Trainspotting" Director Danny Boyle, who's last two Hollywood films fell well short of expectations, is not only a return to his native country and a smaller budget, but also a return to form.

The bombastic prologue shows a group of animal rights activists setting free a group of chimps being used in a mysterious experiment. Little do they know that the chimps have been infected with 'The Rage', a disease that causes blind, psychotic anger. A disease that's carried in their saliva and blood, and is almost instantaneous in its infection. The first chimp released bites one of the activists, turning her into a red eyed, blood-spewing creature that attacks the others.

28 days later (thus the movies clever title) we shift to a man, named Jim, waking up in a London hospital after being in a coma. He, like the viewer, discovers that the whole city seems to be deserted. All the power is off and signs of destruction and violence are widespread. Coming upon a church, he is suddenly attacked by a group of 'The Infected'. Humans now gone completely insane, reduced to slavering, murderous throwbacks by 'The Rage'. He is rescued by a young black woman named Selena, and a man named Mark.

They tell him the terrible story about how people suddenly became violent, terribly, unstoppably violent. How this violence spread, how those that were not butchered were infected, and how, just before civilization was brought to its knees, reports had got out of attacks in other countries.

When they meet up with Frank and his daughter Hannah, they all decide to leave London and head north to the city of Manchester because Frank has been picking up recorded radio broadcasts from the military. The voice, from a Major West, declares there is safety there and a solution to the plague. But, even if they manage to escape London, what will they find waiting for them...

Shot on digital video, this is about as far away from the gloss of his Hollywood films, that Boyle could get. It's a movie as bleak and desolate looking as the actual events it's portraying and he's obviously reveling in the chance to leave big studio compromise behind.

The digital format will be familiar to those who have watched works such as TV's "Band of Brothers". It captures details in a grainy, yet coldly clinical style. It picks up, much like a strobe light does, every drop of rain, or eruption of dirt, and of course eruption of blood, perfectly. And Boyle, with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, uses it to lethal effect in the attack sequences of 'The Infected'. The fast editing, shaky picture and tight framing add a raw brutality to the spasmodic violence that's been not seen on mainstream screens for many years. This is most shockingly visualized in a machete attack by Selena, as she hacks up an 'Infected' in a ferocity born out of desperation. The sickening noises of the blade in flesh, the screams of the 'Infected' and the gruesome spectacle of every blood drop being shown to us via the digital process, creates an extreme, jolting sequence of hyper-kinetic butchery.

The 'Infected' themselves, although of course not undead, are obviously a zombie based creation. But here, like in Lenzi's, in some ways similar, "Nightmare City", they are fast moving and almost unstoppable due to their sheer psychotic savagery. They simply don't stop coming after you (even while on fire, in one striking sequence) because the urge to kill swamps every other emotion, even self-survival. They are a truly terrifying creature, and are so good that when they are not on screen the film seems to drag. They literally rip the film into life.

The effects vary from the highly impressive, to the cheap and unconvincing. The shots of the deserted London are suitably doom laden and it's obvious that a lot of digital tweaking (as well as Boyle and his crew, who did not have permission to close any streets down, waiting for cars and people to move out of shot before filming) has gone into making some very clever and effective sights. But some of the visual work fails, like the poor shot of electricity generating windmills poking up above a roadway, and it's obvious that the budget was tight.

The make up effects however, although simple, are more than satisfying. The work on the numerous corpses, the faces of 'The Infected' and the bone crunching, blood spattered deaths (a head smashing effect is shockingly realized) is first rate. Cliff Wallace who's worked on everything from "Hellraiser" to "Black Hawk Down", especially given the obvious budget constraints, has done a superlative job.

And it's due to this budget constraint that we are sometimes left frustrated at how so much more could have been done. The cast is small, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but so are the numbers of 'Infected' on screen at any one time. This somehow takes away from the scale of the catastrophe. We hear from Major West that the countryside is infested, yet we never see more than five or six of 'The Infected' in a single sequence. If only some of the budget blown on Boyle's "The Beach" had been given to "28 Days Later", we could very well have had a movie on a real apocalyptic scale.

Mentioning "The Beach" also brings us to that novels author Alex Garland, who did the screenplay, and it's here we have the movies second failing. The dialogue, although nicely done in the explanation scenes, is overly simplistic and cliche. People speak like they do in pulp comics, melodramatic and somehow false. The military characters are the worse, with the British soldiers being nothing more than your typical foul-mouthed grunts. The clever use of dialogue in the recent "Dog Soldiers" was fast and hip, but still built characters, here it most definitely does not. The plot, though containing the striking 'Infected' creations, is also derivative.

It borrows ideas from "The Omega Man", "Day of the Dead", "The Crazies" and even the aforementioned "Nightmare City" (though we can say it's probably coincidence on the Lenzi film). This mixture works, but does not give anything truly ground breaking. And if the conclusion is somehow less than what we were expecting (though there is in fact nothing wrong with it) there are at least enough twists in the main body of the film to keep audiences interest.

The acting is also a metaphor for the movies schizophrenic relationship with success and failure. Whereas Murphy, Harris and Gleeson do some great work, especially Cillian Murphy who makes Jim a satisfyingly realistic character and is outstanding in the ultra violent finale, the rest of the cast varies from melodramatic simplicity (Eccleston and the actors portraying the soldiers) to the damagingly bad (Burns, who nearly sinks the film in her important scenes).

Despite these failings though, the aforementioned edge of the seat action scenes, brutal violence, excellent make up effects, muscular direction, impressive lead performance and an enveloping sense of desolation, make for an ultimately satisfying movie that, along with "Dog Soldiers" and the World War One set "Deathwatch", bodes well for British based horror film production.

The abominable snowman (1957)

The Story: A British botanist and a rough-around-the-edges American scientist join forces to prove the existence of the Yeti in the Himalayan highlands.

There's something about a winter night. It has a unique mystery to it; snow muffling every sound, making any scene seem serene, lonely and silent. Flakes swirling silently before your eyes, obscuring and entrancing all at once, until even the most levelheaded are lost in a maze of white and gray. It's a wonder that this unique tool has only been used effectively by a few horror directors. The Shining is one good example of this, another is The Abominable Snowman.

British botanist, Dr. John Rollason (Peter Cushing), is visiting a Tibetan monastery to learn of the plant life and medicinal herbs used by the monks. Diplomatic and intelligent, he has obviously managed to fit into the Lamas culture reasonably well. Better, at least, than his assistant, Peter Fox (Richard Wattis). Soon the arrival of Dr. Tom Friend (Forrest Tucker), upsets the high lama, as he suspects that Rollason will join him on an expedition to capture a yeti, or Abominable Snowman. Rollason's wife, Helen (Maureen Connell) is equally concerned, as it seems clear that the terrain (and the creature) are too dangerous. Despite protests from the monks and his wife, Rollason leaves with Friend to make the dangerous climb and confront the monstrous Yeti. They find a creature, but encounter more than anyone bargains for when they accidentally kill it, and find that there are others who will miss it.

Director Val Guest manages to set a wonderful mood in this film. As mentioned above, snow has a powerful effect on an environment, and Guest uses it well. The mountain scenes are very well done, and the location shooting (in this case in the French Pyrenees) blends fairly well with the stage shooting done in London. Production Designer Bernard Robinson and Art Director Ted Marshall did some amazing work in this film, particularly with the Monastery set. Also helping with the film's tone is Humphrey Searle, who composed a remarkably chilling score for the time that has an ancient, monastic appeal.

Remember, folks, that this film was made in Hammer's infancy. It is one of Cushing's first films for the studio, released the same year as The Curse of Frankenstein. This film is not a light and sound spectacular of modern cinema! I was disappointed, at first, to see that it is in black and white. Naturally, when viewing a Hammer film, I expect to see vibrant colors... particularly red. But as the film progresses, and moves onto the mountain, you can't help but feel that black and white is the best way to show this film. Color would have probably worked against this production. But even without the flowing red of the later Hammer films, The Abominable Snowman has a certain feel that grips the viewer.

The creature itself is nothing spectacular. Indeed, it is over 50 minutes into this hour and 30 minute film before we even see any hint of the famed snowman. Abominable? I would call it "absentee". Up until that point we are treated to dialogue, and lots of it. Cushing is what carries the picture in that respect. He holds attention better than any other character, delivering his lines with smooth authority and grace. Clearly Hammer grew with him, he did not grow with Hammer. Also turning in an enjoyable performance is Wattis in his role as Rollison's assistant. It's a small role, but I couldn't help but like his character. Both he and Cushing played with subtlety and finesse compared to Tucker's loud over-the-top portrayal of Friend.

There is some interesting theorizing bandied about between the scientists, for fans of evolutionary theory. In addition, there are some nice philosophical moments toward the end, and I actually liked the direction that the Yeti (Yetii?) were taken at the end of the film. There is a nice (read 'clever', not 'impressive') twist here, in the creature's design, which I won't reveal in case you want to see this film. But, the result is an unusual ending for a "creature feature".

Don't look to this film for intense action or scares of any kind. Yes, the snowman does finally show up. Unfortunately, this is one tool Guest doesn't use to his advantage. A twelve foot tall, hairy monster never once tries to scare us! Though, I suppose that is more the fault of the writer than the director, it doesn't make me any less disappointed after viewing the film. It's a good moody film for fans of vintage horror and fans of Peter Cushing, but it's nowhere near one of Hammer's best.

Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan

By Simon Woodhouse

What was all the fuss about? I've seen over-hyped films in the past, movies whose reputation well outstrips their merit, but I don't think I've come across such a mismatch between hype and reality as I did with Borat.

Borat is funny, but it's not hysterical. It's crude, but certainly not offensive. Or let me rephrase that. Borat is hysterical if you want it to be, and offensive if that's what you're looking for. I'm sure that because all the hype created such a buzz, a lot of people are entering the cinema having already made their minds up as to what they think about the film. If that's the case, is there really any point in going to see it?

Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen), is a TV reporter from Kazakhstan who's sent to America by the Kazakh Ministry of Information. His trip is meant to be a fact-finding mission, an odyssey to document exactly what it is that makes America the greatest nation in the world. The Kazakhstan in Borat's universe is a country still living in the Middle Ages. There are no such things as women's rights, racial tolerance, animal welfare or sexual self-restraint. What you do find there, however, are plenty of exaggerated examples of how certain groups within Western society like to imagine life in a former Eastern Block nation. The inhabitants live in tiny, ramshackled houses, where VCRs are still the height of sophistication, and live cows loiter in the kitchen. Mocking life in Kazakhstan takes up quite a big chunk of the opening section of the movie, probably more than is necessary. There are laughs here, but they're rather predictable.

The film becomes considerably funnier when Borat reaches the US. Not long after landing in New York, he sees an episode of Bay Watch, and instantly falls in love with Pamela Anderson (pronounced Pam-el-a by Borat). Accompanied by his director, Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian), he sets out for California on a quest to win Pamela's hand in marriage. Here the film turns into a road trip movie. Stopping along the way to interview various locals, he crosses paths with some of America's more 'interesting' citizens.

Filmed in the style of a reality TV documentary, Borat allows Baron Cohen to use his Kazakhstani creation as a means be which to see just how much vulgarity he can inflict on his unsuspecting victims. But, some of the people he interviews seem a little too ready to assume the roll they're given. This leads to the biggest question posed by the movie's narrative style - who knew Borat was really a British comedian pretending to be an idiot from Kazakhstan? From what I can see, I'd say everyone. None of the interviewees really come across as being genuine, everyday folk. This is more prevalent in some scenes rather than others. Toward the beginning of the movie, Borat goes on a driving lesson. He's a terrible driver, but his instructor seems all too willing to overlook the fact. During another later scene, he causes havoc in an antique shop. The proprietors, though angry, don't go as ballistic as they should. During other scenes it seems as though some of the soundtrack has been added after the event. This is especially noticeable when Borat is being booed whilst singing the Kazakh national anthem at a rodeo. These lapses in continuity don't really spoil the film, but they do take the edge off the humor.

Not all the laughs come at the expense of the interviewees. Borat and Azamat are quite a double act in their own right. For sheer outrageous hilarity, the scene where the two of them are fighting can't be beaten. Naked but unashamed, the two men wrestle in the hotel bedroom, until eventually the fight spills out into the rest of the establishment. They end up grappling with each other in a packed conference hall. Again, it's hard to say how many of the onlookers were in on the joke. Their reactions look real enough, but if some of them were actors, that'd be their job.

Eventually Borat arrives in California, and meets Pamela Anderson whilst she's signing autographs in a mall. Out of all his 'victims', it's very hard to believe that Anderson didn't know what was happening.

Throughout all this, and despite Borat's totally un-PC approach to life, it's impossible not to like him. There is something very endearing about his slightly cheeky, slightly dopey expression. His Kazakh accent and broken English further adds to this likeability. But because his cover has now been blown, it's unlikely Baron Cohen will be able to do anything else with the character. That'll be a source of disappointment if you enjoyed the movie. But a blessed relief if you hated it.

Colossus The Forbin Project

The Cold War remains one of the most interesting parts of world history. When watching the news these days, there are references to the Cold War made everyday, but it seems that the world has forgotten how serious and how dangerous the Cold War really was. Because of the size and scope of the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union, the game played was a highly evolved and technical game. Brute force and confrontation would not work as even minor skirmishes could turn into potential nuclear catastrophes.

The era of the Cold War also produced a great number of science fiction features that hinted at the dangers of nuclear annihilation films such as THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and THEM! provided frightening metaphors for the world of atomic devastation. These films were also devastating to the classic Universal horror monsters. In the shadow of the atomic bomb, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolfman and The Mummy simply lost their ability to frighten. The popularity of these films would eventually get resurrected as children's fare on television.

In 1966, DF Jones wrote a classic science fiction novel that fused the paranoia of the Cold War with the mythos of the Frankenstein Monster legend. In 1970, the legendary film house American International Pictures (AIP) made a film version of this classic work. The title was the visionary COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT

The film involves a scientist named Charles Forbin (played by future soap opera legend Eric Braedon) who has developed a super computer called Colossus and its function will be to control the nuclear arsenal of the United States so as to keep human error from launching them. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union develops their own version of Colossus. To everyone's shock, Colossus and the Soviet computer decide humans are the problem and that they must be forced to obey a higher authority. The nukes are then pointed at every city on the world and Colossus is the totalitarian ruler. Can Forbin stop his Frankenstein monster and free the world? Well, it is hard to say, Colossus is one smart super computer.

I first discovered COLOSSUS THE FORBIN PROJECT on uhf TV 48 on Saturday afternoons and always found it an intriguing film. This was somewhat strange because when I was 9 years old, I was more into the traditional, classic monster mayhem. Cold War style, intellectual paranoia science fiction was a little bit beyond me at the time. However, the creepy weirdness of COLOSSUS had me hooked. Then, like many classic science fiction programs, it disappeared by UHF syndication when the cool programming of yesteryear was wiped off the UHF television landscape to make room for more recent sitcom and movie fare.

Then, circa 1993, the Sci-Fi Channel appeared and resurrected a ton of classic film and television fare that was seemingly lost and forgotten for all but those who once lived those classic programs. The impact of the Sci-Fi Channel in the early 1990's had an impact that was incredible. For those of us who grew up like pitiful television geeks, this satellite channeling into our youth was far more than the mere experience of vegging out to the TV. It had a deeper meaning and that is why it is so painful to see how far the Sci-Fi channel has fallen in recent years. Gone are those classic shows and what is left is nickel and dime late night monster fests. Gone are the days when a film like COLOSSUS reappears late one night to be viewed again.

Viewing the film again at an older age allowed the ability to see the deep complexity of the film and how power of an uncontrollable Colossus could open our eyes to see and image of the future that is only scary because we set the things in motion to make it scary, in this case, a huge nuclear arsenal.

COLOSSUS THE FORBIN PROJECT is a classic for many reasons and should be viewed by all. The book series was a trilogy, but the second and third films in the series never made their way into production as the first film did disappointing box office. Perhaps it was too real of a film to be entertaining.

The Last Samurai

By Simon Woodhouse

Historical epics can be a hit and miss affair. They had their heyday during the 1950s and 60s, when Hollywood turned out such masterpieces as Spartacus, Ben Hur and Taras Bulba. More recent offerings haven't been so good. Rather that concentrating on interesting characters, movies like Troy and Kingdom Of Heaven have opted for big battles scenes, manly men and vulnerable women. This leads to mediocre stories and wooden acting. If it's not a contradiction in terms, small epics are perhaps better than big ones.

I would say The Last Samurai falls into the category of small epic. It's a more personal film, but at the same time has a somewhat grand feel about it. Set in Japan during the latter half of the 19th century, the movie is very loosely based on actual events. Names, places and historical accuracy have all been fiddled with, in what I guess is an effort to accommodate the film's leading man. Tom Cruise plays the role of Nathan Algren, a disillusioned army veteran of the Indian wars in the US. A virtual alcoholic, he sets sail for Japan in an almost mercenary role. The Japanese government wants him to train their troops in the use of western style weaponry (rifles, cannons, that sort of thing). Once proficient, the plan is for the troops to quell a samurai uprising that threatens to undermine the government.

Algren is aided in this endeavor by Zebulon Gant (Billy Connolly), a sergeant who fought alongside him against the Indians. He's also advised by Simon Graham (Timothy Spall), an English diplomat based in Japan. Training the Japanese to fight with western style weapons doesn't go too well. The recruits are forced into battle before they are ready. Though he doesn't have to fight with them, Algren stands with his men during their first encounter with the samurai. Up until this point the film is watch-able, but nothing special. However, when the samurai arrive, it moves up to a whole other level. I'm not sure how accurate the costumes are, but the samurai really look the part. As they come charging out of the misty forest, you can feel exactly how terrifying it must have been to stand and face them. Anyway, the fight goes badly for Algren and co. Though the samurai are only using traditional weapons (swords, bows and arrows), they make mincemeat of the regular Japanese recruits. Algren is wounded, but the samurai don't kill him. Reminded of a dream he recently had, the samurai leader, Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe), spares Algren's life and takes him prisoner.

The pace of the film changes here. Algren is taken back to a samurai village. But it's so remote, that he's not locked up by his captors. He is, however, placed in the care of a woman whose husband he killed during the fighting. The emphasis now switches to how the samurai live by a very strict code of honor. This point is driven home with such gusto, it's hard not to think the film makers exaggerated some of it. Anyway, in the space of only a few months, Algren recovers from his wounds, learns Japanese, becomes a master swordsman, and falls in love with the whole samurai way of life.

Only an actor like the Cruiser could take on such a preposterous roll as that of Algren. I'm not sure anyone else would have the ego for it. The film seems to go to great length to portray itself as historically accurate, but at the same time features a character as unbelievable as Algren. He's made all the worse when compared to Katsumoto. Ken Watanabe acts the Cruiser off the screen. In all the scenes that feature them both, Watanabe wins hands down. It's not that Tom's a particularly bad actor, he's adequate, but had the role of Algren been toned down a bit, made a bit more human, he would have been so much more believable. And as is usually the case in films featuring the Cruiser, he's in nearly every scene. On the plus side though, the movie features some wonderful cinematography. The battle scenes are also pretty good. The camera is in amongst the action, rather than panning across masses of CGI extras. Though the Cruiser dominates, some of the supporting cast (especially amongst the samurai) are given just enough screen time to make their plight relevant. This is especially noticeable during the final battle sequence.

But before that, Algren has an almost-affair with Taka (Koyuki) the woman who nurses him back to health. The fact that he doesn't is the films only moment of self-restraint, but also it's most poignant. However, because this is a Tom Cruise movie, a tacked on happy ending means there's an allusion toward the fact he does get the girl.

It's a very linear film, with hardly any subplots. Probably because this would mean scenes that didn't feature the Cruiser. In what is more or less the only deviation away from the story of Algren, the Emperor of Japan (Shichinosuke Nakamura) gets a look in every now and then. He's a troubled young man, caught between moving Japan into the modern age, but also staying true to the country's samurai heritage. The few scenes that feature the Emperor and Katsumoto (minus the Cruiser), add some depth to the story and give it more relevance.

The movie ends with another battle between the samurai and the modern Japanese army. This is pretty heart-rending stuff, because even though the samurai are still using swords, bows and arrows, and fighting hand to hand, the army now has cannons and Gatling guns. I'm not normally a fan of gung-ho battle scenes, but the end of Samurai is very watch-able. It's the human element that makes the fighting so gripping.

Without a doubt, this is Tom Cruise's best film. That's not really thanks to him, but rather the work of the supporting cast. I can't praise Watanabe's performance highly enough. Spall and Connolly also add much needed life to the proceedings. Koyuki, Cruise's vague love interest, provides elegant beauty, in what is otherwise a sea of sweaty fighting men.

Though the film didn't do stellar work at the US box office, its worldwide gross came in at a very healthy $456m, which is quite good for an almost authentic period piece. When I say almost authentic, that applies mostly to the setting. Whilst watching the film, you won't actually be looking at the Japanese countryside. All of the location work was shot here in New Zealand. And that's not Mount Fuji Tom and the samurai ride past, but rather Mount Taranaki, a local deadringer for the famous Japanese peak. Sorry to spoil the illusion.

Pride And Prejudice (2005)

By Simon Woodhouse

First of all, I have to admit I've not read the very famous book on which this film is based. But I'm not a complete ignoramus, and I do know who Jane Austen is. I've also not seen any of the earlier film or TV adaptations, of which there have been many. In fact, when I sat down to watch this movie I didn't even know the story. However, that certainly didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film, and if anything, probably enhanced it.

Pride and Prejudice tells the story of Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightly), her sisters and their mother's (Brenda Blethyn) attempts to find them all husbands. This is early 19th century England, and anyone who isn't super-rich is likely to lead a pretty hard life. It's also a time before there was any such thing as equal rights for women, so they're generally looked upon as baby making machines and not much else. Elizabeth's family aren't poor, but they aren't well off either. If their mother can find all five girls a husband each, that'll be five less mouths to feed. Also, unmarried women once past a certain age, find it very hard to bag a husband, and Elizabeth's mother doesn't want any of her daughters to reach that stage in life.

The local Hertfordshire countryside doesn't boast many eligible bachelors. Then Mr Bingley (Simon Woods) arrives, accompanied by his friend Mr Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen). Bingley isn't short of a bob or two, and leases a large property quite close to the Bennett's far more modest estate. Needless to say, Elizabeth's mother sees this as the perfect opportunity to marry off at least two of her daughters. From here on the story develops into a series of will-he won't-he, will-she won't-she events. Elizabeth's oldest sister, Jane (Rosamund Pike), falls head over heals in love with Mr Bingley, and he feels the same about her. But the course of true love never runs smooth. At the same time, Elizabeth embarks on a game of cat and mouse with Mr Darcy. It's the Elizabeth/Darcy pairing that dominates the film, and so a lot of weight rests on the shoulders of Knightly and Macfayden respectively.

As I said at the beginning, I've not read Jane Austen's book, so I can't say how the characters in the movie compare to those on the written page. However, the cinematic version of Mr Darcy must have been a real challenge to portray. For large parts of the film he's a very austere character - emotionally repressed and quite tight-lipped. Because of this, Macfadyen doesn't so much act, as stand there and look moody. As a consequence, he could be seen as a boring character. But he's not. You can feel his repressed desire, even though he doesn't show it. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. For the most part, Knightly's up to the task. But I couldn't help thinking that if someone as slight as her had been alive in the early 19th century, the first harsh winter would have been the end of her.

Anyway, the film rolls on and we gradually learn Mr Darcy's true nature. Subplots abound, to the point where certain sections of the film come across as a 19th century soap opera. I got lost a couple of times, but it didn't spoil my overall enjoyment of the movie. I guess the screenwriters had their hands tied as to how much of the original story they could jettison. Maybe if they'd left out certain characters the plot might have worked better as a film, but I can imagine the uproar would have been deafening.

Besides the decent acting and the involving storyline, the film also features some wonderful cinematography. Sunsets and sunrises abound, as do misty mornings and heavy rainstorms. The English countryside complements the drama perfectly. Some of the most memorable scenes take place outdoors, and would have lost a lot of there impact had they been set anywhere else.

Though it may be seen as a 'chick flick', I thoroughly enjoyed the film. A refreshing lack of over-emoting and CGI made it a joy to watch. And because I didn't know the story, I wasn't sure how it would end. I guessed the finale would be a happy one, and more or less fulfil all the promises made earlier in the film, but that didn't detract from the strength of the last few scenes.

There are plenty of films with memorable quotes, but my all time favorite now comes from Pride And Prejudice - 'We are all fools in love'. I wish I'd written that.

Death Moon

Oh my, here is a real movie of the week obscurity for you!

Oh, there have been some weird made for television horror films in the 1970’s. Some of these films were notoriously effective creepiness. TV movies such as CURSE OF THE BLACK WIDOW (1973), THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and TRILOGY OF TERROR (1979) all had a creepy, scary effectiveness to them that have made them cult classics to this very day. Then, there is DEATHDREAM (1978), one of the dopiest TV horror movies of the week EVER made. (Ok, 1985 THE MIDNIGHT HOUR was the worst TV horror movie made, but that is another story. 1977 SNOWBEAST was pretty bad too. We’ll get to both those films at a later date)

Robert Foxworth stars in this opus and when he accepted the assignment to star in this
Silliness he probably had no idea that he would be going on to greater fame in FALCON CREST only a few short years later. In fact, when he took the lead role in DEATH MOON he probably assumed that he would never work again. Then again, when you star in DEATH MOON your career can only go up. So what is DEATH MOON? The only werewolf running amok a Hawaiian island ever made. In a way, you could say it is the best werewolf running amok a Hawaiian island movie ever made (by default).

Basically, Foxworth's great grandfather did something mean to a witch on a Hawaiian Island and she curses his family for generations. Mr. Foxworth ends up having severe insomnia, bad dreams and blackouts. He goes to see a psychiatrist about it as he has no idea that the blackouts are the result of his being a WEREWOLF (!) so his psychiatrist suggests he go on vacation. In a shocking coincidence, he goes on vacation to the Hawaiian Island where the curse started a hundred years ago.

Of course, he plans his vacation on the nights of the full moon and when not wooing a very boring divorcee, he is turning in a werewolf and chomping of vacationers. A hotel security officer tries to solve the murders (on his $5 an hour salary) and slowly comes to the realization (two days) that a werewolf (of course) is behind the murders.

As dumb as it sounds, the whole thing is even dumber. Unfortunately, television censorship standards keep this from ever being an over the top monster mayhem film and what were left with is a fairly boring film. It does come alive when the werewolf does show up as the attack scenes are somewhat creepy. Sadly, the moth eaten werewolf mask and gloves look pretty fake and you could probably find a better costume at Rite Aid during Halloween.

I first discovered DEATH DREAM on late night UHF stations in the early 1980's and it was a staple that would rerun twice a year until disappearing from the airwaves somewhere around 1985. As a little kid, I liked DEATH MOON because, quite honestly, the appearance of a werewolf was all I asked for in a movie when I was 8 years old. This was the era of three network channels, three UHF channels, one PBS channel and one Spanish language channel. It was not the same landscape of choice that is available today. Maybe that is why some of us older crew will have look back somewhat more fondly on the dreck that had a tendency to emanate from the cathode tube.

When a used copy of the VHS release of this silliness popped up on Ebay, I plunked down the $15 for a copy hoping to relive my childhood. I even popped it in the VCR at 1am to simulate the original viewings. Sure, the film was unbearably bad, but what the hey, it was still (marginally) fun to watch. Again, the addition of mad werewolf attacks will improve any film. No matter how rotten a Lifetime television original can get, if we realize that a werewolf will show up to chew the scenery and the cast, then the whole thing is bearable. In fact, it is not even all that annoying to hear horrible dialogue emanating from a has been actress if we know the werewolf will come along and make mince meat out of her.

DEATH MOON gets 5 stars.

Superman Returns (2006)

Look up in the sky...it's a bird...it's a plane...no, it's SUPERMAN! I've always been a fan, back to the days of Saturday morning cartoons and Christopher Reeve. I've even watched a few episodes with George Reeves. It's just a darn great story no matter how you slice it, and there's not a person out there who didn't at one point wish they were Superman.

In the late 80's, the franchise tanked and by the time anyone gave resurrection any thought my generation's Superman, the late great Christopher Reeve, was a quadriplegic. When he passed away, it seemed to many of us as if Superman himself had died. How could anyone ever play the part again? Would people be angry if someone else was cast? Was there any more story to be told or money to be made? Enter Brian Singer, director of X-Men...he took what was a dead in the water project (other directors, including Kevin Smith and Tim Burton, had given it a go but got nowhere) and gave up direction of X-Men: The Last Stand to make this film. He wrote the story draft himself, and hand picked the cast. Kevin Spacey was his first and only choice for Lex Luthor, Kate Bosworth played Spacey's wife in Beyond the Sea and was cast as Lois Lane, and several other major players took the spots Singer created for them. What Singer did differently than the others working on previous projects was come to the decision that whomever he cast as Superman MUST be an unknown talent, as Christopher Reeve was for his stint as the caped hero. As far as I'm concerned, this was pure brilliance, especially in light of the fact that Reeve is no longer with us. After hundreds of auditions, he found Iowan bartender Brandon Routh...and what clinched the part for the 24 year old was his spilling a drink on Singer during his meeting with him, though at the time Routh thought it had lost him the role. Singer though the combination of Routh's good looks and his clumsiness were perfect for the dual Superman/Clark Kent combination. He was so very right on!

The movie was written to include Superman I & II as vague background, and it's five years after the end of II. When astronomers discover his home planet, Superman leaves earth to find it in case anyone still remains there...though he finds it completely gone when he reaches its location. He returns to earth and to the only mother he's ever known, and back to his job at the Daily Planet...and hopefully to Lois Lane, whom he left without saying a word of his departure. He finds that she is involved in a committed relationship, has a son, and received a Pulitzer prize for her article "Why the World Doesn't Need a Superman".

This film is a thing of beauty from start to finish...and thankfully, the original music was licensed and used. I wept at the opening credits. I wept during the opening scenes. I wept when I saw Marlon Brando, digitally remastered from takes from the old films, as Jor-El speaking to his son. I kept saying 'my god, this is just so BEAUTIFUL'. It's usually customary for me to reveal plot details in my reviews, but for this one I'm not telling you a THING. I want you to enjoy it as much as I did.

The character development is wonderful...something I think Singer has a gift for...and we immediately have an understanding of the interpersonal relationships present. Lois' new man works at the Daily Planet...and we wonder if he and Clark will get along. Now that Superman is back, will Lois leave her new life behind for another chance with him, or has she come to hate him because he left her alone, without a goodbye?

Many reviewers initially scoffed at the huge budget for this film and decried the special effects, saying that they were overkill. Hello? He's SUPERMAN! The guy stops trains with his bare hands, folks. Of course the effects will be wildly spectacular! And they WERE...all gorgeous, and not at all overdone whatsoever. One scene, when Superman is hovering above the earth, silent, still, listening to everyone and everything for a cry for help...it's just too amazing for words.

I loved this one, obviously...and Routh was perfect. PERFECT! I didn't even want to SEE the film because I wasn't sure if I could accept anyone else other than Reeve as Superman, but this kid pulled it off like gangbusters. And Spacey...well, you can't go wrong with Spacey. He's amazing in any role, and hilariously deviant as Luthor.

So, why are you still here? Go rent this! Now!

Rowan gives Superman Returns...12 out of 12 monkeys! It's that good!

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

The Story: This is the age old story of Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman.

Our film starts in the big city of New York, 1799, with Constable Ichabod Crane (Depp) arguing with the local authorities. In this case, those who sit judge and jury for criminals and the recently deceased. It seems that Crane insists on granting those being thrown in jail, trials, and those who've died mysteriously, autopsies. But The Burgomeister (Christopher Lee in a cameo) will have nothing to do with the idea. Instead, he sends Crane to the small village of Sleepy Hollow to investigate recent deaths of a few townfolke. Crane agrees with hopes of putting his practices to work.

Upon arriving in Sleepy Hollow, Crane walks into a costume party and is greeted with a kiss from Katrina Anne Van Tassel (Christina Ricci). Seeing this kiss is the jealous boyfriend of Katrina, Brom Van Brunt (Casper Van Dien, Starship Troopers). Katrina quickly sweeps Ichabod away and shows him his room, and then introduces him to the town's leaders. Here we learn about a 'Headless Horseman' and the recent deaths of a few of the town's Constables. In disbelief, Ichabod tells the bunch that the killer is human (and not some ghost) and he will catch the man behind the terrible crimes.

Soon after this, a few more of the townsfolke are beheaded and killed, and Ichabod becomes witness to the Headless Horseman himself. Frightened to death, yet determined to find the root of the Horseman's anger, he continues his quest to put the killer to rest and reveal any secrets that may be lingering amongst the townsfolke.

Sleepy Hollow has really grown on me over the last couple of years. First seeing it in theaters I found it very entertaining. After renting it for the first time when it came out on video some three years ago, I found it to be less entertaining on the small screen. So what swayed me into liking it so much? Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood'. I saw Burton's 'Ed Wood' about a year ago for the first and fell in love with the film instantly. Depp's performance as the much maligned director was brilliant and Burton's attention to detail in 'Ed Wood' amazing. This lead me to re-watch Sleepy Hollow and really appreciate the film more than I had in the past.

So what changed my mind? Several things. Burton goes into painstaking detail in re-creating the town of Sleepy Hollow, 1799. From the indoor sets, the casts' costuming, to the ever so creepy outdoor sets, and the fabulous scenes of decapitations. Nothing here is overlooked.

Depp's portrayal of the lanky, insecure Ichabod Crane is fabulous. His mannerisms and willingness to move forward with an investigation he wants no part of is what makes this so great. This is clearly seen in his facial expressions as he confronts one grisly murder after another. Depp is without a doubt the best performer of the bunch. The rest of the cast, in particular, Christina Ricci, are average but believable with the exception of both Christopher's Lee and Walken. These two guys are great in just about everything they appear in. And in the case of Walken's portraying the Headless Horseman, he's more than fabulous. One thing that did bother me in Sleepy Hollow were the different accents each of the townsfolke spoke with. If you're born and raised in the same community (as is the case here), it's likely you'll all speak with the same accent. Not the case in Sleepy Hollow. But this can be overlooked, at least in this writer's opinion, because so much of the film is well done.

Another one of the big attractions of Sleepy Hollow are the numerous deaths and decapitations. Director Burton does not hold back here and we do get a fair amount of gore. This is put together by some old fashion SFX and some newer fashion CGIFX. One thing to note, the CGI is minimal and hard to detect. So when seeing a decapitation, you'll be hard pressed to detect any computer enhancements. Bravo to Burton for using this newer technology without depending on it.

So while I only found Sleepy Hollow mildly entertaining when first seeing it, it has grown on me over the last few years. So much so that I highly recommend it to those of you who haven't seen it yet. Burton's vision of Sleep Hollow is like no other and I think you'll see the beauty of the film after watching it for a second or third time

Tenebre (1982)

This is one that was available in video stores for years as un-sane. We poor horror fiends only heard tantalizing whispers of the original Italian version named Tenebre, 10 minutes longer and with one of the most shocking movie murders in history. Could it live up to the reports drifting from across the pond that this was Argento's giallo masterpiece and one of the most terrifying movies in history?

Well, here it is finally, quietly released by Anchor Bay in its original incarnation with hardly a peep and yes, it is Argento's best giallo (violent European murder mysteries, the best examples of which are by Mario Bava and Argento himself) even if it doesn't quite live up to the hype attached to it by breathless European Argento fans. This isn't to say it isn't great, it's just to say that no mortal human being could produce anything to match the descriptions that had been circulating.

Dogmatic gorehounds beware: If you're looking for a movie as violent as the reputation that's built up over the years, you'll be disappointed. However, if you're only looking to be pinned to the edge of your seat with white knuckles only to be jolted out of it now and then, you've come to the right place and how. Most of the 10 minutes cut for American consumption would seem to be simply tightening the editing up, thus losing some of Argento's best distinctive camera work and draining the film of much of its tension. The famous deleted murder is replaced, however, and a quite brutal one it is, too.

The story: Peter Neal (Anthony Franciosa), an extremely popular American horror novelist, goes to Rome to promote his latest book, Tenebre, just as a series of murders "inspired" by his book begin happening. You only have to have seen a couple Argento movies to know that these murders are presented with style to burn, with Argento's patented long, winding takes and sudden outbursts of artistically, almost "beautiful" violence. If you took the bloodshed out of an Argento film, it would be called an "art film" and only shown on college campuses, so carefully does he arrange his scenes to almost appear to be painstakingly composed paintings.

One of the most famous scenes in Tenebre is a two minute (or more, I didn't time it) unbroken shot prowling an entire apartment building where two victims are being stalked. The camera crawls over the entire exterior and much of the interior, tracking and spying on them before the violent conclusion of the scene. In true Argento form, this scene is endlessly protracted (as are most of the others in this movie) to wring every last drop of suspense out of it. All of the kills in this movie are textbook "Argento murder scenes" which are understandably studied and copied by everyone from John Carpenter (who called Halloween "My Argento film") to Donald Cammel's White of the Eye to countless straight to video losers. Often imitated, never equaled as the cliche goes.

Anyway, of course Neal is questioned by the police and fortuitously sticks around to do his own investigation with a young assistant/fan and his girlfriend, with tragic and artfully violent results all around. There are plot twists galore and subplots and secondary characters abound to throw the viewer off. All is enjoyably tense except for the subplot involving Neal's ex-wife (Jane McKerrow), played by the wretched Veronica Laria with such eye-popping overacting that she threatens to bring the whole film crashing down around her. Thankfully, her appearances are brief and her final scene is a gloriously classic, stunning moment indeed. Manage to overlook her and you've got a perfect horror film.

Overall, this is a return to form for Argento after his confusing but gorgeously photographed Inferno, and a welcome return to the giallo after his forays into the supernatural. Tenebre is every bit the equal of Argento's Deep Red and nearly on a par with the amazing Suspiria - though not as gorgeously lit as the latter (what film is?). All the Argento trademarks are here, from the flawlessly fluid camerawork to the carefully composed "did he storyboard every FRAME?" setups an Argentophile expects to the pulsing score by the brilliant Italian rock band Goblin. One of the best horror films of the last 20 years, and you owe it to yourself to seek out Anchor Bay's beautifully restored re-release. Enjoy.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

By Brandi M. Seals

I, like many people, love "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas!" This Christmas classic is based on children's book written by Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss was a well-known author known for writing rhyming books full of fantasy and whimsy. Some of my favorite Dr. Seuss books are "The Cat in the Hat" and "Green Eggs and Ham." It is said that Seuss wrote "The Cat in the Hat" after someone dared him to write a whole book only using the words on a short list he made.

I do not know when "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" first aired, but it has been on TV every year since I can remember. It was a tradition in my household. We would all gather around and watch the sneaky grinch try to keep Christmas cheer from reaching the Whos down in Whoville. I still watch it every year when it comes on. Somehow it seems to be the official kickoff of the Christmas season.

I suppose everyone is familiar with the story, but in case someone has not seen it I will give you a brief recap. The Whos are a cheery bunch who live in the town of Whoville. Each year they get together and enjoy a feast of roast beast and sing caroles in the center of town. Up the mountain lives the Grinch. He is an unhappy fellow with a heart two sizes too small. He does not like to see anyone else happy and his only compainion is a dog named Max.

One year the Grinch comes up with a plan to stop the merriment of the Whos. He decides that if there are no gifts under the tree, Christmas will not come. He dresses up as St. Nick (after making his outfit out of a curtain) and ties a horn on his dog (so he looks like a reindeer). On Christmas Eve the pair rides into town and the Grinch goes about stealing everything. He takes the trees, the decorations, the toys, all the presents, and even the food. Each house is left barren with little more than wire and nails on the walls.

After a long night of hard work, the Grinch returns home and listens in to see if he can hear the weeping of the Whos. Instead, he is surprised to hear the Whos singing. He had not stopped Christmas from coming. It is then that the Grinch realizes that Christmas is more than a commercial holiday. It is a time to celebrate.

The Grinch has a change of heart and rides down to town to redeliver all the gifts. He wants the Whos to be happy and he wants to be happy too. Everyone celebrates when the Grinch returns their things and he is invited to dinner. There he even gets to carve the roast beast.

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a great movie that kids adore. There are bright colors and fantasy gifts. My favorite is the song about the Grinch. In it, the singer details just how horrible the Grinch is. "The three words that describe you best are stink, stank, stunk."

I like that the movie has a good message. It tells viewers that Christmas is not about the toys and other gifts. It is about being together, spending time with the family and enjoying oneself. I never picked up on that message as a kid, at least not on a conscious level. I just liked the imagery used.

While I maintain that this movie is the best version of it (that thing with Jim Carrey is just a horrible waste of money) there are a few errors here and there. First of all, the costume the grinch cuts out is way too small and way too jagged to make the outfit he ends up in. And, Max, the tiny dog is supposed to somehow pull the big sled up the mountain. I kind of like these errors. It just further illustrates that this movie is just a tale from someone's imagination.

"Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas" runs about a half hour and is sold at several locations. If you do not want to shell out the money for the movie, just watch for it to appear on TV this holiday season.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Documentaries have made quite the comeback in recent years. In the silent era, documentary films were quite popular, but in the talkie era, they saw a drop in popularity. Sure, there have been many landmark documentaries released in subsequent years, the notion of a documentary that was a box office smash was considered laughable. ROGER AND ME changed that when it pulled in $10 Million. In recent years, there have been quite a number of documentaries that have become quite successful and have reinvigorated the genre.

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR is a recent documentary that drew small crowds to its theatrical screenings. It is not a landmark documentary, but it is an interesting one well worth a look.

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR is a charming little documentary that is one of those films that you really want to like when you watch it, but when you think about it, the film is very immature in its approach to the subject matter mainly because it takes the tone that the electric car was killed by a conspiracy as opposed to being killed by the more likely possibility that consumer disinterest in the novelty car.

The documentary deals with the brief life of cars that were operated on electrical charges as opposed to gasoline. These cars ran quite well and, while limited in terms of how many miles per charge they can achieve, they operated exactly like a gasoline engine car but without the pollution or costs associated with the upkeep of a gasoline fueled car.

So why would such a unique car disappear from the market when it was a revolutionary invention that had the potential for changing the face of the auto industry? Because (according to the documentary) there were major corporations that had too much to loose from the competition the electric car would have brought. If only life were so simple.

If there was a major culprit that delayed the expansion of the electric car in the market place it would be the concept of the electric car itself. While there is much merit to the documentary in its attempts to show how the traditional energy companies did a great deal to inhibit the expansion of the electric car into the consumer marketplace, what the film seemingly ignores is the question as to whether or not there truly was significant demand in the market for such a car. Sure, there are about 80 people on hand in the film stating their desire to purchase the car, but such a number so low does not make the production of the electric car cost effective. The main problem with the electric car as a feasible product is the fact that most people will see it as a novelty item as opposed to a serious alternative to traditional internal combustion engines.

When it comes to the electric car itself, what happens if it runs out of electricity on the road? The car can survive a 90 mile round trip on one battery charge, but what happens when there are traffic jams? The extremely limited (near zero) number of electric car charges stations will impede the desire to purchase such a car. Also, what about wear and tear maintenance on the car? How many mechanics are qualified to fix one? What happens if there is an emergency on the road and service is required? What are the monthly insurance premiums for such a car? These are all very valid questions that consumers may ponder before making such a purchase. None of this is addressed in the fantasy world that the documentary takes place. In the documentary, the oil companies have conspired to keep the cars off the road. Nothing is mentioned (in a serious manner) whether or not there is sufficient interest on the consumer public indicating that anyone really wants such a novelty.

Now, this is a documentary that is really hard to dislike. Despite some of the silliness present within its running time, the film has its heart in the right place. The problem is that is spends a little bit too much time thinking with the heart and not applying logic in areas where logic would have been much needed.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith

By Simon Woodhouse.

What is there left to say about the Star Wars saga that hasn't already been said? All six movies run the gamut from brilliant, emotion-laden drama, right the way down to embarrassing, amateurish film making. They've launched careers (Harrison Ford) and ended others (Mark Hamill). They've taken us to a galaxy far, far away, created an all-encompassing universe, and played fast and loose with every serious scientific theory there is. But love them or hate them, the impact of the Star Wars movies can't be denied, or escaped.

Not only did the saga introduce the concept of the sequel, but twenty years later it proved you can never over milk a cash cow, by giving us prequels. Shrewd license to print money, or film maker fulfilling a life long dream? You decide, and though the prequels don't live up to the originals (an impossible task), they do provide a few moments of genuine entertainment.

Revenge Of The Sith is episode number three in the Star Wars saga, but seeing as the films weren't made in numerical order, it's actually the last one to arrive. Whereas the first three movies centered on a good guy's (Luke Skywalker) struggle to save the day, the prequels are all about the prime baddie - Darth Vader. These three films tell the story of Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and his transformation into Vader, the final act of which is played out in Sith.

As with most films aimed at an audience gifted with a limited attention span, Sith starts with a bang. Anakin's not yet Vader when the film begins, so he and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), have been charged with the task of rescuing Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the evil General Grievous (voiced by Matthew Wood). The rescue is taking place during a space battle being fought between two fleets of ships orbiting the planet of Coruscant. The good guys prevail and the Chancellor is rescued. Back on Coruscant after the brew-ha-ha is over, Anakin falls into the arms of his lady-love, Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). Theirs is a secret love, because Anakin is a Jedi Knight, and for some unexplained reason they're not allowed to indulge in pleasures of the flesh. But Anakin has indulged, and Padme is pregnant.

This pregnancy forms the backbone of the story. But because it's Star Wars, there has to be lots of daring-do. In what is a rather convoluted plot (something that has cursed all three prequels), General Grievous is in league with a whole crew of baddies who are seeking to take control of the galaxy. But all is not what it seems. Grievous isn't the real daddy when it comes to bad guys. That honor falls to the mysterious dark lord Darth Sidious.

Anyway, Obi-Wan Kenobi sets off in search of Grievous, whilst Anakin stays on Coruscant with Padme. However, Anakin is a troubled soul. He's not turning into the Jedi he thinks he should be. At the same time, he's being persuaded by Chancellor Palpatine that perhaps being a Jedi isn't all it's cracked up to be. Add to this the fact that Anakin keeps having nightmares about Padme dying during childbirth, and you have one very confused young man. There's trouble brewing, and Anakin's at the center of it.

Though the story might be a bit more complicated than is necessary for this sort of film, there's no denying the special effects are spot on. However, with so much CGI, at times it's more like watching a cartoon than a live action film. And in some scenes there's so much on screen action, it's difficult to know which way to look.

But anyway, the film rolls on; secret identities are revealed, fiendish plots exposed and good guys face off against baddies. Anakin finally cracks up and loses it big time, committing mass infanticide. Obi-Wan Kenobi, his old friend and mentor, sees what Anakin has become and they meet in a light saber duel to end all light saber duels. As seems to have been the case with all the prequels, each one tries to out do its predecessor when it comes to special effects laden set pieces. This means that Sith is both dazzling and overwhelming. But it's also riddled with the most enormous plot holes. There's very little continuity in the characters' actions, or the reality of the universe within which they're taking place. People do and say things merely to advance the plot, and traveling between the different worlds either takes days or minutes, depending on what the story requires. These problems are the most obvious in the last few scenes. Obi-Wan gets the better of Anakin in their light saber duel, but in a very un-Jedi like way, walks off and leaves the mortally wounded young man to die a horrible death. At which point, Chancellor Palpatine travels from one side of the galaxy to the other in about ten minutes, and rescues Anakin.

Well-loved characters from previous installments of the saga pop up for one last time in Sith. Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz) engages in a tussle of his own. Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) fights to save his home world. R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) add a bit of much needed character here and there, but are wasted when it comes to total screen time. Of the main human characters, none of the principle actors really distinguish themselves. Christensen, McGregor and Portman struggle in vain to flesh out some terrible dialogue, and hold there own amongst the wall to wall CGI.

That Sith has been widely acclaimed as the best of the prequels, doesn't say much for the previous two installments. Though it's certainly the most watch-able of the three, it's not up against much in the way of competition. Rather than enhancing the Star Wars saga, it only plays a part in somehow tainting what made the original trilogy so good. It's an unnecessary film. Sure, the special effects make it a visual treat, but that's all it is. There's very little depth, and most of it is instantly forgettable. The whole Star Wars saga reached a peak at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. Since then it's been all down hill, but at least with the passing of Sith, the ride is over (thankfully).

Fever Pitch (2005)

If you're a baseball fan, then you probably have heard about the 2005 movie Fever Pitch from Bobby and Peter Farrelly. This movie was heavily promoted during the Red Sox 2004 World Series run, and stars Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore made headlines in the sports world when they were allowed to run onto the field in St. Louis to celebrate with the players when the Red Sox clinched the title in Game 4. This created quite a stir among Boston fans in particular, who thought that Fallon and Barrymore ruined the moment for their team. After all, the two were just actors and weren't even Red Sox fans. Meanwhile, the true long-term sufferers from Red Sox Nation had to sit in the stands just like everyone else.

I'm not a Boston fan, so this somewhat negative publicity didn't affect my desire to see the movie one way or another. I just happened to be in the mood for a romantic comedy and thought I'd give Fever Pitch a try. Barrymore, of course has been in plenty of movies like this one, so I knew going in what I would get from her character. But I'd never seen Jimmy Fallon in anything before (Saturday Night Live included), so he was something of a wild card for me.

The movie opens with high school teacher Ben Wrightman (Fallon) taking a small group of high school students to an office building to meet with someone who uses math for practical purposes in everyday life. That someone turns out to be Lindsey Meeks (Barrymore), who wows the students with the way she uses math to solve her clients' needs. The students are duly impressed, both by her talent with numbers and by her looks. In fact, they start teasing Ben about Lindsey, saying that she was way out of his league. This prompts Ben to go back and ask her out, but Lindsey turns him down.

But Ben really has made an impression on her. She ends up talking about him with a group of her friends, and they tell her that maybe she should date him after all. Lindsey is always dating competitive, driven men just like herself so maybe dating a teacher would be a nice change. Lindsey finally comes around to the idea, calls Ben up, and agrees to go out with him.

Ben turns out to be the ideal boyfriend. He's sweet, kind, caring, patient, and understanding of Lindsey's needs. He doesn't get upset when she has to answer her cell phone during lunch, and he encourages her to go after a big promotion at her firm. Lindsey's friends are convinced that there must be something wrong with him since he's still single; if he were perfect, they reason, he would have been married long ago.

It turns out that Ben's biggest fault is that he's a diehard Red Sox fan, to the point where he becomes almost dysfunctional during the baseball season. He has had season tickets for more than 20 years, has Red Sox memorabilia all over his apartment, and organizes his life according to Boston's schedule. At first Lindsey thought she could deal with Ben's obsession, but it turns out to be harder than she thinks. The rest of the film then focuses on the way the Red Sox come in between Lindsey and Ben, and how the two work to resolve their differences.

Overall, I thought Fever Pitch was a fun movie that delivered on both the romance and the comedy. Don't get me wrong: it's not sickly sweet in the romance department, nor is it chock-full of laugh-out-loud sequences like the Farrelly brothers' most famous film There's Something About Mary. But this movie does have several cute scenes and a few funny ones. Plus, with baseball scenes to fill in the rest of the time, I found myself interested throughout the movie. The acting was decent, too. Both characters were likable and they seemed like a believable couple. I was definitely rooting for them to be together by the end of the film.

Fever Pitch was an entertaining movie that I think is worth watching. It's not going to become a classic in its genre or anything like that, but it's still an enjoyable film.

Angels and Cowboys

Cowboys and Angels is a charming film set in Limerick, England and follows the life of Shane Butler, played by Micheal Legge, through his first few weeks living away from home in the busy downtown area and takes you through all of the hurt ache that he has, along with all of the trouble that he gets into.

The film begins with Shane in search of a flat in the heart of the city so that his commute to and from his civil service job is bearable. We see that it is somewhat like trying to find an apartment in San Francisco. Shane ends up being paired with a roommate that he knew from primary school.

After the usual awkward bonding period, Shane starts to feel that he has been some what of a pushover. The apartment is filled with his new roommate, Vincent's items. Allen Leech plays this adorable character, show light heartedly whimsical smile lights up the screen.

Very shortly after they both let their guards down, the inevitable questions comes out, no pun intended. Shane asks Vincent if he is gay, and, to my surprise, Vincent does not hide or shy away from his affirmation, though his orientation is given away by his love for fashion. More awkwardness ensues, but only momentarily, and they are soon to become best friends.

Now that he has a new friend, Shane's eyes starts to fall for Vincent's female friend, Gemma, played by Amy Shiels. When he over hears Vincent tell her that he is a square, his ego falls into a deep spiral and his self confidence leaps out of the window. Shane starts to question his decisions to dive into a career of civil service at such a young age.

One day, while he has walking into his apartment building, he stumbles on a stash of illegal drugs. After a fumbled attempt to place the items back in their hiding place, the owner of the narcotics discover him and instead of roughing him up, the employ Shane to make a run for them. This is the start of Shane's demise.

Only making one run for the two drug dealers, it allows Shane to change his life dramatically. Believing the Shane saved the money; Vincent helps him to recreate his life by purchasing an entire new wardrobe and giving him a haircut. All seems to be going well for Shane. He is just missing a woman in his life.

Now you would think that everything would be nice and copasetic now the two are best friends. What kind of movie would that be? Shane begins to delvage further in the life of drugs and finally Vincent confronts Shane about his defeatist attitudes. Once Vincent finds out how Shane came upon all of that money, he disowns him and threatens to kick him out of the flat.

After this altercation, Shane visits a local pub and there is where he is very cavalier about his drug usage is by popping a pill at the bar. Inebriated, he spots Vincent with Gemma and decides to prove his manhood which culminates with Gemma slugging Shane and him getting thrown out of the pub. This is followed by a science where Shane's male drug connection tries to make on move on him while Gemma attempts to get into Vincent’s pants.

The movie could not end like this, so I must continue. After Shane and Vincent avoids each other for a while, Shane comes to his sences, sees that this life of self-destructions is defeatist, and is not helping him to live the life that he wants to live. Using the rest of is ill gotten funds to enroll in the local university; he makes his amends with Vincent days before his big fashion show.

Once Vincent has finished all of his preparations for his fashion show and they have kissed and made up, Shane decided to celebrate by smoking one last marijuana joint, and asks Vincent to join him. Exhausted, Vincent accepts. Just before they start to smoke, the joint, the police serve a warrant to search the premises. It turns out that the police have been setting up a sting operation and have been watching Shane this entire time.

I have told you about most of the plot twists that occur in the film, but I will leave it up to you to find out how it all ends. Believe me; it is worth the trip to BlockBuster.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

In 2003, I was WOWED by the first installment of the series, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow was amazing...his timing perfect, his antics hilarious. He used his gifts to create a character we all loved immediately. Orlando Bloom as Will Turner, blacksmith, son of pirate Bootstrap Bill Turner was wonderful...Innocent and gallant, so handy with a sword. Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Swann was lovely too...a nice mix of girlishness and butt kicking. The plotline was interesting and fast moving, the characters well developed enough so we were able to develop internal relationships with them, and the special effects were dead on and believable.

I missed Dead Man's Chest in the theater, so over the weekend I sat down with my coveted copy kindly provided by Blockbuster Online, ready for a few hours of delight. Within the first two minutes, I was wondering what the heck was going on. After 45 minutes, I was screaming in frustration. Much to my horror, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest turned out to be the biggest disappointment I've seen on film this year. And I've seen a bunch of stinkers.

The film begins with a distraught Elizabeth in the rain in what appears to be a wedding dress, all alone. A quick flash takes us to Will being dragged from the smithy shop in chains, and the two are reunited at the home of Elizabeth's father, where Elizabeth is then arrested as well...by Lord Cutler Beckett, whom if you'll recall was her betrothed in the first film. Will and Elizabeth face death by hanging for aiding Jack Sparrow, but if Will can find and bring him Jack and the compass he'll pardon them.

Okay, first of all...I remember that Will and Elizabeth were in love, sure. But to begin with a wedding that isn't happening seems downright silly. No voice over, no nothing...just little vignettes that we're supposed to figure out on our own. Could we have a little more of their romance, please? And the compass...I have a vague memory of it, but good lord, it's been THREE YEARS since the first film. Someone remind me, please. We are reminded later on, but for 15 whole minutes or more I was scratching my head saying 'Why does he want the compass? What does it do?'.

Next, we're shown an island of prisoners, being dragged to cages on top of a crag and left to die...with crows pecking their eyes out while they're still alive. I'm just guessing they're prisoners because of the chains...again, no voice overs. When they finally pass on, their coffins are tossed in the ocean. Several are floating, and as the camera zooms in on one, a crow lands on it...and is promptly blasted with a pistol from inside the coffin. Out pops Jack Sparrow, who then uses the bones of the original occupant to paddle back to the Black Pearl. He's got a drawing of a key, which remains a mystery to us and the crew...and back on the Black Pearl, Jack searches for more rum and finds Bootstrap Bill instead. Bill advises him that the debt he owes Davy Jones is due...Jones rose the Black Pearl from the deep thirteen years before and made Jack captain, and now Jack must serve 100 years on the Flying Dutchman as captain or face the Kraken.

Jack tries to hide on an island of cannibals and becomes their god, and Will finds him there just in time to save him from his followers. Jack's escape is a ridiculous scene full of impossible feats and falls...he's been tied to a pole and hung over a fire too cook, breaks free, and begins hopping all tied up and pole on his back. When some natives see him, they begin tossing fruit at him, which he catches on the pole...pointless, needless, and dumb. I get it...he becomes a giant shiskebob, but this is completely unrelated to the plot and not at all fun. Let's spend some more time on the story, shall we, director? Thanks. Apparently the drawing of the key Jack has found is to the Dead Man's Chest, which holds the heart of Davy Jones...whoever possesses the heart controls the seas. Will winds up a prisoner of Jones, who demands 100 souls for Jack's freedom. And so on and so on.

As I write this, I realize that it SOUNDS like a good movie...but Jack Sparrow's character is SO overdone and the script so awful that it's just...annoying. Jack's quirky way of speaking has evolved into complete gibberish, and I couldn't understand a word he was saying other than the occasional 'rum' and 'savvy'. Yes, it was FUNNY in the first movie. So, in all their wisdoms, the creators decided to add MORE. The result? NOT FUNNY. Chase scene after chase scene, too many effects...I feel like I wasted my time here, and won't even consider looking at the third. I'm giving Dead Man's Chest ONE MONKEY out of twelve, and that's only because I respect Depp to much to not give it ANY.

My Sassy Girl

The Korean movie " My Sassy Girl" is a big hit that crossed over high charted movies that is romantic comedy. It was no surprised to be even shown in Hong Kong including Philippines. It is entirely one gag of laughter, action, hilarious romance ever produced by Shin Sheni Productions. First released on 2001, the movie got a remarkable response having a high-grossing film to have lasted in weeks. The fanaticisms of this Korean film to introduce a remake due to a successful cinematic experience shown to different countries that got everyone talking especially teeners intrigued even Hollywood. It is the audacious and quite experimental film having blended varieties of exciting elements from one scene to to the other. The highlight of melodramatic romance 6that was eccentrically in nature and unpredictable turn of events even goes beyond one's expectation.

"My Sassy Girl" was relatively a sequel but inverted events form the movie "Wind struck" whose characters were introduced and suspended for the audience of "My Sassy Girl".

Written and inspired by Kim Ho Sik personal love story that was his best selling book placed other ingredients of gag, wacky and raw ideas for a romantic-comedy. In the movie itself, from a bizarre love affair with his college girlfriend is the creation of the story wherein the director Kim Jae Young fortunately showed it in the film material. Even in the story itself it was dramatized in the real time love story of how it really begun.

I certainly watched this film a couple of times and until now, I still had a weird feeling of watching it over again. The director has a perfect emphasis in the delivery of the emotions projected into the film. When a scene is supposed to be wacky-romantic, he blends it to other genres to capture the emotion.

Characters are both bubbly and endearing. The love chase liberated in a way not conventional. This makes the story unique since the damsel in distress dominating and demanding. A sense of girl power and what it feels like for a boy to fall in love with his tormentor.

The characters are constantly changing revealing paradigm of man to appear confused when in love and vulnerability. It makes you to embrace the truth that sometimes love in an instant can be forever.

The film starts with a short introduction to a lead character Kyun-Woo in his childhood and immediately you will burst out in laughter as to how he had narrated his story. The scene kicks off when this college slacker accidentally bumps into pretty Jin Jun, drunk girl in the subway. Before she drops out, she had called Kyun-Woo as if he was her boyfriend and mistakenly assumed by passengers as he was. They insisted that Kyun-Woo should take care to the girl. Without choice, he thought of bringing her to motel. But before he could ran away from her, he was caught by police and him imprisoned.

The story goes along with a complementary behavior of Jun Ji Hyun as dominating at the same time defenseless to her own pain. Kyun Woo was intrigued to the sorrow and promise to heal her heart. This kind of story is a kind of comedy twisted romance and eccentric scenes.

After a tiring chase, adventures and heartbreaks experienced by them finally they came to meet by chance again. All the while, no matter how distance and time separates them it all boils down to realizing that they found each other by destiny.

What seems to be unreal with the dog catfight that they possess is the undetermined love. Obviously, Kyun Woo by assumption is a lousy lover and seeing a pretty girl whom he can hang around with intrigued him. He was constantly being choked by friends of having no girlfriend. On the other hand, Jun Ji still unrecovered from the loss of the love of her life saw Kyun Woo to fill up the space in her heart. Despite the erratic mood swings and the difficulty of understanding her behavior, Kyun Woo does not mind to have her along. He was hooked by accident and naturally, his feelings were developed.

It was a remarkable insightful achievement for the Director to play with scenes and giving sense to this outrageous comedy. You can just relax, no mind-boggling and expect the unexpected. A stand out applause for these charismatic characters that leads you to realizing some themes in life like leaving someone, losing someone and being found. It is the dwelling in those phases of life where sorrow has its own medicine-love.

The English Patient (1996)

The English Patient is a sweeping epic of a movie. Directed by Anthony Minghella, this film won 9 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress in a Supporting Role, and Best Cinematography. In short, it was supposed to be a fantastic movie. I had actually tried watching this when it first came out on video way back when, but I didn't make it past the 20-minute mark before giving up. I recently rented it again, however, in the hopes that I'd matured enough as a movie viewer to actually sit through the entire thing before passing judgment.

Well, I did make it all the way through this time, but it didn't change my perspective on the movie very much. I still thought The English Patient was incredibly boring. In fact, I was compelled to look up the other Best Picture nominees for 1997 to see what kind of films it beat out to win the statue. I was surprised to see Jerry Maguire, Fargo, Shine, and Secrets and Lies on the list. I have seen Jerry Maguire, Fargo, and Shine, and thought all three were superior to The English Patient. Wow.

At any rate, Ralph Fiennes stars as Count Laszlo de Almasy, a man who, at the beginning of the film has had his entire face burned off in a terrible airplane crash. He is too sick and weak to move, so a nurse named Hana (played by Juliette Binoche) sets up camp for them at an abandoned Italian monastery where she intends to make his final days as comfortable as possible (with the help of morphine).  

Almasy apparently lost his memory in the crash, and doesn't really recall everything that happened to him. However, thanks to a battered book containing notes and letters found near the count's body, he is soon able to start piecing together his prior life.

In scattered flashbacks, we learn that he was a cartographer who wass mapping parts of Africa for the English government in the years leading up to World War II. He usually worked with his partner Madox (Julian Wadham), but they were then joined by a larger group led by the rich Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). The Cliftons secured more funding to continue explorations, which meant that they and Almasy were able to spend plenty of time together.

When Geoffrey is suddenly called away by the British government to take care of a problem in Cairo, Almasy and Katherine find themselves immensely attracted to each other. They fall in love, and carry on an illicit affair right under Geoffrey's nose.

In addition to Almasy and Katherine, there's a somewhat parallel love story involving Hana and a Sikh officer named Kip (Naveen Andrews). Hana obviously has some intimacy issues and feels that everyone she's ever loved has died, which doesn't bode well for Kip, who is a member of the bomb disposal squad.

One thing that I kept wondering about Almasy as I watched The English Patient was, "Why is his story so important?" Usually, the main character in a movie is special in a way that makes it imperative for the filmmakers to tell their story. But I couldn't see that in Almasy. I know this movie was billed as a passionate love story, but I didn't see Almasy and Katherine as sympathetic characters in any way. Geoffrey seemed like a good husband who treated Katherine well, and he certainly didn't deserve to be deceived by her. If Almasy and Katherine had shown a little restraint and not acted on their lust because she was already married, that would have elevated them in my opinion and I would have been more sympathetic to their plight. As it was, I just saw them as selfish and unlikable.

The Hana and Kip storyline was only slightly better, as I didn't sense much onscreen chemistry between Binoche and Andrews. I've heard the book by Michael Ondaatje gives this relationship more in-depth treatment, but in the movie it's not very interesting.

Overall, if you've made it this long without seeing The English Patient, I don't think you should go out of your way to rent it anytime soon. If you insist on watching it, be prepared for a mostly uneventful 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Bicentennial Man

By Simon Woodhouse

Tried and tested storylines, even within a traditionally innovative genre like Science Fiction, seem to be the preferred fodder of Hollywood studio execs. Which I guess is why the tale of the robot who wants to become human pops up again and again. Data from Star Trek started the trend, and then David, the robot from A.I.: Artificial Intelligence got in on the act. The robots involved in these stories always seem to have a very simplistic worldview - everything will be all right once I'm human. Perhaps that's why they're so often recycled, because theirs is a story that's easy to understand and therefore should have mass market appeal. But unfortunately that's not the case. Robots in these sorts of films are always portrayed as very bland, very well-meaning machines, the sorts of characters that become extremely irritating after only a couple of minutes. The main character in Bicentennial Man is no different.

Andrew (Robin Williams) is a standard domestic robot, bought by Richard Martin (Sam Neill) to help his wife around the house. The Martins live in a near future world, only slightly more technologically advanced than ours. They have two daughters, Amanda and Grace, both of whom are under ten years old when the movie starts. To make the first part of the film nice and easy to understand, the two girls are good sister and bad sister. Good sister, Amanda (Hallie Kate Eisenberg), is christened Little Miss by Andrew, and theirs becomes a nauseatingly sweet relationship. Bad sister, Grace (Lindze Letherman), hates the robot (though it's not really explained why) and so takes great pleasure in tormenting him, even going so far as to make him jump out an upstairs window.

These over simplified relationships give the first part of the film a sort of Disney feel. Though there's nothing wrong with that, it's not maintained throughout the whole movie, and therefore the story feels disjointed. Andrew's 'goodness' is demonstrated in the most base sort of way - he finds a spider in the basement of the house and so sets it free in the flower garden outside. This kind of character development is like being hit over the head with a baseball bat. There's nothing subtle about it, and nothing's left to chance.

Anyway, the film rolls on and Andrew develops a talent for carving things out of wood, especially clocks. These start to sell, and Richard decides the money should be put in a bank account for Andrew. Cast in the light of benevolent do-gooder and all-caring father figure, Richard starts to view Andrew as something more than a robot. Again, it isn't explained why, but perhaps in a Disney type world some people are just all good (or maybe I'm too cynical).

The children grow up, and the actress playing Amanda changes to Embeth Davitz. Hers and Andrew's is still a sickly sweet relationship, but now she sort of feels so close to him that she's not sure about accepting a marriage proposal from her boyfriend. This is also the point where Andrew goes back to the people who made him and has an upgrade. Besides the upgrades, Andrew also gets the idea that he wants to be 'free', and no longer the possession of the Martins. Richard grants him this wish, but also tells him that as a result he must leave their house and experience all aspects of freedom.

As the film is set over a period of two hundred years, there are big jumps forward along the timeline. After Andrew leaves the Martins and builds himself a rather impressive house on a near by beach, the film jumps forward a few years. Andrew begins a quest to find other robots of the same model as himself. At this point the film moves away from all the super-sweet family orientated stuff (thank goodness), and becomes a bit more watch-able. Andrew's quest takes years, and so the film moves forward again. Eventually he crosses paths with a robot called Galatea (Kiersten Warren), and her owner Rupert Burns (Oliver Platt). Rupert is a bit of a robotic genius, and after befriending Andrew, they embark on a series of revolutionary upgrades. Each modification makes Andrew a bit more 'human', something he desperately wants.

Coated in synthetic skin, Andrew looks more or less human. He then returns to the Martin's household and encounters Amanda's granddaughter, Portia (also played by Embeth Davitz). In a case of history repeating itself (and the storyline as well) Portia doesn't like Andrew. But as time goes by they become close, to the point of starting a relationship. During this period Andrew is being continually modified, with Rupert giving him things like a digestive system and a reproductive organ.

Having been watch-able for a brief period during the middle, the film sinks back into schmaltz-coated ridiculousness as Andrew and Portia's relationship deepens. Because he's a robot, Andrew has only a limited emotional response (at least for most of the film). But the story is so sappy, with everyone around Andrew emoting all the time, that he just looks like a fish out of water. His somewhat monotone voice, stilted robot movements and failure to understand human behavior, quickly switch from mildly amusing to very irritating. It's also a strange role for Robin Williams, someone who's always full-on wacky in most of his films. And I have to say, most of the movie's short comings rest firmly on his shoulders. As an actor, he's just not up to the challenge of playing a character like Andrew. Likewise, Embeth Davitz isn't very good as Amanda/Portia. Considering she's playing a human, her performance is way more artificial than Williams'. Only Oliver Platt saves the day, turning in the most note worthy performance, but alas he's not given enough screen time to save the film. By the time the bittersweet ending rolls around, the movie is so devoid of genuine emotion it's difficult to care one jot about what happens to Andrew and Portia.

Switching as it does between Disney style sappiness, and more adult jokes, it's difficult to know who the film is aimed at. Perhaps this lack of direction is why it under performed at the box office, grossing $30m less than it cost to make. It's not a total dud, but for every slightly amusing or vaguely touching moment, there's a whole mess of non-jokes and schmaltz to wade through. As a family film it might just work, but expect moments where both you and the kids are bored.

Superman Returns (2006)

By: Melissa Martinez

As movie superheroes go, Superman has to be one of the best. You've gotta love a guy that's made of steel. For over six decades our imaginations have soared at a speed faster than a racing bullet and in the latest incarnation of Superman, the franchise shows no signs of slowing. Superman Returns is a very entertaining film that taunts us with all the old cliches but still manages to keep the story fresh.

Brandon Routh is amazing as the man of steel. They couldn't have found a more perfect actor to fill the famous shoes. His mannerisms at times are so similar to that of Christopher Reeve's that it's almost scary. He is also very easy on the eyes, which is in my opinion, a very important prerequisite for any actor playing Superman.

As the film opens, we find our beleaguered Superhero returning home, hurdling through space on a meteor. Sound familiar? Apparently, he's been gone for five years. His quest to find Krypton was less than successful and now he has many bridges to mend, not least of which will be one that will hit very close to home.

We find the Daily Planet has been business as usual since Superman has been gone and they didn't seem to miss Clark Kent much either. Everyone, that is, except Jimmy Olsen, of course. This doesn't seem to come as too much of a shock to the man in tights, but the latest additions to Lois' family does. Yes, Lois Lane has a fiance and a son! Yeah, we know what you're thinking. Everyone will be thinking the same thing. But let's not ruin the whole movie for you.

The character of Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth, is not what the moviegoer will be expecting. Don't get me wrong, she manages to pull it off, but I don't know, there was just something missing from her performance. Pay close attention to the scenes with her and Superman and you'll see what I mean.

Lois' claim to fame after Superman disappeared was a scathing article she wrote entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". Ouch, and if that wasn't enough, she won the Pulitzer for it. Don't judge her too harshly, though, after all Hell hath no fury...well, you know the rest.

Lex Luthor, as played by Kevin Spacey, is absolutely odious. You'll be wishing he were hurdling through space on a meteor by the end of the movie.

We find that Luthor has managed to escape from jail and con an aged millionairess out of, well, her millions. Yes, did I mention he was odious?

James Marsden plays Richard White, Lois' fiance. Before you hurl your popcorn at the screen, give the guy a chance. You have to feel for this guy. He's actually a really nice guy caught in an impossible love triangle. The scenes involving him, Lois and Superman are actually very poignant.

If I were to find one fault with the film it would be the length. The film runs a bit long. I don't know if the length was necessary in order to tell the full story. Some scenes could have been excluded and some could have been shortened considerably, especially the ones involving Luthor and his cronies.

All in all, I believe this film manages to mesh the comic book storyline with the Hollywood storyline quite nicely. They could have easily tried to make the story go in a darker direction, a la Batman Begins, but they didn't and thank goodness they didn't. Superman is cut and dry. He stands for everything that is good and there is no in between for him. After all, he isn't human; so let's not try to cloud him with human traits that are less than perfect.

Visually, this film is stunning. Story wise, you won't be disappointed. Suffice it to say, you are in for a heck of a ride. The scene with the jetliner is nothing short of exhilarating and the scenes from space are very cool. Granted, whenever you have people flying in the air it's going to feel a bit fake, but you've gotta just go with it. Like I said, you've got to let your imagination take over. You'll be glad you did.

The Hills haved Eyes (1977)

The Story: A vacationing family driving cross-country get lost and stranded inside an air force testing range.

Big Bob Carter (the late Russ Grieve) is an ex-cop on vacation with his family. On their way to sunny California they get diverted due to a flat tire. Dad (Bob) decides to walk back to a gas station they had stopped at earlier, while his oldest daughter's husband, Doug (Martin Speer), goes in the other direction to look for help. This leaves Bob's wife Ethel (Virginia Vincent), his son Bobby (Robert Houston) and his two daughters Brenda (Susan Lanier) and Lynne (Dee Wallace Stone, The Howling, The Frighteners) stranded in the desert with the sun growing dim. To make things worse, Brenda has her and Doug's child with them too. Their only means of protection against anything are the two pet German Shepherds, Beauty (Flora) and Beast (Striker). What exactly are they up against?

Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth) was a hellion from birth. Early in the film, the story is told of when he was born and that his mother died after the delivery (this is one of the best dialogue moments in the film). From then on, Jupiter was nothing less than dangerous hatred. Years later, the Father takes his son (at age 10) out in the dessert and leaves him for dead. This only gave opportunity for Papa Jupe to grow and start a family of his own (with a stolen whore), all named after planets. This cannibalistic family lives off the poor human souls that get stranded out in the wasteland each and every year. Big Bob Roberts and his happy go lucky family just happened to get a flat tire in the wrong place, that's all there is to it. And if dear ol' Dad had just headed straight to California instead of letting curiosity get to him, they could all be sunning themselves by a beautiful beach, enjoying a nice family vacation. Luckily for horror fans, this doesn't happen. Instead, the sun dies out and gives birth to a pitch-black night. Survival begins to grow bleak where The Hills Have Eyes.

This is an excellent recommendation for old and new fans of Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street), as well as fans of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and even Deliverance. Last House on the Left is usually considered to be too much, or just a horrible film (there are some fans, mind you), but in The Hills Have Eyes, director and writer Wes Craven showed what he was capable of. True, this isn't the film that made him a Fangoria articles monthly exclusive, but this is where some of his best work can be seen. All in all, it's a tale of the ultimate survival and revenge. A family pushed to the edge by another, much more, unstable family. The scary thing is there's no indication that folks this sick don't exist, somewhere.

Even though this may seem tame to Last House, Craven still put out a raw effort here. He was less remorseful back in the day, and that's why his new style doesn't match his earlier films completely. The Hills have Eyes isn't flawless (not the greatest acting, sloppy FX at times and some of the story is a bit much), but it doesn't matter. There are things that make it severely watchable, even if it has lost some of its touch over the years.

One thing that makes Hills so great is the cinematography. A fantastic scene of the movie weaves its way in towards the ending. Papa Jupe and his number one son, Pluto (Michael Berryman, Weird Science) is shown running towards the camera, almost like they're having a brisk morning jog. These two aren't the most normal buddies to see in a shot like this. It's highly intense, and I think a lot of that has to do with just how odd looking it is. Blank looks stretch across both their faces while the faint breeze of the dessert sifts through Papa Jupes mangy hair. The camera stays in one place while they bounce closer to the screen by the second. For me, this scene lives long after the movie, and all they're doing is, jogging.

Acting is about half n' half. Susan Lanier as the youngest daughter is very cute and her style almost compliments today's standards. On an acting level, she's a notch under good, though. During the most frantic moments in the film her performance is pushed far overboard, taking a bit from the atmosphere. Robert Houston as Bobby is great for comedy. This isn't the guy to be stranded with, out in the dessert, while fighting off cannibals. His best moment is when he interrupts his oldest sister with her husband in the heat of passion to tell them about Beauty (the female Shepherd).

Dee Wallace Stone carries a unique style, as always. She's a fun talent to watch, even in her lesser performances. Virginia Vincent gives the mother character an adorable personality. She's quite ditzy and forgetful, and it makes her really fun to watch. Keep an eye out for the best hero in the film, Beast, played by Striker. He is the modem for a defenseless families revenge, as well as payback for reasons of his own. The crazy folk are highly believable, particularly the characters of Pluto, Papa Jupe and Mars (Lance Gordon). Some of their interaction is rather funny too. Not in a laughable sense, it just seems like the un-smart dialogue was well thought out. Janus Blythe plays Ruby, who wants to escape the dessert and travel far from her psycho family. Her performance is more or less bland. Not horrible, but in it's in no sense as believable as the rest of her kin.

The blood and gore is present, but in small amounts. Most of the FX are at best, decent, but this only takes mildly away from Hills. The make-up on the cannibal family is done up fairly well, though. Mars and Jupiter are definitely the most hideous of the bunch. Jupiter has a gash down his nose and cheek from a crowbar, and Mars looks like he borrowed a set piece from Jaws for teeth. For gore there is a torn open foot, multiple stabbings, shootings, and a brief scene of a gutted animal. Not totally realistic, but this may have been pushing the limit and budget back in 1977.

The movie does suffer from being overly dark at times (sometimes it just looks like the screen went black), but in some instances this adds to the eeriness. One scene that comes to mind is after the first encounter with the cannibals, where Doug goes running out into the dark dessert. As he screams anxiously looking in all directions, the camera slowly backs up like it's creeping in reverse. When it stops all you see is Doug surrounded by nothing but black all around. To me, it seems like symbolism for the pain of loneliness, but not necessarily on purpose.

So, over time The Hills have Eyes may have not aged perfectly, but it's still a fun film to go back and review or see for a first time. Not noticeable at first, but you can read through and point out the similarities to Craven's current style. This isn't his first film, but it's definitely one of the high points in his career. Many people feel Elm St. is the masterwork here, and it is truly a landmark horror film. But in terms of realism, Hills is more effective. While you're watching, look for the ripped Jaws poster on a wall in the camping trailer. There is some neat significance that was carried on in Craven and Raimi films a few years later.

Field of Dreams (1989)

There have been a lot of sports movies made over the years, and most of those movies are simply about the sports, teams, or individuals that are featured in them. Seldom is there a broader message, one that lasts well beyond the extent of the final game. But that's not the case with Field of Dreams, the popular 1989 movie based on a W.P. Kinsella novel.

Field of Dreams stars Kevin Costner as Iowa farmer Ray Kinsella. One day, Ray hears a voice that says, "If you build it, he will come." Ray at first dismisses the voice and doesn't think much more about it, but then he hears the same sentence again and again. He starts to ask other farmers if they've ever heard voices while out in their fields, but of course no one has. Finally, Ray comes to understand what the voice means: he's to build a baseball diamond in the middle of his corn field.

Ray tells his wife Annie (played by Amy Madigan) of his plans, and she's surprisingly supportive of his decision. Her brother, Mark (Timothy Busfield), however, is another story. Mark thinks that Ray has really gone off the deep end, particularly since their farm is in trouble as it is. Without the income from the corn that Ray has to dig up in order to accommodate the baseball diamond, they could very well lose everything.

Nevertheless, Mark doesn't have any real say in what goes on, so Ray builds his baseball diamond. Then he waits, but no one comes. A whole year passes, and nothing happens. Just as Ray is beginning to wonder if he's made the right decision, a ballplayer named Shoeless Joe (Ray Liotta) emerges from the cornfield one night and goes out to the diamond. Ray has been expecting Shoeless Joe, so he goes out there and the two play ball for a bit. When it comes time for Shoeless Joe to leave, he says he'll come back with his friends.

Soon, Shoeless Joe brings back other members from the infamous "Black Sox" baseball team that was accused of throwing the 1919 World Series. These men were banned from baseball, but now are finding a second chance to play out there on Ray's field.

Even though the ballplayers have come, Ray's adventure with the voice isn't complete. He ends up getting two more messages, one of which takes him to Boston in search of a reclusive writer named Terence Mann (James Earl Jones). Together, the two team up to complete the tasks ordered by the voice. The rest of the movie deals with the way the two men figure out what they need to do, and how they go about doing it. The final scenes where Ray discovers that Shoeless Joe wasn't the one he built the field for are very powerful and are sure to overwhelm all but the most cynical viewers.

I thought Field of Dreams was an excellent movie, and it has held up very well in the 17 years since it was first released. Watching it today is not much different from watching it back in 1989; the story is timeless and the whole thing has aged remarkably well.

This movie came out when Kevin Costner was still one of the most popular leading men in Hollywood, and I have to say that he made a perfect Ray Kinsella. He's got that "Aw, shucks" kind of innocent appeal about him, and really seems to embody the average guy kind of character that Ray is. Ray's sincerity throughout the film and his utter belief in what he had to do were clearly evident, and this in turn made me believe that building a baseball diamond in the middle of a cornfield was perfectly logical.

I thought James Earl Jones was fantastic too, and enjoyed his turn as Terence Mann. He provided just the right amount of skepticism about the whole adventure, which again added a sense of believability to the picture.

Overall, I think Field of Dreams is one of the best sports movies ever made. It's appropriate for the entire family and the universal themes will appeal to you even if you don't like baseball. If you haven't seen this movie yet, you're really missing out on an excellent film!

Monty Python's Life Of Brian

By Simon Woodhouse

Some films are very much of their time. What I mean is, they fit the era in which they were made, and it's hard to imagine them being produced at any other point in time. They show how attitudes have changed, and that the world we live in today isn't what it was five, ten or fifteen years ago. You would hope, that as time goes by, society's attitudes would liberalize. We become more enlightened, and therefore accept things based on facts and rational thinking, not fear-filled indoctrinations. Alas, this isn't so. And bearing this in mind, I can't imagine a film like Life Of Brian ever being made in today's climate.

I can't think of any other subject that contains more taboos than religion. This being the case, it's the perfect base on which to build a satire. And if your going to poke fun at religion, you might as well go the whole hog and really get stuck in.

Life Of Brian lays its cards on the table right from the word go. The opening scene parodies the birth of Christ, mocks everything about what happened in the stable two thousand years ago, and promptly lets you know exactly where Monty Python stand on the subject. It also introduces the film's main character - Brian (Graham Chapman), but here he's just a baby. We then jump forward in time, and meet Brian when he's in his thirties. He lives at home with his mom (Terry Jones - yes Brian's mom is played by a man), and really doesn't know what he wants to do with his life. Eventually he links up with the Peoples Front of Judean, a terrorist organization who wants to kick the Romans out of their homeland. Here he meets and falls in love with Judith (Susan Jones), a member of the PFJ. He also becomes mixed up in a plot to kidnap the wife of Pontius Pilate, the local Roman governor.

As with most comedies, the plot in Life Of Brian isn't really important, and is only there as a vehicle for the jokes. And like most other funny films, this one is just a series of individual scenes linked together by a vague theme. But that doesn't matter, because even if the majority of what happens doesn't further the plot, it's still very, very funny. The movie also features another classic trait often found in some of the best comedies - different actors playing multiple parts. Monty Python take this to the extreme, with both John Cleese and Michael Palin performing the lions share of the acting duties, and popping up again and again. Quite a lot of the time they're playing one-off characters, who appear once and are never seen again. However, these two are also responsible for some of the film's best characters. Palin plays Pontius Pilate, but gives the man a lisp, thus making everything he says sound utterly ridiculous (and hysterical). Cleese's best character has to be Stan, the cowardly leader of the PFJ.

Though the film starts off lampooning the birth of Christ, for the most part it doesn't really focus too much on mocking religion (though when it does it fires both barrels). It's more about Brian's struggle through life, and his inability to understand the world around him. As with most Monty Python material, the theme of the film is really the relationship between working class people and those above them. The upper classes are nearly always portrayed as dimwitted fools, while the working class man comes across as a work-shy know-it-all. This supplies a rich vein of comedy material that the Pythons work to its fullest.

As the film rolls on, the PFJ bungle the attempt to kidnap Pilate's wife, and this eventually leads to Brian being arrested by the Romans. But along the way he finds out his dad actually was a Roman, encounters a bunch of incompetent aliens, is haled as the new messiah and gets to sleep with Judith. Because the Roman's were keen on crucifixion, this is Brian's punishment. The last scene cleverly ties the movie back in with the life of Christ, and links it with the very first scene - it started with Brian's birth in a stable and ends up with him being crucified. The finale is also where Eric Idle sings (whilst hanging from a crucifix) the song that's now as big as the film - Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.

It's difficult to list the film's funniest moments, as it's all pretty hilarious. All the scenes involving Pilate are brilliant, as well as those that feature another of Michael Palin's characters - the prisoner hanging from the wall in the Roman jail. Terry Jones' portrayal of Brian's mother is also top-notch, and so is Eric Idle's character who calls everyone big nose. Though there are swipes at organized religion, I'm not sure the film is offensive. Christ is never actually portrayed in a derogatory way. It's the situation that's lampooned, rather than specific events. And the humor is clever, not tasteless or crass. In a chart of the top ten funniest films of all time, Life Of Brian would definitely be in the top three. As a partial religious parody it'll have the field to itself for a good while yet, because in today's social climate, I can't imagine any film studio having the courage to release something as blatant as Life Of Brian.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

I hardly watch television anymore, preferring instead to catch my favorite shows on TiVo instead. Besides giving me the luxury of watching TV whenever I have the time for it, it also allows me to skip past the commercials, thus reducing an hour-long prime time program to 42 minutes. But one thing I miss as a result of not watching television commercials is movie previews, which is the main reason that I hardly ever hear of films until they're out on DVD.

The Mothman Prophecies is one such movie that I'd never heard of until just last weekend when I happened to come across it on the shelf at my local video rental store. Richard Gere and Laura Linney star in the film, and since I like both of those actors, I decided to take a chance on the movie -- even though it was classified as "horror", which is one of my least favorite genres.

The movie opens with some establishing shots of John Klein (Gere) at work as a reporter for the Washington Post. He gets along well with his boss Cyrus (played by Bob Tracy) and his co-worker Ed (David Eigenberg, instantly recognizable as Steve Brady from Sex and the City). John is the star reporter and everything seems to be going his way.

John next meets up with his wife Mary (Debra Messing) at a house they're thinking of buying. Mary loves it, so John decides to purchase it on the spot. But then as the two are driving home, tragedy strikes. Mary thinks she sees something in the road and she loses control of the car as she swerves to miss it. During the medical examination following the accident, the doctors discover that Mary has a brain tumor, and she soon dies from that.

John  is understandably devastated by this turn of events, and his life pretty much shuts down after that. He still goes to work, but he doesn't do anything on a social level and he refuses to meet other women.

One night, instead of going to meet someone Ed has picked out for him, John decides to get an early start on an interview he has with the governor of Virginia. He wants to drive there, so he leaves at 1:00 in the morning. Something strange happens at that point and John inexplicably finds himself hundreds of miles away from his intended destination -- all within an hour and a half of leaving home.

Eventually John learns that he is in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. A series of bizarre incidents makes John want to stay in Point Pleasant rather than move on to Virginia. Specifically, he learns from a police officer named Connie Mills (Linney) that many of the residents have reported seeing a creature that looks like a cross between a moth and a man. This interests John because his wife drew a picture of this very thing before she died.

The rest of the movie deals with John's attempts to find out what this "mothman" creature is and why John and the other residents can see and hear him.

After I finished watching The Mothman Prophecies, I checked out some of the reviews it received from professional critics and was surprised to see that most of them were negative. I didn't think the movie was as bad as many of those critics made it out to be. Yes, it wasn't exactly scary, but I still felt the story was a pretty good one. It was interesting enough that I kept paying attention to it long after I realized it wasn't very scary. Plus, the bridge sequence towards the end of the movie was excellent and really had me riveted as I watched what was going on.

However, I do agree with those critics who have said that there wasn't much of a payoff in this movie. If you're expecting concrete answers to the questions that the filmmakers pose along the way, you'll be disappointed to learn that you won't find them in this movie.

Nevertheless, I still thought The Mothman Prophecies was an entertaining movie. It's not one that will have you talking excitedly with your friends around the water cooler the next day, but it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours either.

Miracle (2004)

I'm not particularly a fan of the Olympics, and I never have been. But even I've heard of the "miracle on ice" that occurred in Lake Placid, New York in the 1980 Winter Games. That's when the U.S. hockey team made up of a bunch of young, unknown college kids defeated a Soviet Union team that had dominated world play for nearly two decades. I had even seen images of the on-ice celebration after the game, with the American players draped in flags and triumphantly holding their hands in the air. But I didn't know anything else about that time, which is why I was anxious to see Miracle, the 2004 film detailing the hockey team's journey to greatness.

The first thing the viewer needs to know before sitting down to watch this movie is that it's not a documentary. Even though it's based on facts and uses real players' names and real events, it's not a blow-by-blow account of what happened in 1979-80. The filmmakers take a few liberties with the story and add some Hollywood moments that didn't actually occur in real life. That didn't bother me very much, but a few purists out there might feel otherwise.

The focus of the film is on U.S. coach Herb Brooks, played by Kurt Russell. Brooks was a former Olympian himself, but got cut from the 1960 team one week before they won the gold medal. That event haunted Brooks and drove him to succeed as a coach where he had failed as a player.

The movie opens with Brooks lobbying for the Olympic coaching job. He been studying the Soviet team on film and has new ideas about how to play against them. The NHL style won't cut it, he tells members of the United States Olympic Committee. Instead, he wants to combine elements of the European and Canadian game, which will allow his team to attack the Soviets. The USOC members are a bit skeptical, but no one else seems to want the job, so Brooks wins it.

The next step is for Brooks to select players, which he does on the very first day of what was supposed to be a five-day tryout. His assistant coach Craig Patrick (Noah Emmerich) is surprised because Brooks didn't even choose the most talented players. But that's all part of Brooks' plan. He doesn't need the most talented guys, he needs the ones who will play together as a team. So he picks goalie Jim Craig (Eddie Cahill) even though he's had some family problems, as well as Mike Eruzione (Patrick O'Brien Demsey), Jack O'Callahan (Michael Mantenuto), Dave Silk (Bobby Hanson), Mike Ramsey (Joseph Cure), and 15 other top college players.

Brooks used an unorthodox approach to getting his team ready for the Olympics. First off, he gave them a 300-question psychological exam just to make doubly sure they were the right guys for the team. Then, he made them work on their conditioning by skating sprints until they literally fell down puking. Finally, Brooks designed elaborate plays and demanded that they be executed to perfection.

Of course we all know how the movie will end, so it's obvious that Brooks' plan worked for those young men.

I thought Miracle was a terrific movie. The biggest challenge director Gavin O'Connor faced, as far as viewers were concerned, was making the hockey scenes look authentic. After all, there would obviously have to be a lot of hockey sequences in the movie and if they didn't look right the whole film would be ruined. I read that O'Connor hired his actors primarily based on their hockey skills rather than acting talent, and as a result, the hockey scenes look fantastic. They are very well done and I did feel as though I were watching an authentic game.

In addition, the final matchup against the Soviets was excellently done. It's hard to build tension when the audience knows the outcome, but O'Connor managed to do it. I was on the edge of my seat even though I knew the U.S. would win.

Taken as a whole, Miracle is a tremendous film that should be seen by any sports fan. There are plenty of great moments in the movie, and it was a very good re-creation of the greatest game the U.S. hockey team ever played.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

By Simon Woodhouse

If there's one film genre that's become universally known as the epitome of terribleness, it's movie-game tie-ins. Come the day of reckoning, it'll be the creators of such screen 'gems' as Doom, Resident Evil, Blood Rayne, and Alone in the Dark, who'll the first against the wall. These films don't even register on the 'so bad they're good' scale. They're just bad, end of story.

However, in amongst all the chaff, you do occasionally find the odd grain of wheat. A movie-game tie-in that knows the limits of its own worth, doesn't try to overreach, and works even if you've never heard of or played the game. But to capture the essence of the game, wouldn't it make sense for the movie to be in someway connected with the game, over and above the story and the characters? Games are an adventure in the world of computer graphics, and computer graphics dominate movies. So, why not make a movie-game tie-in that's entirely computer graphics? No actors, no sets, no scenery, just wall-to-wall CGI.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was the first attempt to make a movie using nothing but photo-realistic CGI. We're not talking Toy Story style cartoon graphics here, but rather images that look so real they could be real.

Set in the not to distant future, the movie tells the story of Aki Ross (voiced by Ming-Na Wen), a scientist working to rid the Earth of the Phantoms, ghostly invaders who've come here inside a giant meteorite. In a clever bit of story writing that allows the Phantoms to kill people, but not spill a drop of blood and therefore keep the film gore-free, the bad guys despatch their victim's by pulling out their bio-etheric energy (or soul). To protect themselves, the surviving members of the human race live within barrier cities, and only venture outside when it's absolutely necessary.

The film starts with Ross scouting through the ruins of New York, looking for anything that might be left alive out there. Now, this is where the story doesn't exactly get complicated, but rather convoluted. Ross and her mentor, Doctor Sid (voiced by Donald Sutherland), think they've found a way to rid the world of the Phantom menace (couldn't resist that one). If they can collect the bio-etheric energy from seven specific organisms, they can use it to counter the Phantoms. To help Ross whilst she's outside the barrier cities, she's escorted by Gray Edwards (voiced by Alec Baldwin) and his platoon of soldiers. Ranged against Aki and Doctor Sid is General Hein (voiced by James Woods), a gung-ho military man who just wants to blast the Phantoms to kingdom come. For this, he's got the Zeus Cannon, an impressive piece of military hardware that's orbiting the Earth. But Ross and co are convinced that if he fires the weapon, he'll only be making the Phantoms more powerful.

Though the story has a bit of depth, it's the whole look of the film that makes it what it is. The photo-realistic imagery is superb. It's not exactly the same as watching something that's one hundred percent real, but that gives it a sort of sci-fi edge. You can tell it's CGI, however, it's really, really good CGI. There's none of the jarring contrast between what's real and what's computer generated that plague's more conventional sci-fi films (most notably the Star Wars prequels). The only thing the film doesn't do very well is human expressions. The people look 'real' enough, especially their hair, but their faces seem a little rubbery. That said, they're more than a match for the usual acting 'talent' found in movie-game tie-ins.

As the story progresses we learn that Ross and Gray once had a thing for each other. There's also a subplot involving Aki that means finding the seven organisms is important to her personally. Other than these slight distractions, it's just a straight race to find the seven organisms before General Hein gets permission to fire the Zeus Cannon. There's quite a lot of shooting and dying along the way, all of it happening in scenes where the soldiers are firing their guns at the Phantoms. This does become a bit repetitive, but each fighting segment is something more than the previous one, so the action builds up as it goes along. Unfortunately, all the bio-etheric mumbo-jumbo gets a bit much in the end, and the finale is rather daft.

Considering it's a movie-game tie-in, and all the faces onscreen are CGI, the 'acting' isn't all that bad. Donald Sutherland is the best voice, and he lends his character an element of likable authority. Alec Baldwin is a bit too one-dimensional, and the same can be said for Ming-Na Wen. Some of the banter between the soldiers is quite good, especially from Steve Buscemi who voices the character of Neil Flemming. James Woods goes for over acting all the way, but then his character looks a bit ridiculous as well, dressed as he is in a Nazi style leather trench coat which I guess is supposed to make him appear more sinister, whereas in reality he just looks like a pimp.

Unfortunately, the movie took a bit of a pasting at the box office. Its worldwide gross fell well short of the $137m it cost to make. I guess this would explain why photo-realistic CGI films have never really taken off, which is a shame, because Final Fantasy is very watch-able. I'm sure at some point in the future someone will come along and pick up the gauntlet, but until then FF is the only place to go for a fix of pure CGI entertainment.

Crash (2004)

I'd been wanting to see Crash ever since the film won the Oscar for Best Motion Picture earlier this year. Even though the movie was a 2004 release, it wasn't eligible for the 2005 Academy Awards because of a technicality regarding the rules, so that pushed its eligibility to the 2006 awards show when it unexpectedly beat out Brokeback Mountain for the biggest win of the evening. That gave writer/director Paul Haggis back-to-back wins in the Best Picture category, something that I don't think has ever happened before.

Crash features an ensemble cast of big-name stars including Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillippe, Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Thandie Newton, Terrence Howard, Larenz Tate, and the rapper Ludacris. All of these actors play Los Angeles residents who are affected by racism in some way. In some cases, like that of Matt Dillon as LAPD veteran John Ryan, the person is a racist themselves. In others, like that of Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton, they are victims of racism. Either way, racism is definitely one of the major themes of this film.

This is the kind of movie where the storylines overlap each other and where there's no distinct timeline or single plot to follow. Therefore, it would be impossible to give a summary here; instead I'll highlight the elements of the film that I liked and those that I didn't.

The first thing that I noticed about Crash was the talent of the actors involved in the project. Matt Dillon received a lot of recognition for his turn as Officer Ryan and was even nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He was indeed very good and certainly deserves all the attention he got. But personally, I didn't think his performance was the best one in the movie.

Instead, I think Michael Pena, who played locksmith and upstanding family man Daniel, took those honors. Pena's performance really stood out even amongst all those marquee names, and I immediately sat up straighter and paid more attention whenever his character was on the screen. He was brilliant in all of his scenes and really stole the show as far as I'm concerned.

I was also surprised at how well Ludacris did in his role as Anthony. I know that a lot of musicians try to make the jump from the recording studio to the movie studio (and vice versa for actors), but not many of them actually have talent in both areas. I'll stop short of saying that Ludacris was excellent, but he was definitely very good.

For me, the storylines presented in Crash were secondary to the performances. They were mostly used just to set up each character and give viewers a chance to see who these people were and what they typically had to deal with every day of their lives. The stories themselves weren't particularly important to the film and actually didn't stand out very much at all.

Out of all the storylines that were presented, I have to go back to Daniel and say that his was the most compelling for me. The other characters in the movie all had their good points and their bad points, and both sides were shown by director Haggis. Daniel was the only major character that did not exhibit racism in any way in the film. He never made assumptions about the kind of people he encountered and didn't do or say anything that was racially motivated. He was just an upstanding man who was trying to do his best to provide for his family while having to deal with the all the stereotypes that go along with being a Latino man with tattoos and baggy pants in L.A.

Overall, I thought Crash was a very good film and will definitely be worth your time to watch. However, I have to admit that one of the biggest reasons I watched the movie was to compare it to Brokeback Mountain to see which movie should have won as Best Picture. As far as that goes, I have to agree with all the people who think Brokeback was robbed because I felt it was a stronger, more compelling, more complete work than Crash was. But I guess the Academy voters know best, don't they?

A Chinese Ghost Story (1987)

The Story: A young man falls in love with the ghostly servant of an evil spirit.

We start our story with tax collector Ning Tsau-shen getting caught in the rain, which in turn destroys his tax records. Upon seeking dry shelter and not having any cash, he's told he can stay at the Lan Ro Temple in the nearby forest at no cost. Hearing this, our dim-witted collector heads off to rewrite his records under the roof of the dry temple. Little does he know at the time, the temple is haunted.

Arriving at the temple Tsau-shen meets legendary Taoist Swordsman Yen. Yen has spent most of his life fighting criminals and has sought refuge in the temple because he's become dispirited from the rest of society. Failing to scare off Tsau-shen, Yen decides to keep an eye on him to protect him from the ghosts in the temple, which Tsau-shen is still unaware of.

One night while working on his tax records, Tsau-shen meets Nieh Hsiao Tsing, a beautiful young woman, and falls in love with her immediately. However, Tsau-shen has no idea that Hsiao Tsing is one of many ghosts that haunt the temple. She's forced by a 1000-year-old Tree Spirit to lure men in so the spirit can suck the life from the unlucky few with its elongated tongue. Nieh Hsiao Tsing is also being forced to marry the Black Lord, an ancient demon, in 3 days.

Ning Tsau-shen soon discovers the truth about Nieh Hsiao Tsing and, with Yen, begins a search for an urn holding Hsiao Tsing's ashes to use them in a reincarnation ceremony in an attempt to save her. But time isn't on their side as the Tree Spirit is relentless in its chase for the couple, and the Black Lord wants his soon to be bride. Will the three survive the evil in the forest? Or will the Black Lord use the Tree Spirit's tongue to have his way with Nieh Hsiao Tsing? I'll never tell.

Wow, what an odd piece of Honk Kong cinema we have here. There's a bit of everything for everybody in this flick. From flying swordsmen, martial arts, supernatural magic, to a Tree Spirit with a tongue that puts Gene Simmons' to shame. All these wild elements seem to come together beautifully to create a wonderful, if not odd, film.

Upon my first viewing of A Chinese Ghost Story, I was a bit confused. It's a story that moves at a rather fast pace, and at times is hard to keep up with. But after watching it a second time, I saw that it's a well-crafted story about love, more than anything. What makes this work is the script. It weaves the tale of the Tax Collector, the Ghosts, the Tree Spirit, and the Dark Lord into a dreamlike story with bits of humor thrown in for the occasional laugh.
With this dreamlike story you get fabulous cinematography, fog shrouded sets, blue tinged night sequences, creative and unusual camera angles, flowing images of silk gowns, and amazing sets that somehow reminded me of The Evil Dead. This is all put together with a wonderful score that rivals the many great horror films we watch today.

Performances from the cast are hard to nail. This is because it's a Chinese film with English subs. And as you all know, dubbed films tend to take a way from the acting skills any one actor or actress may have. I will say though, our lead character Ning Tsau-shen, does manage to pull off his role quite convincingly, considering the craziness going on around him.

For the most part the film lacks any real gore sequences. But we do get a handful of baddies. There's a cellar full of dead men who've been sucked dry by our Tree Spirit, who in every attempt to escape are thwarted unknowingly by our lead character. Then there's the Tree Spirit's tongue, which by all accounts is the longest tongue in the history of cinema. Lastly is the Dark Lord himself. Not seen until near the end of the film, this baddie sits high atop a hill of skulls commanding his army of dead against Ning Tsau-shen, Yen, and Nieh Hsiao Tsing. We even get to see all the dead men the Dark Lord has consumed when he opens his robe towards the end of the film.

While I really enjoyed A Chinese Ghost Story, this film won't be for everyone. Yes, there's a nice blend of horror added to the story, but for the most part it's a story of love and the few who conquer the evils of the emotion. It's also a bit confusing if only watching it once. However, and after repeated viewings it becomes clear how good the film truly is. So if you're a fan HK films with blends of flying swordsmen, martial arts, supernatural magic, horror, and trees with really long tongues, I say pick it up. If not, you've been warned.

Cabin Fever (2003)

The Story: Hilarity ensues when five college friends are beset by a flesh-eating virus while vacationing in the woods.

Though one of the most anticipated horror films of 2003, director Eli Roth's debut feature, Cabin Fever, is another good example of recent genre fare failing to live up to its own hype, disappointing fans expecting a hardcore horror romp. And while Roth promised a sick return to the gritty, raw-nerved style of 1970s horror, he's delivered instead a comically surreal crowd-pleaser with the sensibility of a 1980s teen slasher. Despite its short-comings, Cabin Fever's shamelessly entertaining combination of gore-gags, lowbrow comedy, and oddball characters is just refreshing enough to provide welcome relief from a bland theatrical slate of "supernatural thrillers" and franchises ten years past their prime.

Cabin Fever begins promisingly by establishing a sense of unease with an eerily quiet credit sequence accompanied by the drone of flies. In the opening scene, a hermit tries rousing his dog by nudging him with the rabbit he's just caught for their dinner. When he tries lifting the unresponsive dog's front paw, its chest comes apart, spraying blood all over his face - so far, so good.

Cut to a truckload of five college friends leaving campus for a weekend of partying at a quaint little cabin in the deep backwoods. Sound familiar? After an embarrassing encounter with a few of the locals, the kids head off to settle in for the night. Oblivious to a contagious flesh-eating virus running rampant in the nearby woods, everyone is busy pursuing their own interests until the aforementioned hermit, covered in bloody sores, shows up begging for help at their door. In a moment of panic-stricken confusion, the hermit is accidentally set on fire and sent screaming into a nearby reservoir to extinguish the flames, infecting the local water supply in the process. It's "every man for his self" as the infection spreads, pitting the group against one another, a vicious dog, and a trio of gun-toting rednecks looking to contain the virus.

I'll admit I'm a sucker for a good, goofy, over-the-top horror comedy, but I just think if you're going to promote your film as an intense throw back to 70's horror, you better deliver the goods because I've had my fair share of laughs. Misleading promotional hype aside, Roth's biggest fault is in wasting too much time introducing quirky characters (i.e. The Hog Lady, Dennis, Deputy Winston, etc.) who do little to move the story along when he should have focused on generating an atmosphere of mounting tension and paranoia as loyalties and relationships are tested. And just when things seemed to finally be cranking up during the considerably darker mid-section, I was surprised by how quickly the final third degenerated into a series of jaw-dropping site gags that invite more guffaws than gasps.

Before you scratch it from your to-view list, be assured that Cabin Fever does have more going for it than a sick sense of humor. For one, KNB provides some decent practical gore effects, but unfortunately, if you've thumbed through Fangoria #224 then you have pretty much seen the worst it has to offer. The group dynamics are nothing new, but the natural chemistry between the five leads is what elevates Cabin Fever above the majority of recent youth-centric theatrical horror releases. Paul (Rider Strong of TV's Boy Meets World) and Karen (the lovely Jordan Ladd) are sympathetic as would-be sweethearts, but the rest, while not particularly likeable, behave and react realistically as most everyone grew up with an infuriatingly mischievous lunk-head like Bert (DeBello) or a pompous ass like Jeff (Kern), who exhibits the most believable sense of self-preservation in any horror movie to date. Although Cabin Fever never really generates the suspense or reaches the heights of horror suggested by its menacingly eclectic soundtrack, the original score by Angelo Badalamenti and Nathan Barr is among the best I've heard since Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman's work in Ravenous.

While there are those (Eli Roth among them) who would have you believe that Cabin Fever is among a new wave of films heralding the return of balls-out, 70s-inspired horror, I'm here to tell you that it takes more than a couple of clever nods to your favorite films, some mildly irreverent humor, and a David Hess song to recapture the intensity of that era. It may not be the second-coming of hardcore horror, but Cabin Fever should at least prove to be a good time for those with tastes more akin to super gore flick Evil Dead 2 than, say, The Last House on The Left. I think it's safe to say that horror fans haven't "been waiting years for a movie like Cabin Fever", but one thing's for sure, you'll never think of pancakes the same way again.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

The Story: Doctor Frankenstein's creature falls under the influence of a mad doctor who demands that Frankenstein construct him a mate.

Bride of Frankenstein opens with three upper class Britons discussing their writings in a drawing room with a storm raging outside. They are Lord Byron, poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and the poet's wife Mary (Elsa Lanchester). The main topic of discussion is the book Mary has been writing, called Frankenstein. The men have read everything up to the fire in the old windmill that concluded the first movie, but Mary says that wasn't really the end and proceeds to spin the rest of the tale...

It seems that Doctor Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff) survived the burning mill at the end of the first film and has escaped into the night. While Doctor Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is recovering from his encounter with the monster, a sinister old mentor of his (what, another one?) named Doctor Pretorius calls on him with a proposal to construct a mate for the original monster. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) has succeeded in making miniature people (quite effective and amusing effects here) but has not achieved the heights of success that Frankenstein has.