Reviews

The DVD box states a quote from a critic, 'Boldly Original.' In what sense? I can't see a single, original aspect of this film.

Don't get me wrong. The first 45-50 minutes of this film I was going with it. I was following the characters. The story was interesting enough and the relationships were working for me. The gimmick of the Beaver was entertaining. I can dig this. About the 52 minute mark (maybe a few minutes before) is when the film started losing me in a major way when, like clockwork, the 'everything goes dark' part of the family drama where all the major downsides happen, occurs. This is why I tend to stay away from family drama movies. It feels engineered... and true, it is.... but does it have to feel so inorganic? Maybe it's that there are two featured characters (the father and the son) and so the film is checking off an unseen list to make sure both characters are hitting all the necessary marks for a complete family drama... at relatively the same time (one scene after another). Come on. At this point, the film starts feeling fake and forced.

And it gets worse. The last half hour of the film is all checklist and predictable and bland. I'm like, oh, the film is going to end with this element. And sure enough, it does. I like being taken for a journey, but I hate being spoonfed that journey. If I'm so removed from what's going on that I'm thinking about what's going to happen, there is seriously something wrong here.

I watch a lot of movies and many of them could probably be considered predictable, but I'm so involved, I don't care. I'm involved, I'm with the characters. I'm enjoying it. This film lost me completely once the crap hit the fan. And that's not supposed to happen. When it hits the fan, that is when the audience should be completely locked in.

The acting is good. Anton Yelchin (Star Trek reboot, Terminator: Salvation, Fright Night remake) is once again very likable, even while being a little angsty. Mel Gibson probably puts in the most solid performance he's delivered in quite some time (when was the last good movie he was in? Well, Signs, which was OK, but that was 2002). Jodi Foster isn't given a whole lot to do. She's mainly just a character for Mel Gibson's character to play off of (given that she writes and directs, I can sort of see why she would do this. But why not cast herself in a cameo role and give this role a bit more depth in terms of the story so that she can focus on the directing? Why give herself such a big role, which should be a pretty important one, if she's not going to give herself much with it?). The girlfriend of the Anton's character has a bit more going on in the character development department, though she, too, is mainly a character for one of our main characters to play off of (and her final wrap up moments are the most forced 'notes' in this film because she has to meet certain checklist requirements so that our secondary main character, Anton's character, can meet his). The Beaver itself. I kind of liked the idea of the puppet, especially as a way for a character to fight his depression by bringing out kind of his inner child or whatever.

At some point, we have the moment where Mel has to fight himself, and therefor, fight the bloody puppet. The eye rolling commences. This eventually leads to the 'shocking moment', where he, in a metaphorical whatever, has to cut his own hand off. (Seems an awful lot like Fight Club, except it doesn't work here.) Here, the whole notion of the puppet and fighting it, doesn't work. I get it. But it doesn't flow properly. It doesn't feel organic. It feels like a checklist. OK, how do we fit this story into the mold we're trying to cast? Not, how do we let the characters live and follow their journey to the end? Maybe it might have ended the same way... but if you let the characters take you there, it has a chance of not feeling quite so contrived.

The shock moment was stupid, in the end... because it belonged in a completely different film. When the narrator shoots himself at the end of Fight Club, we've been on this really brutal journey. It makes sense with kind of a self-mutilation as metaphor for making that imagined side of him go away. In The Beaver, on the other hand, it needed something more subtle (maybe the puppet sort of dies next to him when his subconscious realizes that he doesn't need it, anymore, that what he wants most is actually his family and that the puppet was only ever a bridge for that. But he's relighted his torch, found his inner joy. This film could have totally found a sappy, yet very emotionally satisfying beat to make all this work. But we're never shown that he ever does grow past this need. We're never really given a reason to believe he's actually rediscovered that lightness in himself that can allow him to move on. No, we just get some lousy montage at the end with him in therapy).

There's no point in me delving further in speculation, though. It's a moot point. The film is made. It tanked at the box office. All I can do is relay my experience.

WRAP UP: I guess I can't say this is a completely unredeemable film (oh my god, Snowman and the Huntsman, but worse still, the second Ghost Rider, strike me as two films that meet that quota in spades). It loses itself over trying to fit a mold instead of letting the characters and the story breathe.

It feels very much like a precursor to Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator (1985), even though the original stories that was based on predates Creature by at least 30 years.

Still, with a luminous serum, and re-animated corpses, it would be like if you had Dr. Hill funding Dr. Herbert West from the beginning and what would follow in their wake (anybody that knows Re-Animator knows that West couldn't stomach the idea of someone controlling his research, but let's say that he put up with it. This feels like that what if scenario playing out, which of course, is fun for someone like me).

In the place of Dr. West is the ex Nazi scientist, Dr Chet Walker and in place of the Hill character is the mob boss, Frank Buchanan. Chet does the re-animating, and Frank controls the corpses with some kind of communicator (sound familiar?) for them to basically do his bidding. He not only sends them out to kill select targets, but also to terrorize the town. The final act involves a big blow out showdown with the corpses rising, facing off with the cops.

Hot on their trail are police detectives trying to track them down and stop them. And other than the series of assassinations via animated corpse, the film focuses a lot on the investigation, rather than the Dr. Chet/Frank characters (they get a fair amount of screen time, enough for this film). While on the other side of the spectrum, Re-Animator focuses on the character who would pretty much get wrapped up into assisting Dr. West in his experiments and Dr. West himself and the rivalry between West and Hill becomes a key plot point as well. Also, in Re-Animator, West and Hill are both so much more alive and wonderfully over the top, and therefor, far more watchable than the Chet/Frank characters of Creature (which is why focusing less on these characters in Creature isn't such a downside. They're not bad, just not as entertaining, but they do a sufficient job).

Re-Animator is also a much smaller film, sticking to a few key specific indoor locations (including its really awesome finale in the hospital morgue) and characters, while Creature is much more broad, expansive, with plenty of outdoor sequences (including the final epic showdown) and tons of characters floating around. So, the films are very different storywise and feel very different, but have some really key similarities that make it fun watching and comparing them.

In the end, Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator is the better film, but Creature With the Atom Brain is still a lot of fun, even if slower paced (which is not to say slower paced is a bad thing at all, but just to give a heads up to those who might consider watching this), and the final moments with what the girl names her dolly and how she feels about it just makes me smile for no real reason associated directly with anything else that goes on in the film.

I could totally see these two films as an awesome double bill, maybe at a drive in theater. I'm getting chills just thinking about it.

First twenty minutes of ghost rider sequel. COME ON! Really? REALLY? I can't really expect much because the first one failed to deliver. It was mildly entertaining and I had a reasonably enjoyable time watching it. I could brush off the bad and just have fun with it. But this thing? The only positive piece that can be said so far, is the effects for Ghost Rider himself, seem improved. Everything else, from the way it was shot, down to the practically nonexistent script, even to bad Nicholas Cage (there is good, campy Nicholas Cage, and then bad over over the top Cage). I, personally, like the actor... and I like some of his films. I remember him doing at least an OK job in the first film... but here, the acting is so dreadful, melodramatic in the worst ways.

I was a pretty big fan of Ghost Rider in the 90s, the Dan Ketch Ghost Rider, not the Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider (in the movie, it's Johnny Blaze, but the Ghost Rider looks ripped from the Dan Ketch Ghost Rider, which is the cooler looking Ghost Rider, anyway). In the 90s series, Johnny Blaze, after ridding the spirit from him, does return to help Dan Ketch deal with the whole mess. But this is the cool, long haired Johnny Blaze. I kind of wish we had that Johnny Blaze. Kind of like a Whistleresque character, which might not be appropriate at this juncture.

OK, inconsistencies aside. I can deal with that. But is it too much to ask for them to put the property in the hands of a capable director? Someone with a visual flare and a grasp of action photography? I would love to see a Robert Rodriguez Ghost Rider movie (as long as he's working with a screenwriter who knows the franchise well, because he has a lot of talent and flare, but his scripts tend to have a lot of holes in them).

Why is it they give a superhero team I never really cared about to someone like Joss Whedon, someone capable of great work, and yet, stuff like Ghost Rider and Transformers, they hand off to some whack jobs. Thank the heavens that Christopher Nolan, at least, has gotten to make a Batman trilogy. Please, Hollywood, let's stop hiring these retarded directors. And when you give the material to a talented director, let that director work.

I think a perfect example of this is Sam Raimi vs Christopher Nolan. Sam Raimi, when allowed to make the film he wanted to make, made Spiderman 2. But then massive studio interference caused him to make Spiderman 3. Yet, Nolan, the studio apparently is letting him make good movies. We'll see if the final Batman delivers on its promise... but I have high hopes on that one. I haven't heard anything equivalent to what was happening to Sam Raimi during his making of Spiderman 3. Put the work in capable hands and let them do their thing.

Upon looking up the director... not one, but two guys, who were responsible for Crank. And of course Crank 2. And the dreadful Gamer movie. Now it all makes sense and I have to wonder if anyone at the studio even bothered to try and watch these films. Because, how, on god's green earth, could you think these MTV, all over the place editing, unable to sit still for a moment, directors, could possibly be a good fit for a Ghost Rider movie. How? The virtually nonexistent plot makes sense now. Crank was just run, run run insanity. And it looks like they did the same thing to this Ghost Rider movie.

I'm continuing to watch it and all of a sudden, knowing who directed it, everything about the way it's shot, the writing, the acting, it all makes sense now. And that's not to say this is a good thing, as it doesn't make the atrociousness of the film any less atrocious, just that it now makes sense. This is Crank: Spirits of Vengeance.

The writers of this movie clearly had no idea as to how Ghost Rider would fight and what his powers should be. There were weird moments where he would stop the fight in the middle, surrounded by bad guys, and stare at a guy for a few minutes. Plus, whoever he touches, just melts away? What? The film is inane. Stupid. A bad director can make good actors look bad and when you have someone as up and down as Nicholas Cage, you really need a good director and material to bring out the best in him.

There is absolutely no redeeming value to this film. None. Zippo. No cool moment that stands out, not a single, good action sequence in the lot. Drudgery of the worst kind.

If they ever want to try this again... Number 1, hire a good director/writer team, people who takes the time to understand the material. Number 2, just start over with new actors. You can even do the Dan Ketch Ghost Rider, a perfect excuse to never have to revisit the horribleness that was. Number 3, hire a GOOD DIRECTOR.

Let me preface by saying I enjoy all kinds of films, including 'chick flicks'.

Let's start by going into what this film teaches us, the audience, and the millions of teen fans... that our demure, virginal leading lady's aspirations lie not in getting a good job, or going to college, or anything of the sort. Instead, to get married to the undead prince charming, and have a child (which, according to the film, is unheard of in the vampire realm. Though, of course, many other stories have had such offspring before.). That is about the extent of this movie (the first half is the marriage and the honeymoon, then the second half deals with the pregnancy).

They attempt to give the 'revelations' of this story some gravitas, but fail to on a writing and an acting level. For example, Jacob exclaims something along the lines of doing that he must, regardless of sacrifice... but instead of this dramatic moment playing as let's build respect for this character, it had me chuckling. It is funny to watch these dark, morose, angst ridden characters, and it shouldn't be. Nothing that this film attempts to say is important feels all that important.

The continual grrrr back and forth between Jacob and the leading vampire guy (I always called him flatface, my affectionate pet name for him) is supposed to create some kind of tension, I guess... Jacob more often than not just comes off as a jerk. Flatface is just the 'I have so much internal pain, look at me emote' kind of guy. The one good thing in this chapter is the werewolf vs vampire battle was slightly better than the last one (I might be remembering incorrectly, I just remember the last one having an oh so dreadful battle), but we're still faced with pretty mediocre werewolf vs vampire action. Not as bad as the first Underworld, but I kept expecting flatface to call out 'Judokick' when he kicked a werewolf back, in Austin Powers fashion.

For a second, I wondered what Joss Whedon would do if given such a story, and then I remembered, he did have such a story during his run of Angel, except it was two vampires... but the importance and drama of that storyline made for eager watching. I felt sympathy for Darla, as the little baby's soul gave her a conscious and that was ripping her up. Partly due to top notch acting, partly due to wonderful writing. In fact, just about everything in the minimalist plot of the twilight films has been done in the scope of the Buffy and Angel TV series'.

Anne Rice practically invented the morose, Gothic vampire (look at Interview with a Vampire. Again, the gravitas of the situation and the drama has a punch to it, bittersweet. There is a haunting beauty to the scene where Brad Pitt's character finds the remains of his 'turned' daughter and caretaker, watching them break apart to dust... It's sad, tragic.)

That's what the Twilight series needed. A director who could lend a visual poetry to the film and get the performances out of his/her actors needed to convey that, a screenwriter that didn't seem like he/she was about as old and inexperienced as some of the characters he/she is writing, and actors who can convey that depth and deepness. Without that, you get the series as it stands currently. A fangless vampire, without the ability to bite, without substance, and more coming off as amusing than anything. A film doesn't have to be original to work (as there are very few original works anymore), it just has to exemplify its elements in the best possible way.

If these films didn't amuse me so much, I wouldn't even bother. What saddens me is that these many teen fans are eating this up and they're thinking this is good. It has many bad lessons to teach and it is pretty half assed in comparison to what has come before. And the fact that this has been successful? How many knock offs will we see next? I'm surprised there haven't been more knock offs of LOTR and Harry Potter than there have been... (though I know they've been trying to start the first book in many different book series to find a hit so they can make the rest of the books).

So, I am torn. On the one hand, I'm amused and entertained by how bad this series is. On the other, the ingredients of the story aren't necessarily bad. They just don't have the right filmmakers that can make these ingredients translate. Oh well, it is a little bit late for that.

Very few films have managed this much lasting infamy, so I felt it was necessary for my film watching education.

The first hour and a half actually doesn't come off too badly (well, other than the appearance of the 'pet sister', but that's a relatively small role). You have two families trying to manage during the Civil War.

The changing point in the film is the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. That's when you start seeing the plots against the white south kicking into gear and some pretty over the top African Americans giving that little 'excellent' expression in perfect Mr. Burns fashion. This is when a sort of parody of African Americans begins, where they are 'taking over' the South, given control of any important positions and basically the audience is informed that the African Americans are ignorant of what leadership and these types of positions truly entail. Scenes involving a rowdy parliament filled with African Americans, as an example of the parody, where one guy has his feet up, shoeless, and he is told that in here, they must all wear shoes. He is not too happy with that notion, but complies, while in that same scene, a guy talking to everybody wanders around eating chicken.

I also noticed that the 'African American' characters were played by a mixture of actual African Americans and people with make up on trying to look like them. It doesn't look right. And it looked like the characters that do the worst things were of the latter category along. Aesthetically, this just looks wrong, and I almost wish they would have chosen to go one way or the other, rather than try to mix the two.

Story-wise, it's about as interesting as any other film of this sort, past or present, except without sound (the music doesn't really count, since it only partially fits... sometimes... Don't get me started on musical scores to silent films, because that is a whole other discussion). So, we're watching a bunch of people talk and not being able to see what they are saying. Give me more title cards! It really bothers me watching a bunch of talking scenes (with very few title cards saying what is being said), because I feel like I'm going deaf, and I have enough problems as it is with hearing.

On the other hand, the facial expressions of the characters in this movie were used fairly well, so that you got a good idea of the emotions and feelings of the characters, even if you couldn't understand what the heck they were saying.

You have a very slanted film after the assassination, aiming to show the white south as victims of the north, putting the former slaves in charge of the masters and basically disallowing the white south from having any power (such as the power to vote). You do have a couple African American characters who work for one of the families (one of them as a maid) and go so far as rescuing the Doctor guy (the head of that family) from captivity, which is an odd juxtaposition against the rest of the latter half of the film, because it kind of sort of shows a positive portrayal.

While I don't agree with the overall thrust of the movie and who it decided to paint up as heroes, I thought it would be a lot worse. Granted, at the time it was released, I can see how it would be shocking. But for me, the more horrific moments are the smaller moments and this film is much more broad than that, much more about bigger moments. The fact that they painted the Klu Klux Klan as heroes means that of course, any act of violence they portray must be one that is justified. So, for example, they kill an African American man and leave him on the doorsteps of the lead guy in charge locally, Lynch... but why? It was because he killed a woman. Now, the quotation used to describe their actions was rather ridiculous... but because of the justification, their actions aren't horrific. It would have been much more horrific for me if they went around committing atrocities and the film still treated them like heroes. At least, here, the film is consistent. It's a fantasy loosely based in reality. If you think of it like that, a lot of the film's power is largely negated.

Also consider this, the KKK don't even appear until about 2 hours in this 3 hour film. Their forming is kind of ridiculous, especially when you see the main Cameron guy have a light bulb go on in his head (via his expression), but they only exist in 1/3 of the film (less when you consider that not every scene has them in it).

I've seen more horrific moments in films that portray the reality of them, not the fantasy. The KKK of this film is not the same KKK in those other films. And while my thoughts on the group itself remain negative, it means that this film and its portrayal of African Americans (for the most part) is merely offensive. Still, I have to stand by it as an artistic expression, adapted from a novel, in a country supposedly founded on such ideals, so trying to ban it, even at the turn of the century, I think was wrong.

So, take it or leave it, but worth seeing from a film appreciation standpoint.

Civil War Shorts (Birth of a Nation 3 disc set)

I'd kind of want to recommend these over Birth of a Nation, because they are small, complete little stories with timeless themes with none of the stuff that makes Birth offensive. Plus, they feature very positive portrayals of female characters and even a brave African American character who steps in to take care of a family after the father is killed.

Finally finished this one... First off, what I liked about it. The location design, the backgrounds, the sets, were all very cool looking and created plenty of visual panache throughout. A fair amount of the action stuff is really cool and when the 'Gods' get into the swing of things, it feels like something George Romero or classic Peter Jackson might do if they were making a horror tale with Greek myths behind them (complete with exploding heads and body parts).

But the film as a whole doesn't really work. The first thirty or so minutes looks interesting enough. There's potential. But then the film shows that it doesn't really do much with that potential. The main villain is pretty straightforward, gar, evil, and the main hero, as well... but the writing falters at key points and opts for more action instead of narrative that might have fixed some of the problems.

The main reason why this film doesn't work is the gods. Maybe I missed something, but I have no clear idea why Zeus is so adamant that the supposed 'law' be kept and the 'gods' can't come down and wipe out the main bad guy, other than just because that would mean there would be no movie. Give me a reason. Think of this situation. Let's say, the more the gods intervene in the mortal realm, the weaker the prison becomes for the titans. So, by intervening, they release the very threat that Hyperion is going after. So, they have to be very careful to keep the balance. Boom. A big chunk of problems solved just by explaining why it is so important that Zeus and the gods stay in their place. And that's just one idea off the top of my head. Maybe Zeus knows this, but for some reason is keeping it from the other gods. Wow, conflict, motivation, something more to explore (as we eventually learn why).

If the film wanted to dumb down the plot, the god characters should never have been introduced. Period. You don't even need them, unless you actually want to utilize them effectively. Main bad guy, feels betrayed and abandoned by the gods, so he's going to unleash an undead army to wipe out the world, the creation of these supposed gods. You don't need to introduce any god characters in this scenario and you can make a more straightforward action-like film.

300 I think is a perfect example of this. It's not complicated, by any stretch, but the character motivations are very clear, the story is very clear, the focus of what the film is is very clear, and there's nothing really to muddy it up. You either like it or you don't. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Gladiator, which is chock full of drama and conflict... and we know why the different characters do what they do and why the sister, who sees the fallacy that is her brother, but who is terrified for her son and herself... still, she helps in secret to try to free Marcus. There is a lot of meat in the story beyond just the wonderful set pieces and action parts.

Immortals aspires to capture the kind of epic struggle that Gladiator does, and yet allows itself to be just another 300 all too quickly. Not to mention, there are just searing holes in the story. A lot of things for convenience's sake, like our bad guy sneaking through a crowd full of fighting people to get to where he needs to with a big powerful bow... I just don't buy it. I'm also not too clear why Hyperion, the main baddie, needed the oracle in the first place. He clearly didn't get any use out of her... he left orders for her to be untouched, so that she could keep seeing visions (because she has to still be a virgin for this), but why? Little bits here and there, which seemed rather pointless in the scheme of the story. And they didn't need to be.

I was also extremely disappointed at the Titans once they were finally released. The only thing they had were numbers, which didn't make a whole lot of sense, because you can clearly see in the box that there aren't that many of them (and yet, tons and tons of them die when the gods get all medieval on them.) The titans were terrible. If you have the hero fail the great quest of the story, you better make dang sure it's worth it. Otherwise, why not just have a big epic clash between hero and villain and hero's army vs villain's army and somehow, he pulls it out in the end to stop the villain? If done right, axing out the gods altogether, this might have made for a more satisfying climax. The more I think about it, the more the choices made in this story irk me.

So, chalk it up to a major failed writing job.

I watched this over the weekend and I have to say, about 20-30 minutes of it was kind of cool. I wish I could say something kind about the rest of it... This chapter manages to throw a bunch of wacky, useless human characters in this time in addition to the normal cast of blahish human characters (the crazy boss, or the insane Asian coworker, or even the can do everything assistant with gimmicky accent (and only likable because of the actor, none other than the pilot from Firefly), who happens to be more useful than his boss - the returning character by John Turturo, why is this character still in these movies?) Even the Sam Witwicky main character seems to have had his wackiness quotient upped in this chapter. Oh, and the new 'human villain', played by Patrick Dempsey... what a dreadful character made likable only in the slightest sense because of the charmingness of the actor, but otherwise, what a terribly drawn character in the movie only to have our 'hero' have something to fight against. The characters are pretty one dimensional, except for maybe Sentinel Prime, but only because they kind of forced character development on this character for the plot's sake (which is an awful way to develop a character).

It's too bad Megatron, who still doesn't sound right, is relegated to a secondary villain in this. The Decepticons all look kind of similar, again, except for Shockwave, though it's not like they do much with his character, and the Autobots fare better... but they seem to disappear during a huge stretch in the final part of the movie for no good reason other than so we can spend more time following the actions of human characters I could care less about.

What little bits of story about the actual transformers is kind of cool, but much of it is underdeveloped. Too much of the movie insists on following the Sam Witwicky character and his employment. The near post apocalyptic feel of the last stretch of the movie is kind of cool, if only the transformers weren't kept in the shadows (instead of us seeing them planning their strategy and see how that plays out, we see nothing but them popping up near the end to declare they will kill every last deceptacon and a little bit of battle between them to go along with that).

Ridiculous battle moments include the Sam Witwicky character shooting some stupid little grappling claw weapon to once again send the actor flying around (do we not remember how bad it came off seeing that same actor jumping around on vines like Tarzan in the last Indiana Jones movie.)? Come on! If you liked the first movie, you'll probably like this. Yet again, too much time on human characters trying to be funny and/or wacky through much of the running time instead of being about the actual Transformers (you'd think they might actually develop the characters' who the movie is named after). *sigh* Thank god this is Michael Bay's last Transformers movies. Maybe one day, I'll be able to see a Transformers movie (a reboot in a few years, maybe), that is actually ABOUT the Transformers. Give us a story where they are the focus, where they are multifaceted characters. Make us feel their struggle. Don't make a movie about a bunch of human characters with Transformers thrown in just 'cause as generic robots. I'd much rather have the movie streamlined and just be cool big f'in robots fighting each other in a war. Not my ideal Transformers movie, but I could at least have enjoyed that more, for more of the running time, if nothing else, but for its cool visceral, robot f/x and action sequences.

A good movie, though it has its faults. The number one fault is the casting for Emma Frost, absolutely terrible (she just didn't fit, even in the pictures I saw early on). On the other side of things, Prof. X and Magneto were cast to perfection. Kevin Bacon makes a wonderful Sebastian Shaw, and everybody else does a good job. It was hard for me to get into 'young mystique', though, not that the actress doesn't do a good job. I'm sure that will fade upon repeated viewings. Other little faults are things to do with continuity errors.

POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS For example, I distinctly remember Magneto giving a reason as to his knowledge of Cerebro being that he helped to build it. This movie completely negates that notion. Also, according to professor X, the team was affectionately named the X-Men by the children who went to the school, though that notion also has been negated. First Class sets these things up so that they make sense, but these notions were already previously established. X-Men 3 has definitely been negated by this movie. In X3, it is established that Prof X and Magneto are still working together to recruit students much later than when First Class obviously takes place. So, uumm, I know X3 is like the bastard child, but still, it is part of the continuity. Bryan Singer might have something to do with this, since he co-wrote the screenplay and he not too long ago made a Superman movie pretty much ignoring the other movies past the 2nd, but still sort of following the continuity of the first two. If it was just a matter of completely negating the 3rd x-men, OK... but the other problems affect the first two, so I think just treating this (they want to make it a trilogy) as its own continuity outside the other films is the way to go, much like the many different takes on the characters in the comicbooks and the teams over the years depending on the era they were written and the writer/artist team, or the many different incarnations of Superman/Batman/etc (Everything from Smallville, Lois and Clark, to the superman movies and the TV show).

One last thing, Alex Summers, aka Havok, is supposedly the younger brother of Scott Summers, aka Cyclops, yet that isn't the case here.

END SPOILERS

Good movie, good plot, some good character development for Prof X and Magneto, pacing is nice, using team suits more like the comicbooks and less leathery was a nice change. I don't think I liked the film as much as I was hoping to, but overall I do like it. If Emma Frost wasn't such an eyesore (if the role was cast and written better), all the other flaws are relatively minor in comparison to the whole. I so wanted to be completely transported the way the first two X-men movies did... but First Class doesn't quite succeed in that regard.

Lastly, talking about why Emma Frost was so wrong. The Emma Frost in the comicbooks does wear skimpy outfits, but she has an authority to her, a presence. She is more than a mere second in command. In first class, she is turned into a 3rd rate version of Mystique from the original movies, except with psychic powers, a lack of any kind of grabbing presence (which mystique had in spades in every frame she's in in the original movies), and obviously no shape shifting ability, though she does 'diamond up'. Lame in every way in this movie and the actress was a poor one to boot, obviously cast for her looks, not because she had any real talent (at least not on display).

What a surprising little film I'd never heard of. With a cast that includes Ug from the Critters series, the pretty boy of Lost Boys and his girl from Lost Boys, Mikie from Phantasm 2, a young Nathan Petreli from Heroes, Damador from Dungeons & Dragons, the king from Princess Bride, Pappy from O Brother, etc, etc... just a cast of faces I recognized from very specific roles usually and could place most of them. On top of that, the film has everything you could want from a film like this. 80s rollerskating action showing just how cool rollerskating is in the way only 80s rollerskating movies can, post apocalyptic world, killer robot who delights in torture, a glowing ball with unlimited power, etc, etc... I mean, wow. This is a fun package deserving to have cult status, and one I wish I'd seen a lot sooner!

I think the cards were stacked against Webmaster, because right from the start there was this itchy feeling, like something was wrong but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me. Dubbed. For a little while, they managed most of the lines either as voice over or off screen, with just a little hint here and there, until it became painfully obvious. This is the kind of dubbing that grates on the nerves, with nothing even remotely funny about it. I hate dubbing, but at least, however misplaced, martial arts films badly dubbed tend to have a sense of humour about it.

What I wanted was a film about a hacker doing actual hacking and stuff like that. Maybe like a reverse side of the table of the movie Hackers (being about the person trying to keep them out instead about the people trying to get in). What I got was some poorly written, nonsensical at times murder mystery with a ton of bad chase sequences, a supposedly inept hacker who was neutered without his little ego, and a director who obviously didn't know how to handle a camera. I just wanted to reach in there, grab the camera from the guy, and shoot the dang thing myself. The editing wasn't much better. The acting? Well, I guess if the lead guy didn't have such a bad script to work from, he'd be at least watchable. The main bad guy was OK, too, but pretty much everyone else was a joke. Dubbing didn't help, but the acting was pretty bad even taking that into consideration.

Before I get into more bad, let's perk up to a few good things. Well, one or two. Despite the rudimentary graphics, I rather enjoyed the cyberworld stuff, what little there was of it, and would have much rather watched a movie mostly about, in, and around that than the tepid surroundings outside in the 'real world'. The falsifying thumbprint thing seemed kind of cool, but ended up being rather useless in the scheme of things. The heart gadget, which reminded me of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos, was interesting, though as a plot device ripped directly from the pages of Escape from New York, it was horribly conceived in the long run. There's one point where the bad guy is unconscious and our hero is right there. Why didn't he try the bad guy's thumb print then (since the heart device was thumb activated)? Nonetheless, some interesting gadgets and cyber stuff, if only they could have been utilized better.

Now, who here dares compare this movie to Blade Runner? Both films take place sometime in the future and there's some kind of off kilter type of romance in it, sort of, in both films. There's the investigation of a murder, but I've seen many a film with a murder at its center that are nothing like either Blade Runner or Webmaster. Identity, for instance. That's about where the similarities end. Period. There is no comparison, just as there wouldn't be between Blade Runner and Hackers. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director with a great mind for art direction and knows some fundamentals of film-making, like where to put the camera. Webmaster is cheap, and not just because of the budget. It's cheap because of bad writing, and because it more often than not takes the easy way out (like writing in a character who barely appeared in the first place to save the girl in the end to get her to Point B by herself without the Hero, so that he could do his thing. Very convenient. Or, the attempted sympathy factor for a character we have no reason to care for. Or, inane things like the car set up to stall them just enough for someone to get away.).

It tries to be hip, it tries to be exploitive, it even tries a twist ending that's not the least bit surprising, and it tries to be thrilling. But a bunch of near identical chase sequences, bad writing, editing, horribly shot, bad acting, etc. does not a thrilling movie make.

Hellseeker, Bota's previous attempt and his first film, was utter tripe. Basically a poor retread of just about every psychological film of the past two decades. The first thing that can be said with Deader is that it is much improved, with a better array of effects and a more interesting concept.

The GOOD: The concept about a suicide cult who can't die has potential. There are a few nice scenes, like a hotel/apartment scene where she wakes up, only to have a knife driven into her back by an unknown source. She goes to the bathroom, finds the wound in her chest, blood going everywhere as she tries to get the knife out and figure out what's going on. I really love the way they did the subway car. And they bring back the original Chatterer Demon. The ending scene does have some nice (low budget) shots and gore effects.

The BAD: Pinhead is obviously written into this, and his presence is sadly diminished. While I liked the idea of the video (about one of the Deaders dying and coming back to life) bringing her on the quest, I really disliked the way the video and that scene was shot. A video like that should look like one long take, not obviously edited as it was. You can always cut away to a reaction shot of the people watching, but the video itself, should look continuous.

While the make up looks good for the girl that had hung herself, I found the scene turning comical as they kept showing her every other shot after cutting away. I was thinking they could turn the scene into a drinking game, take a shot for every glance at her. What I think would have worked better is showing her in a shot that lasts long enough, and maybe one more time, and then leave it at that. As it is, -a series of several glances, again, and again, and again-, the effect of it grows stale quickly.

The flashback sequence shown throughout the film ends up being much too predictable about its content, not very well integrated, and I just didn't like it at all. It was played off to try and surprise the audience, but was that really necessary? It would have made for a much more effective opening (if shot differently), and given us a little further reason to believe the misdirection when we see her in the drug addict place. It also would allow them to build on that rather than leave the whole thing as a surprise.

There are things thrown into the movie for no good reason (like the attempt to 'boo/jump-scare' people throughout), too many scenes that don't work -like one scene where she's seeing the cult leader in the subway station. She sees him jump in front of the train, calls the police, and they call her sanity into question when they find no bloody bits on the tracks. Really, it doesn't work.- The overall story doesn't really work, and the ending is a mess. With so many throw away things thrown in it (like the cult leader being a descendant of La Marchand, the toymaker), none of it really works. And it just makes for a confusing mess. 'Oh, I won't stab myself for you, but, if I stab myself for me after you're dead and gone, I can escape Pinhead!' -Even though, in truth, she'd probably go to Hell, anyway, if she died, and thus, not have escaped Pinhead. There's way too many plot holes/loose ends.

OVERALL, It's better than Hellseeker. It looks better, better effects, better story, but it also is marred by too many tendencies (like the attempts to make people jump), which I'm not sure is because of Bota or because of the scripts he chooses. I think a little of both. And, too many scenes that don't work, an overall story that doesn't work, and a horribly realized climax.

Rick Bota delivers Hellworld right on the heels of Deader (shot back to back), even though both films were shelved the past two years. Interestingly enough, Hellworld had less prep than Deader/Hellseeker, and which had a script based on a treatment that was written in the two weeks before shooting, but manages to be more solid and a better film than either of those.

I'm also confirmed once more that Bota, as much as a Hellraiser fan as he says he is, has no idea what a Hellraiser film is. At least, not by the standards created from the first two films. Hellraiser feels to me like a macabre tale should, like the tales of Lovecraft or Poe brought to life as they should look and feel like. Then there's Hellbound, that feels like a fairy tale. The first two films to me, is what Hellraiser should be. That's where it was at its best.

Hellraiser 3 basically is Pinhead turned into a typical Slasher. Wrong. 4 does the same thing in the future segment, but also has the past and present segments that I think work in a different way... with some macabre moments, but still lacking overall what I call the Hellraiser feel. The only film that seems to come close to the idea of the original Hellraiser, is Inferno... and even that, tonally (the way it looks and feels), is wrong. Then we get to Rick Bota. Is he following the leads of the latter films rather than the first two? Must be. Why else does Bota insist on tons of jump scares (not just one or two like the first film may have had) and even a more slasheresque formula this time around (in Hellworld) as Pinhead/The Host lures his victims to empty rooms for dispatch? Hellraiser 1/2 were never about jump scares. They were tales of the macabre, horrifying because of that. They didn't need the gimmicks of so many other horror films because they were entertaining and horrifying as they were. Rarely are these kinds of stories done as well as in the first two Hellraisers.

-But... I can honestly say this is the first Hellraiser film by Bota I could actually rewatch and enjoy, though it is by no means a Hellraiser film. Instead, it seems more like a Nightmare on Elm Street film with Pinhead/The Host replacing the role of Freddy Krueger. With that mindset, all of a sudden, everything makes sense. I'm also reminded of the self referential quality of New Nightmare, and once more, it fits. Even the predictable first jump scare at the funeral is right out of New Nightmare. The commentary track makes many references to what nightmares they find scary being inspiration for moments in the film. The last part of the movie (when The Host opens the box and main two characters on the road getting their final scare), seem highly excessive (like they should have been cut)... except, of course, in a Nightmare film, it works now. Pretty much all the things that didn't work for me in this movie (as a Hellraiser film) now work as a Nightmare film. It's funny, and strange. They even have a guy losing his asthma breath medication sprayer akin to one who loses his hearing aid in Freddy's Dead.

What you get in this film; gratuitous nudity and sex, dream slasheresque kills (while not as original as Nightmare kills and they could be done in a straightforward slasher film... to me, they have dream/nightmare-like qualities to them that go a little beyond the typical slasher kills), Lance Henriksen in a role fitting of him, a few humorous moments throughout (again fitting more in the Nightmare universe), some decent/cool low budget effects, the house looks cool both inside and out (inside being primarily the writers' guild building), the idea of the game (rather than some stupid website, which the cover makes it seem like) is actually good, in the vein of a MMORPG. Why they didn't make more connections to the MMORPGs, which has a level of fanaticism akin to main characters in the film, is beyond me, but not important. The flashbacks actually work this time. And the story works. The ending, too.

The only real moment that doesn't work for me is the set up for the main female character roundhouse kicking Lance toward the end (she does an arm twist on some guy early on, though that connecting with the sudden random kick? Not to me, it didn't), but even the makers reference the forced nature of this in the commentary track.

So... uumm, there you go. If you go in expecting a Hellraiser film, you'll probably hate it. If you go in for a Nightmare on Elm Street film with Pinhead/The Host replacing Freddy Krueger, it should be all good. And I admit to being skeptical since seeing Hellseeker and absolutely loathing it, but Hellworld surprised me. Rick Bota seems to be improving with each film, which is good. Still, it might be advisable to step away from the franchise and try making a film without such a connection. Remove his crutches, so to speak. See if he can fly on his own.

A curious note; The special features are surprisingly slim considering the treatment both Hellseeker and Deader had (Hellworld only had a making of featurette and a commentary track, no deleted scenes -maybe showing why the twin cenobite from part 4 is on the back of the box, no storyboard comparisons, etc)... and the commentary track makes mention of possible extras that might have been included.

Part satire, part cautionary tale, and part exploitation that's destined to become a cult classic if it isn't already. The film follows Rika who, because of her path leading to possible damnation, is chosen to have a chance at salvation by carrying a message from the Queen of Hell, Enma. Rika is allowed passage into hell to witness firsthand the punishment of the wicked and pass that knowledge on. A child molester, for instance, is treated to a course of forever dismemberment and resurrection for the rest of eternity.

She is then shown her own life, where we enter into a satirical look at a cult she's involved with that has elements on par with scientology. The leader is worshipped without question, and every part of the leader's life is sold to his followers, from the bath water he bathes in, to his book on enlightenment. Even a device that puts his followers 'intune' with his own brainwaves much like the 'E-Meter' devices Scientology uses to bring people to enlightenment. The cult soon shows its real colors when an attorney refuses to back down in a case against them and they make him vanish. It was like watching Scientology mixed with the Manson Family.

After that, we are shown what will happen to the lawyers who defended the cult in a later murder trial (along with the eventual demise of the cult leaders in a different manner). They are lined up in hell, and their tongues pulled out, being stretched past their limits. One tongue rips out, another lies on the ground overly extended and worthless.

The hell parts of the film exist in the air of low budget effects, but that doesn't stop them from being fun to watch. The creature effects/masks/make-ups are neat, there's dismemberment, being eaten alive, tongue stretching, and much much more. I don't want to spoil too much. Not only that, but throughout the film there is a healthy dosage of breasts and ass shots, especially in hell where people are required to strip down to their underwear without any kind of braw support before they can proceed across the river Styxx where their eternal torment awaits.

The cult parts of the film give a nice, creepy vibe, with the leader being a long haired Christ figure who never seems to open his eyes and who turns into the biggest creep of them all. And topping it all off with an out of nowhere Samurai fight against demons of hell and an end credit sequence of a bunch of women praying to the sun in the nude.

The overall effect of the film is one that shouldn't be taken too seriously, but instead as a very fun low budget film.

Aftermath is a horror/sci-fi cross along the lines of Planet of the Apes/Omega Man mixed with Mad Max. You have two astronauts coming back to Earth after a long deep space mission, only to find it in ruins, devastated by nuclear and biological germ warfare.

Early on, we're given a glimpse at two roving bands. One, a 'normal' biker-like gang of misfits who rob and plumage the other normal folks still left in the land, killing their men and stealing their women. The biker-like gang is led by Cutter, played by none other than a much younger Sid Haig (House of 1,000 Corpses). I'd never seen any of his other films and the screenshot on the back showed him in it. So I figured I'd give it a shot.

The other band, mutants who all look like lepers in various stages of decay. There is a brief throwaway moment where one normal looking guy scorns his band of mutants because they'd drunk the contaminated water and thus, this caused them to become mutants. Though if all the water in the land were contaminated, wouldn't that make it kind of difficult to exist at all in this world? I suppose people could live on canned goods, as shown by the astronauts picking up a few cans off the beach in front of a group of fried corpses. But what's to say those weren't contaminated, too, being exposed out there on the beach like that? In any case, it's a minor issue.

The basis of the story follows the lead astronaut, who, in a little minor scene, supposedly likes the fact that the world he knew had crumbled. This 'plastic, fake' world. Which is due to his own personal loss that we later learn to be his wife and son in an accident. What we're told is, the doctor wouldn't treat them until he had the astronaut guy fill out some forms and by that time, they were already dead. Sounds like malpractice to me and a little bogus way to blame the system. If they're in the emergency room, they should be treated, regardless. Only, the guy wouldn't be able to see them until he filled out the forms. That would have made more sense if, they wouldn't let him see his dying wife and child until after filling out the forms, but by then, it was too late. Even that is a bit much and just seems way too convenient an excuse.

The lead guy leaves his friend behind (his friend had injured a knee during the trip down) and explores the world at large. He runs into a boy and a woman, who become his replacement family. The woman had escaped from the biker-like gang and wanted our hero to not only protect her, but eventually go back and rescue her friend and friend's kid. This leads our hero directly into conflict with the gang, first on a stealth mission, and when that wondrously comes back to bite them in the rear when they aren't smart enough to leave town immediately after, then a Commando like mission. You know, the Arnold Schwarzenegger film. He literally goes on a similar action extravaganza rampage, though believability has long since gone out the window.

The music sounded like it was stolen directly from a 50s sci-fi/horror film. It was overdone, droning in parts, and does not work. Not one moment. This remains the largest problem of the film. There is also a voice over narrative throughout the entire length of the film, which adds nothing of real substance. Just an excuse to guide the film along and make up for obviously poor writing. Which, to note, is predictable and the set-ups are obvious. The acting is subpar at best, and probably not even that. The dialogue in some scenes is hard to hear without pumping the volume up, yet if you do that, in the very next scene the music starts again and is much too loud. The lead actor, who was also the writer/director/producer, has no real charisma and no business starring in a film like this. Not that he had any really good lines, anyway. But I doubt he could deliver them to good effect even if he had them.

I keep finding new things to comment on, like towards the end when a guy gets shot in both legs and his foot, and less than a minute later is walking perfectly as he tries to fight off the hero. I wonder where the script supervisor was on that day? Oh, wait, what script supervisor? Let me just take a moment to comment on the effects. I thought the models for the post apocalyptic city were outstanding. The beach corpses looked cool. The gore effects are decent throughout, with standard gunshot wounds, a guy with his face beaten in, head explodes, and another one with a knife through his eye. The mutant makeups are passable. So, on the production side of things, this film has some good elements going for it. There's also some prime female nudity to keep the exploitation side of things on target.

The final line. In the right hands and a better script, this could have been something special. A nice low budget post apocalyptic film in the tradition of Mad Max or along the lines of The Hills Have Eyes. Instead, we are stuck with something less than interesting, with some cool looking post apocalyptic effects/models/nudity that isn't enough to save the film from boredom for most viewers.

First tape:

Like the first Sci-fi series original, it drags. A lot of the 'political intrigue' that is being brought forth feels very weighted, like making an hour and a half feel like 3 hours.

Number 1 reason why it drags so much? The cast. Even Susan Sarandon doesn't bring much to the film with her role (just like, I feel, William Hurt was pretty wasted in the first film). I like Susan in several of her other films, but here, there's not much there. Maybe even faulted to what I'm starting to refer to as an actor's 'evil role'. Most actors/actresses suck at these types of roles, especially, it seems, respectable ones. They usually want to let loose, 'have fun' with being the bad guy for once, but most of them can't portray it to save their lives or they need an inspiring director, which, here, clearly, they do not have.

The problem isn't on her shoulders alone, I think much of the cast and their direction is just plain dull. The actor portraying Maud'dib is somewhat interesting, though, but even he doesn't seem to be reaching his full potential. Everything feels very 'TVesque', safe, and for a sci-fi miniseries that should be taking chances, that's a bad thing, especially one that has Lynch Dune as a predecessor (which I'll get to in a moment). Bring someone like Christopher Walken aboard - we need charisma, someone who can breathe life into a part and make it interesting no matter what he's saying. Put together a bunch of talented actors - actresses in the roles that can instill that life that's needed to keep someone other than a die hard fan watching. To make it work. Otherwise, it can easily become real boring, real fast.

Look at Lynch Dune and despite any reservations on it you may have (frankly, I loved it as a kid when I saw it for the first time at 2 in theaters, especially since I wasn't hampered by a book, and my imagination was allowed to roam free, and I still love that film today), but in any case, the cast was awesome. There was great charisma going around. But it wasn't simply limited to a great cast, which is merely one stepping stone to a good movie.

This brings me to point number 2, the script. There has to be a better way to carry many of those scenes. There's too much information, some of it has to be told in dialogue, but for the rest of it, there must be other ways of expressing it. I just don't think the script works all that well from what I've seen. If you had a great cast and better direction, you might be able to pull it off, even then, it is too slow... which is also in part the fault of the director and cinematographer; it all falls pretty flat, basic, by the numbers. It feels like a tv series, and sure, it is a sci-fi miniseries, but does it have to feel that way? I think it's slightly better in some ways than the first, but there seems like less going on with the story. In fact, it really didn't even get sort of interesting until the last 15-20 minutes of the first tape.

It just feels very off... too limited in scope, I think models would have helped better than the obvious CGI in it (and normally I don't mind cgi, it just kind of gets repetitive, fake looking, which is probably one of the biggest problems with the prequel trilogy -of Star Wars), there's just something to be said with the look of movies like Blade Runner, Dune, the original Star Wars trilogy, Neverending Story, more recently, LOTR.

Oh, the worse angle, not nearly so bad this time but still pathetic, is costuming. Most of it just looks like an eyesore, like it was ripped out of a movie set of the middle ages, not a far flung sci-fi series. It was the worse part of the first miniseries, and it is hardly better here.

Oh, and the Navigators... ick, a travesty. In Lynch Dune, they looked cool, real, not some animated crap that sounds kind of like 'em.

I mean, if anything, they had a template of truly inspired design from the Lynch Dune, the look, the feel of each planet shown. It didn't look like they just walked onto a set, which almost entirely destroys the immersion factor. I want to be taken away. That's what sci-fi and fantasy is about, removing me from the real world and taking me someplace that exists only in my dreams.

Dune is a lot about political intrigue, but you need the direction to make it feel more grand and epic, maybe even more so than it is, and you need a cast that can just hold an audience. I mean, if you look, at least 2-3 of the main female cast look very similar to one another. At a stage of being somewhat tired already, the lines between the 3 roles blurred. More distinction would be nice, more varied portrayal of each part, no matter their relation.

I don't know what I was expecting, the first miniseries was flawed, but different enough from Lynch Dune and with enough going onscreen that it didn't seem quite so bad, while some things seem to have improved since the first time around, the flaws are even more obvious with a script that has less going on.

TAPE 2:

I think it sort of gets better, mainly building on the last 20 minutes of the first tape. Going back, it would have been a wiser choice to cut the first 2 hours into a tight 30 minutes. There's not really much in the way of conflict, just plotting here, plotting there, a little interaction, maybe a little discovery channel on government politics. Too many little small subplots that go nowhere or have so little payoff that it's like, what's the point?

For example, in the intro sequence (Tape 1), we see a guy basically vowing 'revenge' on Maud'Dib for the blinding of his son, refusing to let his son be set out into the desert, per the Freman way. What happens to this little subplot? About half an hour later, he's just killed off right after he reveals this little wanting to someone (to the assassin of him who probably was supposed to help). What significance did this have? They kill his daughter, cut her hands and head off, and leave her in the desert, where's she's found... ok, but so what? It doesn't really seem to go anywhere.

As I stated before, things finally start picking up in the last 10-15 minutes of the first tape, with what could potentially be a very cool element to carry the rest of the film, though why it occurs is kind of foggy. Next big problem is Maud'Dib's grown up sister, she just feels so wrong for the part 99% of the time (and that accent gets in the way much of that time, which appears to be the 'Freman' accent, and does more harm than good -making it in several parts harder to understand unless you pump up the volume), and the fact that she has such an important role in the 2nd half of the 4 hours, it really undercuts the 'cool' element that she's primarily apart of... they could have done so much more with it.

Duncan (the return of) is another element that links with the sister and this character had a lot of potential. They just didn't use any of it, just some slight little conflict, and that's it, but with a better actor and script, he could have certainly carried a much grander weight to the 2nd part of the film. He could have added so much, brought the film away from the monotone flavor and more into some serious drama, conflict, which could have escalated the story more and made his final moments mean something. Plus, they developed a major deal out of why he's back, and it had to do with 'plots within plots' type of deal, yet, again, it never goes anywhere. It should have been prime material to drive the inner conflict he's feeling.

The Twins; another element that could have easily been really cool, driving the story, bringing the missing conflict. I liked the element of what the Twins were about, there were some minor bits, but most of it feels glossed over.

The mother; Susan Sarandon, was a wasted actress. She's given nothing more than 'plotting' behind people's backs, and then she disappears into the background, as if most of her plotting actually counted for something. That's probably the biggest problem here, the scenes weren't well set up, and they had very little meaning that you couldn't have gotten through more meaningful scenes not involving her. She could have easily been written out altogether, and not been missed until her 'plotting' was revealed, the phantom menace.

This next paragraph might contain a little spoiler; so if you care, skip it...

The true 'phantom menace' -the cool element linked to the sister, is the return of the Harkonen, the Baron... personally, I liked the Baron in Lynch Dune better (in that, he was utterly mad, evil, insane), but the one from the sci-fi series was far more a political bad guy, which was fine, and could have worked here so much better had the sister not been so awful. Her last moments could have been very defining if her performance and direction were worth a damn.

Back to the Rest of Dune... the mother, she gets shoved to more a supporting character, but I think that's fine in the context of the film. Still, expanding on her role a little bit and her relation with her children would have made the ending more meaningful.

The Freman and Gurney are just kind of background plot elements in this one, not really worth their screen time.

Maud'Dib, who is mostly absent throughout the second tape, the movie could have easily followed his journey to realization and it could have been more entertaining in better hands, especially with his proposed end.

There was a lot of little philosophy thrown around in quick speech moments, kind of like the Matrix, but most of the time, it's done in such a way that it really ends up having not much in the way of meaning at all. I'd rather watch Fishburne, personally, going on about the Rabbit Hole for an hour than sit through one of these lines done by pretty much any of the actors of Children of Dune. They were just generally awful, poorly thought out, and poorly spoken.

The ending, the final moments expressed that it wanted to be more, it wanted to be an emotional journey, to be epic... much like, in a way, Return of the King will probably be, a final step taken, the beginning of a new legacy and the death of an old. Even with lowly CGI and crappy costumes, if the script had been there, if the cast and direction had strived to surpass what the final moments of the film expressed that it wanted to be, it could have been a great film, or, at the very least, a good/decent/entertaining one.

After seeing the second half, I saw the potential. I wanted to like the potential of what I saw, hell, I wondered what it would have been like if someone went back and did a sequel to Lynch's Dune, since most of the cast is still alive, and if you started around the story near the beginning of the second tape, it could fit quite nicely. I wanted that 'feel' that Lynch helped to evoke in his film, or at least a decent experience reminiscent of the first series. There are so many angles they could have pursued and expanded upon. If only they'd cut 80% of the first tape (much of the needless 'fat') and expanded on the character conflict potential of the second, it could have been an impressive journey.

If only it had been in the hands of someone with as much vision as love for the story; like Peter Jackson, it could have been so much more. I personally would never see to remake the first one (since I am such a fan of Lynch's version, even though the sci-fi series Dune was different enough that I like that one, too), but this thing, being a new tale, a new incarnation, and with 4 hours to work in. Oh, I'm not sure how close it is to the 2 books this is based off of, but there had to be more moments, more life in these characters, in the life of this galaxy. Like I said, with a good cast, script, and direction, the sub par cgi would have melted away and it would have been a treat.

Final verdict, unless you are a fan and you still want to pick this up, skip to the last 15 minutes of the first tape and watch it from there on out. You might find something to like, you might not. Oh, and don't try to watch it all at once. Take it in sections, half an hour to an hour at a time. It'll digest slightly better. It is too much to take all in at once (and this is coming from someone who likes tackling the whole experience at once and can usually do it, but the information is sloppy, kind of like watching one of those old school films with a monotone voice over, without the voiceover, though).

Finally, wait till it comes to cheaper video or watch it if it comes on again on the Sci-Fi channel, for which I do not have. So I had to actually pay to see this one just like I had to buy the first to see it. So yeah, I expect something to be worth my money. Personally, I wish I'd gone for the option of Castle in the Sky instead, since I'd seen the director's Spirited Away and loved that.

First, I'd like to say that I am not a major fan of the series, as I have never, nor do I plan to, read the books. But, on that note, I enjoyed the first one... not a great film, but fun and entertaining. I liked the characters, except for the guy with the wrapping on his head... I liked how the ending played out and I liked the focus on the school.

Now, with that said, I was a bit disapointed with Chamber of Secrets. 'Older' people seem to be so obsessed with the fact that it's 'darker', like that really makes a better film. Something similar was said in regards to EP2: AOTC, and I think Chamber suffers some of the same problems that MIB2 and AOTC suffered from. Now, I just want to say that, unlike MIB2, it had something more on its mind and wasn't a merely tremor of a movie (Chamber is 2 hours and 40 minutes, unlike MIB2 which isn't even an hour and a half), but, like it, Chamber felt 'cartoon episodic', like watching a 1-2 parter of an animated series, not like watching an actual film or number in a series of films and lost a lot of the magic, fun, and creativity of the first. It's kind of hard to explain specifics, but I'll try.

I'm not sure how much the problems can be faulted to the writer, JK ROWLING, or the screenwriter, who chose a slightly different focus this time around. I can't critique the book since I haven't read it, so I have to judge the film on its own merits. It isn't a bad film, it's ok, but not one I'd really care to see again.

Beware, spoilers bound to occur ahead... (I'll be careful, though, and try to reveal as little as possible)

The film started off ok, back at the house... in comes Dobby, the house elf, beginning the 'mystery' (I didn't mind Dobby, though I'd recommend a little less time spent on his 'self abuse'). The quest permeates, Why shouldn't Harry go back to school this year? Like the last film, this isn't where the magic of the story really begins (and I don't mean 'magic' as in wizardry, but the charm of what brought me in the first time and sold me the movie as a fun and entertaining film I'd gladly watch whenever I got the craving), things start picking up with a jail break, and then we get to see the Weasley home, meet the family for some small little bits (which, looking back, was kinda nice).

Next, we're carted back off to the shopping place of the first movie, but it kind of lacks the wonder of the first time and we're introduced to 2 new characters. Now, Lucius I liked, I just wish they could have done more with him, but I can sort of understand why they used him like they did, hopefully he'll get more stuff to do in the next movie. The second new character, played by Kennth Branagh, I couldn't care either way about him. They had the chance to introduce Hermoine's parents as well, but instead, we just 'see' them... a subplot is introduced, sort of a reversed 'X-Men' syndrome, but ultimately really isn't all that important in the scope of things (more of a sideissue that 'seems' important but it really isn't, rather an excuse for other things).

Now, the train... Ron and Harry get left behind, and they take the flying car... which makes for a decent action piece, so, ok... no complaints here.

Then, quickly herded off, they could be in trouble, expelled, blah blah blah, but they're not, and so school begins... It sort of blurs at that point, then we're introduced to another new teacher, didn't really care for, and that scene is nerve wracking with the root screamers. I had to close one ear, it was that bad. The pixie sequence was alright, but now they're just going through the motions of setting a couple plot elements up.

The plot, which I will not utter here *Gandaulf voice*, I didn't really care for. It was very cartoonish (which isn't necessarily a complaint), didn't really like how it unfolded (it starts off ok, but as the story progresses, it loses my interest)... I'll get into a little more of that soon.

The Duel scene, probably my favorite scene in the film, I just wish they did something more with it. The Journal, an interesting idea, I wish the introduction of it was better somehow. The next Quidditch match is kind of cool...

Whining Murtle, eck, just eck. What an annoying character. I don't mind the whining aspect so much, it's just the sounds she makes, makes me cringe. Anytime you want to put something to 'annoy', especially a character with such importance to the story, it forces me to give it big strikes against the movie. And the guy with the cat, ack, just cut his part to minimal, no more than he had in the first (afterall, there are far more interesting characters to focus on). Having him go around blaming Harry was pointless and never went anywhere.

The three characters... this is probably my biggest complaint. Unlike the first one, it has become strictly Harry's show. Hermione gets to make a potion, then she's taken out of the game for good. All Ron is good for in this film, is being scared. It wasn't about three friends anymore, just 1 kid dragging along 2 others who aren't really that integral anymore. I thought Ron and Hermione were kind of wasted this time out, like many of the best characters in the film, just too much wasting going on. I would have liked to see a couple more moments between the characters not directly pertaining to the plot (which just about everything seemed to, a little bit too blatant at that)...

There is only 1 real advancement for Harry's character this time around, and it's something we already know, only, this time it's explained. WOW! See how impressed I am? It seems very been there, done that, even with Dumbledore in the end having to sit us down and 'explain' everything. You don't have to take the same approach every movie. Let's see a different way of explaining something, or at least, try to make it interesting.

My second biggest complaint, everything seems to be out to save Harry Potter. While, this was ok in the first, here it becomes kind of redundant. Like, ooh look, the car. Ooh, look, the Pheonix, oh, the phoenix again. I didn't like how it came together at the end, I much rather prefer the ending to the first movie (I thought the challenges were kind of clever and the mirror thing interesting).

I guess, it just lost some of its potency that it had the first time around. Looking back, I guess I didn't mind the plot so much as the elements that went into it. Some interesting ideas that just didn't feel like they were put to good use. Underused characters, and less of the 'school' atmosphere and wonder that made the first one what it was. I'd rather have had more classes, more mischevious behavier dragging Hermione along than bothering with the plot. I find those aspects far more entertaining, I want it to be about the three stars, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and their rivalries against kids like Draco. I want Lucius to have more to do, more sneering, and Snapes to be used more.

I'm wondering to myself, how the hell did this movie last 2 hours and 40 minutes? What the hell was it doing for that long? Cause the scenes that got me back to what I wanted to see certainly didn't take up much of that time. The plot could have been done easily in a 1-2 parter of a 30 (15-20 with commercials) minute animated series, the focus was too much on a plot that just needed to be better constructed, and not enough on the characters I wanted to see more of. Too much time on characters I either didn't care for (Kenneth Branaugh), or were annoyed by (Murtle)... ack... so yeah, I was disapointed. In the end, just too much of stuff I didn't want or care for, and too little of the stuff I did want. Ah, well. :( ...