Reviews

Dog Soldiers is a fun little horror movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do. It borrows heavily from other films, but it is all done in such loving fashion that we forgive it as homage rather than theft. What it lacks in originality and plot it makes up for in energy and fun-factor. The story is this: a small group of British soldiers are on manoeuvres in the Scottish wilderness and get attacked by werewolves. That's essentially it. What follows is a fairly straightforward chase/barricade movie with a lupine twist. Think Night of the Living Dead with fleas. Some of the humour falls flat (one character seems to be written exclusively so that his name can be used for a rather lame pop-reference/one-liner) and a few of the story's contortions are poorly explained (Lon Chaney Jr. could jump through most of the plot holes, with room on both sides), but it's still a fun little flick with a shnazzy Brit feel. Best of all: the filmmakers understand that men in hairy costumes are more frightening when seen in heavy shadow and in fast cuts. Recommended for the horror fan with a spare bowl of popcorn.

7/10

In this sequel to Predator, a new alien hunter appears in the urban jungle of Los Angeles in the "future" of 1997. As a fan of John McTiernan's superior sci-fi thriller, Predator, I can enjoy the sequel on the level of more-of-a-good-thing. Unfortunately, it is not a particularly good film. Danny Glover does his best to be a tough, no-nonsense cop, but the role is written so poorly that it comes off as rather lame. The acting is, for the most part, very poor. Especially irritating are Morton Downey Jr. as a sleazy journalist and the usually solid Bill Paxton (playing his typical live-wire character, but here lacking the strong guiding hand of his best directing partner, James Cameron). On the plus side, Rubén Blades provides solid support as Glover's right hand man, Gary Busey is as good as ever, and Calvin Lockhart is brilliant in an all-too-brief part as Jamaican druglord King Willie. Director Stephen Hopkins infuses the film with style and good action, but the film lacks direction. It is also very dated, being an obvious product of 80s-90s transition period.

6/10 -- Good fun for fans of the original, but not likely to win over anyone else

John McTiernan's Predator is a slick, gory thriller with a strong villain and an effectively played hero. Dutch Schaeffer (Arnie) leads a team of elite commandos into the Central American jungle to rescue a cabinet minister. Before long, his team discovers that it is being hunted by a mysterious alien--a being that has travelled to this planet to kill for sport.

Pros: Gorgeous photography (helped in no small part by the beautiful Mexican locations); A brilliant creature design by Stan Winston; Nifty "cloak" effects; Thermo-vision; Tight, energetic direction by McTiernan; and a great score by the underrated Alan Silvestri.

Cons: Highly irritating, overly macho commandos, entirely too convinced of their own "bad-assness"; Poor dialogue; Merely average acting; Jesse Ventura; Jesse Ventura; Some dated effects; Jesse Ventura.

7/10 Good fun, but no match for the superior Alien series

With this brilliant film, Richard Donner proves that he is a director of tremendous skill and imagination. The entire production is handled with such care, and it is obvious in every frame. Every element of this film comes together to create a genuine classic. Superhero films are generally considered to be lesser products, aimed at a mass audience and devoid of much creativity. This is, of course, a terribly misguided generalization and if any film proves it, Superman does. The film takes its source material seriously, treating it (very rightly) as a grand modern myth. It is one of those rare "B-films" (like Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Star Wars) that dares to aim for A-film status, and it succeeds marvelously. John Williams' music is timeless. The groundbreaking special effects may be dated, but they impress to this day. The cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth is stunning. Superman is so richly infused with movie magic (an elusive, subjective term if ever there was one) that willing viewers cannot help but be swept up in its spell. Spiderman 2, while good fun, doesn't hold a candle to this movie.

10/10

One of the more impressive comic-to-film adaptations of the last few years. Del Toro's typically flawless visual style combined with large doses of humour and a brilliant performance by Ron Perlman make for a great time at the movies. Kroenen, the clockwork Nazi, is perhaps the most original (and memorable) sci-fi/fantasy villain since the T1000 oozed and stabbed his way into the collective consciousness back in 1991. Those who enjoyed Blade 2's visuals but found the gratuitous gore-fest a bit too much for their liking will probably enjoy Hellboy's dark but not graphic treatment. Hellboy's makeup deserves Oscar consideration, as does Guillermo Navarro's cinematography.

9/10 on the fun-at-the-movies scale.

Great entertainment!

Sure, Snake Plissken is a relic from the ultra-macho 80s action craze. Sure, Carpenter's use of effects is often obvious (though occasionally brilliant). Sure, the film is nothing but a slab of highly fragrant cheese, but it's FUN cheese. It's unapologetic cheese. It's the extra $1.50 of gooey, greasy, slimey mozza that you throw onto your 16" meat-lover's... sure, it's excessive--maybe even unhealthy--but it makes the pizza.

Escape From L.A. is pure, unabashed, old-fashioned fun. It's one of those movies that everyone claims they hate, but they really love in that deep place, way down in their mind, where belching contests are still fun. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than entertainment--and it's good entertainment at that. When I first saw the trailers for this film, I groaned. Kurt Russell's faux-Eastwood-does-pirate routine rubbed me the wrong way, and I was unfamiliar with John Carpenter's work. After having seen the original Escape, Halloween, The Fog, Vampires, The Thing and especially Big Trouble In Little China I know that Carpenter is interested in one thing: giving his audience an escape from reality, and this film is perfect for that. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief, but in to paraphrase Roger Ebert: Who can hate a film where Kurt Russell and a transsexual Pam Grier swoop from the sky in hang-gliders firing automatic weapons at an amusement park compound?

Add to the mix a delightful turn by Steve Buscemi and an amusing (albeit unrecognizable) cameo by Bruce "Don't Call Me Ash" Campbell, and you have a really fun, really dumb, really cool MOVIE!

Recommended for the 10 year old boy in all of us.

The Two Towers was a *good* movie. I say that to emphasize that it was not a *great* movie by any means. The Fellowship of the Ring was gorgeous, intelligent, well paced, and exciting. The Two Towers is less gorgeous, less intelligent (often embarrassingly scripted), horrendously paced, and it frequently drags. This is not to say it is a bad film, but it is hardly best picture material, and it is a good step down from Fellowship. Don't listen to the excessive praises or the excessive criticisms. The Two Towers is often beautiful, magical, and poetic. Unfortunately it is just as frequently dull, illogical, and full of clichés. Some of the effects are phenomenal, while some are borderline awful--the sort of thing one would see in a mid-eighties fantasy film. Especially bad were the scenes with Treebeard carrying the hobbits on his shoulder, with obvious green-screen backgrounds rolling by as the hobbits bobbed up and down in a way not at all like Treebeard's stride (which in itself was obviously an effect). But great films are not made of great effects, and the story comes first. While a great deal of the narrative problems can be attributed to the "middle chapter syndrome", still more are the result of poor scriptwriting and poo r direction. TTT seemed rushed, as though all the pieces for a great film were there, but they were assembled improperly. Conclusions were hurried, while some loose-ends were never tied up (and I'm not referring to events which will be resolved in the final chapter... I'm speaking on a smaller scale). I got the feeling that, in Fellowship, Jackson wanted to convince us of the reality of this world, while in TTT he assumed that he didn't have to. The whole Ring mythology didn't seem as gelled in this installment. It's an abstract complaint it's true, but I've been assured it's a valid one.

But don't let me discourage Ring lovers from seeing the film. If you liked Fellowship, you'll probably dig TTT. If you didn't, you won't be won over with this installment. It's good folks, but great it ain't.

7/10