Reviews

I liked "Hostel." In the same way that I enjoyed Hershell Gordon Lewis' "Gore-Gore Girls," and the 80s pop of Hall and Oates, "Hostel" carries in its bloody clutches a "guilty pleasure" endowment that's hardly mistakable.

That said, there also appears to be a duel train of thought, here, that was carelessly overlooked during the film's making.

The plot is pretty simple. Two college students take an uninhibited tour of Europe's dark under belly, relishing the purple haze of legal hash bars ... having ravishing sex with bosomy euro-chicks. Life's pretty good for these irreverent, if naive and unsophisticated hedonists. Then ... within a matter of minutes ... everything appears to go to hell. One of them finds his hands and feet bound by shackles, sitting almost naked in a dank room that is lavished with all manner of knives and power tools. The purpose of all this? Well ... it's sort of like the Playboy mansion for twisted millionaires ... a place where rich men (and maybe women ... I dunno) can exact all sorts of barbarous, sadistic torture on unwilling participants. And the question on everyone's minds? Can these kids escape this dungeon of carnal, bloody pleasures with their lives?

For a movie that spews rivers of blood, pulpy bone marrow, and mashed limbs ... on top of comely nudity and blistering sex, "Hostel" is pretty fun to watch. I found this movie to be deranged, vicious, and inappropriate in every conceivable way. Sure, I've seen gore in other films that might make "Hostel" seem like a Charlotte Bronte novel. But the vast majority of movie-goers simply don't watch those films ... and for a lot of younger kids who cut their teeth on "Scream" or the "I Know What You Did ..." movies ... the intensity of what they're watching, here, might appear some-what repulsive. (Actually ... I might clarify one thing ... "Hostel" isn't a horror movie ... it tries REALLY hard to be an exploitation shock-fest ... which is probably why Quentin Tarantino's name is in the credits.)

Gore, for the sake of gore alone, I'm totally cool with. Gore, to me, does not enhance the "scare factor" of a movie, though. And if Eli Roth, who helmed this picture, wants to be a maestro of thrills and chills, he'd do much better studying the beguiling atmosphere of Roman Polanksi, or even that of Alfred Hitchcock.

The point that Roth was obviously trying to communicate is that violence, under the guise of entertainment is ... um ... well ... BAD. Okay. However, he relays his message through a camera lens engulfed in thick, syrupy sadism. He's not trying to disappoint America's fixation with violence ... Roth is exciting us with all of this bloody madness. I don't think I'm being far-fetched when I write that Roth WANTS us to watch "Hostel" ... over and over again. And because of this, his commentary (already simple and overcooked) is therefore moot.

But who cares? If you're watching "Hostel," hoping to view a portrait of man's inhumanity to man, you've wasted your money. As a guilty pleasure, "Hostel" hits all the essential bases, man. Actually ... guys like Eli Roth might well be the last bastion of filmmakers who dare to push the proverbial decency envelope. As meaningless as their work might be, you also have to love them for their irreverence for our sensibilities. Guys like Lucio Fulci and Jess Franco were men who swiped the rug from underneath their audience, and made them feel uncomfortable. Roth may eventually clamor among their ranks.

First, let me state that I'm a pretty devoted follower of the Punisher comic, produced by Marvel. His character, having been resurrected from the bowels of one or two-shot guest-star roles in comics such as "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "Daredevil" was given a title all his own, magnificently penned and drawn by Steve Grant and Mike Zeck, respectively. Through the years, the Punisher has experienced a proverbial roller-coaster of ups and downs. In the last five or six years, writer Garth Ennis completely reinvented the Frank Castle/Punisher comic, adding layers of depth (not to mention superb storytelling) to a character that was beginning to wither away inside the Marvel Comic universe.

I say all this because it is the Garth Ennis reinterpretation of the Punisher that this film, "The Punisher" is primarily reefed upon.

Or ... well, sort of.

Like any comic book movie that's being produced nowadays, we're shown in this film a detailed (and somewhat graphic) depiction of Frank Castle's (Thomas Jane) metamorphosis into the Punisher. We watch as his entire family is massacred ... we stand by as his depression and grief evolves into bitter hatred. We see him cleverly unravel a well-organized mafia, strand by strand. We hear as he explains his actions ... that he is not exacting vengeance upon those who wronged him ... rather, he is pronouncing grave punishment.

I love this character to death. And I think, for the most part, "The Punisher" characterizes the strengths of his original comic book design. He's intense, clever ... but far from a superhero.

So why, then, is the end result so utterly prosaic in its telling?

To Thomas Jane's credit, I think he does his dead-level best at what he's given to work with. For my money, I'm betting it's the indifference of actors like John Travolta, who carries his role as the mafia boss too underhandedly. It's not that I don't like Travolta ... it's just that he doesn't really move me when he's playing a sinister heavy. It's just not in him, I'm afraid. Smaller, independent productions, such as "White Man's Burden" suit him rather well. But with each of those, we're also forced to contend with movies like "Broken Arrow," and "Swordfish," where Travolta is seen as some kind of criminal mastermind.

As a fan of the Punisher comic, I wasn't at all thrilled with the liberties filmmaker Jonathan Hensleigh took with his origins ... or his setting. From what I've taken away from interviews that I have read, Tampa, Florida was used (instead of New York City) because of budget restrictions. This is hardly fair. Would Sam Raimi have made "Spider-Man" if he were forced to film in a city, other than the Big Apple? Of course not. I know that the Punisher character is pretty far removed from Spider-Man in terms of popularity, but come on!!

It would be easier if I just summed this film up as, well, boring. Formulaic to the core. I had a lot of fun watching it ... but something much better could have been made, given the correct script and a trifle more creativity behind the camera. Thomas Jane did a bang-up job playing the tortured Punisher ... he's a decent actor who mined some rich, greasy ore from the character. The Punisher isn't really a "superhero" at all ... he's a vigilante who fights on the side of good ... but does so by breaking the law. (Anyone interested in the basic physics of his character should scour their nearest flea market for copies of Don Pellington's original pulp series, The Executioner.)

You know, I'm looking forward to seeing a sequel ... with a bigger budget, and hopefully in a setting OTHER than Tampa. But we've all seen this action-genre film dozens of times before. There's no escaping that, I'm afraid.

By the way ... As a fan-boy, I'd really love to see the Punisher's classic villain, Jigsaw, as a possible character in the sequel. And if Marvel Films cares enough about this franchise, I believe they'd hire Garth Ennis to pen the script. He's given the Punisher a thrilling new life on the page. No reason he couldn't do it all over again, with a palette the size of a Hollywood movie.

For me, Universal's 1934 film, "The Black Cat," starring big-screen titans Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, totally personifies what an effective horror movie is supposed to be. Though we're led to believe that it is inspired by Edgar Allen Poe's fictional story, there's really nothing to relate to it at all, except of course for a black cat that occasionally appears on screen.

Co-written and directed by poverty-row filmmaker genius, Edgar G. Ulmer, what we're presented with is a macabre tale of revenge, human sacrifice, vivisection, and outright satanism. By 1934's standards, it's really a miracle that this film was even made.

Lugosi stars as Dr. Vitus Werdegast, who travels to the home of an well-know acquaintance, Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff), who has built his art-deco dwelling on top of what was a particularly gory battleground. Along with Werdegast are two blissfully innocent American travelers who were the victims of a near-fatal car accident. They seek shelter inside Poelzig's home until the morning. But there's something slightly amiss within these walls. Perhaps it is the appearance of Werdegast's long-dead daughter. Or maybe it's the chants of the well-dressed satanist disciples, who downstairs take part in some sort of black mass ritual.

Everything about this movie should induce cold sweats and elevated heartbeats. Ulmer (who also helmed the noir classic, "Detour) makes perfect use of some artfully decorated sets and modest lighting schemes to establish a genuinely creepy atmosphere. Down to its core, that's what throws "The Black Cat" over the top. For an hour and a few minutes, we're thrust into this pitch black world that is immediately threatening. Though I'm in total love with Universal's more classic monster movies, like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein," they're over-hyped to such an extreme that it's difficult to glean any kind foreboding atmosphere. "The Black Cat," though it brought in truckloads of cash for Universal, is relatively unknown by most standards today. The casual horror movie fan that subsists on the "Saw" and "Scream" movies probably isn't aware of "The Black Cat." That's a low-down, dirty shame, too. Though I doubt I'll make any new friends by saying this ... I believe "The Black Cat" to be infinitely superior to the classic Universal monster iconography. Lugosi, I think, had a difficult time shaking off his over-exaggerated stage presence ... but he's still Lugosi. I'm convinced that he was born to play these kinds of roles. As for Boris Karloff ... I don't know what to tell you. He was frightening as Frankenstein's monster ... but here, sans pasty movie make up, he's bone-chillingly gruesome. From the moment the camera reveals him in "The Black Cat," my heart rate did not settle or relax for an instant.

I think with a lot of older horror films, you hear this statement used ad nausim: "It isn't what you see ... it's what you DON'T see." It's a pretty tepid statement ... we all know this to be true, usually. But in "The Black Cat," it takes on an entirely new meaning. Though I'd love to go into detail about this, I'd hate to ruin the surprise for anyone. Needless to say, what you do not see is very, very disturbing. In fact, you'll probably swear that you DID see it.

Thankfully, someone at Universal Studios had the bright idea of releasing this visionary film on DVD. It's sandwiched in between a few other Lugosi-Karloff team-ups that are fairly worthwhile, also. One can only hope that a generation of popcorn-eating, Red Bull-swilling teenagers will somehow discover this film and unearth an entirely new dimension of horror that they never even imagined existed. It's true, anyone on a quest for spurting gore and/or outrageous nudity will walk away feeling pretty cheated. There's none of that, here. But it's okay. That sort of excess has no home in this kind of horror film. What we get in "The Black Cat" is the very essence of horror. A movie, much like Hitchcock's "Psycho," that blankets us in an appropriately sinister atmosphere. The rest should come only naturally.

"The Black Cat" deserves to be watched again and again. It deserves study ... not only by the casual viewer, but most assuredly by a modern generation of filmmakers.

As a footnote, this film has no connection whatsoever to Universal's 1941 comedy-horror film, "The Black Cat," other than its star, Lugosi. Basil Rathbone and Lugosi give fine performances, but one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I think that Richard Maltin nailed when he said that "Dark Passage" is not a great film, but it IS a very good one.

It's actually a bit of a shock that this film survived Jack Warner's watch-dogs. I mean ... come on! A Humphrey Bogart picture where we don't even get to see his face until the last 40 minutes? Did someone fall asleep during the script approval process, here?

Despite all of this, "Dark Passage" is a very decent Warner film noir ... with roots firmly embedded in the pulp fiction universe (Delmer Daves' screenplay was adapted from Dave Goodis' pulp novel). Plus, we get to see "That man" Bogart, and "that woman" Lauren Bacall, "together again." More than any other film that I've seen her in, "Dark Passage" features Bacall at her most charming best. And last but not least, as the audience, we're treated to what was considered a fairly revolutionary camera trick: first-person perspective, thanks to the invention of a new hand-held camera. Compounded by some really awesome San Francisco locations, there's really nothing that keeps our minds from wandering during this picture.

The story is: Vincent Parry (Bogart) is an escaped convict, fleeing from San Quinton when we first meet him. After he knocks out a motorist and steals his clothes, Irene Jansen (Bacall) drives him into San Francisco ... where she obliges him with an expensive set of clothes and a thousand bucks. From there, he pays a plastic surgeon a 2 a.m. visit for a face lift. After some pretty nifty scalpel moves and a surreal dream sequence, Parry awakes with his head and face covered in bandages. Somewhere along the way, Parry's best friend is killed and the fore-mentioned motorist decides to extort Jansen, through Parry, for a couple hundred thousand dollars. In addition, Parry's old flame (consummately played by Agnes Moorehead), who sent him up years prior on a murder rap, has begun to cause trouble for Parry and Jansen. At the end of "Dark Passage," we're led to believe that things are going to end on a rather bleak note, but ... as in all good noirs ... things never are as they appear.

I'll skip my comments on Bogart, simply because he's a hard act to top. What could be said about this man that's not already been famously stated a thousand times before? Even when we can't see his face ... when we have to rely on the sound of his voice ... Bogart dominates just about every facet of this picture. So much so that I started to feel a knot in my stomach when I fell in love with Lauren Bacall all over again. Had Bogart caught wind of this, I was kind of worried he might have stepped out of my television screen and roughed me over once or twice.

But in all ... I think my favorite part of "Dark Passage" is the precise characteristic that most loathe about it: the absence of Bogart's physical presence throughout most the film. I'd really like to think that Delmer Daves was, rather sadistically, poking and jibing at us in forcing us us wait for "that man" to finally make his full appearance on screen. If that really was the case, then congratulations, Mr. Daves. More than any other actor that I can think of, Humphrey Bogart is a man who is well worth waiting for. I think this carved out a great new dimension to the film. Had it not been included, I'm afraid "Dark Passage" might have only be remembered as being, well, just another trifling all-star thriller.

To me, "Dark Passage" is very entertaining because of its noir value. There's a lot better out there, lurking in the proverbial shadows. But why complain about it? We're presented with some extremely talented actors ... and given a dark, creative perspective on the genre.

If you get a chance, check this film out, along with "Dead Reckoning," starring Bogart and the sultry Lizabeth Scott. It's another staple noir film that is visually stunning ... with characters that burn right off the screen.

You know, I don't necessarily like being told something is a "classic" until I finally see it for myself and judge it on its merits. I don't want to base my opinion on what some swarthy critic condescendingly tells me what makes the film so great, worthwhile ... classic. So, while I was watching "Shadow Of A Doubt," I really tried to retain that in the back of my mind.

First of all ... I think "Shadow Of A Doubt" IS a classic. Alfred Hitchcock's name-sake alone makes this film worthwhile. Maybe I am channeling more than just a few critics, here, but even Hitchcock's lesser films have flourishes of masterful cinematic technique. "Shadow Of A Doubt" is certainly NOT one of those films, however. There's more than enough, here, to place it on the same shelf as "Rear Window," and "The 39 Steps." Here, in his first American film, Hitchcock whittles out an excellent story of deceit, suspicion, and outright terror. One that plunges us, the viewer, deep into its guts.

Joseph Cotton plays Charlie, a man whose mysterious criminal past prompts him to flee for California, where his sister, nieces and nephews reside. As he arrives, his niece Charlie (Teresa Wright) greets him with love and more than just a little hero-worship. And yet, after a firm warning from a police investigator, she begins to suspect that her uncle may, in fact, be a vicious killer who has sought asylum in her mother's home. As the tension slowly rises, Charlie's mistrust gives way to bone-chilling terror. And we, as the audience, question everything that we/she sees until the surprising finale.

You know ... my only real complaint about "Shadow Of A Doubt" is its dawdling pace. Hitchcock takes WAY too much time establishing each character. He's a master filmmaker, but the suspense really didn't add up until well after the mid-way point of the movie. And while I enjoyed the development and the fine writing, some of it becomes moot at the very end.

But ... lingering for the climax was well worth the admission price. Besides, Joesph Cotton is pure gold, here. When, at the dinner table, he begins a sort of silent but deadly tirade about widowed women, frivolously squandering their husbands' money, Hitchcock's camera reluctantly pushing in to Cotton's face.

"Are they human or are they fat, wheezing animals, hmm," asks Cotton. "And what happens to animals when they get too fat and too old?"

I don't know where this seething hatred originates ... but it's enough to evoke a nightmare or two. Cotton does it quite well. He knows how to dominate the screen without appearing to even try. He's strikingly handsome, but not pretty enough to be your average dispassionate Hollywood heart-throb. He had the look of an everyman, who only happened to know are really great tailor.

I think that "Shadow Of A Doubt" indeed is a classic. It's slow to start ... but it finishes very well, under Hitchcock's knowing eye. Also ... check out Joseph Cotton in one of my favorites, "The Third Man."

Somewhere in the dark recesses of over-fluffed and processed Stephen King movie adaptations, there lies this jewel of a film: "The Dark Half."

After having it watched it about three times, I'm still quite at a loss as to why this movie has been, more or less, forgotten or simply passed over by the horror movie community. Not only is it a fairly neat adaptation of a great King novel, but it's also directed and written by a true horror movie icon: the one and only George Romero. Isn't this the kind of "team-up" that fans would, under normal circumstances, go absolutely bananas over? I know that I did.

Anyway ... the movie is about a writer, Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton), whose past - quite literally - comes back to haunt him. As a young man, he wrote pulpy crime novels (that I can only imagine were directly inspired by Richard Stark's hardboiled, master thief, Parker) that sold well ... though his literary yearnings tended to veer toward a much less marketable direction. We learn that when he was writing those pulps, his personality suffered. He drank, yelled at his wife, probably slept around, too. Having successfully exorcised that particular demon, when we meet him, Beaumont has a couple kids and an office at some New England university, teaching - you guessed it - creative writing. But when the bodies of folks close to him (i.e.: his agent, biographer) begin cropping up, the small-town police fun finger is pointed at Beaumont. But ... there's a much more sinister twist in this jet-black yarn. We learn that Beaumont indeed has a "dark half."

The direction is perfect, the writing is perfect, the acting is perfect. What more do you want in a film? I'm not exactly certain what King's response was to this film ... I've heard rumors that if he's not directly involved in the production process, he generally scoffs at the final film product. (For example ... he's all but urinated on all the goodness that was Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining," which not only marked a substantial turning point in horror cinema, but it's also one of my personal favorites.) Then again ... from what I understand to be true of King and Romero both ... they're friends. Hell, they made "Creepshow" together ... which is another favorite of mine, though I'm more than just a little bit guilty about it.

"The Dark Half" also does one hell of a job at creating a genuinely creepy atmosphere. And who could listen to "Are You Lonesome Tonight" again the same way ... after hearing its soft melodies during a particularly uncomfortable dream sequence?

All of this, compounded with the fact that Timothy Hutton is a damned fine actor (albeit sinfully unknown by most these days) ... makes "The Dark Half" an explosively well made horror/thriller. The proverbial mind meld of King and Romero made "Creepshow" an instant cult classic. So, I ask again ... why was "The Dark Half" a blink-or-you'll-miss-it flop? Maybe these horror titans just can't share the same marquee, anymore.

I dunno.

Paul Henreid and Joan Bennett star in "The Scar," otherwise known as "Hollow Triumph."

As a film noir, "The Scar" works on several different levels. And even though a major plot point in the story stretches the realm of possibility a bit too far, this forgotten little film deserves a better fate than its present public-domain, bargain bin video status.

The plot revolves around John Muller (Henreid), who organizes a major casino heist with a few of his pals. When the sting is botched, Muller runs as far away as he can with his ill-gotten gains. The casino's owner, a gangster (who bears an interesting likeness to Richard Conte) isn't planning on taking this robbery on his back. He dispatches two of his more intimidating thugs to locate him and ... well ... retrieve the stolen money. "Even if it takes you 20 years," he demands. In a desperate attempt to conceal himself from the vengeful clutches of the fore-mentioned gangster, Muller engineers a plan to impersonate a psychologist who, as it turns out, is a carbon-copy lookalike of himself. The only difference between the two is a rigid scar that outlines his left cheek. Can Muller find it within himself to kill the psychologist and begin living a double life? Will the gangsters guns find him first?

I have to admit, with the exception of a couple of protracted scenes, "The Scar" truly is a first-rate thriller. Steve Sekely directs, punctuating just about every scene with classic film noir iconography. Daniel Fuchs' script is also top-notch ... which may have served as a primer for his next project ... the indelible "Criss Cross" for Universal. (He also penned "Panic in the Streets," another great, oft-overlooked film noir starring Richard Widmark.) Joan Bennett's performance comes off as a trifle pallid ... but then again, this was Henreid's picture from the get-go. He commands every scene that he appears in with suave acumen, something that I missed from his performance in the overrated "Casablanca." I'll be the first to admit that I've not seen many of his other pictures. But Henreid really won me over with this film ... he deserves a far better acknowledgement than only as "the other guy" of "Casablanca."

More than anything, I think "The Scar" (or "Hollow Triumph" ... whatever) is a classic example of just how absent-minded popular culture really is. More than ever, movie-goers expect a film that is saturated in bloody action, quick-cuts, and talentless actors. There's not a lot going for movies, today. And thankfully ... most of what's out there will have been long-forgotten by the popular culture consciousness in a few years. I think that modern pop culture has unfairly labeled film noir as being movies lavished with shadows, dames and guns. And while all of these are inherent to the genre, they forget the cold, black heart that beats beneath its surface. "The Scar" thrives on this kind of energy. It's a classic example of what made film noir great ... and why we'll never see anything like it ever again.

Though I'm not sure that it's a concerted effort, Hollywood and independent movies these days seem to stand on opposite sides of a very tall and rickety fence: a movie is either entertaining, accompanied with all the traditional bells and whistles that is glorified eye candy. OR ... a movie is the celluloid parallel to watching a brick wall ... or maybe the grass growing. Characters contain lush, exuberant depth, but they're spiritless talking heads ... usually miscarried David Mamet rip-offs.

So what an uplifting feeling to have just finished watching "Collateral," Michael Mann's most recent film. As the audience, we get chills, spills and an outpouring of thrills. There's an interesting, well-developed script ... the razor-sharp timing of veteran director Mann ... and the facile performances of Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. Perhaps there's more to be asked for in a movie, but I can't think of what that might be. "Collateral" is easily one the better recent movies on the market ... and I'll attempt to explain why that is.

But first ...

Max (Foxx) is a L.A. cabbie that has a debilitated mother in the hospital ... and futile dreams of owning a limo service. Vincent (Cruise) is a nefarious contract killer, assigned to dispatch five essential prosecution witnesses in a mafioso's trial. Their meeting inside the cab is at first banal, with the garden variety "where are you from" and "how long are you in town" dialog. Vincent divulges that he has to make a few stops during the night until his plane leaves at 6 a.m. He bribes Max to drive him around ... offering $600 for his services. During Vincent's first stop, however, a body falls onto the top of Max's cab. Max panics and Vincent unsheathes a gun ... acknowledging that he's not in town on business, but kills for a living. The movie details the events of their evening together. Max slow burns through panic, which leads to utter confusion ... into stark terror.

First, it has to be said that Tom Cruise truly is an excellent actor. Despite what some may think of him, Cruise has a talent that far exceeds the mainstream Hollywood fare. Not only that, there's a certain genuine gratitude he carries when not in a film. He is respectful of critics and generous to his fans. Yes, he has appeared in several movies that I've despised for good reason ... but never because of him, personally. In "Collateral," we get Cruise as an impersonal killer. His performance is like a meat clever thrust in a block of ice ... it's a Cruise we've never seen before.

Though I'm not as familiar with Jamie Foxx ... he has finally been given a role where his aptitudes have surfaced. He doesn't put on airs in front of the camera. Nor is he afraid to react with the frailty of a human being to freakishly bizarre circumstances. His paranoia appears real to us. He doesn't succumb to the "geek turned hero" pratfall, either. Foxx is real ... and I sincerely hope that he's given more chances to display his range as an actor.

And then there's Michael Mann ... a true god among directors. Tell me, folks ... through his entire filmography, has there ever been a BAD Michael Mann movie? I certainly can't think of one. He's given us "Thief," "Manhunter," "Miami Vice," "Heat" and "The Insider." Rather than the brassy computer generated theatrics of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, Mann knows how to spin a hearty yarn hinged on solid direction and storytelling. He relies on character development. Computer effects just aren't needed in Mann's universe. In "Collateral," he takes what was probably a decent script and carves out a complicated, yet masterful thriller. And I sincerely doubt I'd be writing this review now if the script had been in the hands of a lesser person.

In an interview with Cruise I read in a newspaper, he briefly hinted that Mann had written complex exposition regarding Vincent's character ... details about his life that are never revealed to us. My fanboy sensibilities are screaming for a prequel, based on the material Mann wrote for Cruise. Or ... at the very least ... a published version of Vincent's story.

Maybe not. Either way ... "Collateral" is a movie to be watched and rewatched. There's a great deal going on within the frame with just enough concentrated substance that ... like it or not ... leaves style as only a superfluous extra.

If nothing else, Robert Rodriguez is probably one of the most unpredictable filmmakers of this era. The explosive, hardhitting action of "El Mariachi" and "From Dusk Till Dawn" sharply contrast with the bright and colorful "Spy Kids" trilogy. He's found his niche within the film-making community, yet continues to pull some unexpected rabbits out of his exceptional bag of tricks.

As a particular fan of the gritty, hard-boiled "film noir" genre, I was on pins and needles after watching the highly kinetic trailer for "Sin City," the newest entry in Rodriguez's canon. Filmed with high definition cameras and using ultra-expensive CGI in just about every shot, Rodriguez has successfully reinvented not only his own film-making style ... but he also trodden upon a new era in feature film history.

Blending three stories from Frank Miller's pulpy Sin City comic books, Rodriguez and an all-star cast lead us down inside the murky depths of human depravity ... where revenge and redemption are mostly synonymous. We're introduced to Marv, a brutal ex-convict who's found a new lease on life: avenging the murder of a very beautiful, but dead hooker that showed him a modicum of kindness. Marv twists, gouges and impales the truth out of anyone remotely connected to her.

We meet Dwight and a legion of gun-wielding prostitutes ... all of whom act as judge, jury and executioners of "Old Town," a part of Sin City with the kind of brutal lawlessness not seen since the days of the American Frontier.

Finally we're treated to the story of Hartigan, a cop out to prove to himself that his life has some glimmer of value. He protects a girl from the gnarled clutches of a pedophile whose appearance could have been lifted straight off of Chester Gould's Dick Tracy rouges gallery.

I wasn't trendy enough to have read the Frank Miller books when they first premiered, but I've since checked a couple of them out from my local public library and found them quite refreshing. Rodriguez, who is apparently a fervent fanatic of Miller's material, deviates not one inch from these books. The writing, direction and acting were spot on, which has doubtless thrilled a legion of fans.

What I loved the most about "Sin City" was its respect for the history of pulp novels and the dark, gritty film noir of the 1940s and 50s. If pulp-masters Dashiell Hammet and Mickey Spillane were still writing fiction today, their work would doubtless resemble the desperate, beguiling atmosphere Rodriguez creates for us in this film. During some moments, I felt that the actual city is not just a setting, but a state of mind that crashes and burns through the screen. It was impressive and I was left hungry for more. Several scenes reminded me of the covers of old pulp magazines like "Black Mask" and "Weird Stories."

I was also reminded several times of John Boorman's neo-noir film, "Point Blank." Starring Lee Marvin and Angie Dickenson, "Point Blank" is about a hard-boiled thief cheated out of his cut from a heist. The story of the cold-blooded revenge he inflicts on those responsible could have seamlessly been incorporated in "Sin City." One has to wonder if Miller drew any inspiration from the film (or the books in which it was based on by Richard Stark AKA Donald Westlake) when writing and drawing Sin City.

Though I wouldn't venture to call "Sin City" brilliant, there are tiny flourishes of brilliance throughout that will invariably leave deep teeth marks all over popular culture for several years to come. I'd love to see a sequel to this film, as there are several stories from Miller's book that would make beautiful translation into film.

I must say, I was a bit surprised after viewing "Invisible Ghost." It

could have been because of Bela Lugosi's sympathetic portrayal

of Charles Kessler, a warm and kind-hearted man, deeply

troubled by his wife's absence. Or ... it could have been Clarence

Muse, playing the black butler sans the usual comic relief.

Whichever way you look at it, "Invisible Ghost" is certainly worthy of

note. Too bad one has to rummage through so many bad movies

to locate the few really good ones. Here we have the late, great

Bela Lugosi, looking better than ever. His portrayal of a sympatheic

man under the control of powers beyond his comprehension is

somewhat of a diversion from previous characters. He's not

sucking the blood of beautiful ingenues. Nope. He's on a murder

rampage, suffocating his victims with a ... bedroom robe?

Okay ... a little quirky. What did you expect? Shakespeare?

What's impressive here is Mr. Lugosi's enormous acting talent.

Lugosi could express more emotion through a simple facial

expression than most actors could through an entire monologue.

He's an excellent example of a talented man giving a performance

greater than the movie itself deserves. No make-up effect or

computer generated effect could ever reproduce this. To this, I hold

Mr. Lugosi up next to Vincent Price ... as a man whose talents

barely reached the public surface. If only he were alive today and

making movies. No doubt he would have been treated with a great

deal more respect and admiration.

And so ... "Invisible Ghost" is a very good movie to enjoy. I was

lucky enough to purchase this along with seven other Lugosi films

in AMC's Monsterfest DVD collection. Pick it up if you get a chance.

It includes movies like "The Human Monster" and the amazing

"White Zombie." While some of these films were hits and others

were misses ... all feature the extraordinary presence of Bela

Lugosi ... certainly one of our greatest actors.

I'm not sure I understand the hatred for this movie, the sixth

installment of the Hellraiser film series. The negative online

reviews I've read don't shed much light as to why they disliked this

movie. At a guess, I'd say it's because Clive Barker has pretty

much detached his name from the franchise. After watching some

of the recent sequals (ex: "Bloodlines" and "Inferno"), it isn't hard to

figure out why he'd wish to distance himself. "Hellseeker" on the

other hand, while being far from perfect, took the essence of

Barker's original story and began to tread new ground. At the very

least, it was a far cry from "Hell On Earth," where Pinhead was no

longer an indifferent presence, but a malevolent participant.

Like all the other horror movie "monsters" emerging from the late

70s and 80s, I think Pinhead and the Hellraiser franchise has had

its day. There are bigger, better ideas to explore. Most of the newer

horror films out there are formulaic, and leaves the viewer bereft of

any sympathy for the characters. Hellraiser was interesting,

because there was no formula to the story. And at a guess, it

opened up the eyes of many closeted S&M fetishests. Pleasures

and torments of the flesh and mind. It has a sort of grotesque/horrifying beauty to it.

Anyhow, the flood gates opened a long time ago. S&M has a very

open following, leaving the horrors of Hellraiser flat and under

nourished. The essence of Hellraiser has lost its sting, which is

why I believe "Hellseeker" to be a worthy final chapter in the series.

Of the myriad sequals that followed "Hellraiser," this movie seems

to care enough about the characters to solidify itself as one of the

better films from the series. And with the appearence of Ashley

Lawerence, "Hellseeker" also radiates a full-circle aura.

And so...for "Hellraiser" completists, this is the film for you. For

casual fans like myself, it's a good movie to have on the shelf next

to "Hellraiser" and the first sequal, "Hellbound."

I had kind of hoped for some kind of crazy, corny plot when I

watched "Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter." The title

suggests a comedy. I mean ... come on! Jesse James is going to

do battle with one of Frankenstein's relatives? The situation begs

for the most far-fetched, outlandish comedy possible. It would be

like a death match between chief Red Cloud and Dracula.

However, what we get here is a cheaply produced film that takes

itself WAY too seriously. And because of that, one might be able to

glean one or two giggles from its idiocy ... but not much else.

The story? Two of the late-Dr. Frankenstein's grandchildren have

moved to the "old west" in the United States and plan to continue

their grandfather's experiments. The splintered plot then segues to

the famous outlaw Jesse James' (John Lupton) flight away from

headhunting officials. After a botched stagecoach robbery wounds

James' companion, they seek shelter with a traveling Mexican

family. The lovely Juanita (Estelita Rodriguez) helps the two

criminals to an old mission building now the residence of

Frankenstein's grandchildren.

I won't write anymore so the plot won't be divulged (though you

can probably guess where it goes from there). Again, I have to say

how ridiculous this film looks, sounds, and feels. Director William

Beaudine, who helmed a tremendous lot of 50s and 60s B

movies, went a few steps too far with this film. The action is slow,

dialogue flat, and the acting is horrible. What could have been

some really great comedy was sacrificed for an attempt at

dramatic narrative.

So ... overall ... avoid this one. If you're looking for camp value, I

suggest you watch "Lady Frankenstein," starring the late, great

Joseph Cotten and the lovely Rosalba Neri (otherwise known as

Sara Bay). It ain't Shakespeare, but it's a fun ride nonetheless.

"That Thing You Do!" is a perfect film about a group of guys in the mid-1960's inspired by Thelonius Monk-type jazz and Beatles-esque pop music. With one hit single, they are catapulted to clean-shaven, teen idol stardom. The band "The Wonders" could easily have been the 60's pop group "The Turtles" or "The Beau Brummels." The film's plot is fairly simple, yet it doesn't veer off into the typical VH1 Behind The Music avenue of excessive sex and drugs. Matter of fact, they aren't even mentioned. Written, directed and starring Tom Hanks, "That Thing You Do!" is honest and easily palitable for younger audiences. It rarely strays away from its theme: The climax and downward slope of musical fame. Viewers can also appreciate several 60's pop culture bones, thrown by Hanks himself to a nostalgic audience of youngsters such as myself. Plot occassionally gives way to hype and music, but that's okay. I was sort of looking for that. I really appreciated the "The Wonders" drummer relationship to "Dell Paxton," a jazz musician that's obviously a Thelonius Monk reference. Check them out jamming together during the third act of the film. Now THAT'S what I call truly remarkable music. The song "that thing you do" could easily have been a number one single in 1965. It's a simple, hook-laden piece of popcorn that's catchy on a near paranormal level. It was written by members of the modern pop/rock group "Fountains of Wayne." One can only wish for more music such as this today. There's enough innocence in it to guarentee parents' wide-eyed approval ... and just a bit of angst to attract the attention of hormone-raging teenagers the world over. Definetly an excellent movie for your shelf ... right next to your DVD copies of "A Hard Day's Night" and "The Beatles Anthology." Also ... check out "The Beau Brummels." Rhino Records has issued a great best-of package. One has to wonder if Tom Hanks had them in mind while writing the script. They had a few hits, though none will be as remembered as the poppy "Laugh, Laugh." A true gem from 1960's rock 'n roll.

While I don't believe `28 Days Later' was the scariest, most

intense movie I've ever watched (as it was marketed), it does do

an effective job generating a threatening atmosphere.

I've read some reviews that debunk all the horror elements from

this movie, but I tend to disagree. `28 Days Later' is not just a

mere suspense thriller. There are pervasive science fiction and

horror movie elements spread throughout that cannot be denied.

I'd like to think of this movie as an amalgamation of the three,

making for a satisfying, albeit unoriginal movie.

There are obvious influences here. Most notably `The Last Man on

Earth,' (the often overlooked predecessor to `The Omega Man'),

and George Romero's `Day of the Dead.'

The premise involves a highly contagious virus called `rage' that is

willingly unleashed by a group of animal rights activists in London.

The infection generates paranoia and madness in its victims,

eradicating any and all `human' emotions. As I understood it,

these `infected' people only seek to kill or infect the otherwise

un-infected.

Anyway, a small group of survivors follow a strange radio signal

that promises `salvation' and a cure. What they discover is ... well,

the exact opposite of what they were hoping and looking for. I won't

give away any more elements of the plot so as not to spoil the

movie for anyone.

Director Danny Boyle, in my opinion, is a good director that's more

often than not saddled with mediocre scripts. His best work was

`Shallow Grave.' What is often considered his greatest work,

`Trainspotting,' was to me boring ... bereft of any likable

characters. With `28 Days Later,' Boyle tries to re-introduce a

popular genre to an audience weary of bad horror and thriller

movies. The result is a decent film ... but it's neither fresh nor

unconventional. (Though I did read that Boyle shot in a

high-definition digital format ... I suppose that's a trifle

unconventional.)

What I liked was Richard Matheson's iconoclast book, `I Am

Legend.' It was the basis for `The Last Man on Earth' and the ugly

`Omega Man.' In it, a man discovers that he is the only survivor of a

plague that's changed mankind into slow, unthinking vampires.

I would have liked to have seen something similar to that. A

faithful, modern interpretation of Matheson's novel would make for

an excellent horror movie if done correctly. I guess I was hoping for

something like that in `28 Days Later.'

Also ... and maybe this is just trifling, but I had kind of hoped to see

a couple flashback scenes where London's population began the

mass `exodus.' Sort of a frenzy scene in which general law and

order de-evolved into chaos. However, I understand that the film's

budget probably didn't allow for it.

While "The Stranger" isn't Welles' finest film, there are certainly

many elements within to make it memorable.

The story revolves around a War Crimes agent (Edward G.

Robinson) searching out the identity of a former Nazi responsible

for many of the atrocities committed during the holocaust (Orson

Welles). His investigation leads to a small town in Connecticut,

where he discovers a suspicious newlywed school teacher with

one identifying characteristic: An obsession with clocks. Much of

the movie is Robinson's struggle to uncover and prove Welles' true

identity, leading to an epic finale atop a clocktower.

"The Stranger" is based on previously published material, but

Welles goes a long way to make the movie his own. As a director,

Welles knew how to compose a shot, and "The Stranger" features

some great camera work. Particularly interesting to me was the

use of mirrors to convey Welles' dual role as respected teacher,

mentor and husband ... and as a Nazi executioner, and torturer.

Also in the plot there's an on-going checkers game between

Robinson and the owner of a local general store. During the final

act, Welles plays checkers all afternoon with this fellow to use as

an alibi. Though I can't say for sure, I'm going to assume that the

checkers games are symbolic of Robinson's pursuit of Welles.

Most consider Welles' first movie, "Citizen Kane" to be not only his

greatest achievement, but also one of the greatest American

movies ever to be made. I'll say nothing to refute that, but "Citizen

Kane" also led to Welles' undoing. Could he possibly ever top the

scale and brilliance of Kane?

It's hard to say. Personally, I enjoyed his adaptation of Kafka's "The

Trial," starring Anthony Perkins. In it, Welles attempts to fit in that

epic scale of "Citizen Kane" with Kafka's subversive plot and story

of a man standing accused for a crime he cannot comprehend. It's

Welles at his audacious best.

But I digress.

All in all, "The Stranger" is a great movie for a quiet evening spent

at home. As a double feature, try this movie along with "The Lady

From Shanghi," starring Welles and his ex-wife Rita Hayworth.

Another great film noir, though it suffers from extreme studio

editing.

Watching the trailer for this movie, I couldn't help but feel excited.

Look at all the swank 60's spy movie references!

Well ... this wasn't the movie I'd hoped for. I believe that "CQ" is Roman Coppola's (son of famous Francis Ford Coppola) first feature-length movie. And I suppose that all first-time directors flail and hick-up in their first (hell, even second and third) films.

But Coppola very blatantly tries to conceal all his director and writer disabilities by shrouding the film with 60's pop-culture trivia ... something that I'm sure his "hipster" handbook directed him to do.

The premise involves an American attempting to edit a ridiculously avant-gard sci-fi/spy Modesty Blaise-esque movie in Paris ... while in his personal time he whines and moans about how he isn't adept enough to sustain a meaningful relationship ... all this through the eyes of a camera. And whilst he records his day-to-day life on film ... he neglects his stunning french girlfriend.

So ... our young American in Paris ends up taking the reigns of the spy movie and plenty of hijinx ensue.

It isn't hard to predict how the movie will end. And if you wait around long enough and can somehow see past Coppola's bloated, pretentious and pedestrian writing and direction ... then you'll have earned a shining ticket to complain about how great this movie COULD have been.

And people wonder why nobody remembers (or wants to remember) this movie. Chalk it all up to the futile attempts of a son of a great director to become more than his father.

Remember ... even old Francis Ford had to LEARN filmmaking. Anyone ever see "Dementia 13?" It wasn't a HORRIBLE movie ... but then again ... it wasn't "Apocalypse Now," either.

Roman's sister, Sophia Coppola has done so interesting work. If anyone inherited Francis Ford's filmmaking genes ... my guess is that it's her. "The Virgin Suicides" is a really excellent movie. "Lost in Translation" wasn't bad either.

So ... Roman ... keep on making those music videos. Your video for "The Strokes" was painfully dull ... but it was a little easier for me to switch channels.

Okay. Let's see. How does one begin to critique "Belly?"

Well ... first off ...

Why is a Jamaican druglord, whose accent is so thick that it's practically incomprehensible ... why is this character given so much dialogue? Critical elements of the plot are given away through this guy ... and as a viewer, I could discern maybe two or three sentences. Tops. Perhaps he should have been given subtitles. Or maybe the DVD should have had a subtitle option. In any case ... after about five minutes of TRYING to understand what this guy was saying, I gave up.

Secondly ...

The character Nas portrays is supposed to have a sort of pseudo-street urbane sensibility. We get to listen to his character's thought process through several voice-overs, where apparently we learn that he's thoughtful and intelligent. But he isn't. His musings on life, the streets, and God are pedestrian and lackluster at best. I personally like Nas as a rapper ... he seems creative and new with every rhyme. But in "Belly," his character is a mere rehash of about a thousand other characters in gangster movies that wish for a better life.

And finally ...

Well, maybe I should have put this at the beginning ... but after the first hour of this film, I could have cared less what happened to any of the characters. Good or bad. Probably the one thing that held my attention throughout the movie was Hype Williams' direction. Sure he's a veteran hip-hop music video director. Some of the reviews I've read here cite Williams' background as an overall detriment to this movie. I don't see it that way. Some of the shot compositions in "Belly" are downright beautiful. Maybe there isn't a lot of substance to them, but it held my attention for a while.

Yeah ... but that's about this film's only saving grace. I like Nas. I like DMX. I like Method Man. But this movie is an utter waste of time. I've read some reviews that suggest repeated viewing of "Belly" will enhance my understanding of it.

Maybe so. But why bother? I didn't like it the first time ... and at a guess... I probably won't like it a second and third time either.

If you've never seen "Belly," don't make the same mistake that I did and purchase it from the bargain DVD rack at Wal-Mart. No matter how good it may look and/or how much time you think you have to kill ... I think it's safe to say that your money and time will be irretrievably wasted ... find something else to waste them on.

Actually, the soundtrack is pretty decent. Give that a shot.

I can't say that this film was any good. There isn't much to be said about the plot, acting, direction ... anything, really. I like Fred Williamson, but "Mean Johnny Barrows" certainly isn't the high water mark in his resume.

That being said ... the scene with Williamson and Elliott Gould was, I thought, really touching. Not necessarily in the context of the movie itself ... but I couldn't help but notice that probably 95% of that scene was improvised by both Williamson and Gould. As I understand it, both men became friends while filming Robert Altman's "M*A*S*H," and I suspect that Gould probably did the "Professor" role as a favor to his friend Williamson.

The scene is set in the first act of the movie and is relatively short ... I'd say about three or four minutes in length. It doesn't add any sort of perspective to the plot at all. It probably could have been cut from the film altogether, were it not for Elliott Gould's namesake.

Anyhow ... Gould's "Professor" character attempts to educate Williamson's "Barrows" on how a bum ought to live. The two find a clueless man ordering a hot dog and root beer from a street vendor. After a little smooth talking from Gould, he entices the "man with the popsicle shirt" to purchase "a couple dogs with some kraut" for he and Williamson. This scene is totally improvised by both men, leaving the other poor guy in stitches. And in the context of the movie, Williamson's "Barrows" would probably not be laughing it up and saying things like "shall we?" unless he was completely intoxicated or some other way out of his element. I suppose it was refreshing to see these two "old friends" having a good time NOT taking themselves or the scene too seriously.

It's probably pretty silly, but that scene really tickled me. I'm a huge admirer of Elliott Gould's earlier work, but until the moment I saw him on screen, I had no idea he was in this movie. It was a nice surprise. Made this movie a little more palatable. Though I suppose I've seen worse movies by comparison, I doubt that "Mean Johnny Barrows" is a feather in either Fred Williamson's or Elliott Gould's cap.

After seeing this movie for the first time a couple years ago, I can' help but be amazed by it. I remember reading Chandler's novel "The Long Goodbye," and I never actually thought it could be put to film. The story was so convoluted ... philosophical, even. Also I couldn't fathom gangly actor Elliott Gould playing Philip Marlowe, a character whom I've always associated with the late-great Humphrey Bogart. In my mind, "The Long Goodbye" is the best film adaptation of any Raymond Chandler novel. The essence of Marlowe's character has been preserved in Gould's performance. I read that Robert Altman's intention was that Marlowe had been comatose for many, many years. I think that shows very clearly in the movie. Marlowe sort of stumbles around, mumbling to himself all throughout. Beyond what I'm sure is the popular consensus, Gould's Marlowe isn't stupid, and the end very clearly illustrates this. Sterling Hayden's performance as Roger Wade is possibly brilliant. I couldn't imagine anyone else in that role. It's obvious that much of this movie was improvised, and Hayden adds so much depth to his character through impromptu, incomprehensible speeches. When we see him marching into the ocean, there's an almost harrowing quality to it. Last but certainly not least, Leigh Brackett's script was absolutely flawless. This lady has given us so much, and I'd hate to see her forgotten in the annals of filmmaking and crime/sci-fi fiction history. In my mind, her next best work was on the script from "Rio Bravo" ... another perfect work from a master storyteller. Lest we forget that she also wrote a draft of "The Big Sleep," the film that everyone remembers as one of Bogart's finest moments. I loved the soundtrack, too. Pity it can't be found anywhere. Johnny Mercer's vocals to the theme song could never be replicated. But I believe it's Elliott Gould that's the brightest star in this movie. He's everything that I used to believe Phillip Marlowe was not. But it works in a way that I really don't know how to explain. His recurring line "It's okay with me" typifies Marlowe's personality to the letter. Perhaps the reason this film never reached the critical and box-office acclaim that it deserved is because of ... well, people like me. Gould isn't Bogart, so why bother? And you know what? The entire movie is predicated on Gould being the anti-Bogart, if you will. If James Garner or Steve McQueen were cast, no one would remember this movie. I've found a respect for Gould that I never had before. After this, I wanted to see more of his earlier work. While everyone remembers "M*A*S*H," what about "Little Murders?" It comes on the Fox Movie Channel every once in a while, and it's certainly worthy of note. I wasn't alive when "Long Goodbye" was made, and it makes me nostalgic for the better, more creative days of Hollywood. Few really memorable movies are made today. Many of them are good, but ultimately forgettable. I wish I could have had that feeling of watching "The Long Goodbye" on the big screen. Doubtless I'd have been even more smitten than I am now. I suggest that you watch this movie along side "Five Easy Pieces" with Jack Nicholson and Karen Black. "Five Easy Pieces" is another film that sort of lingers in the shadows. Not forgotten, but not really appreciated either.