Reviews

85 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Ambulance (1990)
Finally, a Cohen movie that opts almost entirely for laughs.
15 May 2002
** 1/2 out of ****

Larry Cohen's last directorial attempt at anything resembling the horror genre film is different and yet much the same as his previous outings. Gone is the gritty, semi-documentary approach, giving way to crisper editing and a fairly slick, Hollywood look. Those dismayed by that will still be pleased to know Cohen's trademark quirky humor is still present, and this time his movie is played almost completely for laughs. Yeah, Q was an intentionally absurd affair, but some of the fun was offset by that gritty look, and Gold Told me to was pretty damn serious from beginning to end. But enough about those film, how's The Ambulance? Surprisingly, despite a lame title, it's his most amusingly funny movie to date.

Eric Robert stars as Joshua Baker, a comic book artist with a crush on a woman (Janine Turner) he passes on the street everyday. Finally, he musters up the courage one day to approach her, but as he speaks to her, she suddenly collapses and is taken away by an ambulance. Josh later visits the hospital she should have gone to, but discovers no one of her first name or description ever arrived. From there, Cohen piles on an adventure story of sorts set in New York about evil doctors and ambulance attendents who are after diabetics, and one man's quest to get to the bottom of it all. Believe me, this is all more enjoyable than it might sound.

Given such a premise, it's possible this could have been played as a straight, fast-paced thriller with many twists and turns. But Cohen opts for a more comical route, and as if to ensure that we understand that, he even gives away the mystery ten minutes into the film! Yeah, I had been expecting something along the lines of a suspense/thriller, and I was initially a little disappointed to see this played out as a comedy, but quickly re-evaluating my expectations, The Ambulance really turned out to be a pretty enjoyable movie that put me through a lot of giggling fits. Yes, it's been a damn long time since I've seen a movie that opts for humor without resorting to potty jokes.

The story isn't what makes The Ambulance overall work, it's the characters, the dialogue, and the absurd situations. One particularly amusing moment is a fight between the ambulance attendents and a gang of thugs, with Roberts hilariously acting as a cheerleader while strapped to a stretcher. Another laugh-out loud scene features a desperately sick Roberts trying to hide from an approaching ambulance and shouting to his apartment neighbors to remember the attendents' faces, noting that they'll be witnesses.

The performances are mostly all pretty top-notch for what's required here. Roberts is a lot of fun as the everyday Joe trying to get to the bottom of the situation, doing all this because of a beautiful woman (the resolution of which is quite satisfying and hilarious). Watching roles like this always make me wonder how he never made the transition to Hollywood star, he's got the charisma and acting ability for it. Megan Gallagher gets in some good scenes as a tough cop who happens to believe Baker. Red Buttons as a journalist and James Earl Jones as a hard-boiled lieutenant steal a good bit of the scenes they're in, the latter doing so with his obsessive gum-chewing and sarcastic tone. Soap star Eric Braeden doesn't really get to do much, and from what I've seen here, he pretty much acts the same in everything he's in.

Entertaining as the film often is, The Ambulance isn't without its flaws and dead spots. Some scenes drag on way too long without enough laughs, specifically Roberts' little stay at the hospital, and some aspects of the movie are just too silly. For instance, the interior of the ambulance somehow has this green glow emanating from it, more like something you'd see in The Tommyknockers or the power plant in The Simpsons. That same glow is present in the villains' hideout, and yes, it still feels out of place there, too. There are a few attempts at thrills, but the chase scenes don't really generate all that much excitement, mainly because the otherwise goofy tone waters these moments down. The lines spoken immediately after the final chase, however, are good for a laugh. Plot holes are also very prevalent, as no explanation is really given for why the woman (and later Roberts himself) gets sick all of a sudden. And while we do get clarity and a resolution with the woman Roberts is searching for, we never really learn the fate of one specific minor character that was also abducted by the ambulance.

Flaws aside, I suppose I'd recommend The Ambulance, given that you go in expecting a comically-oriented thriller, a subgenre that's almost non-existent these days (unless you count Conspiracy Theory, which coincidentally, starred Roberts' sister, Julia). It's rarely dull, and I suspect the next time you see an ambulance, you'll probably have a hard time holding back a giggling fit.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sci-fi action/adventures of such gorgeously rendered detail are a rarity these days, too bad this one is a disappointment.
14 May 2002
** out of ****

I'm not generally one of those viewers out there who feels the need to just go along with the majority opinion and hose praise or lambast a film just because that's what everyone else says. Regardless, however, there's very little to say about Phantom Menace in general except that it IS a disappointment, not necessarily as a film in the much beloved Star Wars series, but mostly as a piece of escapist entertainment. The fact is, while so many fans are clamoring about how it's so untrue to the rest of the series (which is actually completely untrue), the movie's real problem is that it's simply not all that well directed, well written, or well acted.

Well, sure, the first Star Wars had its fair share of clunky moments, and the dialogue and acting wasn't overall anything great, but it surged forward thanks to the energetic performances, the lively direction, and the sense that everyone involved truly had fun making the film. Oh, and let's not forget the X-wing battle in the finale, definitely one of the most exciting dog fights in movie history. Then there's The Empire Strikes Back, a sci-fi masterpiece of imagination, true vision, and action spectacle.

In comparison to those two, Phantom Menace often just feels like a sorry carbon-copy. True, the special effects are a vast improvement, what with the digital age and all, but effects mean nothing if you can't entertain on any other level (be it dramatically, story-wise, action-wise), and let's face it, for the majority of its running time, all Menace offers for entertainment value is visual spectacle.

Despite the risk of sounding like an idiot, I'll go right out and say that the plot initially confused me. From my very first viewing, I gathered it was about some planet called Naboo that had problems with the trade federation and a couple of Jedis were going to get involved in the peace talks, or something like that. This all eventually leads to Tatooine, where Jedi Qui-Gonn Jinn (Liam Neeson) discovers Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), a young boy with the potential to be the most powerful Jedi in the world.

This is the set-up, and if things hadn't been introduced so confusingly, I'd say it's not a bad way to begin a grand epic. The movie does get off to a fairly rousing start, with John Williams' magnificent score setting the tone for what should have been great things to come. The lightsaber fights with the robots added to the excitement, but once things hit Tatooine, this is where the movie really stumbles. Yes, this is where we are introduced to...Jake Lloyd!

This kid's performance has become something of a legend in movie lore. It's kind of like how you try your best not to mention Ishtar to a group of movie lovers (or Patch Adams to real doctors). Really, I know Lloyd was just a nine-year old kid, but a good deal of the movie does ride on this kid's shoulders, and I don't mean this just in terms of the plot. How superb (or not) his performance is sets up our emotional involvement in this character. Think of Empire of the Sun for a moment, which featured the most brilliant child actor performance of all time from Christian Bale (with Haley Joel Osment coming in second very closely in The Sixth Sense). If Bale had been acting on Lloyd's level, Empire would have had an Ishtar-like fate and Spielberg would have been laughed out of Hollywood (okay, that's a little extreme but I'm trying to make a point).

I see I'm just dancing around the subject, so I'll get to the point. Plain and simple, Lloyd's performance is absolutely awful. Now, I don't know what it was in this kid that Lucas saw, but he carries none of the emotions we would expect in a young Anakin. Hell, he doesn't even act like a real kid. Most of the time, he just seems like what he is-a child actor desperately trying to remember his lines to the point where he can't emote. I know most people hated Jar-Jar Binks, but this kid annoyed me so much more. At least Jar-Jar seemed like a real individual, and for crying out loud, he was a CGI creation!

Natalie Portman is better than Lloyd as Queen Amidala, but still pretty flat. Given that Portman is indeed a talented young actress (much moreso than Carrie Fisher ever was, not to mention she's also considerably better-looking), but she never seems all that involving. Either that, or she mistakenly believes lack of emotion is the right way to generate a sense of honor and nobility. Whatever the reason, she's bland.

Ewan Macgregor gets almost absolutely nothing to do as Obi-Wan Kenobi, except fight quite a bit, and yes indeed, he looks impressive wielding a lightsaber. I'd say about 1/3 of his dialogue consists of the word "Master," which he utters a little unconvincingly at times, but he's generally okay, and I'm sure he'll have much more to work with in the sequels (whether or not it's good material remains to be seen). And the scene where he meets Anakin for the first time, basically a cute little hello to who he believes is no more than just a cute boy, is actually quite creepy when you consider what's going to happen down the road.

Of the lead performers, only Liam Neeson registers superbly. His performance is certainly far more lively than anybody else's, and it took me much, much longer than the other actors to notice some of his dialogue was a little lackluster, a sure-fire sign of good acting. Honor and nobility seem to come almost naturally to him, and for my money, Neeson is even better than Alec Guinness was in the original Star Wars (Gasp! Blasphemy!).

Overall, it seems interesting characters is something this movie is missing. Other than Jinn and Binks (who is amusing in an off-kilter way), the only other guy that sparked my interest was Darth Maul, played by a bad-ass Ray Parks. Sure, he utters maybe only three lines in the whole movie, but damn, this guy has some very impressive moves. Plus, he just looks absolutely frightening.

I go to watch Star Wars to be entertained, to be swept away by a fully-realized universe, by a true epic story, by the immense action sequences. But, alas, none of this occurs on a very consistent basis. While the sets are imaginative and amazingly crafted, pretty-looking scenery isn't going to hold my attention forever. The story starts to feel a little dumb after awhile, especially once Lucas starts mentioning about how Jedis are determined by the amount of midi-chlorians in their blood, an explanation that put a sour taste in my mouth the first time I saw the film (but, to be fair, I've since mostly gotten over it). Too many things happen by coincidence, and I was only further riled when one of the characters stated, "Nothing happens by coincidence."

The action didn't impress me nearly as much as so many others, and really, there's not enough action in this movie (To be fair, I may have been slightly jaded by the delightfully entertaining The Mummy, released only two weeks earlier than Phantom Menace, and most definitely a far superior popcorn ride). The pod race, a sort-of classic sequence now, doesn't really do it for me. I don't know about you, but I was rooting for the kid to lose. The four-way battle scene at the end is more impressive, but the only real thrills come in the way of the two-on-one Jedi fight that eventually results with only one man coming out alive, but this scene is intercut with other scenes of fighting that weren't particularly exciting, though had the potential to be. I mean, that gigantic battle on the bright green field might have been more involving if Jar-Jar Binks hadn't inexplicably been placed as the general of the whole Gungan army. I don't know about you, but I would not put the fate of a race in the hands of Jar-Jar Binks. People stupid enough to do such a thing deserve to die.

There you have it, my (useless) opinion of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, a movie that is certainly not awful but never attains the grand proportions we expected from it. Though I notice much criticism toward the film these days, I clearly remember how so many fans clamored about just how incredible the film was during the movie's opening week in theaters. Heck, the movie even had a rank in the top 250 on IMDB for a couple of months (coming as high as at least number 130). Nowadays, I have a hard time finding anybody who will say anything other than, "oh, it could have been better." Seems to me fans just didn't want to concede the critics might have been right. And let's face it, I think we agree with them this time.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
In a summer of sequels, this was probably the best.
13 May 2002
*** out of ****

As you can probably guess on your own, a third film in a series about big dinosaurs chasing after measly, little humans is probably going to wear itself thin in terms of plot, and let's face it, Jurassic Park III doesn't have much story. But let's be honest, do we really care? All I ask for my hard-earned money is a competently made thrill ride that features big dinosaurs chasing after measly, little humans. And on that level, JPIII is a pretty damn good success. Certainly, this series is turning out better than the Jaws franchise.

In this third-go-round, Sam Neill returns as Dr. Alan Grant, the now-world famous paleontologist who's having trouble coming up with grant money thanks to the fact that everybody in the world knows real dinosaurs exist. Thus, Grant is a bit easily goaded when a couple (William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) offer to pay big bucks for him to give them a little tour guide of the dino island. Reluctantly agreeing, Grant brings along his protege, Billy (Alessandro Nivola), and they all head off to Isla Sorna.

Not all goes according to plan, once Grant finds out the couple is really searching for their son, who was stranded six weeks ago. Then there's that slight complication when this really big dinosaur called the Spinosaurus rips apart the airplane the group arrived in. Afterward, there are only five survivors, and they set out to look for the missing boy and a way off the island.

Plot-wise, it would probably be easier to simply state that a bunch of people get stuck on an island with man-eating dinosaurs. After all, thrills would be the only reason anybody would watch this kind of movie in the first place, yet I find it funny I keep hearing complaints about bad story-telling and little characterization. Really, the general movie-going public has got to re-evaulate their expectations a little more if they don't know what to expect out of a movie called Jurassic Park III. Things such as story-telling and character development mean little to a movie about dinosaurs, much less a third film about said dinosaurs in a series, but those elements are adequate enough for the thrill-ride experience to work.

Directed by Joe Johnston, this movie still often has the look and feel of a Spielberg film. There's a bit of sentimentality here and there (as opposed to almost zero in the The Lost World), particularly in the beginning, with the scenes between Neill and Laura Dern (these moments work quite well), and later on in the film, between the estranged couple, played by Macy and a very annoying Leoni, and their son (these moments don't work so well). It's these scenes that lead me to question how so many people can proclaim this one superior to the original because of no sentimentality when it clearly has some. Really, what I learned from such statements is that some people out there are just desperate to come up with something to bad mouth Spielberg.

Johnston is not quite as good an action director as Spielberg. By that, I mean there's not as much build-up to the attack scenes, nor is there really that much suspense, especially when compared to the nail-biting finale in the original and the trailer park scene in the The Lost World. Johnston gets to the action quickly, almost as if though he were afraid he'd lose our attention otherwise. It feels a little sloppy at times, but at least it eventually builds into that thrill-ride experience.

The excitement delivered in spades, thanks to moments such as a nice little drag-down knockout fight between the Spinosaurus and the T-Rex. The guy I was rooting for didn't win, but it was still a damn good fight. The raptors are sorely underused here, and there were a lot of possibilities Johnston could have come up with, especially set inside that village. But, unfortunately, he abandons the enclosed setting (which really could have led to a lot of great thrills) and sticks to the jungle.

Mind you, the jungle is still set up for quite a bit of fun. The Spinosaurus makes several more appearances, one of them telegraphed by an amusing riff off Jaws and Peter Pan. The pteranadons are put to good use here, with a sequence set inside a cage that's fairly exciting. Sure, that "evil stare" that one pteranadon gives is pretty unintentionally hilarious, but stuff like that is appreciated in a B-movie.

Speaking of B-movie, this one's a little more obvious of its roots than its predecessors, which is a plus. JPIII has a pretty good sense of humor, as shown during a laugh-out loud dream scene that mocks the series itself. William H. Macy also gets in quite a few good laughs, a lot of them at the expense of the character himself!

Special effects are what we would expect, meaning they're mostly excellent, with the only real complaint being that some of the dinos seem a little too CGI and the Spinosaurus' animatronic origins are far too obvious. Mild complaints, though, considering the effects are really very impressive.

Acting's also decent, with Neill, Macy, and Nivola registering positively. Michael Jeter's actually pretty likeable as a "mercenary" and Trevor Morgan is a kid who doesn't save the day or act as comic relief, thank God. However, Tea Leoni's just annoying, as she just about always is. I can't quite put my finger on what it is about her that irritates me so; perhaps it's her speech pattern, or maybe just her general lack of acting ability.

Don Davis' score is noticeably John Williams-ish. The jungle drums from The Lost World are replaced by a more traditional action/adventure theme, which is effective enough if nothing spectacular. The original movie's main theme is present, too, though for some odd reason, it felt oddly inappropriate to me. I guess I was just hoping for more of the dark tone and atmosphere the second film gave us, and that musical theme from Williams (which is great, I'm not trying to knock it) sounds way too bright in tone and awe-inspiring to punch that feeling home.

Where Jurassic Park III really stumbles is the ending, which is incredibly abrupt and lacking a bit in basic logic. I'd go a little further, but I might spoil things somewhat, suffice to say that judging from what I saw, raptors don't really have very good auditory perception and we'll just leave it at that.

Given that this is a third movie in a series known primarily for its action/special effects, I'd say Jurassic Park III rates quite highly as an entertaining action/horror excursion. Perhaps not quite as intense as its predecessors, it still works considerably well, and it's story doesn't quite have as many idiocies as The Lost World, as it is known infamously for. JPIII was also probably the best sequel in a summer chock full of them. The Mummy Returns was a colossal disappointment, Rush Hour 2 pretty much repeated most of the same mistakes of Rush Hour, and American Pie 2 is...the sequel to the already dreaded American Pie. Anyway, JPIII's good fun, and I guess it says something positive when I actually don't mind the prospect of another sequel.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shining (1980)
The Simpsons' parody was more entertaining.
1 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
* 1/2 out of ****

**SPOILERS** Just by reading my headline summary of The Shining, I'm guessing there are going to be a lot of fans thinking "Oh, it's just another average Joe out there who just doesn't 'understand' Kubrick and his films." Okay, I suppose I could take a pretentious insult like that. But what I do understand is that from the opening scenes, this movie reeks of filmmaking incompetence. You can clearly see, during the aerial view of the car heading towards the Overlook Hotel, the helicopter's shadow on the bottom right-hand side of your screen. Even worse than that has to be the clear view of the helicopter blades on the top of the screen during the first shot of the hotel itself. I seriously doubt Kubrick and company filmed this intentionally.

But, seriously, The Shining is easily one of the most overrated movies of its genre. I'm a huge fan of horror, moreso than the average viewer, but I can't see how so many people could back a movie that's obviously second-rate on so many levels. As anybody who's seen the movie knows, it's based off of Stephen King's popular novel (To be honest, it was never really one of my favorites of his, though still a decent book). Jack Torrance (Played by a hilariously overwrought Jack Nicholson) is a struggling writer who takes up the job as caretaker of the luxurious Overlook Hotel for the winter, along with his wife (Shelley Duvall) and young son, Danny. Unfortunate for them, a blizzard holes them in and Nicholson starts to grow insane.

Not much of a plot, is there? Truthfully, I'm not one of those people out there who believes in strict adherence to the source material. If a movie can diverge from the book it's based on and still come through as grade-A quality, it's got my respect. But Kubrick doesn't just diverge, he leaves out major parts of the plot completely. No back story is offered about the hotel and why it's haunted, there's not even a slight hint given as to who Tony is, the imaginary boy that Danny speaks to. There's a big difference between trying to scare the audience with the unknown and just totally alienating the viewer by not explaining a thing, and this movie accomplishes the latter. And I do believe that this movie is called The Shining, which is the name Scatman Crother's character gives for a certain telepathic power that Danny has. So how come this power is of very little consequence to the plot? The only time it's really intentionally used is just to get someone over to the hotel, and if you've seen the movie, you'll know how pointless that was.

I can just hear the fans clamoring that the success of this movie has little to do with King's original plot, but Kubrick's direction. To that, I can only laugh. Oh, it's not like he doesn't try to give the movie a foreboding atmosphere or a stylish look, it's just that he kind of fails in these regards. The ominous aerial shots, a little cool at first, grow a bit hilarious after the fifth time it's done, especially with the banging music playing over the background, as if to remind us "Brace yourself for the horror to come!"

Kubrick also relies heavily on long tracking shots, a la Brian De Palma. Initially, it works in creating the sense that this hotel is indeed humongous, but I pretty much got the point after the first hour. Kubrick continues these shots incessantly throughout the ENTIRE film (148 minutes!), with almost no end in sight. Even De Palma would have known when enough is enough.

When it comes to this movie's running time, two-and-a-half hours doesn't seem all that long compared to some other King films (The Stand, Storm of the Century, and The Shining remake). But Kubrick paces this film at the speed of molasses, making sure that everybody says their dialogue as slowly as possible, making sure that his camera catches as much of the hotel as slowly as possible, making sure...you probably know what I'm trying to get at. There's a difference between deliberate pacing (2001, Kubrick's real masterpiece) and simply being boring and talky, and The Shining is most definitely the latter.

And it's not as if though I can't appreciate a slow build-up, but as I said before, this build-up isn't particularly well-done and every time a certain segment gets interesting, Kubrick cuts away and kills off the momentum by introducing each new part with silly subheadings like "The Interview," "A Month Later," and "Tuesday." It's funny that I hear complaints about the subheadings for Sphere ALL the time, but never once for this film. I don't know about you, but a subheading like "The Interview" hardly sounds foreboding or preparation for the horror ahead, and I very much doubt Kubrick intention was to throw us off guard from the "horror" with such a workmanlike heading.

Kubrick's ideas of pay-off for a slow build-up aren't very inspiring. We get a naked woman in a bathtub who then becomes a naked, old woman standing out of that bathtub. She cackles like a witch at Nicholson, and then Nicholson proceeds to...back off slowly. This isn't a particularly ambitious ghost, since it seems entirely content with just cackling. Still, this is the only real scene I can think of in which Kubrick actually utilizes the whole "haunted house" motif which, by the way, is considerably more interesting than seeing Nicholson go insane.

When that does eventually occur, Kubrick decides to film virtually all the chases OUTSIDE the hotel. I mean, this hotel is like a huge mansion, a perfect opportunity for cat-and-mouse chases, and like much of the film, the potential is once again wasted. The chase outiside in the hedges isn't bad, but the outcome was never in doubt.

Now that I've bashed Kubrick's filmmaking, it's on to the performances. WIth three principal actors for the majority of the running time, it's important the acting is very good. Too bad it's not. Jack Nicholson's overacting is so ridiculous, it would put Charlton Heston to shame. Hell, there's not even an attempt to make us sympathize with Torrance's plight. Shelley Duvall registers pretty badly as his wife, not quite as awful as I've heard, but she's pretty damn annoying. The kid who plays Danny never seems like anything more than a child actor trying to act disturbed (For better peformances with similar themes in mind, watch the far superior The Sixth Sense and Stir of Echoes). Scatman Crothers is easily the best of the cast, but (spoiler) he's only here to give the film a body count. It's almost as if though Kubrick thought he would lose the audience's attention if he didn't try putting in a visceral kill scene, and it's hard not to lose respect for him for doing that.

The Shining, bad as it often is, still has its moments (Since it's directed by Kubrick, how could it not?). The scene where Shelley Duvall flips through hundreds of papers stating the same phrase is a real spine-tingler, the only scene that's remotely frightening. When it's hinted that something evil lurks inside room 237, it makes for a fairly creepy scene when the kid stands right outside that room's door (Of course, when you find out what's inside, it's hard not to be a little disappointed). But considering that a big deal is made out of this room, it's more than a little annoying that no explanation is given for what happened inside. The score, overdone as it may sometimes be, is still pretty decent and probably scarier than almost anything else this film has to offer

So, I suppose that's all I've got to say about Kubrick's rendition of The Shining, a movie which could have been so much more but ended up going nowhere. There was, of course, a remake, most of which I've seen, and yes, I liked it considerably more (Though it has been five years since I've seen that version). For a film that combines the talents of Stanley Kubrick, Stephen King, and Jack Nicholson it's hard not to be disappointed with the outcome (I will make explicitly clear that none of this is really King's fault, considering he wasn't all that pleased with Kubrick's film itself and that he had nothing to do with the making of the movie).
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (2000)
10/10
Sci-fi at its best.
26 February 2002
**** out of ****

I have already written a review for this film before, though on a second viewing, I felt the need to push the rating up to a perfect four stars. Why is this? Originally, I had stated the desert backdrops had annoyed me. The second time I viewed this film, it honestly didn't bother me anymore. Also, Barbara Kodetova, who I found rather annoying as Chani, is still slightly annoying, but the fact is that she plays a character who's lived a harsh, dangerous life in the caverns of Arrakis who's learned not to trust outsiders, so I can be sympathetic to the way her character is played. Besides, she's better than Sean Young was at playing the same role.

What I love so much about this miniseries is still the same as before. It truly focuses on telling an absorbing story and gives it the full treatment that David Lynch failed to accomplish. Yes, I realize the original film has a lot of fans, most of whom are quite rabid, but the thing is, I don't see them willing to go beyond their simple outlook of Lynch's Dune as the "best sci-fi film of all-time." That movie simply was NOT the best sci-fi film of all-time, for so many reasons it would take several pages to go through it all. I'm sure even die-hard fans of that film would find it difficult to defend a lot of that movie's faults, but they all seem more than willing to forgive it because they believe Lynch somehow gave that movie a startling and awe-inspiring surrealism.

Because this remake is rather conventional compared to the Lynch film, there's an immediate backlash against it, with many proclaiming that it fails to capture the depth of Frank Herbert's novel. Well, wait a minute, when did surrealism immediately equal to capturing depth? For that matter, who ever said that David Lynch even actually grasped surrealism? He seemed mostly content with stringing together "poetic" images into several dream sequences, all of which serve to do nothing more than constantly repeat what I was aware after the second time he gave us one of these montages.

John Harrison's adaptation sticks fairly closely to Herbert's novel, and the running time allows him to pace much of the film evenly without having to rush a lot of individual scenes. I'm not one of those people who consider making Dune into a 137 minute film impossible (as was the case with Lynch's movie), but if you do so, you'd better focus on as many vital scenes from the novel as possible to keep the plot moving ahead, which is not what Lynch attempted to do.

Harrison's film takes itself seriously, but manages to be highly entertaining and extremely enjoyable. At 265 minutes (And I keep hearing there's a version 30 minutes longer), this film is never dull for a single moment and the length actually helps make this an even more engrossing tale. By the end, I was actually disappointed the film even ended! Harrison brings soul and spirit to the project, and he's great contributed by a fine cast and crew. Acting-wise, Alec Newman is pretty good as Paul Atreides, taking on a tough role but delivering on most counts. Matt Keeslar is similar solid as his opposite, Feyd Rautha, but the best performance of them all is definitely Saskia Reeves, giving a turn that has impressed me even more the second time I watched this film. She is also, indeed, a very beautiful woman.

There's one aspect of the cast that I definitely much prefer over the original, and it has to be the appearance of each of the characters. Possibly because of Star Wars, Lynch felt the need to make his character as odd-looking as possible, and believe me, it was an incredibly distracting element on his part. Kyle Machlachlan's Paul Atreides had some damn big hair, Thufir Hawat had eyebrows the size of a Chia pet, and Dr. Yueh has a bare space in between his mustache (Very unintentionally hilarious). The cast in this remake are rather normal-looking individuals, and for that, they're made much easier to relate to.

Visually, both movies have their own distinct look which separates both, thus I doubt anybody would be confused as to which version it is they're watching. The miniseries is the definite winner in this department. While the ambition of the sets and special effects in the original were quite amazing, the whole movie was repellant to look at, due mainly to the ugly world that Lynch created. Harrison's movie creates a world that is harsh, but simultaneously exotic and enticing, no small feat. The visuals are also more breathtaking, with the planetscape shots equivalent of any recently theatrically released sci-fi film. The giant sandworms and the guild navigator are the best CGI designs, rendered amazingly life-like and simply mesmerizing to stare at. The production design is incredible, we're treated to palaces, cities, the interior of spacecrafts, and desert towns, and I would place this film even above The Phantom Menace in this category.

If you haven't seen either version yet, I think you've gathered which version I recommend. This Dune remake isn't completely perfect (In my opinion, every movie has at least a flaw) but it's the best representation of science fiction I've seen in years, and I honestly don't feel any other sci-fi/fantasy coming out above this with the possible exception of this miniseries' own sequel.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
V (1983)
1/10
An insultingly stupid movie in ways unimaginable.
31 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
* out of **** (Warning, review will have spoilers)

V was a quite a popular miniseries in its time, and it still has quite a bit of fans, but something tells me that has more to do with nostalgia than actual film quality. The movie itself, to put it simply, sucks and it sucks badly. It's a hodgepodge sci-fi "epic" that takes its audience as nothing more than idiots who will be in awe by the premise of an alien invasion. Oh, there have been smart and fun alien invasion films out there. David Twohy's The Arrival is the perfect proof of that and Independence Day, corny and stupid as it sometimes may be, is well made escapism. V is just terrible, mostly full of second to third rate acting (except for the underrated Marc Singer), a script I could have improved on, and horrible special effects that were lame even by 1980's standards.

Admittedly, V does begin intriguingly enough. Fify giant alien spacecrafts situate themselves above Earth's major cities. Eventually, they reveal themselves as the Visitors. They look human, though their voices do sound a little odd and they are afraid of light. They claim they come in peace, and just about everyone in the entire world except for our lead characters fall for their act completely. Basically, there's going to be human resistance, and it's all going to be led by TV movie actors whose careers have pretty much gone nowhere.

Let me go into Kenneth Johnson's script and what I found so moronic about it. Taken as a straightforward story, this film has plot holes and logical lapses the size of an oil tanker. First of all, we have to believe that the United States government would be dumb enough to be duped so, so easily by the Visitors' claim that they have arrived on peaceful terms. I realize Johnson is probably trying to make a point (a la his WWII allegory, which I'll get to in a moment), but the fact is, considering untrustworthy so many governments are these days, we just don't get duped so easily these days, not to mention the fact that the Visitors' spokesman is as unconvincing as they come.

There are many individual scenes that serve to do nothing more than insult any viewer's intelligence. Take, for instance, the scene where Marc Singer boards the Visitor spacecraft and records the aliens speaking, who at that EXACT moment, just happen to be laying out there entire plan for world domination, and afterward making a snack of some poor rodents just to further show how evil they are. Worse yet, they actually speak in English rather than their native language and for some reason, they (and just about every other Visitor) decide to keep their human skinsuits on all the time, despite how unbelievably uncomfortable it must be for them, considering their reptilian origins.

Johnson must think he's done a great job with the character development, since he so often focuses on many different human characters. What he doesn't seem to realize that he's done nothing more than create cardboard AND stereotypical cutouts. Hispanics are portrayed as being illegal smugglers, African-Americans are either hoodlums or "lovable" old men with hearts of gold (Uncle Tom's Cabin, anyone?), and teenagers are either completely naive and impressionable fools or whiny, spoiled brats who can't (or won't) accept the consequences of their actions. Johnson probably believed he was trying to display a theme of brotherhood and teamwork, but all he does is insult the people of these ethnic backgrounds.

The most annoying of all the characters must be the anthropologist and his family. He's got three daughters, all of whom incessantly complain. His oldest daughter is actually the dumbes, leaving me to believe that she has to be either the cable man or the mailman's kid. She actuallly falls in love with a Visitor and decides to have unprotected sex with him, all because she's in the throes of passion while being locked up inside a giant spacecraft! Hmm, I can't guess what's going to happen from there.

But by far the worst element of Johnson's script has to be the WWII allegory. Adding this aspect to the story, he must have thought this would put it above most other sci-fi films. Judging from audience response, they seem to have fallen for it. These are probably people who wouldn't feel a thing unless they got whacked in the head with a sledgehammer. Johnson bludgeons us enough with this incredibly lame allegory, which serves to show me nothing more than the fact that Johnson does indeed seem to know WWII existed. There's the Visitors' symbol, which so closely resembles the Nazi swastika, you'd think everybody in the movie would have to be blind not to notice that. We even get to see a re-enactment of he prejudice the Jewish people went through, except the treatment is aimed at...scientists! Johnson further bangs us over the head with dialogue involving how charismatic the alien leader was and how he took power. Gee, I can't seem to think of what other dictator that reminds me of.

Johnson's direction is a bit better than his writing, at times even more than competent, but also at times spectacularly bad. Every time a character comes to the realization that there's something fishy about the Visitors, he does a slow zoom close-up to their face, mainly focusing on their squinting, "thoughtful" eyes just to show us these people are "smart" and suspicious. But my favorite has to be when Johson suddenly decides he's making an anti-war commentary and films a battle scene in slow-mo through they eyes of Faye Grant as she watches the death and destruction around he, to say nothing of the hilarious contrast by the fact that everyone else around her seems to be cheering their heads off. He actually caps this battle off with Grant aiming a pistol at an incoming shuttlecraft, and even dose a zoom-up towards her deathly serious face to show us that she has, indeed, taken charge! Well, at least she doesn't shoot the ship down. Then again, how the situation is resolved is just as lame. Singer flies by in his own shuttlecraft and fires, causing some damage to this one enemy ship that's holding the Visitor in charge of this attack, and this somehow justifies the retreat of ALL of the alien crafts! Amazing, just imagine if all war was like that, bring your gutless leader along and at the very first little sign of trouble aimed at him or her-escape! For that matter, why this fleet would be led by a scientific officer makes no sense. After this battle's over, the fact that the location of this rebel base has been revealed doesn't seem to make the humans just a little twitchy. What's to say the Visitors won't send another fleet? The answer: probably their double-digit IQs.

There are a LOT of other little problems, even continuity errors. The Visitors supposedly have reverberating voices but there are many scenes when it's obvious that effect isn't there. A cop who seems sympathetic to the human rebel resistance is seemingly EVERYWHERE, as well as a rebel who I saw get arrested at a road block but stil ends up fighting later at a Visitor guarded armory. What Visitors would be doing guarding U.S. military weapons is something only Kenneth Johnson would know (Considering that they should usually be guarded by, oh, humans). I can't forget to mention the shuttlecraft chase. There's actually a scene where a shuttle flies upside down, but the passengers' hairs never stick up (or down, from the view you see it). And I'm very sorry to say this to Kenneth Johnson, who probably failed zoology, but reptiles (specifically iguanas, whom the Visitors resembles) actually do relish light!

All in all, this is a huge, huge mess of Dune (David Lynch version) and Highlander 2 proportions. Hell, Lynch's Dune and Battlefield Earth were actually better. At this point, it feels a little moot for me to mention if there was anything I actually liked about the movie, but there were a couple of things. Marc Singer delivers a terrific and charismatic performance as the hero, making some scenes more bearable than they should be. And I did like the opening helicopter battle sequence, which was directed with a frenetic touch and superbly edited. The assault on the armory is also another well-choreographed action sequence, and actually quite realistic when you consider how difficult it is to fight in a skirmish. Otherwise, this is as bad as big-budget sci-fi gets. V was actually followed by a sequel, which (to my memory) managed the not-so-hard task of being better, even though that film itself isn't anything to really write home about. In the end, Johnson must have believed that he was trying to hit in a hard message, that persuasion and charisma can hide true evil, but the only theme I got out of this is that dumb heroes can only prevail from dumber villains.
18 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From what I've seen, it's the best of the series.
22 October 2001
rating: ** 1/2 out of ****

I've put off watching Hellrasier III: Hell on Earth for a long time now, probably because of how I didn't particularly care that much for its predecessors. The original Hellraiser was a so-so horror film that was veering dangerously close to sub-par territory and Hellbound was a sequel that featured an incredibly silly core for a plot when you think about it (It turns out the girl's journey to hell was nothing more than an attempt by her uncle, of all people, to get her into his bed). But it's to my surprise that Hellraiser III is actually better.

Why is this? Probably because it has no pretentious story pretending to tell more than there actually is. This film is made for no other purpose than for sheer entertainment value, and for that I find it considerably more respectable. It also has Terry Farrell in it, and she's a considerable improvement above Ashley Laurence and Claire Higgins combined in both acting ability and looks.

The movie begins with Joey Summerskill (Terry Farrell), a down-on-her-luck reporter, trying to get her "big story." She's in a hospital one night, and a young man is admitted and he has chains embedded into various parts of his body. The doctors try to do what they can but he literally tears apart in front of their eyes. This, Joey believes, is the story she's been looking for. She tracks down the person who brought the young man to the hospital, a woman named Terri, who apparently is the boyfriend of J.P. Monroe, the owner of a popular club. It's also this same club that contains a statue of the cenobite Pinhead, whose demon form is now trapped in this condition but can be revived with blood. Pinhead is eventually awakened and he makes a deal with Monroe, thus creating a chain of events that sets Pinhead free and out to wreak havoc on the city.

There are a few things that are immediately noticable about this film when compared to the previous installments. For one, it doesn't have that dark, pervasive atmosphere, which is good since it wouldn't fit here at all. Another thing is that the movie has a more polished look to it, due mainly to the fact this was a big studio release. So, on a technical level, this movie does indeed look more professional and competent than the other entries. Of course, it takes more than just that to make Hellraiser III superior to its predecessors, and it accomplishes that because it's a fun ride and acknowledges its own lack of ultra-seriousness.

It's in my opinion that series fans are being far too hard on this movie and are pretty much wrong when they consider it among the series' weakest films. I've even heard complaints that it lacks the depth of the original, which just makes me want to laugh because the original had about as much as depth as a puddle of dog urine. Stylish direction and weird imagery does not add up to meaningful and deep, and director Clive Barker didn't have the convictions to take his film beyond the level of a gorefest, albeit still a somewhat stylish one. The sequel, Hellbound, was just a dreary and silly descent into a very bland-looking hell.

Director Anthony Hickox chooses to play Hellraiser III as a thrill ride in one form or another and is mostly successful. The movie begins somewhat slowly (though never boring for a moment) but builds up to a furious final half-hour that features a hell of a lot of gore, some terrific visual effects (as well as some weak ones), and a slew of new cenobites, all of which lack the dark seriousness of the previous ones and are obviously played for laughs here. Not a bad thing, if you ask me, considering some of the past cenobites were a little unintentionally funny and a change of pace is welcome.

As is usual, you can expect tons of gore from a Hellraiser film, and this one's certainly no exception. I believe I saw the R-rated version, so that probably explains why a few scenes looked a bit trimmed and toned down. There are still some very memorable scenes of mass slaughter, such as a nightclub massacre that results in what must have been 100 total deaths, an immense body count! The gore here looks less grimy and repulsive, and as a result, is less disgusting and disturbing than the previous films.

Terry Farrell is pretty good as the reporter who has stumbled across the biggest story of her life. Admittedly, her good looks do mask some of her less convincing moments, but she's fairly solid for the majority of the running time. Doug Bradley is a scene-stealer as Pinhead, who is used more extensively in this film. Gone is the "enigmatic" creature and in its place is a more darkly humorous and delightfully wicked villain. A lot of series fans complain about this rendition of Pinhead, but I enjoy it far more than his "We have such sights to show you!" bits from the original. His performance as his human self is not bad, either, and it's actually a little hard to believe (in a good way) that these two very different characters are played by the same actor.

Now, this is a good sequel and fun horror film, but it's by no means a great movie, which obviously means it still has flaws. The plot stretches a bit thin at times (but there's still far more of one here than in Hellbound) and some of the effects work is a bit shoddy at times. Some of the one-liners are also more groan-inducing than hilarious, such as "That's a wrap!" and "Time for your close-up!" The movie is also never scary or particularly suspenseful and you do get the feeling that Hickox was often trying to play the film as a flat-out horror flick.

But on the whole, this is much better than I could have ever expected and it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a film that I was certain was going to be pretty weak. Another sequel was made not long afterward, entitled Hellraiser: Bloodline, which I have yet to see but have read almost nothing but bad reviews. I'll have to check it out sometime, but it seems likely that Hellraiser III is probably the best in this series.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not the worst of the series, but it's mostly unscary and dull.
15 October 2001
* 1/2 out of ****

Friday the 13th has never been a great film series, but there's something about it that's morbidly attractive. It may be because of the fact that it managed to stretch out the relatively simple premise of a retarded serial killer to 9 films (with another one upcoming that takes place in the far future, no less!). I mean, take Jason's first appearance, which featured him with a pillow over his head, and then take at a look at Jason Goes to Hell, in which Jason is a semi-supernatural being with the ability to hop into other people's bodies. The series has evolved quite a bit, if you ask me. It will be odd to see how different the latest sequel will be than say, Part 3, which is pretty much the same as the first two, only this time Jason has his hockey mask and the girls are better-looking.

The film takes place only several hours after the events of the previous movie. The focus is on a group of teens headed to a farmhouse not far from Camp Crystal Lake for a weekend of sex and fun. These teens are the basic slasher cliche characters, ranging from the heroine to the geeky loser who seems to p*** everyone off. The heroine is Chris (Dana Kimmell), who actually once encountered Jason. She's having trouble adjusting to being in a forest and heads out into the woods(!) with her friend Rick while everyone else stays behind at the house. Jason then arrives and begins his massive slaughter. The story is as simple as that.

With a plot that's basically a carbon-copy of the previous two films, it feels a little odd to review what is pretty much the same movie over again. For 70 minutes, the movie is every bit as boring as Part 2, due mainly to Steve Miner's inability to build up any good scares or shocks as well as the fact that he takes too long to get the movie going. His direction hasn't improved much at all (only in the finale, which I'll get to in a moment) and he's certainly not helping himself by not trying anything new or different in this film.

There are a few memorable death scenes, particularly one guy who gets slashed in half when he's walking around on his hands. But these moments aren't built up to particularly well, there's no sense of dread and almost no suspense, and what little of it is there is mainly because of Harry Manfredini's very effective and creepy Ennio Morricone-esque score (It's a little funny to note that the score sounds a bit like the one from The Thing, so Morricone might have received a little inspiration from these films). It's interesting to note that Part 3 was made in 3-D upon its original theatrical release, which probably explains the numerous scenes of knives and other dangerous objects maniacally waved in front of the screen. I'll admit, if I had seen this movie in the 3-D enhancement, I probably would have found a lot of these scenes more entertaining, but without the gimmick, it's almost a complete bore.

The gore effects are in more abundance than in the previous two films, but they still look rather cheesy sometimes. The most laughable effect is the literal eye-popping scene that was obviously shot to get a reaction out of the 3-D viewing audience. It just looks fake now. Nudity is also expected out of a Friday the 13th film and there's very little of it here, almost none at all, and none of it comes from the good-looking girls. It would have been nice to see Catherine Parks or Dana Kimmell topless for a scene or two, but the fact that Kimmell is the heroine already pushes those chances to zilch (the closest thing to nudity that's been revealed by a series heroine is probably from Melanie Kinnaman from Part V, who was featured running around in the rain braless with a white shirt on).

The acting is pretty much as bad as the first two films and I suppose that's to be expected out of a low-budget 80's slasher flick. Though I hate to sound shallow, this cast is easier to bear than the previous installments because Dana Kimmell and Catherine Parks do make for very good eye candy, and at least they're both better than the horrendous Amy Steel, a scream queen who seems to have her fans despite having all the acting skill and charisma of cardboard.

But there is a reason why I rate this above Part 2 (and probably the original Friday the 13th, too) despite how much my criticism seems to place it on the exact same level as that film. It's because of the last 20 minutes, which features the typical climactic chase where Jason moves around trying to get at our heroine. All the cliches are used here, such as the car that (in)conveniently runs out of gas, the dead body in the closet, the killer who's really not dead, etc., but Steve Miner actually handles the entire sequence quite well, and I certainly felt just how frantic the situation was. The finale was good enough for me to rate the film * 1/2 instead of just *. It by no means makes the movie good or even middling, but it was enough to pull it above the worst of the series.

There's a grand unmasking scene at the end which reveals Jason in all his non-glory. He looks a little different than he did in Part 2, probably because this time he has no hair and was played by a different actor. Actually, he looks a bit like the Ferengi Quark from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and that's not a good thing. Oh, and what's up with all these scenes of women passing out and finding themselves safe from Jason? In part 2, Amy Steel was attacked by Jason but woke up in a stretcher with paramedics around her. In this film, Kimmell relates a similar story about an encouter with Jason in the woods and how she woke up in her own bedroom. Does Jason just not like to kill girls who pass out in front of him or what?

It's a little hard to believe that this film was only 1/3 the way through the entire series. The next installment, The Final Chapter, differed from all its predecssors in that it was actually scary and consistently entertaining, making it the first wholly enjoyable film in the series. I'd say just skip the first 3 and go straight to The Final Chapter since that film has a good opening prologue that relates what happened in the previous films, but most people seem annoyed at the idea of skipping installments in a series.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Possibly the best of the series (not that that says a whole lot, but the movie is a hell of a lot of fun).
13 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** *** out of ****

Well, it was inevitable. The 80's had to come to an end, which of course, led us to the 90's. It was around the turn of the decade that the slasher genre started to die out, and the only movies of the subgenre that were considered profitable were the ones attached to big-name series (i.e. Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Child's Play, and Friday the 13th). The interesting thing about the 90's is its approach to the slasher. After all, in the 80's, the filmmakers were usually reliant on blood, mood and atmosphere, and sex and nudity. But that's in the past. With the release of The Final Friday, it was quite simple to see how much the series (and subgenre) had changed. This film still keeps the blood and the sex/nudity (which is actual more graphic than any of the other installments), but prefers all-out gory fun over atmosphere build-up.

This film plays the whole thing in a semi-campy tone that often flirts with intentional self-parody. After the failure of Part VIII, New Line Cinema picked up the rights to the series and ended it all with a bang (of course, with Jason X, the series is hardly over). The Final Friday begins with a sexy woman driving over to the abandoned Camp Crystal Lake. She enters one of the houses, prepares a bath, then strips, but then the lights go out in typical horror film fashion. The person responsible for the power failure turns out to be none other than Jason Voorhees, the psychotic mad slasher wearing a hockey mask. He looks bigger than usual, too. He chases the woman out into the woods, which is a big mistake for him, because it's a trap the FBI set up, and they proceed to pump over a hundred rounds into him, and blow him into at least a dozen pieces.

Everyone thinks Jason's reign of terror at Crystal Lake is over, but it's not. A coroner examining his heart gets too close, and soon enough, we've got a body-hopping Jason who is now on a quest for rebirth and the only way he can do this is through a blood relative. These relatives would be Diana Kimble, her daughter Jessica (Kari Keegan), and Jessica's own baby. The only man who knows of this connection and knows how to kill Jason is Creighton Duke (Steven Williams), a bounty hunter who's willing to offer the information, for a price. Anyway, Diana is eventually killed, and Steven (John D. Lemay), Jessica's old boyfriend (or husband, we're never really told) and her baby's father, is accused of her murder. His jail cell is actually right beside the Duke's (who was arrested for reasons never stated), who tells him the secret of how to kill Jason Voorhees. Steven manages to escape, and scrambles to protect Jessica and his baby from Jason.

The Final Friday probably received the most mixed responses from series fans. Many showed nothing but scorn towards the movie because it strayed away from series continuity while many others considered it the best of the series because it actually tried something different. This different plot is a take of Jack Sholder's The Hidden, and director Adam Marcus plays it well into this movie. While The Final Friday has a few messy moments in direction and features a mostly grating score from Harry Manfredini (which makes it a real disappointment since he was responsible for the original nerve-jangling score), this is perhaps the most fun film in the series, as well as the fastest-paced, most action-packed, and goriest.

This time around, Jason isn't on his typical mission, which is to kill horny teens. Though he really can't refrain himself from doing so to a couple in the middle of intercourse, which results in a body cut in half that is often considred the most memorable death scene of the series. Anyway, the film mostly focuses on his attempts to gain back his old body, which can only be done so through another Voorhees. Thus, one thing no critic can say about this film is that it reverts back to formula.

Throughout the film's course, there's quite a bit of kick-ass action, which includes a police station and diner massacre, as well as a one-on-one showdown between Lemay and the big man Jason himself in the finale. These moments are violent, fast-moving, and pretty exciting. My favorite part of all these scenes must be when Lemay, who has just been arrested and has spotted Jason, leaps over his own handcuffs, knocks a cop aside, takes his gun, and proceeds to empty half the clip into Jason. Having seen the unrated version, there's no doubt this is certainly the goriest film in the whole series (think of it this way, the first 3 parts combined won't match the amount of blood and guts this film has). KNB did the make-up effects and they are impressively done. Body parts fly, blood spurts and goes everywhere, and there's a heck of a lot of maiming going around in this film, with the highlight being the aforementioned diner massacre. The movie has a huge bodycount, numbering around 26.

None of this is played particularly seriously. I mean, the film is certainly never frightening or the slightest bit scary for an instant (then again, most of the other series installments aren't either, as only The Final Chapter offers consistent scares, though The New Blood does get in some good chills.) but I doubt this was even a consideration on director Marcus' part. Instead, the movie often opts for laughs. It's all apparent from the opening FBI-staged attack. Think about it, what better way to lure Jason out than for a good-looking woman to get naked? It happened in a span of 8 films, so there sure wasn't any reason it wouldn't work now. It makes for a funny opening joke and establishes a tone that is half-knowingly tongue-in-cheek.

Some of the dialogue is fairly humorous, if not exactly subtle or necessarily clever. I liked the Duke's response to what he thought of Jason Voorhees and I laughed during the scene where Steven picked up a group of young, good-looking hitchhickers going to Crystal Lake and tells them, "So, you thinking of smoking some pot, having a little premarital sex, and getting slaughtered?" Dialogue like that helps make this the second-funniest film in the series. The movie doesn't quite have as many laughs as Part VI, mainly because the Diner employees, who are certainly there to add campy humor, are more annoying than anything else, which is probably why I savor their massacre (well, maybe just the fat woman's). It's also that same sequence we get to see Vicki, the waitress who shows as much bravado and fighting skill as Ash from the Evil Dead series, take on Jason in Sigourney Weaver style. There are a couple of other fun moments horror buffs will definitely enjoy, such as when Steven finds a copy of the Necronomicon in the Voorhees house and a crate in the basement that is the same from the one in Creepshow.

The acting is overall better than you would expect from a cast of mostly unknowns. The only actor I've seen here from something else is Steven Williams as the bounty hunter Creighton Duke. He has the best performance in the film, stealing many scenes with his cool attitude and smooth dialogue-delivery that's equally compelling and a lot of fun to watch. John D. Lemay is pretty good as Steven, the film's nerdy-looking hero. He's quite likable and something must be said about the toughness of a guy who lasts for nearly 3 minutes in a one-on-one fight with Jason. As the movie progressed, he also had his fingers broken and was thrown from a moving car. As for Kari Keegan, the film's heroine, she doesn't make much of an impression. Her performance is pretty mediocre, but at least she isn't relegated to damsel-in-distress mode. Kane Hodder still makes the best Jason, but it's not as if there's a lot to do in the role.

Overall, this could be my favorite in the series. As for the other contenders of that hardly prestigious title, The Final Chapter has the suspense and scares, Part VI: Jason Lives has the most laughs and the best acting, and Part VII: The New Blood features the best heroine and some good suspense. Jason Goes to Hell is simply the most fun, displaying all the entertainment value I expected from an action/horror flick.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is goofy stuff, but it's still hilarious.
9 October 2001
** 1/2 out of ****

There seems to be a similar pattern going around that affects the latest sequels to the most popular slasher series of the 80's. These 90's sequels tend to try out something pretty different from its predecessors, to the point of even negating parts of the series. Such films include Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, New Nightmare, and H2O, of which the former two managed to instill new energy back into their respective series again. In this case, Bride of Chucky is going all-out for laughs, and it's quite successful at doing so, making it easily the best film in this not-so-good series.

The movie's first scenes already let us know just how tongue-in-cheek all of this is. A cop enters an evidence room, which includes such items as Michael Myers' and Jason Voorhees' masks, Freddy Krueger's glove, and Leatherface's chainsaw. The cop picks up one specific object we can't see, though it's obvious it's Chucky, the serial-killer possessed doll. Eventually, the doll gets to the hands of Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly), who actually turns out to be the killer's (when he was a human) former girlfriend. Using the help of a voodoo book, she revives Chucky, and ends up imprisoning him because she's still angry at him for never marrying her.

Chucky escapes, kills Tiffany, and puts her soul into another doll. Naturally, she freaks out when she sees what's happened to her, but Chucky informs her they can still be human again. The only way for them to do that is to use the amulet that was on the human Chucky's body when he died. Thus, they have to get to that specific cemetary in Hackensack, New Jersey, so they enlist the aid of Jessie (Nick Stabile) and Jade (Katherine Heigl) via phone to deliver some dolls with the promise of big cash. The two young lovers agree and decide to get hitched. All seems well for the two, until murders start popping up around them and they begin to suspect each other, all the meantime never noticing that the dolls are the real culprits.

Bride of Chucky is, simply put, a dark comedy that only has the concern of making its viewers laugh. And boy, some of these jokes are absolutely hilarious. My favorite part is probably the scene where Chucky is crawling back to his van when some stoned pothead sees him. Chucky proceeds to give him the finger, resulting in the pothead's hilarious deadpan response, "Rude f***ing doll!" Another one of my favorite lines must be when Jessie asks Chucky how he got to be this way, and he responds by saying, "It's a long story. In fact, if they made a movie, it'd take 3 or 4 sequels to do it justice." If that doesn't get you laughing, then I wouldn't recommend this movie to you.

But for all those who enjoy tongue-in-cheek horror, this is a treat. The scene-stealers are Chucky and Tiffany, spouting a lot of memorable lines without ever getting into the "hip" style that has annoyingly permeated virtually every other slasher film in recent memory. Brad Dourif, of course, voices Chucky and he hasn't lost that same sense of fun over the years the series was in hiatus. Jennifer Tilly is equally as fun as Tiffany, making for an effective foil to Chucky, and is all the more hilarious because of their love/hate relationship that's positively psychotic.

The special effects are among the movie's highlights; the dolls look mostly flawlessly rendered and amazingly lifelike. But how could any review of Bride of Chucky go by without mentioning the doll sex scene. It's probably the reason it got half the money it did at the box office. Let me just say this, you probably won't believe it, but this sex scene is the most tasteful part of the entire movie! That should give you some idea of what to expect from the rest of the film.

The movie's also got the requisite blood and gore, with particularly memorable death scenes. Despite all the violence, this isn't a movie for die-hard horror fans looking for a scary or suspenseful gorefest. The movie doesn't actually kick into thrill ride mode until the last 10 minutes in the cemetary. Even then, you have to ask yourself just how exciting it is to see dolls and humans duking it out.

Now, even as an intentionally goofy horror/comedy, the movie still has some big flaws. There are no rooting interests at all. The dolls, while obviously funny, are pretty damn crazy. As for the humans, they're either annoying or simply display nothing approaching charisma or good acting.

The movie also takes too long to get going, and considering the movie's only 89 minutes, that's certainly a problem. It's not until the half-hour or so mark that Chucky comes to life again and the road trip to Hackensack doesn't begin until the movie's a little over halfway through. This is a flaw that's made forgivable because once the movie gets going, the pace is unflagging.

I enjoyed Ronny Yu's high-energy direction, which is an approach that closely follows all the other most recent slasher sequels (it actually only worked well in Jason Goes to Hell, but New Nightmare was decent in this respect). After the pedestrian work of the other installments, it's nice to see some sturdy direction. This film's final scenes sets itself up for another sequel, and considering it's box office success, I don't see any reason why it won't happen. Bride of Chucky is goofy and certainly lacking in intelligence, but it's got a hell of a lot of entertainment value, and that's all you could really ask for out of it.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An inferior, but well-made and fun sequel.
5 October 2001
** 1/2 out of ****

Tremors 2: Aftershocks is shockingly well-made for a film that went straight-to-video. As the sequel to the much beloved Tremors, it's easy to say that it's not nearly as good, but it is a respectable continuation that, after a relatively slow starts, mirrors the fun of the original without being a blatant rehash. It is missing Kevin Bacon and some of the character chemistry that worked so well, but it stands as a movie that is easily watchable, and often funny and thrilling.

As the film begins, it features a rather low and depressed-looking Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), who, unlike his partner Valentine Mckee, didn't profit from the appearance of the giant worms, now known as graboids. But a young man named Grady Hoover (Christopher Gartin) arrives at his door and tells him of an offer to kill some graboids scurrying around a Mexican oil refinery. Bassett agrees to the terms and teams up with Grady.

When they do arrive, they meet up with Kate Reilly (Helen Shaver), a scientist who is studying the graboids in the area and is also assisting the owners of the oil refinery. At first, killing the graboids is relatively easy for Bassett and Grady, but after a little trouble, they enlist the help of gun fanatic Burt Gummer (Michael Gummer). Meanwhile, the worms begin to mutate into creatures that are equally deadly, giving rise to a new menace aboveground.

The first thing that is noticeable about Tremors 2 is that it has the look of a theatrical release. Almost Everything about it is fairly well-done and accomplished. I'm sure the movie was given a low budget, but what's important is that it doesn't look like cheap, which makes me wonder why Universal didn't just go ahead and release this one in theaters. It may not have had the possibility of larger box office draw because there's no Kevin Bacon around this time, but audiences consistently watch a movie for its quality, not for the main star, at least not usually.

S.S. Wilson handles the directing reins for this movie, and while he doesn't match the incredible job Ron Underwood did, he still does a solid job behind the camera. Not bad, considering he never directed before this (nor did he ever do so afterward). He does capture some of the feel of the original without making the movie feel like a rip-off. As for how he handled the action, I'd have to say it's pretty good. The movie takes a little too long to get to the new mutations, so none of the thrills really begin until then, but the action is exciting when it's there, most particularly in the final half-hour.

Speaking of the mutations, it's basically a medium-sized creature with legs and a huge appetite, but lacks when it comes to eyesight and sound. They choose their meals by whatever gives off heat, and of course, that principle applies to humans. This creature design is obviously not an improvement over the graboids, but it's nonetheless nice to see the filmmakers do something new, and the effects are actually good, for the most part. The CGI is sometimes a little cartoonish, but isn't very distracting, especially considering that this film isn't taking itself seriously.

Brent Maddock and S.S. Wilson's script supplies the humor, one of the aspects this series is popular for. Tremors 2 is funny, thanks to Fred Ward's fine and entertaining performance, as well as Michael Gross's return. It's obvious Maddock and Wilson were hoping that Grady would be the much-loved comic relief, similar to, say, Kevin J. O'Connor from Deep Rising. No dice, unfortunately. The character's too annoying, though Gartin does get off some good lines. His performance isn't the problem, mostly the script, which often relegates him to doing nothing but whining. As for Helen Shaver, she's okay and has some good chemistry with Ward that should have used a little more development.

The script does have some other major problems. For one thing, they should never have tried to explain the origin of the graboids. Any explanation would have been laughable, and there's a reason why none was offered in the original film. The screenplay, while sometimes clever, doesn't necessarily have a lot in the way of imagination, and sometimes it almost feels like the movie is just going through the moitions, but thankfully, that's not quite the case in the last 35 or so minutes. When the thrills and humor kick in, they push Tremors 2 above the usual straight-to-video crap up to solid escapism.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A New Beginning isn't the best of the series, but it's also hardly the worst.
5 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
** out of ****

Judging from all the negative comments over Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, it's obvious that this is probably the most hated in the nine film series. But I still don't exactly see why. The series itself is formulaic so calling this one dumber than the other films wouldn't make much sense. The root of the problem everyone seems to have is that Jason isn't the killer. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all, if you ask me, and considering that the original Friday the 13th didn't feature Jason Voorhees, either, I further don't understand series fans' distate for this movie.

A New Beginning takes place several years after the events that occurred in The Final Chapter, with Tommy Jarvis (John Shepherd) as a teen and mentally disturbed after his encounter with Jason. Because of this, he's been put in a halfway house for slightly mentally disturbed teens in some backwoods area. We never actually find out what happened to his sister, whether or not she's in a similar condition or just occasionally visits him and it would have been interesting had her name been mentioned once or twice.

Anyway, one of the teens, a fat kid named Joey, is brutally murdered by another fairly psychotic one. Soon afterward, more murders begin to pop up, leaving the police baffled. You'd think that all the people living in that halfway house would be a little scared, but it seems like they were never even informed of the murders that took place not too far from them. Not exactly a very efficient police force, if you ask me. Eventually, the murders reach that house which leads to the revelation of the identity of the man behind the hockey mask.

It seemed pretty obvious that there was absolutely no chance that The Final Chapter would be the last installment, so it's nice to see that A New Beginning is actually not bad and can be considered decent, as far as slasher flicks go. There's nothing particularly clever or intelligent about this movie, but it delivers some good visceral shocks and a few semi-unexpected moments. The death scenes aren't very creative, but they are built up to with a good sense of dread.

Director Danny Steinmann adds nothing new to the series but he handles the slash-and-stalk sequences fairly well, and there are a handful of suspenseful moments in the movie. As is typical of all the Friday the 13th films, the movie builds up with individual murders that leads to the long chase finale with "Jason" stalking our heroine, played by Melanie Kinnaman. Once again, up to this point in the series, this is the fourth time they've done this, but Steinmann still delivers the goods in this sequence. He also delivers a fairly chilling final scene, which was actually negated by Part VI: Jason Lives.

After Tom Savini's superb and numerous gore effects in The Final Chapter, you would think whoever did the make-up job here would try to outdo it, but there's not even a real attempt to do so. Compared to that previous installment, this one's not as bloody and the effects aren't as good, either. But overall, the make-up effects are acceptable and there are some gruesome death scenes, such as the (unintentionally) hilarious death one guy gets when his head is crushed with a vise against a tree. There's also a good bit of nudity in this movie, with a lot of series fans clamoring over actress Debisue Voorhees nude scene in the woods, which is a bit more explicit than the usual mainstream nude scene. Thus, it seems that to a certain extent, A New Beginning pretty much fulfills what was expected out of it.

But there are still quite a numerous amount of flaws. Though obviously played for humor, the redneck mother-and-son produce zero laughs and had me begging for nothing short of some gory evisceration for their fates. There's also a kid in this movie, like the previous film, but I really don't see what purpose he serves here at all. He's not annoying, but it's a little too obvious that the director won't take the chance to kill him off, which is detrimental in a few scenes that are meant to get our hearts pounding.

There's one part in this movie that I still don't know what to think of. It had me laughing my head off, though I'm really not sure if that was the intended effect or not. Basically, at one point in the movie, we're introduced to this unshaven and rather dirty-looking mysterious man who stops by the redneck mother's house looking for work. It's obvious he's made to be a suspect and at this one moment, we see him for all of 20 or so seconds. Then his next appearance occurs when he spies on two teens having sex, in a POV shot that further wants us to think he's "Jason." Then, the camera focuses on his face for a brief second, and shows him getting stabbed by the actual "Jason"! It's been awhile since I've seen this a character this useless.

I didn't mind the fact that the killer wasn't the actual Jason Voorhees, but the plot twist at the end is mind-bogglingly dumb (but to be fair, I have seen worst twists in other slashers). This revelation of "Jason's" identity and the reasons why he's doing all these murders is convoluted and way too convenient, to say the least. (Moderate spoiler here) Plus, in some ways, it's a semi-cheat since we only see this character for a brief moment or two in the actual course of the film.

The other major problem is that Tommy Jarvis is played in an ambiguous manner, and we're supposed to think that he could be a possible suspect. While I appreciate the attempt to up the ante of suspense, it's a mistake because there's not really anyone else to get behind, except for Kinnaman, but I didn't actual notice her doing much in the film at all until the halfway mark.

Since Part 4, the acting has generally improved in the series from the first 3, which is also the case with A New Beginning. While those who play the mentally disturbed teens are mostly bad, John Shepherd is decent as the disturbed Tommy Jarvis, playing his character in what I assume must be a fairly realistic manner. Melanie Kinnaman as Pam is not bad. Up to this point in the series, she's the second best of the Friday the 13th heroine's (which really doesn't say that much since the competition includes such awful actresses as Adrienne King and Amy Steel), behind Kimberly Beck from The Final Chapter, who herself ranks behind Lar Park Lincoln from A New Blood (and maybe Kari Keegan from Jason Goes to Hell, which I'll have to give another look to determine).

Overall, I had fun watching A New Beginning and I probably liked slightly more things about it than I disliked. In the end, it is still a typical slasher, but one that's certainly underappreciated (when compared with the many fans of the first 3 Friday the 13th's) and one I would recommend to fans of the subgenre.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jason is only dull here.
5 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
* out of ****

While I have no great love for the Friday the 13th series, I do probably overall enjoy them more than the average viewer. I had quite a bit of fun watching parts 4, 7, and 9, which were all quite entertaining, if not necessarily what "good" films (I have yet to see part 6, but many have claimed it's the best in the series). But to be honest, I never really did care much for the original Friday the 13th, and this sequel is worse. Yeah, I realize it's nothing more than a slasher, but even on that level it doesn't particularly succeed.

I did like how the movie began. Featuring Alice, the survivor from the original, director Steve Miner sets up a fairly tense and suspenseful 5-minutes sequence that caps off with her death. Not a bad beginning, I thought. Oh, man, it was only downhill from there. The rest of the film basically involves some young adults setting up a camp near Crystal Lake, get horny and have sex (or try to), and be completely oblivious to the fact that there's a madman stalking and slashing them down. It may sound like fun, but it sure as hell isn't.

Despite a decent setting, some okay atmosphere, and a creepy score that might have been the inspiration for Ennio Morricone's score in The Thing (I'm not referring to the chu, chu, chu chorus), Part 2 is damned boring. After the decent opening, the movie just becomes long and tiresome, featuring one kill after another, none of which provide even a visceral thrill or shock. The movie doesn't even gain any momentum once Jason starts chasing our heroine, played by Amy Steel, around.

Miner simply shows that he doesn't really know how to set up a good slash-and-stalk sequence. Some of these scenes are too easily telegraphed and they didn't even make me jump in my seat, with maybe the exception of one sole moment where a guy suddenly gets a machete thrown into his head. The movie overall fails to create thrills, maybe because Jason acts more like a goofball than a frightening killer. By that, I mean he wears a pillow over his head and always conveniently can't seem to stab Miss Steel despite so many numerous opportunities.

To be somewhat fair to Miner, this is his directorial debut. However, he may be considered a horror veteran now, and after having seen H2O and Lake Placid, I'm not eager to see his next film. It's obvious that he wants to play Part 2 straight and scare the living daylights out of his audience, but many of his decisions are unwise, and everything looks cheesier than scary.

Ron Kurz's script is incredibly routine and unimaginative. He basically rehashes the original, and the only difference is that he has a different killer. I know screenwriting isn't this subgenre's strong attribute, but come on, as a sequel to a box office smash, I'd like to think that the filmmakers would want to do more than just look like unimaginative losers.

As usual, there's gore and nudity here, which are almost always good things to have in a slasher. But the gore here is relatively tame when compared to some of the later entires. Plus, only one girl gets nude (she's also the only really hot one in the film) while everyone else just takes a shirt off or shows off a lot of cleavage. These same people also show no acting abilit whatsoever. Amy Steel makes for a boring heroine, probably on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from Lar Park Lincoln's strong heroine from Part VII, the New Blood (And hey, Lincoln could actually act).

The finale is confusingly filmed (There will be heavy spoilers here). It features Miss Steel and the actor playing her boyfriend, I think his name's John Furey, arriving at the camp. All of a sudden, they're attacked by Jason and it looks like the boyfriend is killed. Then Jason starts chasing Miss Steel around. From out of nowhere, the boyfriend returns, seemingly unscathed, and comes to the rescue. Then, there's that random scene in the finale where Jason pops through the window, grabbing Steel. Right afterward, the scene skips to the next day, where she is unhurt and her boyfriend's missing. Then it ends. Huh?

Well, as you can gather, I don't like Part 2, but the series did continuously improve and try different things from here on out, with the later installments generally featuring better acting, more gore, laughs, and of course, nudity. I don't know, Part 2 has a rather large fanbase and I've never understood its popularity. It's nothing more than a boring slasher flick that's too lazily made to work.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tremors (1990)
10/10
Genre fans and casual moviegoers will find lots of things to love in Tremors, possibly the best horror/comedy ever made.
29 September 2001
*** 1/2 out of ****

Tremors is often described by many to be a cult classic, which is odd. The fact is, cult films usually have a quirky quality to them that separate them from the usual Hollywood-churned machine. Take Re-Animator, for example, or even the recent Ravenous, both of which have oddities and bloody quirks that average viewers might find repellant. But Tremors isn't the slightest bit offbeat. It's made in full Hollywood-style with a predictably happy ending to boot. So what makes it a "cult classic"? Could it be that it's successful in mixing almost every genre into the proceedings or that it's great entertainment that simply didn't get the box office reception it deserved? Perhaps both, because this is one movie that always puts a smile on my face and simultaneously gets my pulse-pounding every time I watch it.

The plot is similar to that of the monster films of the old days. Valentine Mckee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) are two handymen "trapped" in the small town of Perfection, Nevada. They have dreams of making it big, but their ambitious goals always seem out of reach. Just when they do decide to finally leave, the discovery of dead bodies, both human and animal, keep them there for just a while longer. There's also the road, which has been blocked by a large boulder.

On hand to study some strange seismic activity is Rhonda (Finn Carter), a grad student who helps Mckee and Bassett come to the realization that both the deaths and the odd vibrations in the ground are connected. It turns out to be the work of giant 30-foot worms, four of them to be exact, and they trap the townspeople of Perfection in their homes, including gun-happy, WWIII-prepared couple Burt and Heather Gummer (Michael Gross and Reba Mcentire). The rest of the film becomes a desperate scramble to outsmart the worms and get out of the town alive.

The first thing that's noticable about Tremors is probably how it's obviously inspired by 50's monster flicks. The great thing, though, is that Tremors plays itself as a comedy, preferring laughs over scares, a wise decision since if the film took itself seriously, it would have been a major detriment. The laughs aren't cheap, either, as they result from witty dialogue and new twists on the "monster" subgenre. The great chemistry between Bacon and Ward brings the most humor to the film. Playing best friends with little education but plenty of smarts, these are two performances that are a hoot to watch. It'd be great to see them in another film together again (too bad it didn't happen in Tremors 2).

But in addition to the laughs, there's also the action, which is frenetic and exciting. Director Ron Underwood gives the film a lightning pace and the 95 minutes seems to just roll by. The fun action consists of a lot of running and "get off the ground" moments. For the last 45 minutes, Tremors is almost full of non-stop excitement, and it's surprising to see that the action never gets tiresome nor dull for a single moment. The movie isn't scary or frightening at all, but with suspense and thrills this sharp, who cares (Besides, being scary is hardly the film's intent.)?

It's nice to see that this movie is not particularly gory or full of gratuitous violence. While I do enjoy gory violence when it fits the style and tone, it wouldn't have been welcome here and the light-hearted feel that permeates Tremors is a crucial reason to its success; there's no unneccessary unpleasantness and it also proves that the movie creates genuine excitement without resorting to splashing blood all over the screen. Because of this, it easily reaches out to a larger amount of viewers, making it a movie that's just as easily accessible for fans of, say, screwball comeides as it is for action lovers. Since the movie is PG-13, there are still a couple of moments of semi-graphic violence, but nothing objectionable to someone 10 years or older.

The special effects are fun, with the worms as the film's showpiece. Thankfully, there's no overdone CGI and the worms are actually well-rendered and convincing. But I must say, I was a little misled, seeing how it is the worms don't actually look like the one on the video box cover (which actually looks cooler). But never mind that, I'm wondering how the director managed to pull off so many scenes of the creatures popping out from underground. I mean, given the fact that this is a goofy monster movie, it couldn't have been given a very big budget. I also love those worm POV shots, particularly the ones that actually feature the camera wading through the dirt.

S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock's script is clever without being particulary intelligent or distinguished. This isn't a brilliant film by a long shot but it goes to show that some writers who just want to write a fun script can actually get the job done. It's a little odd to note that all of Wilson and Maddock's other screenplays (with maybe the exception of Tremors' own sequels) have been pretty bad, culminating to the debacle known as Wild Wild West. Unlike that film and the others they've written, this one isn't soulless.

But it's not the action and the laughs that put this film above so many countless movies of the genre. It is, after all, the characters that make this film as highly entertaining as it is. As said before, Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward's chemistry is natural and they deliver some of their best acting in their careers. It's actually a shame that Ward never reached the same heights of stardom as Bacon; he sure as hell had the charisma and acting skill for it. Also very good is Finn Carter as Rhonda, and it's also a little unfortunate her career hasn't gone far since this. She and Bacon also have some nice chemistry, which further establishes this movie as one that also works partially as a romance (a good feat, considering it's not even striving to be one). The other standouts are Michael Gross and Reba Mcentire as the gun-toting couple. Their performances are a lot of fun and there's a hilarious scene involving the two of them trying to kill one of the giant worms in their basement.

Tremors wasn't much of a box office success but has since gone on to have a strong life on video, to the point where it even inspired other knowingly goofy creature features such as Anaconda, Lake Placid, Deep Blue Sea, and Deep Rising (of these three, only Rising comes to mind as a must see). None of them managed to reach the heights of Tremors, perhaps because their characters weren't as likable and memorable, thus leaving this film as the one all future monster films will be compared to. The film's also got its own sequels, the first of which I remember as being pretty fun but certainly inferior. Tremors 3 I have yet to see, but it's one I'm looking forward to.
145 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An action thriller that features Li's return to form.
23 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
*** out of ****

After the disappointing Romeo Must Die it's great to see Jet Li back in ass-kicking form in Kiss of the Dragon, a movie that features a story that doesn't always make a whole lot of sense but features martial arts fights that rank among Li's best. The movie improves considerably on the mistakes made in Romeo and is a thrill ride that moves at a consistently good pace.

Li plays a Chinese intelligence officer on a mission in Paris. He's been assigned to work with a French officer named Richard (Tcheky Karyo), who's obviously corrupt and also calls Li by John since he can't pronounce his real name. Anyway, their assignment involves busting a drug kingpin, but everything goes horribly wrong when the crime lord is killed and Richard pins the fault on John. Thus, John goes on the run in a city he's unfamiliar with; he has almost no allies and is being chased after by the police and Richard's countless cronies.

He meets a prostitute named Jessica (Bridget Fonda) inside a restaurant, and a mutual friendship begins to develop between them. It's also by chance he discovers that she was a witness to the kingpin's murder and can clear his name. But she's reluctant to help him because Richard has her daughter, which is the only reason she continues this demeaning job in the first place. As Richard and his men begin to pin them down, John prepares to fight back with all his skills and strengths and retrieve Jessica's daughter safely.

From the get-go, there's a fault in the story. There's simply no good explanation given as to why Richard actually had the kingpin killed in the first place. My own assumption would be that they were working together and this led to the possibility of his corruption being revealed. That's as good as any guess, I suppose. Luc Besson's script isn't particularly distinguished, but hey, at least it's more comprehensible than the Romeo Must Die's plot, a move which I will probably refer to many times in this review.

Not only is that element improved upon from that film, but Li is actually given a hell of a lot more screen time and the fact that everybody seems to be after him gives the movie a more frenetic pace. That's not to say that Kiss of the Dragon is a lightning-paced film. After an exhilarating opening fight sequence inside a hotel that features Li using props a la Jackie Chan style, the movie does slow down considerably.

But to compensate for this pace is an interesting relationship that forms when Bridget Fonda enters the picture. True, this isn't the most well-written role the actress has had (well, then again, she's not really give many well-written roles in the first place, is she?) but her performance is good, and the chemistry that clicks between her and Li is strong, and even sometimes sweet and touching. Some see the lack of an actual romance blossoming between them as another sign that Hollywood isn't much for interracial couples (much like in Romeo Must Die) but I think it's better this way. Plus, I'm getting tired of seeing the hero bed the heroine in an impulsive moment of passion. Fonda and Li's quiet communication and toned-down feelings are more effective than a kiss or love scene would be. Of course, there are the obligatory moments of cheesy dialogue when she says to him that all he cares about is himself, but the fight scenes kick in before any of this can significantly hinder the film.

Speaking of the action scenes, they are supremely exciting. I'm not sure if director Chris Nahon was in charge of the choregraphy, but if he was, this is very impressive. First of all, there's no wirework, or at least none that I noticed, so there's a feeling of authenticity in all the fight scenes. The film's best action sequence is Li's two-on-one fight with the "blonde brothers" in the finale who, I must say, also display some very impressive martial arts moves (Can Li even do flips like that one blonde guy does?). I've seen several of Li's other films and these fights on par with his Hong Kong work, if not better than some. The only real complaint I have with the fight scenes is that some of the camera movements are too quick, making it sometimes a little difficult to make out a couple of Li's impressive moves. But it's a problem that thankfully doesn't permeate the film.

The action is also very bloody and graphically violent. An early scene with a man being literally blown in half by a grenade let's us know that isn't a family-friendly Jackie Chan film. When someone gets hit, they bleed and they bleed a lot. (Minor Spoiler here) Tcheky Karyo's death scene is perhaps the film's bloody highlight; he bleeds from every orifice on his face until he dies in a frenzy of spasmatic twitching.

What can be seen as a flaw in the film is in some of its settings. Those who think present-day Paris is nothing but a beautiful city will be unpleasantly surprised by Kiss of the Dragon, which almost exclusively focuses on the grungy and seedy side of society in the city. Seeing Fonda in a mess of sweat and dirt in a filthy allieway isn't a fun sight.

As I said before, Fonda is good, and so is Li, who can actually act, unlike so many big-time action stars around. The quiet intensity he displays says more than any dialogue that spews out from Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. Tcheky Karyo is so snaky and disgustingly vile in his role, everybody will cheer for his death (well, that and the fact that some people in the audience couldn't stop proclaiming how gross his death was).

The actual Kiss of the Dragon the movie's title refers to is a form of Chinese acupuncture, a method that Li uses in the film can put people to sleep or give a very bloody death. It's not mentioned as often in the film as I thought it would and neither is it extremely significant to the plot, but who cares? This film's all about the action and I'm certainly not complaining when it comes to that. It's funny to see that from the so many lackluster blockbuster films of the past summer two of the best have its roots in Hong-Kong filmmaking (the other such film is Tsui Hark's Time and Tide).
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (2000)
10/10
A great sci-fi epic.
5 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
*** 1/2 out of ****

The last time somebody attempted to adapt Frank Herbert's much-loved novel Dune to the big screen resulted in both a commercial and critical disaster. As everybody knows, David Lynch was the man who helmed that infamous film, which has now gained a cult following but is still held in many regards as the ultimate big-budget sci-fi bomb (this dubious honor is challenged by Battlefield Earth). Thus, it's not with a little praise when I say that I loved this miniseries adaptation. Written and directed by John Harrison (believe it or not, he played the zombie that got the screwdriver in the head in Dawn of the Dead.), he realizes that a film that makes sense is far more important than looking weird and offbeat.

As opposed to the original film, the story is now very comprehensible. The focus is on a young man named Paul Atreides (Alec Newman), the son of Duke Leto (William Hurt) and Lady Jessica (Saskia Reeves) of House Atreides. Their rival is House Harkonnen, who are currently mining the valuable spice melange on planet Arrakis, which is also known as Dune. The Emperor (Giancarlo Giannini) has made arrangements to move the Harkonnens out and bring in the Atreides to mine the spice, but secretly has a plan to bring the Atreides down with the help of the Harkonnen.

Eventually, House Atreides is thrown into ruins and Paul and his mother are forced into a fight for survival on the desert, eventually encountering a tribe known as the Fremen, who are led by Stilgar. Slowly, Paul begins a rise in the ranks and becomes the leader of the tribe, and many believe he is the one to fulfill their prophecy. Paul grows accustomed to the tribe, falling in love with one of the native women, Chani (Barbara Kodetova), and he proceeds to foil the Harkonnen in all their spice mining, as well as take back Arrakis and re-establish House Atreides.

There are so many things Harrison does well with the film that it's surprising he wasn't given a larger budget to work with. Plus, at a running time of 265 minutes I can say for sure that, while this certainly isn't a lightning-paced film by any means, I found myself engrossed during the whole film. As I said before, the story is no longer a confusing mess, but is now an absorbing epic given a great treatment. The movie takes its time developing the situations, the intrigue, and the characters and never fails to lose momentum.

With a production cost of 20 million dollars, I'm shocked by just how visually extravagant Dune is. The special effects are mostly great, and while certain scenes are obviously CGI, I never found them distracting. The production design is even better, as the architecture and the sets are among the best I've ever seen. In my opinion, with the possible exception of Star Wars: Phantom Menace, in terms of volume, quantity, and depth I don't believe I've seen a sci-fi film this visually awe-inspiring in many, many years (if not for all time). Among the film's best visuals are the giant sandworms, given a look that is utlimately both wondrous and frightening. Believe me, the special effects are infinitely superior to David Lynch's original.

Yet, what makes a great sci-fi film is the story and its characters, and I have already mentioned that this film has a fine story. The actors are perhaps the most inconsistent part of the film but are mostly very good. Playing the most important role is Alec Newman as Paul Atreides, who portrays the part quite differently than Kyle Machlachlan did. As to where Machlachlan was quite and reserved, Newman is more outspoken and active, and even sometimes quite moody. He delivers a fairly good performance. William Hurt as Duke Leto is fine, equalling Jurgen Prochnow's portrayal from the original. Those who do not match the original's performances are P.H. Moriarty as Gurney Halleck, who lacks the nobility Patrick Stewart featured, and Matt Keeslar as Feyd, who isn't nearly as fun to watch as Sting. As the Baron Harkonnen, Ian McNeice is suitably shrewd, intelligent, and calculating. Yet, the best performance of all goes to Saskia Reeves as the Lady Jessica, who superbly portrays a woman with immense love for her family, as well as a woman of duty as a Bene Gesseritt. She plays the role with strength and warmth.

For a sci-fi film there's a resoundingly minute amount of cheese in the whole production. Since David Lynch's rendition was sometimes a paragon of unintentional camp, I was a little unsure of how this one would turn out. Thinking of this, I am reminded of that final battle in the original in which no Fremen are killed (thankfully, it's done far more realistically here). Overall, the dialogue is quite well-written and the direction is very steady and sure throughout (part of that credit should go to the beautiful cinematography of Vittorio Storraro). Also worthy of meniton is Graeme Revell's score, which differs vastly from Toto's; this one is a far more subtle approach, and though it's been getting some negative responses, I find it effective and well-blended with the material.

As much as I liked the film, there are some flaws. The desert scenes were obviously not shot in a real desert, thus it comes off looking a little cheap. A couple of scenes feel quite rushed, particularly a Harkonnen invasion on the Atreides fortress that just seems to end as quickly as it began, and a couple of characters aren't given quite a deep enough look. Plus, as a whole, I pretty much despised Barbara Kodetova as Chani, and she and Newman have very little chemistry. Hell, Julie Cox as the Princess Irulan strikes far more sparks with Newman in their brief moments together.

But overall, this version of Dune is likely to be among the best sci-fi films of the decade. Considering how awful some of the recent theatrically released sci-fi has been, it's great to see a film that breathes fresh air into the genre. There's always going to be a huge division among those who prefer David Lynch's film and John Harrison's, but for my money, this is the one true and epic version of Dune.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An adventure film lacking in fun and tension.
3 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
* 1/2 out of ****

It seems that NBC has something for fantasy films. After all, many of the miniseries they've been producing over the past several years have been of the sword-and-sorcery subgenre, such as Merlin and The Odyssey. Jason and the Argonauts is added to the list and it's also the weakest of the three (not that the former two films are that good). I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of fantasy. Where some people see magic and wonder, I see cheese and unintentional camp value. I've got nothing against alien and magical worlds, since I loved the recent Dune miniseries and I thoroughly enjoy Star Wars; it's not as if though fantasy films can't be any good, they often just seemed to be satisfied with presenting some weird creatures without much development on the the strange world itself. My lack of high enthusiasm can be seen as a shot against Jason and the Argonauts, but because I enjoyed The Odyssey, I was actually looking forward to this movie.

The character the title refers to is Jason (Jason London), prince of Iolcus, whose father is killed by Pelias (Dennis Hopper), a ruthless tyrant who proceeds to rule the kingdom. Jason escapes and returns as a young man. Pelias sees this as a threat to his kingdom and has his wife, Jason's mother, threatened. In order to keep his mother alive, he makes a promise to Pelias to bring back the golden fleece, which is believed by many to have great powers. To make this journey, he enlists the aid of strong and courageous men, and travels in a boat called the Argos. On their journey, they encounter and face many dangers and close calls before they come in possession of the fleece.

Despite the fact that I don't like this movie, there are some slightly redeeming aspects to the whole thing. This rendition of Jason and the Argonauts features some good visual effects (as well as some bad ones), a decent musical score from Simon Boswell, competent direction from Nick Willing, and some high production values. Yet, even then, it's not enough to save the movie. It suffers mainly because of its lack of fun. After all, an adventure movie should be full of spirit and tension, but there are almost no suspenseful moments in the film, and for the first 120 or so minutes (the movie runs at 3 hours), the pacing is pretty damn slow.

The movie does manage to pick the pace up in the last 35 minutes with some swordfights and an exciting encounter with a large dragon/dinosaur creature that guards the fleece (the only part of the whole film that can pass off as suspenseful), but there's hardly enough action to make up for the lags in the pace. The swordfights are often too short and they lack intensity. The choreography isn't terrible, but it's depressingly average. Those looking for tough action won't probably enjoy this film. While I realize Jason and the Argonauts can't possibly be the equivalent of Braveheart or Gladiator in terms of action, there's still not enough visceral excitement. Particulary bad is one sequence where Jason is fighting knights made out of roots that are growing out of the ground. Note how unintentionally hilarious it is when he's doing all these overwrought dodging moves against these badly CGI-rendered creatures.

Internet film critic Brian Wright stated that the best fantasy (or sword-and-sorcery) films usually have the 4 main elements, which are steel, fire, blood, and nudity. While I would add adventure to that list, I do for the most part, agree with him, but since this is a made-for-television production, these ingredients are seriously hampered. There's not a lot of blood in the film and there's little erotic tension, despite a scene with Natasha Henstridge seducing Jason London. It doesn't take nudity to creat eroticism, as was proved in The Odyssey when Venessa Williams seduced Armand Assante, but this movie fails to pull it off.

As a fantasy film, there's obviously no subtlety, but it always annoys me to see the Greek gods meddling in human affairs, so that's another strike against this film. There's also a little bit of ambiguity regarding Pelias' son, Acastus. By his portrayal in this film, you have to wonder if he (very minor spoiler) turned traitor because he had planned to do so the whole time or was upset because he discovered his mother loved his half-brother Jason far more than him. There's no true resolution to this little conflict, leaving an unsatisfying feeling since this subplot is the only really interesting one.

The acting is one of the most damaging problems in this film, seeing how it is Jason London (who resembles Brendan Fraser) is flat the whole way through. This guy actually seems to think bland represents honor and nobility. Jolene Blalock is equally lifeless as his bride-to-be Medea, and there's no chemistry between them at all. Brian Thompson as Hercules is not bad, but he's given little to do other than boast about his great accomplishments as well as show a lot of inconsistency in his strength (the guy held the weight of the heavens, yet has a hard time pulling out a tree?). Mark Lewis Jones is decent as Mopsus, but the only actors who show a lot of life in their roles are as Angus Mcfaddyen as Zeus and Olivia Williams as Hera, both of whom are fun to watch as they constantly have something up their sleeves, though this does lead to a lot of disappointement since their secret plans never really amount to anything.

As far as fantasy films go, Jason and the Argonauts isn't the worst, since the genre does feature the likes of Red Sonja. Still, as much as I enjoy adventure films, this one fails to rouse and doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment value. Undemanding fantasy fans will probably find a lot to enjoy, but I see a movie with a potentially exciting story put to waste big time. As a matter of fact, I'm feeling a little kind for not giving this film a * star rating.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scary Movie (2000)
Starts out well, goes downhill pretty quickly
9 August 2001
* 1/2 out of ****

Scary Movie is, of course, the parody to Wes Craven's immensely popular Scream. I've never been a huge fan of Scream so I was actually looking forward to a film that would be poking fun at it, as well as countless other films in the genre. Unfortunately, it's not very funny, despite some big laughs in certain spots. For the most part, this is a time waster, and while I've seen worse, it's not worth your hard-earned money unless you really, really hate Scream or just absolutely love sexual jokes.

I don't think there's a real reason to go over the story, since it's essentially Scream added with individual scenes from other horror films. The movie starts out fairly well, actually. Carmen Electra is the movie's opening victim, and she has a lot of fun playing the part. I particularly enjoyed her response to what she thought was the scariest she'd ever seen. After this opening scene, there are some more laughs to be had, but it grows more tiresome as it moves along, which can't be a good thing when you consider the fact the film's only 88 minutes long.

There are a lot of movies spoofed here, some work much better than others. The Wayan Brothers need to know what films to let well enough alone, such as The Matrix. Seeing a normal teen kick ass like Carrie Ann-Moss might be funny to some, but not to me. I mean, for crying out loud, we have a movie that parodies parts of that film, it's called Battlefield Earth (and it was a lot funnier in that movie). The only non-horror film that's parodied that works here is probably with Amistad, and it only worked because the filmmakers were African-American.

But, I think, overall the real problem is the over-reliance on crude sexual jokes. I mean, it might just be me, but I paid to watch a movie that parodied the horror genre. What I got was a movie that spent 65% of its time thinking that sex jokes are the most brilliant form of humor around. Hell, it even seems like the Wayans Brothers forgot they were parodying horror flicks up until the finale. Do these guys really think it's funny to see a man get stabbed with a penis?

Some of the funniest parts feature the killer running around, acting like an incompetent dolt. It's hard to believe these moments were sacrificed for so many jokes on penis size and gay-related humor, most of which almost completely fall flat. In my opinion, I believe the main reason the Wayans brother included so many unbelievably graphic and crude sex jokes was to make it more memorable, even if its in a notorious manner. After all, everybody I've spoken to about this film always bring up those jokes first.

The movie stars a couple of the Wayans brothers, who are most definitely energetic but hardly consistently funny. Jon Abrahams gets off a couple of good laughs and I must say I could not recognize Shannon Elizabeth from American Pie; she just looks so...goofy in this movie. Anna Faris undeniably has the most fun, and while she's certainly not a great actress she fits in perfectly here.

This was followed by the even moreso unimaginatively titled Scary Movie 2, which I have yet to see, but have heard that it makes the original look good in comparison. I don't know about you, but when it comes to movies, there's nothing more painful than watching a bad comedy that thinks it's so hilarious.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slow for a while, but then it's non-stop action and thrills to the end.
9 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
** 1/2 out of ****

Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn might surprise those who are watching it without any prior knowledge to the plot. It begins much like a crime/road drama, with two criminal brothers, Seth and Richard Gecko (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino), getting into a shootout in a convenience store. They end up losing a few hostages. Their plan is to get to Mexico and meet with an associate. Thus, they are forced to take a former preacher, Jacob (Harvey Keitel), and his two kids (Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu) by gunpoint. Using their RV with Jacob at the wheel, they get past the border, stop at a seedy strip bar out in the middle of nowhere, and are in for a big and unpleasant surprise.

After a hectic shootout and some funny, quirky dialogue in the opening, the movie does develop quite slowly and is buoyed only by the occasional interesting bit of dialogue (which is trademark Tarantino). A few of the characters we've been introducted to do up to this point are fairly interesting, but are a little underused or are simply excessive in whatever they do. I was finding myself rather bored by the proceedings. But once they reach the bar, all hell breaks loose, as our "heroes" unpleasantly discover that the bar is owned by vampires, and for the last 45 minutes From Dusk Till Dawn is a non-stop ride of action, thrills, and campy dark humor.

The action is the film's main showcase and it's fast-paced, violent, and exciting. It makes John Carpenter's attempt at high-energy in Vampires look lethargic in comparison. The film offers some creative ways to kill vampires, and it's all so hectic there's not a chance you'll be bored. I haven't seen Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi, but if he shows the same kinetic style here it'll be another wild ride. All the action here is set in the bar (it's a rather large one, too), making it an obvious poke at Night of the Living Dead because of that film's own confined setting. Of course, instead of zombies we've got the undead of the blooksucking variety.

There's gore all over the place here, which must have made the R-rating a close call. There are decaptitations, throat-rippings, stakes through the heart, limbs ripped off, and exploding bodies. The make-up effects are good (and sometimes noticable campy) but the CGI-rendered effects are weak, even for a movie that isn't meant to be taken very seriously. Thankfully, there aren't as many of those here as the traditional make-up effects (vice-versa was the case for Blade, which was terrible).

To satisfy the male crowd, a fair share of nudity is inserted, though none of it is particularly titillating. Most people I know, though, have found Salma Hayek's dance sequence to be a highlight. I'll admit, it's a little sexy in a seedy manner, and she plays the scene perfectly. Hayek isn't in the film all that much, but her attractive presence is a plus, it certainly adds to the experience. When it comes to vampire seductresses, she's not as memorable as Mathilda May was in Lifeforce, but she's still eerie and sexy here.

As much as it is an action/horror film, From Dusk Till Dawn is also a comedy, and a very dark one at that. For the first hour, it's mostly the same style of humor seen in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Once the vampires appear, the laughs come from some sharp jabs at horror cliches (the sharp dialogue is till there). Despite the humor, there's still some genuine tension, particularly a scene where one of the massacre's survivors turns into a vampire and attacks the others, as well as Keitel's slow walk to the back room as he tries to hold off dozens of vampires with a shotgun.

The film is also boosted from some fun performances. Nobody's aiming for an Oscar here, but George Clooney is quite effective as the anti-hero who wields his guns in near desperado-style, and Quentin Tarantino is a riot as his insane brother. Harvey Keitel is his typically solid self, and plays the part of a preacher who has lost his faith well, bringing some dignity into the movie. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are adequate for a movie like this. Cheech Marin's got three roles and chews the scenery big time.

The film's most interesting character belongs to make-up man Tom Savini. Fred Williamson tries to be as odd and quirky, but Savini's biker character Sex Machine is hilarious and memorable. Horror fans may know him mostly for his great make-up effects, but this performance is a scene-stealer. This isn't exactly a great performance (nor is he aiming for that), but it's a remarkably enthusiastic one.

By the end, you'll realize that From Dusk Till Dawn is hardly a great film. But it accomplishes its intent, delivering thrills and action in spades, as well as some good laughs. Two sequels have been made, and I keep hearing the second one is terrible while the third is pretty good. Vampire films have never been my cup of tea, but damned if this one didn't have me entertained.
25 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hellraiser (1987)
1/10
Wildly overrated "classic."
6 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
** out of ****

In my time, I've seen hundreds of horror films and I think I have a pretty good firm grasp of what films in the genre are truly great, which is why I have to say that Clive Barker's Hellraiser is among the most overrated. It suffers from too many drawbacks in the story, as well as Barker's own direction, and never quite lives up to its ability to deliver consistent good scares.

The story of Hellraiser is fairly in simple in technical terms. A man, Frank Cotton, purchases a configuration shaped as a box and fiddles around with it, opening a dimension that lies between the depths of pleasure and pain. Years later, Frank's brother, Larry (Andrew Robinson), and his wife Julia (Claire Higgins) move into the same house. Larry gets a deep cut on his hand and the blood spills to the ground, which actually revives Frank (in a rather gruesome sequence). He and Julia shared a past together and he convinces her to bring men back to kill so he can use their blood to bring his flesh back.

When it comes to some shocks and jolting moments of suspense, Hellraiser has some well-done scenes. There are some scares in the film, and the gore effects, which are in a gratuitous abundance, are quite impressive. There are a few moments of startlingly effective imagery and some very suspenseful scenes, but Clive Barker does so many other things wrong I can hardly believe this movie is actually considered a classic by so many people.

This movie is essentially about pleasure and pain, or so I think Barker would try to lead us to believe that's what this is all about. Those ideas are given a ham-fisted presentation in flashback torture scenes. Yeah, I see all the pain, but where's all the enticement of pleasure? In the novella, Frank was tempted with the possibility of sex (but in the most repellant manner). The torture scenes are all Barker really cares to show us when it comes to these ideas, basically featuring some people get ripped apart by chains. I suppose I can't forget the fact that people also talk about it, too. The character Frank goes into these frank and quite dumb brief conversations about how he was bored and simply wanted to experience more and go to the limits, his words not mine. I'm sorry, but this hardly sounds like a decent reason to do anything like this. If he was close to death or something along those lines, I could almost believe it, but I could only scoff when he uttered those lines.

When it comes to horror films, logical lapses can be accepted. It's a lot easier to take such moments in fun-based horror films that are simply meant for escapism, but this movie's pretentiousness is overbearing. Thus, it's a little hard to believe that nobody in the house could smell the rotting, maggot-infested corpses of three men. It's also a little hard to accept the fact that Robinson's character never realizes just how repressed his wife is. Sure, he notices she's got problems, but she's a murderous psycopathic bitch.

Barker gives the movie a dark and grim look, not necessarily a bad choice, but he likes to conjure up a lot of dark themes and taboos for the sake of just trying to make the movie look...well, different, dark, and offbeat. The movie focuses on extramarital affairs, serial killings, and even incest and does all this just by simply tossing these odd moments on-screen without any care or background for it in the first place. These characters' motivations for such odd behavior is never explained and they're simply way too "evil" to be taken as real people.

The cenobites are only sparingly used in the movie, probably a good idea on Barker's behalf. They're a little scary at first, but I felt a little goofy after awhile when I realized I was getting scared by a creature that likes to look straight in the air and speak in a dull monotone. Yeah, I'm talking about Pinhead, the famed horror villain of the series. Played by Doug Bradley, he's a little enigmatic at first but after a few moments, you really don't care what he is. In the film, the cenobites appear to have the ability to transport around as is seen when they suddenly appear at the Cotton residence. (Spoiler) Yet, when they try to take Kirsty with them, they move towards her at a slug's pace and she simply uses the box to transport them back (speaking of which, I'm clearly certain the fat cenobite only fell through the floor). That doesn't sound like the all-powerful demons we were prior shown. Oh, and by the way, this visual lightshow in the finale is pretty embarrassing.

Ashley Laurence is the main character of this film, as well its first sequel. She's a little wooden here at times, but is relatively okay. Andrew Robinson is also not bad as the unwitting husband, but claire Higgins is absolutely horrendous. Trying to act like a repressed woman turned murderous fiend, she just comes off with a terrible impression. As for the rest of this franchise, I've only seen Hellbound, which is worse than this. I sure do sound like I'm bashing Hellraiser, but as I said before, it does have its scares and jolting moments. The only reason I give it as much a harsh criticism as it seems like I am is because of its beloved acclaim from horror fans everywhere, which it really doesn't deserve.
64 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This would have been a zero if not for some exciting action scenes and an expensive production design.
5 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
* 1/2 out of ****

The 13th Warrior is a film that has somehow managed to get a wide appreciation from so many audiences. How this has happened is way beyond me. As escapist entertainment, there's hardly enough excitement to make the film worth watching. As a serious in-depth look at Viking society, it's dreadful, repellant, and not particularly accurate. All I see here is a fairly boring and plotless film full of unpleasant imagery.

I suppose it's relatively impossible for any movie not to have a plot. Thus, the "story," as this one goes, begins with the journeys of Ahmed Ibn Fadlan (Antonio Banderas), a writer banished from his country because he was in love with a rich man's wife (and presumably, she back to him). He ends up hooking up with some Viking warriors and stays a bit longer than he hoped to as he realizes he has been chosen as the 13th warrior. Without his acknowledgement or permission, he has been enlisted to fight a ferocious enemy that has been assaulting another Viking village. What pretty much follows is another rendition of The Seven Samurai.

It's obvious The 13th Warrior has aspirations to be an epic, and I'm not certain if large portions were cut out of the movie, but it's only 100 minutes. Not that I'm really complaining since it's already dull enough as it is, but that's a bit surprising to see a short-length "epic." There are some action scenes and they are exciting when on-screen, but it's not enough to sustain the movie for its entirety. The movie features about twenty minutes of excitement, and nearly 80 minutes of complete boredom.

Director John Mctiernan is a skilled action filmmaker, as he has proven with Die Hard. Here, he helms some well-done setpieces, such as a large-scale nighttime invasion that looks disastrous for the village. The warriors' venture into the cave near the end is also pretty effective. However, Mctiernan also makes some terrible decisions in this film when it comes to some of the action. Though the battle scenes are fairly exciting, they're hindered by the night-time setting (it's either that or the overwrought slow motion). It would have been nice to see what the heck was going during some of these action-filled moments.

When there's no action on-screen, everything slows down to a snail's pace, with little of anything to maintain any interest. Mctiernan tries to build this up as a horror film, too, for some odd reason, almost as if though he thinks that we would be convinced that this ferocious enemy is really an army of demons when it's quite obvious it's just a group of people wearing bear skin. The revelation is a little unintenionally funny, as you have to wonder how long it took for these characters to figure it out (most especially Banderas, who seems to have the most common sense but shows little during his "it's a man" bout).

Some other things here are just plain stupid. (minor spoiler) The one-on-one fight between Buliwyf and the queen is a little too in favor of the Viking, seeing how it is he has a sword as big as a man and she's got a claw with very slow-acting poison. Plus, the Vikings go all the way down to this cave to take down this queen, and they accomplish their task and leave, but Banderas later finds out that in order to stop the army you have to kill the male leader. Why the hell didn't they just do that in the cave?

The movie has an expensive look to it, and you can tell a good bit of that 100 million dollar budget was spent on giving the movie it's grimy medieval setting. It's also damned unpleasant to look at. With so much mud, blood, disgusting characters, and body parts it's headache-inducing after a while. Oh, sure, I can take gore (quite easily, too) when it's in the service of a rousing story (a la Braveheart) or outrageous-style violence (George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead). But here, you just want to turn the film off and get a breath of fresh air outside. People are being hacked up for the sake just getting hacked up. I mean, I know war is senseless but in this movie's case this is just ridiculous.

The performances don't help much at all. Antonio Banderas and Diane Venora are the only two people I'm familiar with. Banderas tries his best to be likable and charismatic, but any charm of his is quickly counteracted by all the unpleasantness. Venora is given the thankless of job of appearing as his new lover, then just as quickly disappearing. Vladimir Kulich plays the lead Viking, Buliwyf, and I think I recognize the actor from the awful TV miniseries Pandora's Clock as the crazy suicidal pilot. Anyway, Buliwyf is obviously an inspiration from Beowulf, but this movie wouldn't make a particularly good substitute for the poem. Kulich acts the part as he's supposed to, I guess, which means to basically thrash a huge sword around at people. The actor (don't know his name) who plays the Viking who befriends Banderas is actually pretty good and somewhat likable. Everyone else is, for a lack of a better word, obligatory.

I've heard many reports about the troubles this film went through. Apparently, author Michael Crichton was upset with the way the movie was going and had Mctiernan fired (or maybe Mctiernan left, I'm not sure), then re-shot certain scenes himself. I have no idea what contributions he made and I don't think it made one bit of difference. All I see is a below mediocre effort at making a blood-soaked, exhilarating epic.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Creepshow (1982)
Fun horror anthology.
5 August 2001
** 1/2 out of ****

A collaboration between George A. Romero and Stephen King on five short tales of terror probably would have led to expectations of a genre masterpiece. After all, Romero directed two films that have been acclaimed as absolute horror classics by both critics and audiences (I don't think anyone else can boast that claim) and Stephen King has written some compellingly frightening novels in his time. Well, Creepshow's no masterpiece, but whoever said it had to be? This one's flawed and could have cleaned up some of its mistakes rather easily, but it makes for an overall fun late-night film.

As in the case with many horror anthologies, they tend to have a wrap-around story that bookends the movie. This one's pretty lame, featuring a boy (played by Joe King, son of Stephen King) receiving a scolding from his father on Halloween night because he's been reading a horror comic. His father throws the comic away, just as a thunderstorm brews up. And thus begins our five stories.

The first one is Father's Day, which begins in a not-so-good fashion. A rather wealthy family is awaiting the arrival Aunt Bedelia (Vivica lindfors), who's out visiting her father's grave as she does every Father's Day because of her guilt over killing him. She just could no longer stand his constant verbal abuse and senility. In true Romero fashion, Dad comes bursting out of his grave, and exacts his vengeance on his family. This story gets better as it moves along, building up to a creepy and suspenseful climax, but it disappoints a bit in its final rushed and semi-campy scene, but the story's overall not bad. You can see a young Ed Harris, too, as the unlucky guy who just happens to be married to someone in the family.

The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verill is the next story. It's a little funny to see a title give away its ending, and this title actually sounds a bit tragic. I've even read this movie's comic book adaptation, and the tone of this tale seems to be played rather seriously, which is unlike the entire tone of this segment on film. Stephen King plays the titular character, a hick who touches a meteor, and with unpleasant results. This one's full all-out camp, and it's pretty damn awful, making this the worst segment of the entire film. It is good for some laughs, though, and Stephen King's overblown acting could be endearing in an inverse manner.

The third tale is called Something to Tide you Over and it's a significant improvement over Jordy Verill. Ted Danson stars as a man who's having an affair with a rich man's (Leslie Nielsen) wife (who in some brief scenes is played by Gaylen Ross of Dawn of the Dead). Anyway, let's just say Nielsen's not happy about it. To give anything more away would probably kill a bit of the suspense. Suffice to say, Romero and King do a fine job of building up the momentum. The final scenes are a let-down, however, sacrificing the suspense and scares for a goofy laugh. Thus, this is about on par with Father's Day (maybe a bit better since it's not nearly as rushed).

The fourth segment is easily the best and also, thankfully, the longest (it's around 35 minutes long, a bit over a quarter of the entire movie). Entitled The Crate, Hal Holbrook plays a college professor with a bitchy wife (played by then John Carpenter's wife, Adrienne Barbeau)(there's even a scene where she speaks to Romero's wife, Christine), and he's always having angry thoughts about killing her. At the same time, another professor and fellow friend played by Fritz Weaver meets with a janitor who's discovered a mysterious crate underneath the stairs. The crate is dated back to 1834 and was brought over after an arctic expedition. They open it up, only to discover something hideous lurking inside. This story is easily the scariest and most suspenseful. One scene with a student heading towards the crate itself to pull a shoe out to examine it is a good nail-biter and the pay-off is chilling. The creature effects are only so-so, but the suggestive moments (such as the sight of the eyes and arms alone) will send chills down your spine. The final scene to this story is the most frightening in the whole film.

The last story is called They're Creeping up on you, and it stars E.G. Marshall as a cruel and wealthy man with a fear of germs and insects. What do you know, roaches start invading his apartment in the thousands. This one is pretty obvious from the start, which is never a very good thing, but it does you make wonder how Romero pulled off all those convincing looking roaches. This story's mediocre, but its final scenes are gruesomely icky and creepy.

Afterward, there's the end to the wrap-around story. This one looks like it could go somewhere, but ends on a sudden abrupt note. But it's not like anybody really cared about this part of the film in the first place. Do look out for make-up effects man Tom Savini as a trash disposer. This guy's got some natural fun and charisma in his acting (not here of course, but in Dawn of the Dead and From Dusk Till Dawn) and I'm surprised he hasn't starred in more horror flicks.

Creepshow has some problems that all the stories suffer from. Romero obviously wants to keep this movie in vein with the comics its inspired from, but his addition of scene transitions a la page flipping is annoying and his use of different lighting during the scare scenes are a distraction. Plus, when the characters scream you see a comic-style background that hinders the scene a bit. The movie as a whole doesn't have as much of a polished look and feel to the big-budget The Twilight Zone: The Movie, but it's about as enjoyable as that anthology and it offers some fun chills and spills, making it a film worth watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When you get down to it, this is a middling film, which means it's one of Wes Craven's better works!
4 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
** out of ****

Hmm, I believe Wes Craven may be the Michael Caine of film directors, which basically means that no other acclaimed filmmaker has made as many bad movies as Craven, which leads you to wonder if he actually is a good director at all(Seven of his theatrically released movies have an average IMDB vote below 5 and are quite deserving of it). From what I can recall, the only movie of his that I truly liked was The People Under the Stairs and it's been awhile since I've seen that one, so it might not be as good as I remember it to be. I'm still at a loss as to how he has so many fans, and considering the fact that he's still churning out Scream films (getting worse as they move along) only serves to make him look worse (Carpenter, Romero, and Raimi have gotten over their own respective horror series a long time ago; the latter two also realized that each new film in a series works better when you try something new, rather than just regurgitating the previous material as Craven has done).

Thus, it's with some respect that I say that The Serpent and the Rainbow is actually not bad at all. The movie's got some great imagery, some good shocking scenes, fine performances, and actually solid direction from Craven (mostly when it comes to a visual sense) so why is it I only consider it so-so? What went wrong? The story, while intriguing, is surprisingly unengaging and the movie simply feels a little too padded at times. The movie's generally watchable with a couple of spooky moments, but it's not enough to sustain the entire running time and the movie as a whole feels rather inconsistent.

The plot is about a man named Dennis Alan (Bill Pullman), an anthropologist studying a certain powder down in Haiti. His assignment is to get a sample of this powder, which harnesses the ability to actually a zombify a person, make them appear dead. Believing this could be useful for medical science, he searches for the powder's origin. With the help of a beautiful local doctor (Cathy Tyson), Alan tries to find out what's going on behind the zombifications and meanwhile incurs the wrath of a deadly voodoo priest.

When it comes to stylish visuals, Craven does a very good job at the helm. For every scene, he creates this eerie feeling of something unpleasant lurking around the corner. He usually pays it off rather weakly here, but I suppose he thinks the set-up is the best part (and who knows, maybe it is). There are some very good individual moments in the film, such as the dream sequences, which feature the creepy dessicated corpse of a bride who constantly haunts Pullman throughout the movie.

Of course, the scenes that seem to have the most startling effect for viewers are probably that torture room sequence and when we actually see one of the characters get buried alive. There are even other more casual scenes that have this eerie feel to it, such as the sex scene between Pullman and Tyson (okay, maybe that's not casual, but you get the point). It's a lot creepier than it is erotic, and you almost get the feeling something strange is going to happen any minute. Angel Heart, this sex scene is not; it's actually more unnerving. Another good example of a seemingly casual scene is when Pullman is suddenly attacked by a possessed woman at a dinner party; this is a very well-handled scene.

The locations are great and it's good to see Craven wisely take advantage of the mysterious Haitian setting. The performances are all quite good, which makes it a change of pace whenever there's a well-acted horror movie around. Bill Pullman is his usual charismatic self and Cathy Tyson makes for a good partner, even if she is underused in the last half-hour.

Brad Fiedel's musical score is another fine plus. It's among his best work to date. Like the film's look it's stylish, atmoshperic, and eerie. It does a fairly good job of maintaining some interest during the really slow moments.

Yet, despite all this, the movie's pacing is often a slow crawl, and it's never always interesting. Because of the locales, there were even times I felt like I was watching a nature documentary, and while it's a bit nice to see these scenes, it's incredibly distracting and interrupts any gained momentum. Along with this, I have some problems with the characters, who are not very well-developed and neither are their motivations made clear.

I like the fact the movie mixes science into its ideas. I also like the fact that it puts voodoo into the mixture. What I don't like is its serious abandoment of credibility in the finale (minor spoiler here), which features a cheesy-looking showdown that pits men who actually...well, throw each other around. It's embarrassing to watch, really, and almost a little funny. It doesn't help that one of the characters has a burned face, but looks more like he's wearing oatmeal.

I also do not like the voice-over narration, which further gives the movie a distracting documentary feeling when it all works better as pure fiction. Believe me, the things Pullman say can be easily deciphered or outright stated in a different manner. I do not like Pullman and Tyson's constant conflicts with the Haitian government, which also distract from the film's main plot, and I most certainly did not like the voodoo priest (Zakes Mokae) as a villian, since he's hardly frightening; the bride corpse is three times scarier. It's all of these things that put The Serpent and The Rainbow down to middling quality. It's not particularly very good, but it's a masterpiece when you place it next to the likes of Last House on the Left and Vampire in Brooklyn.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enjoyable anthology, but I can't help but feel just a little disappointed considering the talent at work.
4 August 2001
** 1/2 out of ****

Considering the fact The Twilight Zone: The Movie features the work of four of Hollywood's most talented directors, I must say I'm a little disappointed by this collaboration. After all, Steven Spielberg has worked in almost every conceivable (respectable) genre. George Miller directed the action masterpiece The Road Warrior and the very entertaining and complex Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Joe Dante made the enjoyable The Haunting and John Landis directed An American Werewolf in London. It's not so much that all the stories are decent (But I must say, these two haven't done anything worthy in a long while). Rather, the first few are pretty bad, but the movie as a whole is saved by a scary prologue and two good final segments.

Speaking of the prologue, wow. After this opening, I was expecting the scariest anthology to date. It doesn't happen, but anyway, the movie opens with Dan Aykroyd and Albert Brooks driving down a deserted road in the middle of the night, doing nothing but listening to music. But then we hear the classic line "Do you want to see something really scary?" and thus begins the film in a great start. John Landis helmed this opening prologue, and it caps off with one of the scariest scenes I've seen in a while.

Unfortunately, the directors make a stupid mistake by interrupting the flow of momentum. The first five minutes are so fun and scary that the rush is brought down when you see the ham-fisted opening story. It's overstated, to say the least, and is purely a predictable tale of comeuppance. The late Vic Morrow plays a racial bigot who gets a taste of his own medicine. Had this story gone anywhere other than the obvious direction it headed for, this might have gone somewhere. Unfortunately, nothing surprising happens and the abrupt ending is just icing on a rotten cake.

The second segment isn't much better, despite being completely different in style and direction. I was most disappointed by this tale, if only because Steven Spielberg is my personal favorite filmmaker. This one goes further to bring you down from that terrific opening by unraveling a story of hope and wonder. It's about an old man (Scatman Crothers) who brings life back to an old retirement home communtiy. But it's pretty boring, to say the least, and every minute I was tempted to fast-forward through the whole thing (My temptation won over, but I eventually went back and watched it again). Once again, this one holds no surprises and the sentimentalism is overwrought. Spielberg usually handles these elements a lot better.

The third story is a considerable improvement. A young (and quite lovely) Kathleen Quinlan plays a schoolteacher who gets into a minor car accident with a boy on a bicycle. She takes him home, only to discover something incredibly strange about him and his family. This segment, directed by Joe Dante, is pretty good. Dante sets up the story quite well and the weird atmosphere is certainly a plus. There are even a couple of good creepy moments in this one, though not up to the same quality of the prologue.

Thankfully, they saved the best for last. George Miller directs this paranoid tale of a man afraid of flying. John Lithgow plays this man (and very well, might I add) and his fear is only heightened by the fact that this plane is flying during the middle of a storm. He tries to calm down, but when he looks at the window he sees a man. Or does he? This eerie, suspenseful story is pretty damn fun and scary, matching the mark set by the prologue. I don't want to give anything away in this segment, but it features Miller's trademark kinetic style and brilliant editing. This story will play well with both fans of eerie horror and frantic action. The ending to this one, by the way, is truly the perfect way to end the film.

The Twilight Zone: The Movie was obviously greatly assisted by a big-budget, which is noticable from the great production values. This is an overall enjoyable and fun film to watch, but not quite as good as I had hoped for. I don't really know how this compares to the TV series, but I'm sure that it had its own ups and downs. Still, anthologies are always something that have appealed to me and this is better than the usual ones. I certainly wouldn't mind another stab at an anthology by these filmmakers.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jurassic Park (1993)
One of the finest examples of escapist entertainment.
2 August 2001
**** out of ****

Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg's ground-breaking (in terms of visuals, not plot) sci-fi action/thriller, may not have the everlasting historical and human importance of Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan, but damn if it doesn't thrill me every time I see it. This is the film that finally proved to me that Spielberg could do anything when it comes to action and adventure (beforehand, he had the Indiana Jones films). It's a movie that just about everyone has heard of seen by now, and it's impact is still felt now, so many years later.

Upon it's initial release I noticed nothing good reviews for the film, but I've always noticed comments and slight criticism about the lack of character development. I'm still at a loss about all those complaints. First of all, while it might not have quite as much characterization as Spieblerg's Jaws (I actually prefer JP just a tad over that film), it's certainly far more than you'd expect from the typical summber blockbuster. I can say with ease I found the cast and characters likable and engaging, particularly Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and Bob Peck.

This is the movie that made Neill a recognizable figure worldwide. Before this, he'd proven his thespian talents in the thriller Dead Calm, but had never been in something as high-profile as this. I give kudos to Spielberg for not trying to put some mega-star in the lead, but instead chose to go with Neill, who has yet to deliver anything below a fine performance. To this day, Neill remains among my favorite actors, and it was great to see him back in Jurassic Park 3.

Laura Dern hasn't quite had as much attention since then, but is still solid in anything she does. It was quite good to see her in JP3 and her scenes with Neill in that respective film brought back some of the well-done sentimental feeling that Spielberg used effectively in this film. Jeff Goldblum is very funny as Ian Malcolm and would continue to be humorous in The Lost World, and Bob Peck is quite a standout as the park's game warden who understands the danger of the situation better than anyone else. Richard Attenborough is also good as the park's owner, and it's nice to see that he's not portrayed as a megalomaniac, as is what we usually see in most "science runs amok" thrillers.

But, of course, nobody watched this movie for the performances. It was all on the basis of the special effects and the action. Both are spectacular and exciting, to say the least. Stan Winston's animatronic effects are the best, creating dinosaurs so lifelike, you'd swear it had be the real thing. Michael Lantieri and Phil Tippett set up a new stage of CGI as their work on this film was unlike anything anybody had ever seen before. There are even moments when it's hard to tell which dino is an animatronic or CGI-rendered product.

As I've said before, I've always considered Steven Spielberg not only one of cinema's greatest filmmakers, but also the best action director ever. Whether it's rollicking adventure with Indiana Jones or brilliantly tense and harrowing battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan, he never fails to generate thrills and excitement. Jurassic Park is a further testament to his skill. The dino attacks are nail-biters, especially a scene with two raptors inside a kitchen that's among the film's best setpieces. The t-rex also never fails to get a chill out of me.

I have two particular favorite moments. The first is the t-rex attack on the two electric cars, which jumpstarts the movie's thrill ride mode. The other is the extended raptor chase, all the way from the kitchen to the computer room to the museum. A very tense and long sequence that caps off with a fun showdown between 3 dinosaurs.

Most summer blockbusters have this certain rule that a movie should run over two hours, thus making it an event movie, but a lot of them have the tendency to run out of steam well before they reach that mark. Jurassic Park runs at 127 minutes, but is never dull for single moment. Spielberg paces the film perfectly, building up momentum and paying off with great action and suspense.

David Koepp's script is a bit different than Michael Crichton's novel, and while I did enjoy the book immensely, I'm rather glad Spielberg's version wasn't quite in the same vein with Crichton, perhaps because certain aspects of it seemed a little too violent and too far out-of-tone. From what I've read, Crichton's script was ultra-violent and some of the characters were downright unpleasant (similar to the book, but would feel a heck of a lot different on-screen).

Another constant complaint, perhaps, is the sentimentalism Spielberg brings to the film, mostly the addition of Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards as the two children under Neill's care as they're lost in the park. Hmm, aside from the fact that it didn't bother me in the least and that all they're scenes are handled quite well, both child actors are quite talented. Besides, these scenes actually make their characters even more engaging and likable.

Adding immensely to the overall experience of the film is John Williams' score. To say this is one of his best would be a huge statement, but it is easily one of his better scores. Whether it's creating wonder or tension, Williams hits all the right notes. There's no doubting this is one of the more popular scores around, and considering Williams' resume, it's no surprise.

Jurassic Park has been compared to Jaws many times and it's usually deemed inferior, but I slightly prefer this film. Both are thrill rides that will never be equaled to be sure, but Jurassic Park adds a sense of awe and wonder that brings it up a notch. I suppose it wouldn't be outright scary as Jaws, seeing how it is sharks do exist and dinosaurs have been dead for a while, but it's still got its own good scares.

There have been 3 films released in the series and I'm sure another will be coming up in the next couple of years. Jurassic Park still easily remains the best, but its sequels are nonetheless very entertaining and enjoyable. I'm still waiting for Spielberg's next non-sequel thrill ride, and it will take quite a bit of effort to match this one.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed