Reviews

I've come up with this when it comes to movies released in the month of January: they are all pretty much overstock from the previous year that the studio was too embarassed to release. Movies released just after christmas and during January are the equivalent of bottom-of-the-bin leftover holiday items in a store that nobody thought was good enough to be sold before Christmas, so they've been re-packaged as something cool and new, when in reality they're just more misleading re-hashes. That's what exactly what movies like Biker Boys, Kangaroo Jack, and Just Married are. But since I'm only reviewing Biker Boys, I'll start my review. Here it is: Do not see it. That's the kindest I can be with this one. Larry Fishbourne commented that Biker Boys was a modern day "western", only with bikes instead of horses, helmets instead of cowboy hats, and asphalt instead of whatever was the equivalent of what cowboys and their horses rode on. I'm here commenting that this is NOT an urban western. I don't even know what to call it, but I know it's not good. Bad acting, NO realism (we need at least SOME ground in reality here), and cheap effects.

0 out of 10

Sorry, but if you jut tell me a character's bad because just he's foreign, I'm not buying it.

XXX is the definitive example of fodder for the MTV crowd. It's loud, brainless, and brainwashingly stereotypical (I thought the "Russians are all bad" plot died out in the 80's). Why must some filmmakers peg certain ethnic groups or people from certain countries as "evil"? It's not right, but I guess they got away with it... for the millionth time. In U.S. TV shows and movies like this, you'd never see an American portrayed as the bad guy trying to bring the world to anarchy; but you will see Middle Easterners, Russians and Germans (just to name a few) portrayed as "bad" because that's only what U.S. audiences will accept as antagonists. They never want to suspect one of their own as movie villains. Note to filmmakers: Stop the stereotyping! If you stereotype so much it just makes it painfully clear that you have no villain with TRUE motives for his actions, so you just end up labeling him as being from a certain country because you think you can feed audiences anything. Anyway, the acting in XXX is just as bad as the stupid racial stereotypes. Vin Diesel is a dullard. And an UGLY one at that. What ANYONE finds attractive in him, I don't know, because he definitely is balding (look at his hairline. ha!), and sounds as if he's going hoarse. Balding, hoarse men do not make action heroes. I guess Stallone and all the TRUE action heroes are too old now, so desperate audiences'll accept anyone as a hero, including Mr. Diesel.

1 outta 10

I must admit, I used to love this show... until it began airing on syndicated television three times per day, seven days a week. This is proof that Seinfeld doesn't hold up well to repeated viewings when it's shown ad nauseum. Sure, the situations the characters got into were funny, but I honestly realized (even back when I still liked the show) that even though the plots were enjoyable, the characters weren't. They played off eachother very well, but the characters really WERE unlikable. Admit it, people, even you fans know that Jerry, George, (and to a lesser extent, Elaine and Kramer) weren't people you'd like to be friends with (especially after season four when the plots started becoming more unrealistic and goofy, the characters more hateful, and the actual actors themselves more selfish and money-hungry). During its first few seasons, Seinfeld was mindnumbingly boring, and during its latter seasons, it was unrealistic and so exaggerated it was stupid (C'mon! Anybody out there REALLY think that the Peterman bus tour episode was funny?... Thought not). Jerry Seinfeld started this show with intentions to show relatively normal, everyday-life situations that almost anyone could relate to. When those viewers like myself (who wanted relatable comedy) were bored out of our skulls with Jerry's initial attempts to show us what he claimed was real life, he realized this, and started bringing annoyingly stupid characters to the show (Soup Nazi, the candy bar heiress, Peterman, Puddy, Banyah... the list goes on), and everything continued careening downhill until it crashed and burned in May of '98 when it ended on a sour note (most Seinfeld fans even hated that final episode). Seinfeld will be forever known as one of the most consistently funny sitcoms ever... until their friend brings up the fact that the final episode majorly sucked and ruined the streak.

Pathetic, unrealistic attempt at comedy. This showcases nothing but a group of vapid young people who, due to a lack of creativity on the writers' part, have become more than "just friends". I'm sure the writers of these episodes, at one point figured "Hey, since we have no more plot ideas, let's have ____ sleep with ______". Literally every character on this show has slept with at least two other members of their little circle of friends. Nobody in their right mind could ever relate to these spoiled brats. The friends' financial security seems quite suspicious considering most of these friends are working jobs that fetch minimum wage, so how can they afford those plush NY apartments and gorgeous clothes? Plus, I hate how whiny these guys are. They seem very well-to-do despite their minimum wage jobs, but are still hopelessly miserable because of their relationship failures (hint: try breeding outside your little circle of friends, and maybe then you'd actually have a long-lasting relationship, you whiny dolts!). Here's a rundown of the personalities on "Friends that, from what the show tells viewers, are apparently the basic types of people in NY... Chandler: token "sardonic witty guy". Monica: token "Neat Freak". Joey: token "Lovable male moron". Ross: token "Lovable geek. Phoebe: token "Spaced-out female moron". Rachel: token "Bland and boring, somewhat neutral character used as basis of comparison for how 'normal' the rest of the neurotic characters should be, but aren't". Trendy, superficial trash that only the MTV crowd could love... with phoniness and stereotypes abound thrown in the mix for good measure. How much trendy and hackneyed could this crap get, you ask? Well, these friends hang out in a coffee bar just like all the other friends have done in countless sitcoms before and after. I'm glad this show is almost gone.

This should've been the only TMNT movie released. The other two in the series, while marginally entertaining upon first viewing, are commercial kiddie trash that have no substance and all style (actually, I can't even say THAT much about TMNT II and III).

Sure, this film ended up being commercial (it raked in $135 million dollars despite its budget of a measly $13 million), but I doubt that much success was anticipated. Also deserving of mention is the fact that this movie is something almost anyone, any age can enjoy. It doesn't hurt that this movie actually has heart, either.

And yes, the original may have cashed in on the Turtles craze, but at least people got their money's worth. Believe it or not, there's some genuine emotional interaction between characters. My two favorite examples being when the turtles channel Splinter's spirit through meditation (yeah, go ahead, say I'm crazy! I don't care!), and also when Ralph awakens to find Leonardo waiting vigil.

The costumes are excellent, as well as the acting (for the most part). The only actor that I had a problem with was the guy who played Charles. The guy kept flubbing his lines! Don't believe me? Well, in the scene where he's at April's apartment the morning after her mugging, watch when he starts to say the wrong thing and then catches himself (I think Judith Hoag realized his little mistake too; watch her subtle reaction). Anyway, Charles says: "I...I've...YOU'VE been working really hard lately." Plus, his acting was wooden and unnatural, unlike like Judith Hoag and Elias Koteas'. Hoag made a spunky yet realistic April, and Koteas made an AWESOME Casey Jones. April and Casey had excellent chemistry even though they had to pretend they hated eachother during most of the movie (too bad Hoag was replaced later in the series).

Last thing: Why are people complaining about this movie's gloominess and grittiness? If you're a TMNT fan, how could you NOT want it to be like that? That's what makes it so atmospheric! Griff, who reviewed TMNT II says the first film's quality is so poor and grainy that it looks like it was filmed in someone's basement with a camcorder, but I beg to differ; save those types of comments for the workprint. You will never know what 'atrocious video quality' is until you've seen the workprint for this baby. I admit, the quality in the final print's a little underlet and slightly grainy, but the rough cut's quality is absolutely horrendous. Half the time, in everything excluding the sewer scenes, it's so dark and blurry it's hard to tell who's who but at least you see the characters and hear the low, muffled audio. In the sewer scenes, you can't even tell what's going on (if you know the final cut to an extent, you can kind of sense where they are though)! It makes for some VERY creepy and almost scary viewing.

10 out of 10

The only reason this movie was such a success was because it was released at the right time. All the characters have ZERO development, and Reeves' character has even less... if that's even possible. I really can't stand this guy. No matter what he's in, he manages to ruin it and suck away anything good the movie had going for it. Whatever he's in, he taints. He ruined "Devil's Advocate" for God's sake (and admit it, if you DID see it, you know you saw it to watch the always-magnificent Pacino make a total buffoon out of Reeves)! And what's with this "religious insight" crap people are "gaining" from the movie? You only think those things because you want them to be there. If this "messiah" crap in the movie was actually there, then it would be obvious and EVERY viewer would realize it. Fans of "The Matrix" just say those religious things are in the movie because they wish they were there... but they're really not. People, please... Keanu Reeves is NOT Jesus, I assure you. And if you still think he is, then I pity you for your stupidity.

1 out of 10

It's official: the MPAA censors don't view films before they're released. How else could you explain the 'R' rating that was slapped on this piece of trash? There's NO blood, NO gore, NO nudity... come to think of it, there's no substance to it either. You could show "Bloody Murder" to a five year old and they wouldn't be frightened. This movie could've gotten away with a 'G' rating if the MPAA actually sat down to view it. When I rented this last year, I expected a no-holds barred gorefest (based on the title and video box cover). What I got was... nothing. There are NO redeeming qualities to this movie. And why did the casting crew cast a Bruce Campbell look-alike as one of the main characters? Oops, I guess I answered my own question there. Anyway, this is trash, plain and simple. AVOID.

Zero stars out of ten

Although I love this film and rate it ten out of ten, I do admit that there's something missing, and I can't quite put my finger on exactly what that "something" is. However, I think that if anything was added to compensate for that missing "something" the eerie subtly of everything would be trampled.

I think a large part of Insomnia's effectiveness has as much to do with David Julyan's film score as it does with Pacino and Williams' wonderful performances. Sure, the entire movie is "bleak" and gloomy (and the score sure adds to it), but what do you expect from a movie with a plot that revolves the murder of a young girl? You sure as heck don't walk into the theater expecting some feel-good, heartwarming piece of crap that you'd see any other time of the year, that's for sure. We need more movies like Chris Nolan's Insomnia; it's unrelenting yet delicate, and I think that's what's putting people off. What many want are macho brawling fistfights between Williams and Pacino, but what they get are pensive and thought-provoking dialogue (plus a little shootout near the end.) Personally, I'm glad we get to see Williams and Pacino talk things out most of the time instead of beating the crap out of eachother in every scene. They'd be wasting their talent if there was no dialog interaction between the two.

My rating: ten out of ten

If I had to describe this mope-fest (oh, I apologise, goths, I mean 'piece of art') in two words, they'd be either "egotistical pretentiousness", or simply "pure trash". I think the latter is more fitting. Here's one surefire way to tell whether you'll love "Brandon Lee's Whine-Fest" (um, I mean, "The Crow")... If you believe any word out of Trent Reznor mouth, then you're already a fan (oh, and if Reznor meant a word he ever said, he'd be with Lee right now; get it through your heads, people, Reznor's not sincere about his lyrics, and if he was, he would've followed through with them long ago). It seems there's a direct correlation between Reznor fans and fans of the "The Crow". Anyway, I suppose I'd be happier about this movie if it would have lived up to what I hoped it would have been. Also, I still can't fathom why people say they cried during this movie... wait, actually, I think I cried during this movie too. Yes, I remember now, it was near the end of the movie... when I realised I could've spent my free video rental coupon on a REAL movie. *Sniff* I tear up every time when I remember that part.

Final note: "The Crow" isn't a "contemporary classic" like the user below claims (unless you're the type that also believes "Downward Spiral" is actual music). This user didn't realise "contemporary classic" refers to something watchable, so I wouldn't watch the movie based on his statement alone.

Rating: 1 star out of 10

Thank you for your time.

I don't care how laden with special effects any "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequel is; if it isn't on par with the original, then it should not be made. I'd rather have one amazing "Nightmare" sequel instead of having a hundred awful ones (too bad I haven't gotten my wish, yet). Not ONE of the six sequels have even come close to matching the original's creepiness. And as the series progressed (or, as I like to think of it, REGRESSED), Freddy became a pathetic pop culture icon instead of the undead monster that he was in Wes Craven's original. And even though I'm a huge horror fan (not one heavily into the slasher subgenre usually), Wes' original is one of my favourites. However, he is praised far too much. After all, Wes IS the man who sold its rights to other directors, and therefore, had a huge part in the death of his own franchise. Tsk, tsk, Wes. Was it worth it for all that money? I assume you answer that with a 'yes'. ...And onto my review of "Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4"...

In my opinion, "Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4" is tied with "Freddy's Dead" for worst in the series. In part 4, I can't put my finger on what exactly I hate about it (too many things to list), but something just never sat right with me whenever I watched it. I hated the crassness of everything from the hokey special effects to the cheesy soundtrack (a Freddy rap is at the end of the film... ugh), as well as the fact that Freddy was no longer frightening after this film. It also bothered me that after three sequels, the casting director still couldn't get decent talent for their roles. Oh, and NONE of the "Nightmare" sequels were necessary. Money-hungry studio execs just couldn't leave well-enough alone, could they?

Sure, the acting left much to be desired. Sure, the `plot' was nothing more than an excuse for Jonker to show off how gory he could make a film. But make no mistake, this guy has talent. For instance, Jonker's excellent filming techniques of people getting chased (and ultimately captured) by vampires were amazing for such an amateur director. My favourite scene (apart from the ending which surpasses the gore level of `Braindead') is the chase scene in the middle of the film where a guy gets chased down by a group of about twenty vampires. This little scene has to be seen to be believed. It's so fast-paced. Plus, the rock song played in the background while the chase was occurring was very rousing, and really gets your adrenaline pumping. Oh, and the lighting wasn't what made the film appear to be so underlit in most scenes; it was the exposure of the film. It seems to be WAY overexposed in most scenes. THAT is why most scenes seem to be so dark. The only main problem I had with `Darkness' was the way that in many of the outside night scenes, the lights from incoming cars from a distance were distracting, and that the film seemed to be too drawn out towards the middle, and at times, a few of the scenes were overlong, but the ending more than compensates for those small downfalls. Believe me, this film isn't for most people (I doubt that even most horror fans would touch this one), but rest assured, if you're a hardcore horror fan who loves gory flicks, this is the bloodiest that they come (which is a GOOD thing to people like myself). I'd take Jonker's `Darkness' over Raimi's `Evil Dead' films any day; at least Jonker has the courage to show carnage that Raimi never could pull off.

My Rating: 8.5 stars out of ten

*Side Note: I don't know about anyone else, but I thought that the creepy syth tune that played throughout the film (most noticeably near the end) was very effective. It had a sad yet forboding feel to it, and it sounded very familiar to a tune that I'm sure I heard somewhere else in an 80's song.

There's no denying that there were huge amounts of ambition and love that Jim Henson and the rest of his crew put into "Dark Crystal", but something about the film just didn't click with me. Since I really loved "Labyrinth" (which is one of my favourite fantasy films), I expected to love "Dark Crystal" as well... but it didn't work out that way. In "Dark Crystal", the lack of catchy songs was quite off-putting, as well as the lack of human characters. However, the vast landscapes were wonderful, and the odd creatures were imaginative, yet the main characters had absolutely NO personalities. Sure Kira and Jen share some things in common, but to me, they never shared any huge expressive emotional bonds. Sure, they talked to each other about how they were the last of their kind, but they never emotionally expressed the sorrow they felt for everything that was going on around them. If we, the viewers, can't see that they care, then why should WE care? Also, it really bothered me that Jen was such a weak main character. His lack of personality really brought his likeability factor down a few notches. Plus, the Skeksis characters became annoying after a while. They're totally indistinguishable for one another (other than their appearance, and clothes). And although I thought the outside landscapes (actually done with blue screen special effects) we very good, the inside settings were too drab, and blended too well with the characters.

*Side Note: I don't know why everyone says "Dark Crystal" is too scary for children (because it isn't); it may not be as friendly as the insultingly stupid kids shows that are around today on television, but that's a GOOD thing. I may not have liked this film as much as everyone else, but if you have a choice between sitting your kids down to watch T.V. programing for children, or watching "Dark Crystal", pick "Dark Crystal". One of the things that I admired about the film was that it didn't underestimate its viewers' intelligence. Even though it's aimed for the younger crowd, it's not insulting to its viewers.

My Rating: three stars out of ten.

Yes, that's right... "Dark City" is every bit original as everyone says it is... so original, in fact, that it is a shameless and blatant rip-off of "Hellraiser". What's that I hear?... Oh, it's the people who own the rights to the "Hellraiser" series; they want their share of the cash "Dark City" raked in by using the exact likeness of Pinhead for the look of their villains they called cenobites... er, I mean, "strangers". Really, Proyas, do you actually think that anyone WOULDN'T notice? Well, I suppose you pulled the wool over a few (heck, MOST) viewers' eyes that ended up reviewing it on the IMDB, but you sure haven't fooled me. Along with the movie's plagiarism...um, I mean "originality", the acting left me unimpressed as well. EVERYONE in this film, excluding Sutherland was a bore. It really was a shame that the characters, in general, were cardboard cut-outs of characters. The acting was so stiff in this film (I couldn't stand the actor who played John, and the actress who played his wife). Plus, I really expected much more from William Hurt. He had the potentiality to give his role of the Inspector more personality, but alas, I suppose that was not meant to be. There are a few stylistic shots (mainly in the beginning), and some excellent lighting, but not enough substance to get high marks in my book. Plus, I never could come to grips with the fact that Pinhead was in this film... wait a minute, let me get a closer look... Oh, OK... it wasn't him... sorry about that. Watch the film, and judge for yourself, but I could hardly stand this film. If you've yet to see "Dark City", please, don't let any of these reviews (not even mine) influence you, though; take them into consideration, but DON'T let them convince you of how decent or awful a film is; doing just that has RUINED many of my film-watching experiences. Unlike a few others, I'm giving my honest opinion of this film. Oh, and also, don't anyone say not to listen to anyone else's views (Diane from Queens, are you reading this?), because I could just as easily dismiss yours, and say "Don't listen to (insert reviewer's name here)", but I'd never do that, because although I may not agree with what someone thinks, it doesn't mean it's not true for that person (or that it may not be true for others viewers).

My Rating: 2 stars out of ten (one star for Sutherland, and one for the lighting and angles)

"Surf Ninjas" is an excellent film. I suppose many people viewed the early 90's American pop-culture references, and dated jargon as off-putting, but to me, they gave the film a sense of nostalgic charm. The only hunch I can surmise as to why people rated this film so low was because they were not the demographic target, but then again, neither am I, and I still enjoyed "Surf Ninjas" immensely. Sure, "Surf Ninjas" is targeted at the teenage crowd, but you don't have to be a teenager to enjoy it. Even now, as an adult, I still enjoy this film. Although, it's a bit difficult pinpointing why exactly I like it so much, but one of the main reasons was because the main characters were so engaging and enjoyable. The most enjoyable characters are Johnny and Iggy, but just about everyone turns out an enjoyable performance here. One of my favourite scenes in this film is when the cast gives a hilarious rendition of the song, "Barbara Ann", right after Johnny liberates his people. Also, there are some wonderful jokes in this film, many of which are very witty. But I won't give any of them away; they're far too funny to spoil. I guess this is the type of film you could call a "guilty pleasure", but I don't really see why. Why anyone would categorize something such as this that's funnier than 90% of the American comedies out there as "guilty" is beyond me.

My rating: 9 stars out of 10

Sorry, people, but no matter how badly you want this to be considered a cult classic, it isn't, and will never be. The reason why: Bruce Willis. A cult classic is such because most people who watch underground films widely accept that it is; not just because a few Bruce Willis fanatics clamor its supposed "wit", and "overlooked appeal" (which this film has none of). And just because a film was a failure at the box-office doesn't automatically warrant it a cult following (and for this film, the word "failure" is a huge understatement); it needs substance as well. There are some films which undeservedly fail at the box-office ("Buckaroo Banzai", and "Ford Fairlane" come to mind), and then there's the type of film that is absolutely deserving of all the scorn, and revilement they receive. And that type of film is "Hudson Hawk". To me, "Hudson Hawk" is nothing more than an egoistical Bruce Willis vehicle that is used to show off how smug he is... well, how smug he THINKS he is. It's a shame, too, because any other actor could have brought some style to the role of Hudson Hawk, and brought the egotism down a notch that Willis relies on so much to make the audience thinks he's "cool". Hey, Willis, here's a tip: the more you have to remind your audience of how "cool" you are, the less you actually are. This film would have had a lot of potential... if another actor was chosen for the title role instead of Willis. Want REAL heroes that have their own quirky movie? If so, then watch "Buckaroo Banzai", or "Ford Fairlane", unless, of course, you're one of those idiots who thinks the sight of Bruce Willis hamming it up and smirking is the most witty thing you've ever seen in your life. Willis single-handedly ruins this entire film; he completely overshadows his fellow actors with his arrogance. Every time a secondary character (and trust me, EVERY character is a secondary in THIS film; the only main character is Willis' over-inflated ego) appears to be salvaging a scene in this clunker, Willis shows up, and his very presence ruins anything the scene had going for it.

Side Note: If you've been to the movie theatre lately, have you seen the trailer for Willis' new film entitled, "Bandits"? I sure have, and let me tell you, it looks like it'll be the "Hudson Hawk" of this decade. Ten years isn't long enough to forgive Willis for the trash (i.e., "Hudson Hawk") that he has brought to the world.

My Rating: 1 star out of ten

About two years ago, I stumbled across 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane' on television one Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately, I tuned in a bit late into the film, and wasn't very impressed with what little I saw. However, last week, I decided to give the film another try, so I rented it, and I never imagined that it would be as good as it turned out to be. Scratch that, the word "good" doesn't do this film justice. I think "brilliant" is more befitting. Yes, that's right, 'The Adventures of Ford Fairlane', to me, is brilliant. There's so many witty aspects beneath its seemingly crude exterior (which is not nearly as crude as most people make it out to be). And yes, for a comedy, the acting is fine. The acting isn't the best in the world, but it serves the purpose. There are even scenes where you can see small hints of emotion that Andrew Dice Clay expresses when he acts, but overall, the acting is mostly silly from everyone (but that's fine by me). Ford Fairlane is a very cool hero, and the villains are awesome as well. Notably, the evil Julian played by Wayne Newton, and the deranged Smiley played by Robert Englund. Robert Englund is creepy even without his horror movie make-up on. His constant grinning, cackling and saying "Hello, hello" in that cockney accent were very odd. And his attire was even more odd: he wore S&M bondage gear throughout the film, which consisted entirely of tight black leather and chains. Quite creepy indeed... Anyway, the one-liners were great, too. My favourite scene from this film is the car chase at the funeral. That scene was priceless. It was absolutely crazy! I loved every second of it. I loved the part of the scene where the gun flies out of Ford's hand, and somehow ends up in Smiley's car, and then Smiley looks at it, and says, "No thanks, I've got me own", and then pulls out a machine gun, and starts firing. Pure brilliance. You don't see films this wonderfully chaotic every day, so enjoy it while you can; I doubt you'll see anything like 'The Adventures of Fore Fairlane' for a while.

My rating: 9 stars out of 10.

This film was surprisingly decent, especially considering it's from the Full Moon film production company. I'm not too crazy about many of the films they release (except for "Doctor Mordrid", and the "Subspecies" films), but I really enjoyed this film more than I expected to. The first thing that drew me into this film was the eerie yet beautifully ambient music played during the opening portion of the film. This sense ambiance was rightfully (and thankfully) carried throughout the film, which added to the scenes a more atmospheric quality (which were accompanied perfectly by large gothic, grandiose sets). Not only did these sets accompany the music well, they accented it to give the overall film a greater sense of atmospheric wholeness. Also, most of the characters are extremely engaging and fascinating (notably Ash and Zachary, the two vampires that are rivaling for Sofia). This film (along with the "Subspecies" series), was shot on location in Romania, and I'm happy to report that this film isn't a disgrace to the vampire horror film genre like ones such as the "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (by Francis Ford Coppola). I find it ironic that the most hailed vampire films are the ones most worthy of scorn (I hated the way they gave the vampires an Americanized quality in the 1991 film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", even though they kept reinforcing that the story is taking place in Romania). That was a disgrace to the British author Bram Stoker, and a disgrace to the Romania Dracula myth of which Stoker's book was based on. Why Americanize something that has its origins in Romania? I have no problems with American vampire films (obviously, because I really liked "The Vampire Journals"), but Americanizing them is another case altogether. American vampire films don't need to have that stereotypical 'let's make this like an MTV music video and have lots of sexy American stars in it like Tom Cruise' in order to make it stylish. Sure, "The Vampire Journals" was shot by an American film company, but at least they had the decency to make it stylish on a low budget with unknown (yet extremely talented) actors. Hell, David Gunn (the man who played Zachary in "The Vampire Journals") has more charisma than that pretentious Tom Cruise will ever have. But I digress...a lot... Anyway, I really enjoyed "The Vampire Journals", and I think that people that enjoy non-mainstream vampire films will as well. Plus, if you like "The Vampire Journals", you might want to check out the very original British vampire film, "Tale of a Vampire" starring Julian Sands.

My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.

*Note to Francis Ford Coppola: don't give a Romanian vampire myth an American twist; if you want to make a vampire movie, then great. But don't base it on a Romanian myth, and then change it all around to suit your generally sheepish American audiences. If you want to make an ORIGINAL vampire movie, I don't care; go right ahead, but don't butcher a Romanian myth and retell it and claim it's "the real thing", because it's NOT.

Unlike most films I watch, I had very high expectations for this one. It's not that I expect most films to be terrible, it's just that with most films I watch I try to have no expectations so that I can watch them unbiased, and then decide for myself whether I enjoyed them or not. Well, suffice to say, I was unbelievably disappointed with "The Crow". This film was so hyped that I expected something truly special, but what I saw was pure mediocrity. From now on, I think I'll stick to not having expectations for films.

Now, I know all you young teenage people who pretend you're Goths that consider "The Crow' your Goth bible are screaming "Blasphemy! How dare you insult the late Brandon Lee's acting ability" by now, but it must be said: Hollywood isn't missing anything now that is Brandon Lee is gone. He couldn't act then, and I'm sure if he was alive today, he wouldn't be any better than he was. One of the many huge problems I had with this film was its gratuitous use of filters. You know how most of the scenes in this film mainly appear to be in black and white (while still maintaining tiny hints of color)? Well, guess what, it was ALL was done with a type of a monochrome film camera filter (excluding the red-colored flashback scenes of Eric and Shelley being murdered). But I guess you never knew that (you'll learn these kinds of things in film and photography courses). Ha! How's that for all you people that hailed the first "Crow" movie a visual masterpiece (which is isn't, because any idiot can slap a filter on a camera), but panned its sequel for it's constant use for filters? You're all hypocrites; this film is NOTHING more than an overlong MTV music video. If anything, at least in the "Crow" sequel the main actor who played the character Ash played his role wholeheartedly and with pure passion (and, from what I understand, he didn't even speak English very well). It says a lot about the original film if the actor in the sequel that doesn't even speak good English does a more expressive acting job than his predecessor. Too bad I can't say Lee was engaging; he's the talkative, egoistical, stereotypical `artful' Goth that all other Goths today are judged against. That's a shame, though, because most Goths are not nearly as pretentious as Lee makes them seem. He gives Goths a bad name. Anyway, I also hated the way that Lee's character, Eric, was "playing God", in a sense. I hated the way that he thought he could do everything the villains did to him and then get away with it. Basically the film tells its viewers, "If you're not on Eric's side, then you're against him; if you're against him, then you don't agree with him, and he'll punish you for not agreeing with him and his warped sense of 'justice'". Eric acted like he was superior to everyone else, which is exactly what his killers did to him. People have to deal with these types of awful things every day of their lives in real life; you see it on the news, and you read about it in the newspaper. Death happens every day. Why can't people accept that? I'm not saying people can't lament on the deaths of their loved ones, because most people can never get over tragedies like that, but at least ACCEPT it. Eric's problem was that he couldn't accept the fact that he and Shelley died, so he went psycho and donned black leather. Why should we accept Eric's plight when he wouldn't want us (the viewers) to deal with our tragedies the same way he did? He thinks it's alright to murder his killers, but if he ever caught one of us trying to murder our own killers he'd punish us. That's the exact definition of hypocrisy. This whole film contradicts itself, and is highly hypocritical in itself, which I couldn't stand. Want REAL Gothic atmosphere films? Then you might want to check out the first two "Hellraiser" films, "The Mangler", or the "Subspecies" films. Or, if you can't stomach nasty blood and gore very much (which I quite enjoy on occasion, well actually, all of the time), then try "Beetlejuice", Tim Burton's "Batman", "Batman Returns", or even Barry Sonnefeld's "The Addams Family".

My Rating: Two stars out of ten (but ONLY for a few interesting camera angles).

*Side Note: Do you want an idea of how conceited and pretentious Lee really was in real life too? If so, then rent the "Crow" sequel. Lee isn't in the film itself, but after the video, there's an interview with him about making the original "Crow". You'll see that Lee has one of THE most pretentious egos ever. That is not confidence he's exuding, it's utter pompous conceit. He has all the charm and charisma that a used car salesman, or one of those late-night television infomercial hosts has (which is not a good quality to posses).

People, what do you expect from a movie entitled "The Mangler"? Whatever you expect, DON'T expect this movie to be academy award material, and DON'T expect it to be trash. Infact, it's best to not have any expectations at all, then it'll be easier to watch it with an open mind, that way, you'll be able to formulate your own opinion of "The Mangler" for yourself. Granted, this isn't the best film in the world, but it's a damn entertaining horror flick if you give it a chance. This film has everything a horror fan like myself could want: profuse amounts of realistic-looking blood are gore, grandiose set designs, and a very creepy Robert Englund! Plus, if you're the type of analytical person that likes to look for a deeper meaning in their blood-soaked horror films every now and then (again, like myself), you will even notice the scathing social exposition of the contention of industrialism and corporate greed (the theme is there, you just have to open your eyes and look for it). Many of the IMDB reviewers missed this theme while they were busy whining about the acting and plot (which were by no means subpar, especially considering this is from the horror genre).

I find it ironic that in almost all of the reviews on the internet of this film, there are always complaints about amount of the gore, and how the film, as a whole, has a harsh and discomforting feel to it. Well, guess what; THAT is the way real horror films are supposed to be; they're supposed to disgust and shock its viewers, and they're supposed to make you squirm in your seat; that's the first sign you're watching a REAL horror film. Sure, this film is unapoligetically brutal, but that's one of the film's fortes, and I really admire the fact that it's so unrelenting. Generally, horror films are only meant to frighten viewers, and nothing more. However, if you end up getting something more out of a horror film besides a few scares (which I did when I watched "The Mangler"), then it has surpassed the basic purpose of a horror film.

My Rating: seven stars out of ten.

I really enjoyed "Doctor Mordrid". This is a low-budget film, which may be off-putting to some, but I have no problem with it. I admire it even more for that, considering it's WAY more entertaining than the drivel that Hollywood churns out every year. Too bad this didn't get a theatrical release; I don't know about anyone else, but I would have went to see it in theatres. `Doctor Mordrid' is a very entertaining science fiction film that just about anyone can enjoy, especially if they're into sci-fi like I am. I don't see why this is a R-rated film; only one f-word is said, and there are no gruesome death scenes, nor is there any blood at all. The timeless rivalry between sorcerers Anton and Kabal (Anton wanted the use his powers to save the human race, while Kabal wanted to enslave them), gave the story a sense of enchantment, while the mythical plotline added charm to the story itself. Basically, this a film that's just plain fun to watch. There is one unintentionally funny thing in this movie, though: seeing Jeffrey Combs keeping a straight face while wearing that silly blue cape and suit. That makes me laugh every time I see it. But I digress... Anyway, the acting is great; the main protagonists (Anton, and his lady friend, Samantha), are very likable; Anton is sympathetic, and hospitable, and Samantha is friendly. Plus, the settings were wonderful. The floating island in the other dimension was very cool setting; we're only given a glimpse of it twice, though; it would have been great to see more scenes take place here. The main setting was also very neat; Anton's apartment is very roomy, and he has some cool devices, especially the monitoring system he uses to keep track of the world's occurrences. He even has a pet raven that he keeps in his apartment named Edgar. Overall, this a great film; it was fun to watch, and the main actors put a lot of feeling into their roles. If you can find anywhere that rents `Doctor Mordrid', you should rent it (or, in my case, buy it. It was definitely money well-spent)!

My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.

"Lost Highway" is an unbelievably awful film (and believe me, being a B-movie junkie, I've seen some pretty bad films) that pretends to be an art house film. Well, I've got news for you, art house films have more substance than "Lost Highway"'s contrived drivel. Lynch made the huge mistake letting his images tell the story (which, I have no problem with unless the imagery lacks creativity and skill, which this film does). As a whole, the way most of the scenes were shot were pedestrian at best. On most accounts, Lynch failed at letting his images do the "talking". I absolutely adore dark films that have a penchant for being weird and offbeat, but Lynch can't even manage that. In "Lost Highway", he uses forced artfulness. Compositions of dialogue and images cease to be artful when they're crammed down the throats of the viewers, which was exactly what Lynch did here. Everything about this film is so claustrophobic that it denies the viewers of their freedom to interpret what they're seeing on screen in their own way (which is the worst thing a director can do). The lack of coherence was not one of the many main gripes I had with this film; the pacing was. The pacing of "Lost Highway" was wrought out so much to the point that it was torturous. And those damn pauses in between dialogue, and even in between words in sentences of dialogue drove me up a wall. There were, literally, at least three occasions where there were twenty second pauses in between exchanges of dialogue between characters, and one where some moronic blond girl that has no self-worth (the movie was so mind-boglingly lumbering, I can't even remember her name) takes a twenty second pause (in the middle of a freakin' sentence!) while talking to some ugly young man (I can't remember his name, either, nor care to) while they are driving. I guess Lynch thought that this film would be more true to life (or at least pretend to give it some sense of realism, which it doesn't) if he had his actors take those long pauses, but again, he made another huge miscalculation: people in real life do not talk like that! If anything, people talk too fast, not too slow. The only characters that were memorable were Bill Pullman's character Fred (but this performance left much to be desired), and the creepy man with the video camera (too bad he wasn't in the movie for longer).

My rating: 1 out of ten.

*Side note: "Lost Highway" rivals "Castle Freak" for worst film I've ever seen. And guess what, we have a new winner! Yes, that's right, "Lost Highway" is my new least favourite film. At least "Castle Freak" had one redeeming quality in it: the amazing Jeffrey Combs who delivered a decent performance despite one of the worst plots I've ever seen in my life (excluding the attempted one in "Lost Highway").

Even now, as an adult, I still enjoy "Super Mario Brothers". The reason why I think it wasn't received well with viewers was because they expected it to be much more similar the video games, but I personally believe it's admirable the way it is. The acting is marvelous (especially Dennis Hopper), the set designs are amazing (the dark Dinohatten city was very atmospheric), and it succeeds (and surpasses) what it was meant to do: present an action-packed (albeit humorous) adventure.

And to all of the disgruntled Mario fans out there that think the movie "could have been so much better than it was": you should just accept it for the engaging, whimsical, action-packed journey that it is.

My Rating: Nine stars out of ten.