Reviews

For every generation, there comes a film that stands out among other films of its genre and gets praised by both moviegoers and film critics in the decades that followed. Such a film may not have made gigantic movie ticket sales during the time of its release but its substance and acclaim made it a classic among its admirers. This is true with 1987's RoboCop directed by Paul Verhoeven. That film stood out among 1980s action flicks not only due to its over-the-top action but also for its outstanding direction, solid performances and overall subversive expression (can you say anti-Reaganomics?).

This year, we have the remake of RoboCop starring Joel Kinnaman, supported by veteran actors Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton and Gary Oldman, and directed by Jose Padilha. Aside from looking flashy and futuristic, the new RoboCop movie is surprisingly good and different enough from the 1987 original to stand on its own.

Made for a PG-13 audience in mind, RoboCop tells a very different version of the story of police officer Alex Murphy with a setting that is near-futuristic and yet reflective of today's manipulative corporate media environment. Like in the old movie, something terrible happens to Murphy which leads to his becoming RoboCop done by a corporation led by Michael Keaton.

This is where the similarity with the old film ends. Unlike in the old movie, Alex Murphy becomes RoboCop with the consent of his wife who really loves him and wants him back with their family. On the corporation itself – Omnicorp – the movie seems less critical on corporations which is no surprise since there is no more anti- Reaganomics influence here. This does not mean that the in-movie corporation is a good organization.

Like the 1987 movie, this film touches on themes like the conflict between humanity and technology, corporate media manipulation of public perception, the conflict between free will and programmed constraint, etc. The new movie tackles those themes with its own set of flavors to give today's viewers something relevant. Speaking of relevance, it sheds light on modern geopolitics as well as serious developments that test national laws. RoboCop is also a lively reminder about society and its people gradually heading towards totalitarianism.

More on RoboCop himself, the film did a nice job explaining how Murphy turned into a machine and how the corporation used him as their premiere tool against a federal law that bans unmanned drones in America. The aspect of family for RoboCop is a welcome approach as it really set it apart from the old RoboCop films' concept.

Apart from storytelling, the acting is overall solid. Samuel L. Jackson as the TV show host is much more lively than he was in the superhero movies of recent years. He sure makes a great host who is entertaining and engaging. Michael Keaton as the head of the corporation performed well although I was not convinced with the way his character turned out in the end of the film. Joel Kinnaman as RoboCop is pretty bland although he makes a convincing family man. His wife played by Abbie Cornish did a good job as the caring wife and mother. Jakie Earle Haley is the antagonistic and easy-to-hate Rick Mattox and he fits in well in the film Nothing special from Haley though.

The standout performance belongs to Gary Oldman as Dr. Norton. Oldman is very lively in his role and thanks to him, Dr. Norton is a more engaging character to watch than RoboCop himself. Really, Oldman stole the spotlight many times in the film and almost feels like a protagonist.

Action? There are several action scenes indeed but if you are expecting a spectacular action sequence or set piece, you will be disappointed. With the action it has, RoboCop is still satisfying to watch as there are a lot of gun battles, some explosions, some special effects combined with stunts, etc. I should mention that RoboCop in this film is faster and more agile too.

Conclusion RoboCop of 2014 obviously will not win any major awards nor will it ever displace the 1987 RoboCop from its place in cinematic history but it is good enough on its own. Think of RoboCop 2014 as a less reflective but action-packed and modernized take on the RoboCop concept. I came into the theater with modest expectations and I left more amused than expected. I should say however that the story fell apart somewhat during the last thirty minutes as there were some scenes or happenings that were not believable.

Overall, RoboCop 2014 is no classic but is fun to watch to say the least.

http://sharkey360.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-review-robocop-2014-by- carlo.html

When the term Halloween is mentioned regarding movies, the name and image of killer Michael Myers often come out. In the art of film, director John Carpenter defined the slasher horror sub-genre of horror films in 1978's Halloween. In that film, his use of the first-person camera views, establishing the final girl trend, showing that people who are promiscuous or drug users get killed and other elements went on to become imitated by other filmmakers on the many slasher horror films that followed. It also established Michael Myers (called The Shape) as the stealthy, almost invincible killer that later became an American pop culture icon.

Of course, the $325,000 movie went on to make tons of money and Halloween II followed a few years later and made nice profit even though it never matched its predecessor's success.

Then in 1982, Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out. Originally, the Halloween film franchise was geared towards making distinct, independent stories with completely new characters dealing with the Halloween season in general. Halloween III proved to be profitable but got slammed by critics and several viewers hated it simply because it was too different and had no Michael Myers (who was shown destroyed in Halloween II).

If you ask me, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is actually an under- rated and misunderstood horror film. It is no slasher. It has no Michael Myers. It has no zombie or vampire elements of horror. But those differences don't make it a bad movie at all.

In fact, Halloween III was more about the witchcraft aspect of Halloween's origins outside of America as well as social commentary about capitalism and consumerism. These three primary elements are, least to say, very challenging to build a foundation of horror with. Still, the filmmakers pulled off nicely with that challenge and what turned was that Halloween III has a more original concept of horror than most other horror films made ever since. It never feels generic and continues to be creepy.

Without spoiling too much of the plot, Halloween III begins with a desperate man running away from mysterious men in suits and ties. He eventually gets killed at night at a hospital and his killer weirdly left the place, entered a parked car, poured gasoline around, lit the gasoline and blew the car up.

Of course, the person who witnesses the explosion and events at the hospital is Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) who is not only the protagonist but also a challenging one for viewers to follow. Why is that? Because Dr. Challis is an undesirable man for a horror film protagonist – when he is not working, he drinks a lot of liquor, spends time at bars, does not care much about his family and is a womanizer. Ironically, this aspect of the film makes Halloween III even more unique from other horror films.

So Dr. Challis meets Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), the daughter of the murder victim. She strongly believes something is very wrong and something big was behind the murder of her father. Together they travel to a far away town where a big company making Halloween masks is being led by an Irish businessman named Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy).

Enough of the story. You will just have to watch the film on DVD or Blu- ray for the Halloween season or whenever you feel like watching a horror movie different from the rest.

Even during its time, Halloween III had a low budget although the production value on screen don't necessarily reflect that. Considering the challenges the filmmakers had to endure, Halloween III works as a horror flick as it provides scary and creepy moments nicely and also expresses the message that there is something behind all the commercialism of Halloween. In any business dealing with seasonal trends, there is always something that keeps people spending their money on products they don't really need and there is always a company that tends to profit from it.

Is Halloween III an anti-business movie? In some ways, yes. Just look at the isolated town where the business and its factory are located. If you listen to the dialog closely, you will realize that locals of the town are being put down by the company (Silver Shamrock) which employs people coming from elsewhere. Also there is that reflection of corporate-led control on the town with those many surveillance cameras and an imposed curfew (who would want to live in a community so restrictive and without public officials to stand up for the people?) and more. Naturally, Conal Cochran is the main villain radically different from not only Michael Myers but all other horror film villains. Dan O'Herlihy's performance is undeniably solid.

Another notable aspect of Halloween III that deserves attention was its defiance of the unwritten rule of movies and television that prohibit the showing of children getting killed on-screen. The filmmakers really had the courage and insight to break that rule to show what kind of evil would happen when kids wear Cochran's masks (each equipped with material from a stolen Stonehenge) and watch the Silver Shamrock commercial (with that very repetitive, mind-numbing song). The bad things that turnout are enough to shock viewers and even send chills up the spines of parents who are afraid of their children engaging in Halloween.

Overall, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is one of the most under- rated and most misunderstood horror films that truly deserves your attention in this day and age. It defied many of the clichés or traditions of most horror films and yet succeeded in delivering spooky moments in unpredictable fashion. It is also challenging to watch given its undesirable protagonist and having no final girl to outlast the evil. To call the film a failure because it did not have Michael Myers is a big mistake. Be sure to watch this film every Halloween.

What can I say about the film? It is good, not great. It's another Bourne film without the presence of Jason Bourne/Matt Damon.

Without spoiling the plot, the movie is in essence a talky movie about an agent who had been dependent on "meds" and finds himself struggling just as the "programs" start shutting down. Compared to the previous three Bourne films, The Bourne Legacy had more dialogue (which could burn you out) and less action.

Surprisingly, Jeremy Renner does make a good action star and you can see more talent from him. Really, his appearance as Hawkeye in The Avengers was just a small preview of what he can do. His character Aaron Cross was arguably shallow but was saved by Renner.

Oscar winner Rachel Weisz plays the supporting role Dr. Marta Shearing but in a big way in terms of screen time. Compared to other action flicks that have female supporting roles, Weisz has a bigger on-screen presence and added some importance to the plot.

And there was also Edward Norton whose sheer talent made up for the lack of depth of his agency executive. Norton makes a good executive who is brash, tough and demanding.

Since this movie had an excessive amount of dialogue, I should say that the motorcycle chase scene that was filmed in the Philippines was the closest thing the film had to an action highlight. For me, the Philippine motorcycle chase was a nice reliever (from the lengthy talk) and added some much needed speed to the film's pacing just enough to save it from being a total bore.

It's kinda hard to recommend The Bourne Legacy to everyone. If you are the type of viewer who is obsessed with the Bourne franchise, be it the books or the films, then this movie just might prove to be good. If you cannot handle a Matt Damon-less Bourne film at all, skip this.

I watched once again Aliens and even though the film is over 25-years- old, it still is a GREAT film to watch all thanks to James Cameron and his team. The film is not just a sequel to the 1979 film by Ridley Scott but also a reflective story as well.

Think about it. Cameron stated that the Vietnam War was an influence on Aliens not just with the presence of soldiers but also with Ripley agreeing to go back to the world where her crew (who died one by one) visited and discovered a place of many alien eggs. Ripley's role as an observer parallels the acts of some real life Vietnam War veterans who, despite their nightmarish experiences during the war, returned to Vietnam in a totally different manner.

As for why Aliens stands out nicely among other action films of the 1980s...it is SUBVERSIVE of the cinematic trends of the decade.

Think about it. In Aliens, there were these highly trained and brave soldiers who easily symbolized the Gung-Ho militarism culture of 1980s action cinema. Like Rambo, these soldiers were macho and had deadly firepower with them. Yet in the film, you see that they were helpless when they encountered the aliens.

Behind it all, Cameron inserted a strong mother-and-daughter relationship between Ripley and the young girl Newt. While she was lost in space, Ripley lost her daughter to old age. Newt lost her parents to aliens. Of course, none of Ripley's scenes would have happened without the incredible dramatic performances from Sigourney Weaver who truly deserved her Oscar nomination in this film. From a survivor to a mother and a fighter, Sigourney Weaver is excellent.

Finally, the film's aliens (xenomorphs) are very well done even though a different creative team worked on it. It's great to see how James Cameron and his team came up with clever ways to present the aliens as numerous despite their limited resources. A lot of research was done and special attention to detail was made too.

Overall, Aliens is a classic!

It may not be perfect but Prometheus still is an engaging sci-fi flick that comes with a mix of mystery, science, horror and some notable solid performances.

Director Ridley Scott tells a story that dealt with the search for answers regarding the origin of humanity and similar to his 1979 classic Alien, Prometheus has a star ship and a crew with a mission. At the same time, the famed director made great use of the technology and with his technical team delivering great cinematography, striking effects and most of all a great sense of immersion into the story.

The first half of the film had a strong sci-fi exploration flavor in it laced with mystery. In the second half, the tone changes into suspense, horror and shock all delivered in a fine pace. Along the way, there are lots of elements that connect Prometheus with Alien and for sure the nerds or the more observant moviegoers will have a blast connecting the dots.

The casting is a mixed bag although it is somewhat justified by the time the film ends. Sure there were crew members who are pretty shallow and not worth caring for. Of course, the more notable roles such as David (Michael Fassbender), protagonist Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) somewhat made up for the lack of depth from the others.

Noomi Rapace delivered a fine performance as a strong-willed woman who not only searched for answers but also came up with the courage to survive against tremendous odds ala Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in Alien.

Charlize Theron is excellent as the beautiful but very cold-hearted Meredith Vickers, and for the most part her presence attracted a feeling of animosity from the viewers. Still, there is also that feeling that before you want to get rid of Vickers, you also would want to know what she knows, what she is after and more.

Michael Fassbender, in my view, stole the show as the android David. He is no copycat of Ash (Alien) or Bishop (Aliens) but rather he stands out as an android that not only tirelessly works to accomplish his goals but also learn about humanity as well as the search for answers on the galactic level. Quite symbolically, David is very much like a living, walking version of HAL (2001: A Space Odyssey) as well as a more sophisticated version of Star Trek: TNG's Data.

Will Prometheus end up as a timeless classic like Alien? That is something we won't find out until decades to come. No box office numbers or any wave of media reviews will be able to justify that because clearly only time will tell if Prometheus will be remembered whether as an indirect prequel to Alien or as its own sci-fi story.

In my honest opinion, Prometheus is a very solid sci-fi flick on its own and definitely it is one of Ridley Scott's best films in a long time.

I just got back from the movie theater where I saw The Avengers. Without spoiling anything, I must say it is indeed a spectacular spectacular and I hope to find time to watch it again in the near future. It's an action bonanza laced with fine performances (I love the arguments between Captain America and Iron Man cleverly delivered by Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr.), clever humor and not surprisingly Marvel universe references.

Anyone who is a comic reader or a Marvel universe fan will notice lots of fine details on the characters, the plot and the images. Even with the daunting challenge of presenting The Avengers as an entertaining all-star gathering, director Joss Whedon cleverly told the story while utilizing the fine talents of the stars. The script was nicely done and the dialogue really reflect the minds of each character. Really, The Avengers is the complete package of entertainment that engaged me with lots of thrills and absolutely no boring moments. I highly recommend it.

After more than a year of waiting, I finally got to watch Sucker Punch and I must say that it definitely is worth the wait.

The film is not perfect and obviously there is more style than substance in it. The good thing, however, is that Sucker Punch as a story is pretty much driven by its characters and the performance of their players (kudos to Emily Browning, Oscar Isaac and others) followed closely by the high energy action sequences laced with Zack Snyder's style.

From a distance, Sucker Punch looks dumb and hollow but in reality it's got some nice stuff in it. For one thing its presentation took inspiration from comic books, video games, anime and fantasy adventures (mixed with a distorted sense of time), mixed them all in a bag and made the story's core concept of the struggle for freedom a enjoyable ride.

The film obviously won't win any awards for acting, but this one still has a strong sense of drama which will remind you that the characters are not paperdolls-for-the-screen but rather believable human beings.

With its energetic style, high production values, solid cast and edginess, I find Sucker Punch to be the best women-led action film to date. It's almost like it grabbed Charlie's Angels, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, So Close and DOA: Dead or Alive by their necks and threw them out the window big time.

While it is the queen of women-led action flicks, I don't expect Sucker Punch to win the approval of those who have no little-to-no-interest in the action, fantasy or adventure genres.

It is flawed and may not be the cup of tea for many, but I declare Sucker Punch a very solid film to watch if you're open to its concept, performances and style. It also has some new stuff that are worth paying attention to.

Let me say it straight – Iron Man 2 is good, not great. I definitely liked it but nowhere as much as the first film.

Specifically, Iron Man 2's plot does not seem that interesting and as such the narrative relied on special effects for impact in certain scenes. No matter how fantastic or bombastic action and effects could get, they just don't help the storytelling very much. The new antagonists – Justin Hammer and Whiplash – are both weak and not compelling. They both pale in comparison to Obadiah Stane (brilliantly played by Jeff Bridges) in terms of personality and antagonism. Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes/War Machine never felt like he belonged in the film and the more he appeared on screen, the more I wished Terence Howard was back.

I also felt that the comedy in this film seemed forced. While the first flick made me laugh or smile, the sequel did not amuse me very much. While Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance as Tony Stark is worth praise, I find it weird that Stark now seemed more psychotic…a far change from the conflicted man he was before.

Aside from Downey's stellar performance, the other big redeeming value was the film's adaptation of character elements from the critically acclaimed Iron Man comic storyline Demon in a Bottle. In that storyline, Stark was portrayed with an addiction to liquor and this concept was nicely portrayed in Iron Man 2. Expect to see Robert Downey, Jr. drink and drink a lot.

Having waited two years for Iron Man 2, I felt a bit disappointed. I tried to like the film. It is not a bad movie, but more of a less compelling continuation. The distraction scenes (leading to the Avengers) and the improved action scenes simply could not lift the film's weak story. Adding insult to injury, the final battle with Whiplash is totally unsatisfying to watch.

As long as you don't set your expectations very high, Iron Man 2 can be enjoyable. Clearly its presentation is different from the first film, and that made it less enjoyable for me. While you watch Iron Man 2 in the theater, I'll just replay Iron Man on my DVD player.

Score: 6.5/10

Among all the James Bond films of Roger Moore, For Your Eyes Only is the best and most compelling I've seen.

Coming off the massive success of Moonraker, the producers decided to bring 007 back not only to Earth but also to a style that resembles the Bond movies of the early-to-mid 1960s. As such, the approach to telling the story really stays close to the roots of literature's Bond.

Unlike the early Roger Moore Bond films, there is a deeper detective story approach to the narrative of FYEO and the great thing is that mystery lasts long enough to compel the viewer to think deeply. It is also notable that you don't get to know who the villain is until the later part of the film. Oh yes, twists in the plot really make it worth watching too.

The cast is solid too and what I like about it is that the characters are much more believable than compared to Moore's earlier 007 adventures. There is no megalomaniac and no unbelievable villains. The villain is a smuggler who once rewarded by Bond's nation. Bond also has a leading lady who is seeking vengeance for her dead parents. As such, professional values, politics and personal vendetta clash and add depth to the narrative. The believable cast and realistic approach to storytelling makes this film really feel like the early Connery Bond flicks.

I also like the fact that Moore, who has often been too funny as 007, played the role with lesser humor and more seriousness. I also liked the fact the scene wherein he killed an enemy in cold blood by kicking the car off the cliff. The scene reminded me of Sean Connery in Dr. No.

There are some notable differences though. In line with the "tradition" of Moore Bond films, FYEO has some over-the-top action sequences and chases (skiing on a bobsled track)to heighten the pace. Fortunately, those sequences don't overwhelm the storytelling.

Weaknesses? I must declare that Roger Moore's age is the flaw in the film. It does not ruin the story at all, but rather the age makes it so unbelievable to see the very young and pretty Lynn-Holly Johnson express strong sexual attraction to old man Bond. Moore was 53 at the time of shooting and the two notable Bond girls were at least 30 years younger than him. As such, it was a smart move on the part of the producers to insert a 3rd and mature lady (the Countess) having a night with Bond. As what Moore stated in interviews, he knew that staying longer as Bond made the character look like a dirty old man.

Is For Your Eyes Only a classic? Absolutely and it's also the best Bond film of Roger Moore's. I give it an 8 out of 10 score.

-Sharkey360- http://sharkey360.blogspot.com

We all remember how Sylvester Stallone arguably conquered the action genre in the 1980s. 1985 was a massively successful year for him as his movies Rocky IV and Rambo: First Blood Part II combined for over $600,000,000 in movie ticket sales worldwide.

In 1986, his winning streak continued, albeit on a lower gear, with the release of Cobra, a production of the notorious Golan-Globus team.

This film is a loose adaptation of the novel Fair Game. Stallone plays Marion "Cobra" Cobretti, a member of the Los Angeles Police Zombie Squad. As the film opens, viewer will witness the chaos crime brings to ordinary citizens.

Yet something happens one night - a lady (Brigitte Nielsen) accidentally encounters the Night Slasher and escapes. This man, who earned his name from the media due to his killing of people in the night, turns out to be the head of a gang of psychopaths who feel that they are "the future" of civilization.

The Night Slasher wants Nielsen killed, which causes her to go to the police and get protection from Cobra. Unknown to Cobra, the Night Slasher has a spy in the police.

You just have to watch the film for more on the story.

Technically, Cobra is obviously outdated by today's standards. True, its style of shooting action scenes and stunts were cool for 1986 but they all aged poorly. The story, which was toned down and involved Stallone, is pretty simple. Don't expect major plot twists or deep characterization here...Cobra is all about action and it is crafted to show that Stallone is very bankable with police-oriented action flicks.

In some ways, this film is literally an attempt for Stallone to dethrone (or complement) Clint Eastwood's legacy in cop movies. Oh yeah, one of Stallone's co-stars here also worked with Eastwood.

Considering that this was released in 1986, and that the same guy who directed Rambo: First Blood Part II called the shots here, some viewers might be surprised to find out that Stallone did not appear shirtless.

Cobra was financially successful with a global box-office gross of $160 million (just $49 million in America). It was easily panned by critics but was accepted by moviegoers who simply wanted action and/or Stallone himself.

Despite its overall weakness, Cobra is still somewhat fun to watch all thanks to Stallone. This movie is available on DVD and I can only recommend it to hardcore Stallone fans, nostalgic action fans and police story enthusiasts.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 5.2 http://sharkey360.blogspot.com

After two years of waiting, I finally watched Quantum of Solace expecting another unforgettable adventure as well as another great 007 performance from Daniel Craig (the best Bond since Connery).

I am surprised somewhat with the way the film turned out. As the 22nd Bond film, this one takes a noticeable departure from the trends that defined the franchise. Gadgets are nowhere, no Miss Moneypenny, the James Bond theme only plays with the end credits, and no "Bond, James Bond".

Fortunately, the departure led to a unique kind of story for Bond. While past films featured the agent fighting megalomaniacs, Quantum puts Bond into the middle of big mess in the intelligence community. Not only that, Bond is struggling with the loss of Vesper, thus hurting himself emotionally. He gets suspected of taking things personally when he's supposed to do his assignments professionally. Luckily, Daniel Craig delivered a very human portrayal of Bond that few could imagine.

Quantum has lots of action and stunts, but I must admit I was bothered with the MTV-style editing (too fast and dizzying) and I was annoyed with how the action scenes mimicked the style of the recent Jason Bourne flicks. Is this Bourne or Bond?! You watch and decide! The story does have some originality in it. Let's face the fact that in the global economy, nations compete with each other for foreign investments. That aspect is pushed to the extreme in the film with Greene's scheme and deal with Bolivia. True enough, some governments out there make deals with these kinds of "investors" even if it would mean danger. The bargaining, selling and functioning of such deals each have risks to both the investor and the authority. More importantly, such deals complicate matters in the international intelligence community, and in this film it causes division between and within state intelligence. Come to think of it, the last time I saw deep intelligence politics as far as the Bond movies go was in 1963's From Russia With Love.

Overall, Quantum of Solace is a worthy sequel. It does not really try to outdo Casino Royale, but then again it does not need to. For one thing, Bond himself still has a lot to dig and dig within MI6. The Quantum organization is the 21st century's answer to SPECTRE of the past, and there is no denying that MI6 now has a real problem to watch out for. True enough, a new espionage war is brewing and Bond must do what he can for Queen and Country.

Score: 8 out of 10

After 3 long years of waiting, I saw The Dark Knight and left the theater amazed and awed. This film, filled with realism, maturity and incredible performance, is not just a sequel but a masterpiece in film-making! The Dark Knight shows a Gotham City with escalated crime led by the Joker, who is graced with the amazing performance of the late Heath Ledger (he's truly one-of-a-kind). Because of this, law enforcement has been pretty busy and fortunately it has Batman and district attorney Harvey Dent leading the fight. As the film moves on, the plot gets much, much deeper with story twists and surprises that you must see.

Character development is astonishing, in fact The Dark Knight scores multiple gold medals on this field. Graced by the talented Christian Bale, we see Bruce Wayne getting more concerned than ever on state of the city's society. He acknowledges that being Batman may not be enough to completely eradicate crime and that only local authorities have the resources to fight on the long term. This is the reason why he feels that Dent, who is doing a great job, should be the face of justice. Dent however has some character flaws like playing by chance (with his flipping coin) and controlling his emotions. His transformation into Two Face will make you realize those flaws.

The Joker is a madman in every sense of the word. For him, society needs to "loosen up" and in his view having a society led by a powerful justice system is very much like fascism. He is the anarchist and easily the complete opposite of Batman. While Batman and the Joker represent extreme ends, you will notice that the people in the middle suffer a lot and this is the whole point of the film.

If Batman Begins' theme is the conflict between vengeance and justice, The Dark Knight is about justice and corruption, and order and chaos. It is a fact that the people we look up to commit acts of corruption just to get their jobs done or to satisfy themselves in return of service. Along the way, someone starts a rampage of disorder to intimidate both the people and their authorities. Batman and the new commissioner Gordon are both incorruptible, while Dent, despite his achievements, is not. The Joker complicate matters by turning Gotham upside down.

The film's cast is excellent, in fact I give it an A+ for its grade. Maggie G. does make a nice replacement as Rachel D., but I'll bet you will miss Katie H. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine add depth to the Wayne portion of the story. The production values are very high (boombastic action scenes, great locations and balanced use of CGI) and director Christopher Nolan deserves praise for crafting what is probably the best comic book movie ever.

Overall, The Dark Knight is a masterpiece. I highly-recommend this film to everyone.

Visit Sharkey's Pool http://sharkey360.blogspot.com

It's been 19 years since The Last Crusade. In The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we see Indiana Jones on a quest that has nothing to do with religion but science and ancient civilization. The Communists are waging war against America and its allies, and like the Nazi's before them one of their leaders is interested on ancient artifacts that can help them rule the world. The race against evil begins and you've got see this movie! In my view, this new flick is indeed worth the 19 year wait. Harrison Ford is simply fantastic as Indiana Jones and even though he is older and slower, he still packs a punch and never loses his hat. The cast is great as well, especially with performances from Shia L. and Karen A. (welcome back!). Similar to Sean Connery's Henry Jones, Mutt and Marion helped show new threads of Indy's personality. Cate B. is fantastic as the villain and you'll really want to see more of her.

Special effects now use CGI and for the most part they do make the film look great, although some scenes looked kinda fake. The action scenes are nicely done and I enjoyed the big chase through the jungle. Some scenes looked comical but that's alright as it goes in line with the film's humor.

If there are any flaws in this film, it's the fact that the script lacked structure. There were moments when I felt lost in the story and that I forgot what the quest was about. I also miss Henry Jones Sr. very much, in fact just as much as I miss Mickey Goldmill in Rocky Balboa. Another thing, John Williams' score for this movie is not as exciting as The Last Crusade (the music that accompanied the chase with young Indy was more lively than anything in the new flick).

I highly recommend this film to Indy fans, the new generation of moviegoers and fans of action and adventures. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and the rest of their team made Indiana Jones' return a magnificent experience.

And you know what? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is easily one of my all-time favorite films.

After many months of waiting, I finally saw 10,000 B.C. and left the theater unsatisfied. The story was so predictable and its pacing was inconsistent (at some parts, I felt sleepy), in fact this may be the weakest Roland E. film in many years. The action scenes were nicely done though and the special effects (particularly on the creatures) have that photo-realistic look...this is where the film excels. I only wished that more creatures were features and the action scenes could have been extended to help the pacing.

When the story reached the pyramids, it reminded me so much of Stargate, only without the laser blasters. The concept of deities and gods was present but did not really add much to the plot...it only served as a villainous model.

I find it weird that the primary characters (for a change, no big stars among them) speak English on screen.

So is 10,000 B.C. a special film, one that could be "The 300 of 2008"? Nope, nothing special about it. It's nice however that a prehistoric setting was used for this adventure.

If you truly value your time and money, don't watch it and just wait for the DVD instead. If you're too hungry for adventure and special effects, go ahead watch.

Sharkey360 (visit Sharkey360.blogspot.com)

Munich is undoubtedly Steven Spielberg's best film since Schindler's List. In today's world of international terrorism, Munich is highly relevant and it deeply explores the conflict between country, duty, family and humanity. Told mainly through the view of Avner (Eric Bana), you can see just how difficult and disturbing waging a war against selected enemies can be. Leaving your family to perform a duty for country is already a hard task to swallow, while executing team strategies against the enemy adds even more danger and hardship.

Spielberg's directing in this movie is very striking and artistic, which not only exposes the most relevant elements of Munich but it also delivers deep impact to your conscience. That's right, Spielberg's impact is too powerful to ignore and your conscience will tingle a lot. Truly Spielberg is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) and he stands high and right beside the legends of Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Lino Brocka.

The James Bond franchise has so many films in its library, so many that one can get confused as to which film to watch, which story to pay attention to and which star to be seen.

And with the current trend of making action films (big budget special effects and tons of action) today, mystery, suspense and character-driven plots have all suffered badly in the 007 franchise.

As for the original Bond movie Dr. No, I can start by saying that its simplicity as well as Sean Connery make it one of the BEST BOND FLICKS ever! Why do I like Dr. No better than most other Bond flicks?: 1) There is no overload of explosions or special effects or action scenes. These elements never overwhelm the story telling.

2) The story is simple yet more detailed and more enjoyable to watch than that of other flicks like Man With The Golden Gun, Tomorrow Never Dies and Licence to Kill. In addition, Dr. No's story can be taken seriously.

3) Story is character-driven and the use of mystery and suspense is VERY refreshing after watching too many explosions and special effects happen on screen (Die Another Day anyone?).

4) Sean Connery's performance is no less amazing and his use of charm, coolness and cruelty truly defined James Bond. No matter how hard others tried, Connery will always be the king of Bonds.

5) Ursulla Andress, similar to Connery, is STILL the queen of all Bond Girls not only because of her hot look but also of her excellent portrayal of Honey Rider. On screen, Ursulla has both the appeal of a fighting lady, the helplessness of damsels and the beauty that satisfies viewers. If Bond were to marry again, Honey is number 1 for him.

6) Director Terence Young succeeded in keeping the pace right (mostly moving in medium-pace) which effectively balanced the presentation and prevented it from boring or exciting the viewer too much.. There are lots of details to pay attention to plus the characters are very well told.

7) Dr. No is definitely one of the best Bond villains, probably the best. Joseph Wiseman's performance as the half-German/half-Chinese villain is great to watch and like Connery he had coolness and cruelty on screen…note how cool Dr. No was when he resisted Bond's attempt to provoke him. To check things carefully, Bond and Dr. No are essentially as bad as each other. One works to kill and destroy like the other. The makeup work on Wiseman is excellently convincing. Performance-wise, Wiseman's Dr. No is better and more appealing than that of villains Gustav Graves, Stromberg, Largo and others.

8) Dr. No's production values, despite the movie's age, still stands up well until now. The interior sets are very well designed (Dr. No's chamber where Bond and Honey had dinner with him plus Bond's Jamaica hotel room) and has mostly good props (some props look dated though).

Dr. No is worth viewing not only as a classic spy movie but also as a historical art piece of motion pictures! No matter what nay-sayers say, Dr. No will always be the model Bond flick for all sequels to be compared with.

And let us not forget that 007 creator Ian Fleming himself was greatly involved with this movie's production. Dr. No has a plot that can be told clearly, be taken seriously and enjoyed from start to finish. And it has a cast of characters greatly delivered by the actors. Many other Bond films failed when compared to Dr. No on these categories.

Highly recommended viewing!

I entered the theater having huge expectations with Collateral. Not only does it have superstar Tom Cruise (M:I-2, Last Samurai, Minority Report) but it also has director Michael Mann (one of the BEST directors around) whose credits included Heat and Ali.

And after spending over two hours watching, I must say that Collateral is one great movie!

Tom Cruise is hit-man Vincent. Already very experienced in his underworld duties, Vincent is the hit-man who really knows what to do, what to anticipate and motivate people. Heck, Vincent even has humanity him especially when he actually helped Max (Jamie Fox) out of trouble.

True to hit-man fashion, Cruise delivered GREAT moves with his fists, kicks and guns. Having seen him use guns in John Woo's M:I-2, Cruise played with the guns very differently and realistically in this movie. Performance wise, Vincent is greatly played by Cruise with such elements of being a hit-man and a human being. I wish Cruise good luck to winning his first ever acting Oscar.

Jamie Fox plays Max, the taxi driver who works hard for his living. His bad luck started when he met Vincent and everything changed for the worst. Max is very human in the sense that he gets torn apart between aiding Vincent, interacting with his mom and even helping a young woman he met only hours ago. Jamie Fox deserves big credit for his role and I can't think of anyone else playing Max effectively.

Director Michael Mann is back to what he does best with the police/criminal/assassin genre of films. Like Heat and Manhunter, the lead characters are actually very lonely guys (Vincent Hanna and Neal M anyone?), there's also a huge shootout (Collateral's shootout is shorter but solid enough compared to Heat's bank heist), guns galore, people getting killed, lots of talk, etc.

Not only did Mann do what he does best, his film has very good editing, lively camera angles, and best of all he delivered the plot and characters to life. Thanks to Mann, Collateral is very convincing and such a story can actually happen in real life.

Conclusion: Collateral is one of 2004's BEST FILMS! Whether you go for Cruise, Mann, Fox, action, drama, suspense and all others kind of stuff, Collateral has something to entertain and inform any kind of moviegoer.

This movie is a MUST SEE! I rate it a 9 out of 10!

Now for the future of Collateral: DVD! Could hardly wait!

Being one of the first people around the world to see X2 in the theaters, I left the movie house this afternoon HIGHLY IMPRESSED.

X2, or "X-Men 2" as the way it is branded here in the Philippines, is truly a GREAT sequel especially for the comic-based movie genre. For movies in general, X2 is also an impressive sequel.

What makes X2 great? For the most part, the story is the main factor of the greatness. Being a comic collector years ago, my expectations and demand for quality story making in X-Men has always been high and the great thing is that this sequel's story is very well made.

Unlike the first X-Men, X2 is presented with a more matured toned and the story always makes sense concentrating on the conflict between humans and mutants. The characters are also very well presented in delivering the atmosphere of the X-Men universe and this time around the relationship between Professor X and Magneto has been explored even deeper thus blurring the boundary between good and evil. Hugh Jackman's performance as Wolverine has IMPROVED this time around and the same goes with Rebecca Romjin-Stamos as Mystique. But most notable among all is Sir Ian McKellen's portrayal of Magneto which is much better this time around (I guess playing the wise Gandalf really helped him). Patrick Stewart continues to bring quality performance as Prof X.

The biggest new addition to the cast, who also has a very impressive performance, is Brian Cox as the obsessed William Stryker who will stop at nothing to wipe out all mutants.

Any flaws? The cast, while generall very good, does have MISCASTS. James Marsden is STILL TERRIBLE and STILL IMMATURED as Cyclops/Scot Summers while Famkke Jansen is TOO OLD and UNAPPEALING as Jean Grey.

In my own opinion, Cyclops and Jean Grey should be played by actors who live up to each character's maturity and appeal. With the fact that Marsden is 9 years younger than Jansen in reality, their age gap is very present in the story.

Aside from having a great story and strong cast, X2 also has some of the best action scenes in film yet this 2003 not to mention some of the most impressive special effects works.

With the way the film ended, I was left impressed and satisfied plus I am already looking towards the next X-Men movie. If the film crew follows the way X2 ended as far as story telling goes, I am optimistic that they will explore the Jean Grey-Phoenix storyline that was legendary in the comic books (I just hope that Marsden and Jansen get REPLACED).

X2's rating for me: 9 out of 10. Definitely HIGHLY RECOMMENDED VIEWING!

I will be very honest here.

Star Wars is NO LONGER the supreme fantasy movie franchise. LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring INSTANTLY KILLS any Star Wars movie for that honor hands down and no questions asked.

The Fellowship has an extremely high level of quality and excellence. Never have I seen a fantasy epic that featured a perfect-cast, very deep character development, excellent pacing, excellent special effects and best of all, an excellent story that was perfectly translated from Tolkien's books.

Right from the beginning of the film, which details the history of the Ring, I was blown away by a wave of cinematic excellence.

As far as fantasies go, The Fellowship has a perfect cast and each character is excellently cast, like Elijah Wood as Frodo, Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, VM as Strider/Aragorn, Liv Tyler as Arwen...etc. Heck, by seeing them onscreen I don't think of the actors but more about their characters...it comes to show that the stars instantly vanished to transform into the famous characters many people know worldwide.

LOTR: The Fellowship is nothing less than excellent as a fantasy...and as a movie in general. I highly recommend to EVERYONE to see this film and I promise you...forgetting about Star Wars is worth it as long as there is LOTR.

A lot has changed when I saw this movie. I never knew Peter Jackson before LOTR but now I greatly respect him as a master of fantasy and story detail...I am not afraid to say that Mr. Star Wars himself, George Lucas, has finally met someone who has BEATEN HIM to the punch.

By comparison, Lucas is responsible for the decline of fantasy entertainment value of Star Wars since he made The Phantom Menace, and no, Attack of the Clones is not enough to entertain me. Perhaps he should try hiring Peter Jackson for Episode III...

Sorry Star Wars, I am sticking with LOTR.

My salute to Tolkien and Jackson!!!

Signs is another winning film from M. Night Schyamalan, one of the leading Asian directors in Hollywood today. Schyamalan, who already had a unique talent in film story telling since he was very young, once again has shown that very talent and strike gold in Hollywood with Signs.

As a film, Signs is a very itriguing and very detailed suspense thriller story that has a good mix of sci-fi and horror elements. Signs takes a very close look at the "crop cycles" phenomenon of UFOs, a particular matter that had lacked attention in movies since most UFO movies prefer to look at the "abduction" scenario.

As a Schyamalan film, I find Signs the best since the 1999 classic The Sixth Sense. There are many things about this movie that struck hard with attention and at the same time left me something to remember for a long time.

Signs is also a great vehicle to have superstar Mel Gibson work together with the super talented Schyamalan. They both benefit each other's work ethics and at the same time add depth to the movie. Mel's acting is very good and has presented his character very well.

Joaquin Phoenix is also good in this movie and complements well in the movie playing Gibson's brother. The 2 kids are also good.

Schyamalan's style of filmmaking is of golden quality as usual, such as reflections on TV screens, suspense buildup and scary visuals. I also enjoyed seeing his cameo appearance in Signs, and despite being a known filmmaker, NOBODY in the movie theater here in the Philippines knew that the man they saw on screen is the director himself.

Signs is a great movie and now I'm already waiting for the upcoming DVD release which I will surely go for!

EXCELLENT MOVIE!

WINDTALKERS is a World War II movie that takes a close look on why the US forces won the Pacific...the Navajos and their code. Along with them came John Woo's style of story telling, namely human relationships between characters ala 1989's THE KILLER.

Nicolas Cage plays Joe Enders who is assigned to protect the force's Navajo codetalkers but most of all, protect the code at ALL COSTS. Adam Beach plays Yahzee whom Enders is assigned to, and with his part you can see the Navajo culture. Christian Slater, who expectedly did not have that much screen time as one might think, plays the friendly soldier Ox who is assigned to another Navajo named Whitehorse.

Cage's performance in this movie is nothing less than excellent, in fact I believe it's his best performance since his award-winning role in 1995's LEAVING LAS VEGAS. Enders is traumatized in the beginning, has personal clashes, suffers from his left ear, and tried so hard to relate with others before finally realizing his mission and its value. Cage also showed A LOT of emotion throughout the movie.

The Navajos were well portrayed. Not only did they have to leave their homeland and families to train and fight, they also had to deal with the realities of war, war horror and even discrimination in their own army. The movie showed that Navajos truly deserved honor right in the beginning, and they had to wait over 55 years for it. Another thing here...you can really feel the pain Navajos get when they're discriminated or snubbed or used.

John Woo's directing in this movie is rather different from his other movies. Don't expect any 2-fisted gunplay here, don't expect any of his action gimmicks but the one thing you should expect is the way he directs his characters...through human relations. Just like the classic THE KILLER, Windtalkers showed deep character development between Enders and Yahzee. While The Killer showed the boundary between an assassin and a cop gets erased, the boundary between the white man and the Navajo also gets cleared off leading to one major cause to fight and stand for in the war.

There are several slow motion scenes here as well, although I do find them shorter played and seemed to run kinda faster than those in old movies. As for the violence, expect A LOT of bombing, firing, killing and other elements of destruction to fill the screen. It is John Woo's most violent film since his Hong Kong movies, but they are not as graphic as that of Spielberg's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It's not a bad thing though because the violence on-screen is very well worth watching. Woo surprised me with the fact that he is truly CAPABLE of directing a war movie. He can really direct thousands of extras to run forward with all those explosions and still make it look realistic and convincing. Woo is indeed not limited to the "lone action hero" style of screenplays with this movie, and aside from violence he can really bring out the act and emotions from his characters.

In concluding this, I give TWO-THUMBS UP for Woo's direction, the expressive cast and the story. WINDTALKERS is one of the best movies I've seen this year and it easily kills the earlier war movies like HART'S WAR, BEHIND ENEMY LINES and WE ARE SOLDIERS.

WINDTALKERS is not SAVING PRIVATE RYAN but it sure sits up there beside it. Easily one of the best war movies ever made.

Salute to Woo, the stars and the Navajos!

After suffering from the hype and disappointment of the special FX-dependent Episode I, George Lucas and his Star Wars franchise made a great comeback with Episode II.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones marks the return of greatness to the franchise plus some new elements added.

AOTC is the most emotional movie of the franchise where there are some credible (although a few were not) crying scenes of pain. To be honest, I don't remember a Lucas-directed movie being this expressive and I'm glad George himself presented it.

Not only that, we finally got to see the ORIGIN of Darth Vader in young Anakin who was driven by arrogance, rebellion, rage and hatred as seen in the movie. Hayden C. delivered those elements very well and is convincing enough. Natalie Portman's Amidala is much better and more expressive on the screen. Heck, now we've seen how Luke's mother was.

Ewan McGregor delivers a good performance in AOTC as Obi-Wan, in fact a major improvement over his The Phantom Menace performance. In the first movie, Ewan is labeled as a guy who does not know acting. Of course, don't expect a Moulin Rouge-expressive act from him here since this is a fantasy.

Christopher Lee, aka Dracula, is remarkable as the count. As for Yoda, this is the best way to present him. We get to see Yoda's TRUE POWER and wisdom for the first time ever, and there was not a single moment wherein I did not believe in him. True, because of his size, he looks funny to the audience when he was about to fight with a lightsaber but in the end he is a convincing Jedi master and lightsaber user.

On the technical side of things, Lucasfilm really made a lot of effort to make the film production great. The special effects from ILM, as expected, are groundbreaking. The sets, costume designs, and other things are all graded A.

The story is very well presented and easily the best since The Empire Strikes Back. We see a very nice presentation of the Anakin-Amidala love story, Obi-Wan's missions, Anakin's "new" family, the big battle, etc. George Lucas wrote the story with Star Wars fans in mind, and as a result fans get to see everything related, not alien, in the Star Wars universe. As for those of you who suffered from TPM, don't worry...this movie is NOT CHILDISH like that one.

The movie is very replayable and I'm already looking to watching it again in the theaters. Not only that, I'm already looking towards the DVD of AOTC!

Overall, Star Wars: AOTC is the best film I've seen for the year! As a movie buff, I must admit that I enjoyed this movie BETTER than A New Hope, Return of the Jedi and TPM. Only Empire Strikes Back stands taller than this one.

The greatness is BACK, everyone! Star Wars is right on track and I hope that George Lucas can deliver a slamming conclusion with Episode III. I'm already looking towards 2005. :)

There is no doubt in mind that "The Killer" is easily the MOST ARTISTIC ACTION FLICK in the world. Not only that, it's also the BEST ACTION-DRAMA film around!

Directed by John Woo (now at his popular peak with "M:I-2" as his vehicle), "The Killer" tells the story of a professional killer (Chow Yun-Fat), a cop and a lady caught in crossfire. Chow Yun-Fat's act for his character is very solid, and at the same time he perfectly fits the action sequences.

Also written by John Woo, you can clearly see many of The Master's trademarks like slow-motion action, stunts, deep characterization, drama, doves, two-fisted gunplay, and missing from his Hollywood flick...gore! This movie is full of blood and gore, and from my point of view it does not make the film dirty but rather more realistic and expressive.

About the action, the level of violence is very high like that of the gore. Since this is a Hong Kong-made movie, Woo had all the freedom he wants and it clearly shows why this is considered by his millions of fans as their favorite Woo flick.

Two-fisted gunplay is very well presented here. Seen Tom Cruise (M:I-2), Nicolas Cage (Face/Off), Christian Slater (Broken Arrow), Dolph Lundgren (Blackjack) and John Travolta (Face/Off) all fire with 2 guns each? Well, for newcomers here, two-fisted gunplay has gotten of to a great start even before Woo directed the above-mentioned Hollywood stars. Chow Yun-Fat's 2-gun firing is simply perfect and it shows! Chow is NO MARTIAL ARTIST or STUNTMAN like Jackie Chan, but his use of guns and acting makes him exceed with quality.

Chow Yun-Fat was not even a popular action star before teaming with Woo. But Woo made the difference for him and Chow's image has gotten better since.

John Woo's directing is really perfect. As mentioned above, he had all the creative freedom he wanted with this movie...something missing from his Hollywood films. "The Killer" is considered to be his biggest teamup with Chow.

Woo is known to make non-action stars look great in action...Tom Cruise is a perfect example of this when he made "M:I-2".

Contrary to popular belief among newcomers, "The Killer" is an ART FILM. Those newcomers who've seen "M:I-2" might think that this classic is another "blockbuster" or brainless-action film. Anyone who understands the link between action and art will easily recognize the greatness Woo made here. Eventually, YOU'LL CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS AS THE STORY MOVES ON.

That said, the story is not about violence and money. The story presents CHARACTER, EMOTION, SORRY and HONOR. As a viewer, you should not just look at the action scenes, but you should concentrate on the story and characters within.

My conclusion: "The Killer" is a PURE QUALITY MOVIE THAT NEEDS TO BE SEEN BY EVERYONE. Whether you're a casual movie fan, quality viewer, blockbuster lover or whatever type of viewer you are, "The Killer" is film excellence as long as the viewer understands it.

Want the most artistic of action? REMEMBER THE KILLER!

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle is a very solid thriller thanks to naturalism and realism. This is one of the best thrillers ever made, and it's just too bad it did not get the attention and praise it deserves. For one thing, we've seen many thrillers that lacked realism while some were not thrilling at all.

HTRTC has it all. A solid story, solid cast, good directing and best of all, a high level of realism. The story can actually happen to any family in America, or anywhere in the world. The cast is great, and even though there's basically no "big name phenomenon" (well, Julian Moore's now very popular but not yet here) in this film, the performances are very good. In fact, great! Rebecca De Mornay, who's young and very beautiful in this film, has the best performance as the smart-beautiful-deadly Peyton. She's very convincing as both wife and nanny, as well as temptress and killer!

Take note of some of the "sinful scenes" in this movie. Some scenes can be very disturbing (not disgusting) but if you're matured enough, then you'll get over this movie well. The "sinful scenes" do make a wake-up call in your family life. Heck, better watch out for those evil nannies!

I highly recommend watching this movie, even though it does not have any big superstardom at all. No special effects, no high tech gimmicks, no big super stars, just a great story to watch. What are you waiting for? Put your Hand on the Cradle and Rock!