Reviews by PvtCaboose91

For the ultimate paradigmatic definition of a cult classic horror movie, one should simply behold the unforgettable ultra-low-budget Sam Raimi flick The Evil Dead. Back in 1979, Raimi and a cheery gang of friends journeyed out into the woods of pastoral Tennessee with the objective in mind of making a movie. Raimi was a filmmaker who had previously directed low-budget short films that seldom received the attention they deserved. Those working on the movie had hoped for it to be shown in a few theatres at most...they certainly never anticipated the cult status it received.

Audiences very enthusiastically welcomed The Evil Dead and adored the distinct, unusual and impeccable blend of over-the-top comedy and gore.
This movie is overwhelmingly remarkable for a number of reasons. For starters, it marks the official feature film debut of director Sam Raimi. This film brought the director into the spotlight. Raimi went on to make The Quick and the Dead, A Simple Plan and the recent live-action Spider-Man films.
Secondly, actor Bruce Campbell became a star after starring as the film's main character. Campbell went on to become the B-movie king for a reason.
Thirdly, it's one of the only popular commercial films to earn the dreaded NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Raimi was not afraid to toss around copious amounts of blood.

The Evil Dead is a ludicrously gory, silly, absurd yet hilarious horror/comedy hybrid. It's so violent and gory, in fact, that it makes Arnie's 80s action flicks seem like a pleasant picnic. When you're not reaching for the vomit bucket due to the gore, there are many moments that create genuine, spine-tingling terror. All these merits apply, yet it was made on a shoestring budget of about $350,000. It was also made outside a studio system, allowing the filmmakers the freedom to do whatever they wished. The Blair Witch Project also followed this technique, although The Evil Dead surpasses that film by a country mile. The artistic merits of Blair Witch are quite doubtful, whereas The Evil Dead is a benchmark in its genre.

For those who have never encountered Raimi's classic flick, it is a film that horror buffs simply must check out at some stage. It has a simple, almost non-existent plot...but it's very suitable and predominantly influential.
It is a straightforward tale of five college friends who travel to an isolated, abandoned old wood cabin for a weekend getaway. Upon arrival, they're fairly discontented due to how run-down and ancient the structure is. Shortly after arriving, they discover a tape recording and a creepy old book. This book is known as the "Necronomicon", a.k.a. "The Book of the Dead". The recording warns the friends that reading the book could awaken evil Candarian demons. These spirits become awoken from their "ancient slumber" (as a demon so tenderly describes it), and begin possessing the friends one-by-one. Ash (Campbell) is a coward who can't help but watch as his friends are helplessly transformed into grotesque demons. The only way to kill a possessed victim is through the act of bodily dismemberment. As the night progresses, Ash's friends are turned into demonic Deadites (that is, zombies). Now it's up to Ash to survive the night and battle the Evil Dead.

In a nutshell: The Evil Dead is not for the squeamish or faint of heart. It warranted the NC-17 rating from the MPAA with good reasoning. Several sequences cross the line profoundly. The gore and violence is slow to begin, however for the final 40 minutes it's virtually non-stop. The fake blood nonchalantly covers every inch of the set, all the prosthetics, and even the costumes. At one stage Bruce Campbell's shirt was so soaked in blood (i.e. corn syrup and food colouring) that after dying it by the fire it solidified before crumbling into pieces when Campbell attempted to put it back on again! But fear not: everything looks very fake and it's the point! However, unlike the customary modern gore-fests such as Hostel, the film is so fantastic and it succeeds because of the extreme gore. Without it, we wouldn't love it as much. The ideal concoction of over-the-top gore, black humour, and the use of bizarre and eerie sound effects creates one of the most brutal yet entertaining horror movies ever made! It also gives new meaning to the word "gore". The make-up department efficiently use every cent of the budget to ensure the film is as gory as possible. By golly, their objective was completed!

The Evil Dead was never meant to be a masterpiece. In fact its modest aspirations are what make it a masterpiece. The opening shot is enough to inform the audience of its humble aspirations. For said opening shot the camera zooms through the forest floor. This shot is of course what the "evil" is seeing. The camera was attached to a plank of wood and carried across the forest floor to create the point-of-view shots for the demonic force. Throughout the rest of the film, Raimi injects marvellous energy into the straightforward plot. The claustrophobic set is used to his advantage as the audience feels trapped in a restricted space in an isolated setting. The film was shot on 16mm cameras, similar to Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The grainy film generates an incredibly effective atmosphere of dread, permeated with jump-out-of-your-seat shocks and laugh-out-loud moments. The exceptional music adds to this. The music is effective whenever it's utilised. The shaky handheld camera is employed very efficiently as well.

Despite being filmed on a minuscule budget, The Evil Dead convincingly surpasses all similar films. The unusual camera angles and masterful editing prove that it's by far and away ahead of its time. The infamous tree raping scene, during which roots and branches from a tree violate a woman, flaunts some highly impressive special effects despite the ultra low budget. This proves that Raimi is capable of pulling off impressive feats that would even prove difficult in a multi-million dollar movie. There are countless moments in the film that can frighten viewers. There are also moments that will repulse others. Raimi masterfully merges the ability to develop tension with moments of either horror or humour. In the long run, this sets The Evil Dead apart from any other film of its era and genre. The only film I've seen that matches the fun and shameless camp of the film is its own sequel-come-remake. It's been decades since the release of this film and its sequel, but not even modern filmmakers on a high budget can top it. It's outrageously stylish, enjoyably disgusting and just plain fun!

The Evil Dead is not for all tastes. Some will absolutely abhor it, others will love it for what it is. Director Sam Raimi has crafted a benchmark movie that added innovative elements of cinematic elegance and subtle humour to the pale horror genre. Raimi saw this genre as the easiest and quickest way into the industry. With visual classiness such as this being featured, any genre could have guaranteed the talented individual a lucrative Hollywood career. The Evil Dead is campy, silly and at times very laughable. It's shamelessly what the film aspired to be. It's also excruciatingly dated and awfully fake at times. Once again, it's exactly what the film wanted to be. The acting is second-rate at times as well. But this is a horror film made by precocious young people, some with very little experience in acting, so it can be overlooked.

This is a genre classic that deserves every accolade it has been handed. Sam Raimi's tribute to Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist, and tonnes of additional horror flicks is an example of the genre done correctly. The film has its tongue firmly in its cheek, it never takes itself seriously, and for the first time in years an audience could mix emphatic laughter with their screams. Watch it on its own terms, and you'll definitely enjoy it! Followed by a sequel/remake entitled Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.

Trivia fact: Joel Coen is credited as being an assistant editor. Yes, it's the same guy that went on to make Fargo and No Country for Old Men among others. Another trivia fact: actors Theresa Tilly and Richard DeManincor appeared under fake names as they were scared of what could happen to their career by starring in the film.

8.2/10

At first glance, 48 Hrs. probably appears somewhat outdated, relatively clichéd and more than a little familiar. However, when this film was originally released in 1982 it was an innovative proposition.

48 Hrs. fundamentally gave birth to two distinct genres that reigned supreme at the box office during the 1980s: the violent action comedy and the buddy cop genre. Walter Hill has crafted a slam-bang, highly entertaining romp that begat dozens of rip-offs, imitators and knock-offs...even if you don't count the sequel it also spawned. The buddy cop formula is still being used in contemporary Hollywood, such as in the Lethal Weapon franchise and the recent Rush Hour movies. The violent action comedy variety went on to produce the Beverly Hills Cop flicks (also starring Eddie Murphy). None have ever been more original, but some have been capable of equalling the mother that birthed them. 48 Hrs. is so influential because it's very enjoyable, effectively written, it moves at a swift pace and its main highlights include Eddie Murphy's witty trademark dialogue.

Director Hill is also recognised for directing The Warriors. Similar to that film, Hill's depiction of the grimy city streets at night is uncompromising. 48 Hrs. is probably the most violent comedy in cinematic history. It's filled with terrific gun battles, brutal bare-knuckle beatings, and it's topped off with Hill's proverbial signature.

Hard-nosed police officer Jack Cates (Nolte) is assigned to aid in the capture of two wanted fugitives. When the behaviour of these fugitives begins to accommodate cop killing, Jack grows desperate for these men to receive the justice they deserve. The trail runs cold, and it rapidly becomes clear that the only way to find these men is to recruit extra help. Enter cool, wisecracking Reggie Hammond (Murphy) who's serving a 3-year prison sentence for armed robbery. His prison sentence concludes in 6 months. Jack Cates is able to get Reggie released for 48 hours. For these 48 hours, Reggie is assigned to Jack in order to assist him in tracking down and apprehending the cop killers. The problem is that the two hate each other and have their own agenda. Jack wants to catch the culprits, whereas Reggie yearns for sex and the sweet taste of no-strings-attached freedom.

48 Hrs. encompasses a pretty uncomplicated creature for its plot. But when it comes to this genre, are you really searching for a complex and intricate narrative? The killers-on-the-lam plot is very clichéd, and it's been endlessly exercised. Even Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry features a conventional plot, yet it's a masterpiece of the action genre as it's utterly involving and badass. Dirty Harry aimed to introduce the world to an extremely badass character and his somewhat twisted moral system, and it succeeded. 48 Hrs. aims to supply some frenetic action scenes (of which there is plenty) with a satisfying dosage of drama and comedy to boot.

The film is additionally given a terrific soundtrack. Jazzy 80s tracks and dramatic music will dominate one's ears throughout. There are countless memorable scenes to witness in this classic flick. There's one scene in particular which has been praised to the skies and incessantly made out as absolutely impeccable. This mentioned scene is Eddie Murphy's Reggie entering a redneck bar. It's not quite as masterful as the boasting and accolades suggest, but it's memorable and witty. Another memorable scene includes a car chase with the cop killers being pursued by the protagonist. There's something irresistible about a bus and a busted-up Cadillac pursuing it. The final showdown is admirably unsentimental as Nolte's Jack isn't ready to negotiate: he's tired, annoyed and grumpy. He pulls out his gun and fires it without a second though. No time for chit-chat or sweet moments...he wants to put the case to bed. And I don't think I'm spoiling much (especially with the sequel featuring Murphy and Nolte) by saying that this objective is completed.

The volatile chemistry between Nolte and Murphy always lights up the screen with impeccable comedy in addition to suitable dramatic tension. Nolte is very credible as a cop who's been on the force for several years, is having lady trouble, and can't be bothered dealing with the antics of those around him.
Eddie Murphy is beguilingly charismatic as the other half of the black-white odd couple cop duo. This marked Murphy's first major performance in a movie. His introductory scene is particularly memorable: he's singing 'Roxanne' in a high-pitched voice while relaxing in his gaol cell.
The rest of the cast do what they need to do: there are the customary cops who forever screw up the plans of the good guys, the bad guys who are there to get killed and the love interests for the two respective protagonists. All are standard for the genre.

If one watches 48 Hrs. in this day and age, the film probably appears painfully predictable and clichéd, not to mention outdated. Like I said before, respect the film for its age. It was an original offering upon its initial release, and it you're not familiar with its endless impersonators it will still seem very refreshing. It's an awesome flick that supplies entertainment and fun aplenty. Not much in the way of a meaty plot, but it was made to supply laughs and action. It delivers in a very satisfying way!

7.8/10

The Lost Boys is a peculiar 1980s crossbreed featuring equal quantities of comedy and horror. The film was popular with audiences upon initial release in 1987, and years later it still wins the hearts of loyal fans and has amassed an extraordinary cult following. Looking at The Lost Boys now, though, there is little I can say in the film's favour. It's excruciatingly outdated, campy, B-grade, tacky, and the directing is occasionally quite botched. There are also inconsistencies and a failure to bestow a clear interpretation of vampire lore. To me, the film appears to alienate those with a scrupulous infatuation with vampires.

The lofty expectations promised an original film that hybridised comedy and horror. By 1987, slasher movies had certainly outstayed their welcome and there was very little "fresh blood" in the horror genre, so to speak. The early buzz of The Lost Boys pegged it as the proper antidote to inject life into the dormant horror genre. Moreover, the film also promised to reinvent the vampire flick for the MTV generation. But it failed. It may have been a moderate box office success and it did indeed get its fans, however the film was unable to crossover to the masses. It also falls into the dustbin of camp - it's too ludicrous to take seriously as a true vampire horror flick, but not funny enough to be a comedy. Certainly, The Lost Boys has its charms. It's stylish, enjoyable, atmospheric, has a rollicking soundtrack and the vampire image was influential for its subsequent imitators. Films such as Interview with a Vampire and TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer draw palpable influence from this flick. It's inane beyond belief and fell short of its expectations, but it's at least somewhat creative and fun. Nevertheless as a vampire flick it lacks bite.

The plot needs little recap, as the words "MTV vampires" pretty much sums everything up. In a few more words, the film basically tracks two teenagers who move to Santa Clara with their mother. Michael (Patric) and Sam (Haim) are unhappy with the prospect of moving to California and living with their daffy grandfather (Hughes). Little do the brothers realise that Santa Clara is infested with vampires.
The primary horde of vampires is led by David (Sutherland). Michael is quickly seduced by the irresistible charms of vampire babe Star (Gertz). Michael is lured to the main vampire lair, and David appears keen for him to join them. As Michael begins exhibiting vampiric behaviour, his brother Sam befriends two juvenile vampire hunters known as the Frog Brothers (Feldman and Newlander). This establishes a few character destined to clash together in a violent final showdown: the supernatural vs. the teenage species.

Unfortunately, The Lost Boys is less interesting than it sounds. The feeble frequent attempts at comedy fail quite spectacularly, while the presence of vampires never sends a chill down one's spine. Granted the film has a magnificently glossy and opulent visual look. Like I said before the film also provides some decent effortless entertainment, but not much more can be said in its favour.
The story of a teenager drawn to the dark side of vampirism possessed the potential to delve into adolescent issues seldom touched upon by mainstream horror cinema. Yet these facets are largely jettisoned by the obvious and ultimately formulaic script that plays things safe. Any subversive possibilities are typically tossed aside, instead replaced with standard genre thrills and overt humour. While this makes the film entertaining, it also ultimately renders it vapid. The Lost Boys flaunts a killer concept, but a more complex and intricate narrative should have permeated the proceedings.

Also the film suffers from MTV syndrome. This marks the early days of annoying shaky cam with fast cutting. Schumacher's reliance on style over substance proves lethal (and not just for this film: he also went on to destroy the Batman movie franchise, leaving it dead for 8 years). The final showdown is perplexing beyond words. Characters disappear for periods of time without explanation, and the vampiric deaths are on the mystifying line between serious and comic.

In essence, the film tries far too much in a compacted running time of about 95 minutes. There are too many characters that are inadequately fleshed out. The actors portraying the vampires try so hard to be hip and cool that they easily win our heart. But these are the villains of the picture, so there's something morally iniquitous if the actors allow us to like them. The script rarely gives the vampire villains a time to shine. If there are victims being killed, it's usually an irritating aerial shot. Ergo we don't find these vamps particularly scary or menacing. Go watch Max Schreck in Nosferatu for an effective vampire villain.
Then there are the good guys. They, too, are easy to like. So there are two likeable factions and we have no idea who to cheer for.

The unsatisfactory back-stories allotted to the characters offer yet another quandary. For example, why do the vampires choose this particular city out of the millions of others? There's also a problem of overcrowding with the presence of a small child vampire who has no reason to be there. Furthermore, why is the female love interest so intent on protecting the child? Those making the film probably figured that their target audience would never scrutinise the film that closely. Judging by the dedicated fans, their decision was probably spot-on. You'll find it difficult to thoroughly love The Lost Boys unless you're a teen of the 80s and cinematic nostalgia is your thing.

At the time, the cast was made up of relative unknowns. The actors do their job of delivering lines and creating their characters. Worth mentioning more than anyone else is Kiefer Sutherland, in his breakthrough performance, with his cool 80s attire and haircut fashionable for the period. Sutherland was the only actor who went on to capitalise on his success in this flick. Others didn't do so well. Corey Feldman, for example, is so desperate for work these days that he starred in the direct-to-DVD sequel.

Add me to the list of people who didn't find much value in The Lost Boys. After my ears were exposed to hyperbolic appraisal, I had expected something far superior to this. It's an anaemic attempt at a vampire flick that shifts tone so frequently that it becomes both jarring and disjointed. Had the film focused on being a dark vampiric fare and cut out the annoying young teens, The Lost Boys could have been something very special. But the failed humour simply deflates any atmosphere of dread, allowing it to become embarrassingly campy. It's a moderately enjoyable movie with a few clever ideas, but it lacks the pivotal elements required to create an effective genre film. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Flaws aside though, it's slick fun and a pleasant time portal leading back to the 80s.

Followed in 2008 by a direct-to-DVD sequel: Lost Boys: The Tribe.

5.9/10

William Wyler's The Best Years of Our Lives is a landmark post-WWII production. The collective Hollywood wisdom in 1945 was to halt the creation of movies with wartime themes. The movie-going public had just endured a steady 3-year diet of them - escapist combat movies, realistic thrillers, and melodramas concerning conditions on the Home Front were among the variety of war-related productions shoved through the distribution pipeline of Hollywood studios. Probably the most famous WWII-themed film welcomed during the early 1940s was the absolutely remarkable and truly unforgettable Casablanca. With quality such as this being exposed to the global public, there's little wonder why studios felt intimidated by the concept of producing more movies concerning the war-torn worldwide conditions. This prevailing attitude made producer Samuel Goldwyn and director William Wyler's commitment to the novel Glory for Me a commercial long shot.

Little did the studio or the production team realise that their cinematic rendering of MacKinlay Kantor's successful novel would capture the heart of the nation. Just as Casablanca struck a profound emotional nerve, many veterans saw The Best Years of Our Lives as a potent and poignant reflection of their post-war personal lives. The film is as meaningful, resonant and emotionally powerful today as it was over 6 decades ago. This alone is a tribute to its sheer greatness. It's a melancholy, intelligent, involving and admirably unsentimental masterpiece that set the crucial tone for films to follow in its wake. Wyler was determined to compose a statement that realistically portrayed the changed temperament of society. Consequently, he challenged both customary visual and storytelling conventions in this audacious accomplishment, overflowing with laudable cinematic merit.

The story is concentrates on the irretrievably altered lives of three World War II veterans. The war has reached its conclusion, and the soldiers are ready to return home. For years combat on the battlefield was all the soldiers knew. They looked forward to seeing their families again and settling into society. The survivors headed home - some carried physical scars such as amputated limbs, but all carried profound mental damage. They returned with the similar basic dream in mind of putting the war behind them and getting back to life as usual, but the reality was different. For those whose primary ability was handling a weapon, employment prospects were scant. Wives and children of survivors had become strangers. Marriages, occasionally initiated on an impulse prior to the man heading overseas, foundered. The Best Years of Our Lives exercises these factors (and others) to create a multi-faceted narrative. Even though the film's social significance has weakened, its dramatic power and bearing hasn't lessened.

Sergeant Al Stephenson (March), Air Force Captain Fred Derry (Andrews) and Navy grunt Homer Parrish (Russell) are three World War II veterans keen to return to their family and friends. The mixed reactions of the homecoming are perfectly captured: the nervousness and anticipation, the anxiety and excitement. They're all uncertain about the future that lies ahead.
Al returns to an influential and healthy-paying banking position. He returns to a family who are happy to have him back. He had forever dreamed of his homecoming over his 3-year war campaign, but the reality transpires somewhat differently. There's a noticeable distance between Al and his wife, and, despite their best efforts, they are unable to bridge it. Al soon begins to question the morality of the economic system that is refusing to help the very veterans who fought to keep the nation together.
Fred returns to a marriage that he hurriedly walked into before being shipped off. His wife Marie (Dayo) is ostensibly not quite as enamoured with him now that he's out of uniform. Fred finds himself unable to hold down a steady job, instead returning his old job as a soda jerk at the local pharmacy. Soon he finds new romance in Al's daughter Peggy (Wright).
The central two threads of the narrative concern Al and Fred, with another story concerning Homer in between. Homer returns to his family and high school sweetheart Wilma (O'Donnell). During the war Homer lost his hands and now has hooks as a replacement. Those around him find it difficult to adapt to his disability, leaving Homer dissatisfied in his heart. He's additionally unsure about Wilma's feelings towards him. Are they feelings of true love or sheer pity?

Director William Wyler was known as a perfectionist when it came to directing movies. Wyler sometimes used up to 20 or 30 takes just for one scene to ensure he received the best possible performances from his cast. The man knows how to direct. His dedication to perfectionism shines like the rising sun early in the morning. Every facet of the film is totally involving. From the meticulous sets, marvellous locations and the authentic, uncompromising snapshot of 1940s society - faults are too scarce to count.

The Best Years of Our Lives is a beautifully-framed movie filled with deep long shots and long takes. The cinematography was courtesy of Gregg Toland, whose credits also include Citizen Kane. Every shot is artistic and magnificent. It evinces an artistic tenacity as it moves from one sterling shot to the other. Wyler was recognised for his efforts and was rightfully awarded a Best Director Oscar. But Wyler's terrific direction wasn't the only recipient at the Oscars. Other Oscar wins included Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Best Music and a few more for the actors. The sound was additionally nominated, but didn't win. Actor Harold Russell won an honorary Oscar for "bringing hope and courage to fellow veterans". In real life, Russell was an amputee who had lost his arms and was forced to use hooks as a replacement. Russell also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, making him the only person in history to win two Oscars for the same performance. The film also captured top honours at the British Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, and the New York Film Critics Circle Awards. Beloved by critics and audience alike, The Best Years of Our Lives was not only awarded with rave reviews but it also became the biggest box office success since Gone with the Wind.

When it comes to the acting department, there isn't a fault to be found. Myrna Loy received top billing as she was a massive box office draw in her era. Her performance is strong, solid and remarkable; giving her character just the right dosage of sardonic wit.
Veteran actor Fredric March places forth an outstanding performance as a man trying to get his life back together. He's strong, passionate and is wholly credible as a concerned father and a survivor of the war. March received an Oscar, and rightfully so. His long speech before a dinner party will forever remain memorable.
Dana Andrews is believable and likeable as Fred. He gives his character the right amount of charm and good looks.
Harold Russell, as I mentioned before, was given two Oscars for his performance. As an actual double amputee, he knew how a family reacts to a disability such as this. His work is credible and amazing here. In the scene where he confronts his fear that his girlfriend can no longer love him due to his disability, he's utterly heartbreaking.
Teresa Wright, Virginia Mayo and Cathy O'Donnell are the central women of the cast. Just like the males, faults are limited.

Overall, The Best Years of Our Lives is a sincere, morose character study of the difficulty of social re-adjustment for war veterans. The film runs at a whopping 170 minutes, yet it never feels that long. For its nearly 3-hour duration, this masterpiece is involving and compelling. However it must be said that at 170 minutes, some facets of the story are stretched out a little too excessively.
Technically, the film is very straightforward. No hyperboles, no glitter, so sweeping manipulation. There is never any need. The camera is plonked in front of characters that seem like real people with realistic problems. The lives, emotions and feelings of the characters are revealed with a sobering ring of truth. The final potent line in particular is a perfect way to conclude the proceedings. As Fred finds his new love, he embraces her and delivers a romantic kiss.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but bring back Stephen Sommers! The two previous The Mummy adventures undoubtedly suffered from Sommers' absurd excesses; nevertheless they were at least fun. The original 1999 flick The Mummy was an enjoyable tribute to the old campy movie serials. Said original film used special effects sparingly, as opposed to being driven by them. As a result, The Mummy is always terrific entertainment: its casual, throwaway qualities ensured it could be viewed constantly and one could continually enjoy the entertaining romp being offered. In The Mummy Returns, Sommers turned to an action/adventure powered by poorly-rendered special effects and re-used scenarios. This sequel didn't work particularly well as it was daft, inane and too over-the-top to be believable. Be that as it may, it was still so much fun!

With Stephen Sommers extracted from the director's chair (hitting the sidelines as a producer), Rob Cohen filled his position. After watching The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor I seriously doubted whether Rob Cohen had ever even seen the two forerunners. Where Sommers created highly entertaining action/adventure flicks that bounced along at a satisfying pace with Brendan Fraser in top form, Cohen creates a boring, cold and lifeless husk.

The problems stem mainly from the script: it's riddled with clunky elucidation, tedious characters, a story that's too extensive to care about, and plot developments lacking inspiration. The cast look bored, with heroics and witticisms appearing forced and routine. Charisma-free characters dominate the screen. The once-charming Brendan Fraser is a frosty and pale imitation of his former self. The film screws up the timeline of the series in terms of character ages, and it eventually turns into a shameless self-parody. Even the character of Evelyn (Bello replaces Rachel Weisz) has written books about the adventures she underwent during the events of the first two films. Furthermore, the events of The Mummy are published by Evy in a novel entitled The Mummy. Likewise with the follow-up. How very creative, Mr. Cohen.
In a nutshell: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is a colossal disappointment. It could have at least been 110 minutes of entertainment, instead it supplies 110 minutes of lacklustre action and poor writing. A series that shamelessly aspired to be an Indiana Jones facsimile has transformed into this feeble, third-rate, unremarkable claptrap that I couldn't even recommend to my enemies.

The film is set many years following the occurrences of The Mummy Returns. We find keen globe-trotting adventurer Rick O'Connell (Fraser) living a boring, albeit affluent life in a large mansion with wife Evelyn. Just after the conclusion of World War II, the husband and wife duo officially decide to throw in the towel and retire. Their son Alex (Ford, who's only 13 years younger than Fraser) has, unbeknownst to his parents, dropped out of university to go dig for a mythical tomb in the desolate sands of the Chinese outback. (Like father, like son...how very imaginative) Alex proves successful in his dig, and unearths a tomb belonging to Emperor Han (Li). Many thousands of years ago, Han was a tyrannical leader who ruled China with a barbarous fist until his sorceress (Yeoh) placed a curse on him and his 10,000-strong army. If Han is ever resurrected, he'll rule the world. Upon disturbing Han's tomb, Alex runs into malevolent forces who wish to awaken the ancient emperor and allow him to dominate the Earth. As fate would have it, Rick and Evelyn come out of retirement for one last job and find themselves inadvertently entangled in another adventure with another sacred walking corpse.

It's been reported that the creators of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor wanted to take the profitable series in another direction. They step away from the character of Imhotep (the focus of the prior two flicks) and replace him with some boring Asian emperor. I will admit that bringing back Imhotep again would have been a long shot. But replacing him with another mummy is lame. If the filmmakers wanted to take Fraser's Rick O'Connell on another adventure, why not take his adventures away from mummies?! Indiana Jones hunted for artefacts and it took him to vast cultures. His adventures were refreshing and fascinating. Everything is just messed up here.

Those seeking popcorn entertainment can look elsewhere - this film does not entertain. The script, as I previously stated, is awful. The two writers don't produce anything worthwhile. Sommers filled his movies with interesting supporting characters (in the first film we had the Americans, and Winston the plane pilot. The second film had Izzy) and wittiness in his dialogue. The one-liners aren't funny in the slightest here. The script reduces the dialogue to awkward conversations about sex and even flirting with a yak! Some of the cumbersome scenarios are riddled with pathetic and predictable lines, usually given to the now tiresome John Hannah. The rest of the dialogue is predominantly unfunny and trite. It even feels the need to reference the previous films quite frequently. An hour of nostalgia becomes very monotonous very quickly. The movie tries to entertain its target audience with frenetic action and daring escapades, but the awful writing and incompetent direction leave the film far short of its aspirations. There's a long chase through Shanghai that's meant to be chaotic and intense. However the camera flies around so awkwardly and wildly that I lost track of what was occurring.
Even more painful is how illogical everything is. An example would include all the action unfolding in the streets of Shanghai with no police in sight. The civilians appear to see the feverish chase and resurrected mummy as something not to be afraid of. Suspension of disbelief is a given when it comes to summer blockbusters, but this is just ridiculous! Even more unbelievable is Michelle Yeoh's sorceress character that created the curse of Emperor Han. Why can't this oh-so-powerful sorceress just cast a spell to stop the resurrected mummy to begin with?
By the end you'll be mocking the film with a vengeance. Like when a character sees a massive structure and exclaims "Shangri-La!" one will want to murmur "It's only a model".

Then there's the matter of the eye roll-inducing Yeti snow monsters that make an appearance. Things become so dim-witted that said Yetis dispatch a few enemies, and then triumphantly raise their arms like NRL referees signalling a successful field goal!! The special effects do, to some extent, look impressive. It must be said that CGI was never a high point in the first two Mummy films, but this marks a noted improvement. 60% of the time the CGI looks quite good, such as the emperor as a computer generated creation, or the dragon that appears towards the end of the movie. At other times the CGI is nothing to brag about. The Yetis are a prime example.

The battles grow increasingly stupid towards the end. For example, an army of the dead is raised and one particular soldier knocks the head off his comrade before frantically trying to assist with re-attaching the head. This stuff ain't funny! There's so much wasted potential as well. The dragon is given a few minutes to shine if that! There's also the over-hyped battle between Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh. Seriously, that dual is "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" stuff. It lasts less than a minute. Jet Li is also wasted as 80% of the time he's an entity created entirely out of CGI. If you can get Li in a film, why waste him like that?!
The attention also shifts from Brendan Fraser to the appalling Luke Ford. Fraser and Ford do not look like father and son. They almost look like brothers! It's really freakish stuff. 2008 saw the fourth Indiana Jones adventure with aging Harrison Ford accompanied by the youthful Shia LeBeouf. That made sense. But this is just weird!

All in all, I found The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor to be exasperatingly tedious and utterly mindless. It may look competent in terms of special effects, but it's bereft of any memorable moments and it grows really boring. It seems Rob Cohen believed he was creating a godsend to the franchise, hence the complicated plot. With a hefty plot such as this, however, the fun and entertainment value becomes buried deeper than a mummy's tomb. Had it gone really over-the-top it would still have been an embarrassment to the series, but at least it would have been a fun embarrassment to the series. What we've been given is a dreary and frivolous embarrassment to the series.
The one-liners are so painful that you'll develop a newfound respect for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, I mean that!
It never even seems like an instalment in the Mummy series because of how out-of-place everything feels. The closing subtitle is like firing a bullet into a knife wound. It's painful stuff! I never found much value in Rob Cohen's prior flicks, and his despicable signature is unmistakably placed on this film. At 110 minutes, the film is simply too fatiguing and gruelling. Cutting the film down wouldn't have made it better...but it at least would have made everyone a little happier.

1.9/10

For better or worse, American cinema was everlastingly revolutionised the day that Arthur Penn's violent, stunningly-photographed landmark feature Bonnie and Clyde was released to an unsuspecting movie-going public. It would be judicious to state that critics were irrationally unfair towards the film, which was prominently criticised for its alleged "glorification of murderers" in addition to the brutality of the violence that earned a pretty severe rating for its time. There were further criticisms surrounding the production, such as the artistic license embraced by the film. The true story is not told with 100% accuracy as characters are changed and scenarios are altered. It may not be the definitive history of the celebrity outlaws; however it's a wonderful movie that portrays a very strong and poignant camaraderie between the two central characters. It uses the bare facts of the bank-robbing duo and romanticises these facts to create an entertaining and moving masterpiece.

As is the case with many brilliant classics, some of the opening reviewers did the film no favours. There were several critics who praised the film; however it was incapable of escaping the pessimists. Thankfully, though, the Oscar committee bestowed the movie with 10 Academy Award nominations. Even Newsweek critic Joseph Morgenstern, in an unprecedented move, admitted his original review of the movie (filled with abject berating) was incorrect, and later published a revised review praising the film to the skies. This sole fact is just one testament to this terrific and chilling tale set in a Depression-era Southwest.

Bonnie and Clyde is the tale of two notorious bank-robbing outlaws who formed an infamous gang during the 1930s. The film's prologue is filled with photographs and opening explication to establish the protagonists.
Clyde Barrow (Beatty) became a thief early in his life, and recently served a stint in prison.
Bonnie Parker (Dunaway) lives a monotonous life with her mother.
The two meet when Clyde is caught trying to steal Bonnie's mother's car. It became love at first sight...or infatuation...or mutual need. Bonnie desired to escape from her boring life and find some excitement. Clyde immediately impresses her with his guns and daring. Minutes later, they're robbing a grocery store and making a getaway together like they've known each other all their lives. This marks the beginning of an infamous career for the duo. They recruit gas-station attendant C.W. Moss (Pollard) as their mechanic and getaway driver, then persuade two others to join the duo. They eventually form the Barrow gang, robbing banks and evading the authorities as wanted fugitives for two-and-a-half years.

The buddy genre was single-handedly reinvented in Bonnie and Clyde. Not only is it a story of two bank robbers, but it's a story about the strength of a friendship through good and bad. It's probably morally incorrect for us to like the two criminals, however in real life they were folk heroes to the American public. Above that, the film fundamentally informs its audience that the bad guys aren't just evil: bad guys are humans as well who have feelings, emotions, internals demons, etc. They're violent, they're cruel, and they're dangerous...they are the Barrow gang and they rob banks. And we love them for it. Although the approach of loving criminals was abhorred by some, the tactic was later adopted for the creation of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (which is an equally brilliant movie).

Bonnie and Clyde became famous for its raw, brutal, unmitigated violence. In the age of "shoot 'em up" action movies, the violence probably appears quite tame. But the film was released in the age where the impact of bullets is never shown: instead a gun is fired, and the victim falls to the ground. Very rarely was blood ever seen as the censors would go ballistic and request the violence be cut down. Director Arthur Penn felt that tame violence didn't suit the context. His aim was to shock, as he wanted the bullet-wounds to hurt the characters and subsequently hurt the audience. Several cameras were run at different speeds to capture the relentless splashing around of blood. It's certainly gory, but it's balletic gore. Years later, the approach of brutal violence was adopted by Sam Peckinpah for his extraordinary western The Wild Bunch. The violence is essential (especially when displayed in intermittent slow motion) to show the dark side of humanity. It's also worth noting that the violence in Bonnie and Clyde also has a light comedic tone to it. Never is full serious mode ever employed until the very last scene that's forever been controversial. This ending is the point where time runs out for the two main characters and they meet a violent death. It's a haunting and memorable sequence that's heart-breaking but ultimately inevitable.

The film tracks an irresistible host of actors who play their characters to perfection. Warren Beatty plays Clyde as a charming rogue with movie-star handsomeness and a penchant for armed robbery. The real Clyde was probably not as charming or as captivating as Beatty's performance, but it really does not matter. Besides, Beatty is also quite deep in his performance. He shows us Clyde's tempestuous side with anger and frustration. He also hints that the character's obsession with guns could be due to sexual inadequacies (which was a theory regarding the actual Clyde Barrow).
Faye Dunaway is less colourful as Bonnie. Instead of energetic and charming, Dunaway plays Bonnie as someone with frequent mood swings and who's occasionally quite unpleasant to be around.
Gene Hackman burns up the screen as Clyde's brother Buck, and Estelle Parsons won an Oscar for her screechy performance as Buck's bride.
Gene Wilder appears in his feature film debut as an undertaker who's picked up by the Barrow gang. The scene is hilarious, with Wilder is top form. The hilarity is conveyed through the clever dialogue and awkwardness of the situation.

Overall, Bonnie and Clyde is certainly one of the best movies of all time and could be the best buddy movie in cinematic history. The film became so successful and influential that it spawned many impersonators, such as the equally brilliant Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid a few years later, and even Easy Rider. Many have tried, but the sheer brilliance, charm and originality of this masterpiece has yet to be topped. It's a brutal production featuring terrific cinematography, appealing leading characters, and of course painfully-rendered violence. All of these were extremely high-ranking. Amusing and intense, knowing and chilling, this is the archetypal template that no lovers-on-the-lam movie has ever improved on. Even better: it whizzes by at a brisk 110 minutes, still managing to fill the screen with memorable images aplenty.

9.2/10

The realm of direct-to-DVD tends to be the location where awful, low-budget movies proceed in an attempt to acquire some success - or where unworthy sequels go to die. However, there are some movies within this realm that sneak in some degree of merit. Said merit is not to say that they're good per se - at least not in a Hollywood blockbuster sense - but they're generally so terrible that they're fun to watch. This variety is also good if you're searching for a flick to watch with tonnes of beer while a congregation of friends gather around to have a decent laugh.
The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior is one such addition to this category. The film is so awful that it's fun to laugh at. The historical inaccuracies are just awful, the world of physics is completely ignored and the continuity issues are a mess. There's also below average acting (The Rock was replaced by the kid that played Blue Ranger!), poorly rendered CGI that isn't even remotely up to the task, sets that feel like sets, and worst of all a lack of ethics surrounding the production (I mean it's a prequel to a prequel to a sequel for crying out loud!!). The film does nevertheless earn the dubious, albeit substantial praise of being superior to its predecessor. It's also better than Rob Cohen's awful The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (also released in 2008).

The Scorpion King 2 essentially fleshes out the back-story of The Scorpion King: a character that appeared briefly in The Mummy Returns in 2001 as well as featuring in the spin-off adventure The Scorpion King in 2002. Both prior embodiments of the character have been courtesy of pro wrestler The Rock, a.k.a. Dwayne Johnson. Understandably, The Rock chose to not return for this prequel.
In this film, young Mathayus (Copon) is son of renowned mercenary Ashur (Butler) who is tasked with defending the current emperor. But Ashur is double-crossed and is mysteriously murdered by a black cloud of smog (nice to see the black smoke from Lost being given a cameo appearance). Now fatherless, Mathayus is carted off to an academy to train with the Black Scorpion army. Years later he returns, reunites with childhood flirtation Layla (David), and wishes to exact revenge on the man who killed his father. Unfortunately for Mathayus, his father was killed by the powerful Sargon (Couture). Apparently (this contemptible line actually appears in the movie) "everybody knows that Sargon sold his soul to the Gods in exchange for black, magical powers."

Let's get the positives out of the way first. The film flaunts some competent filmmaking. Russell Mulcahy, who directed Highlander and Resident Evil: Extinction, puts forth an adequate feast of visuals. But his direction is far from perfect. The directing/editing collaboration is rubbish. More on that later...
Another positive is the set design. If you can ignore the glaring anachronisms and the appalling sense of continuity, there are a number of elaborately designed sets. However the sets do feel like sets very frequently. They seldom feel like the genuine article. Just like the Mummy flicks and the first The Scorpion King film, there is never a sense of amazement or marvel.
The only other good thing to mention would be the music by Klaus Badelt. This is a composer who created the great music for the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. He must have been in desperate search of a pay-check to agree to be involved here. His music is sensational, but he's let down by other things. What a waste!
It's also worth mentioning that it's so bad to the point that it's a tad fun. You'll enjoy mocking the disreputable filmmaking being offered.

Now onto the list of negatives: as I mentioned previously, the directing/editing partnership is dreadful. The continuity is rarely maintained, and the action scenes are frequently hard to watch. Like there's an appearance of the Minotaur. Funny thing is that the film is set in Egypt and the Minotaur existed in Minoan mythology! They never do research for these direct-to-DVD fares, do they? The Minotaur attack looks incredibly unconvincing. Special effects are abysmal and the approach of shaky cam with fast cutting is highly irritating.
The glaring anachronisms are distracting as well. One character explains that he's travelling to Egypt to see the pyramids. The 2002 Scorpion King movie was set before the age of the pyramids! There is also use of modern dialogue. There's never an attempt to make the characters seem like they're from the period they've been placed in. For example, there's a character with the familiar name of Aristotle (Quarterman). This Aristotle character isn't the famous philosopher: in fact he describes the philosopher as a "hack". Seriously...WTF?!

There's also the matter of a girl fighting in a combat championship. When it's discovered she's a woman, she's told to leave. Good God, wouldn't they check who's fighting before the combat commences?! There is zero brains with zero wittiness. All the supposedly witty dialogue goes to waste because it's so impossible to believe a word of it. And of course, no action/adventure flick is complete without the customary betrayal followed by finding out that this betrayal is in fact bogus to throw off the central villain. So predictable, so clichéd, and so incredibly stupid!
As if rubbing salt into open wounds, the final 30 minutes is when things turn messier. If you think you had it bad before, you won't believe what the filmmakers have in store for us for this final showdown. First of all, there's oil being lit that will burn the crowd. Funny how there are 4 thin rivers of oil, and two characters are able to stop the spread of it while fighting off enemies. The trail of oil conveniently burns really slowly. This scene is annoyingly edited together with Mathayus fighting the big bad villain that transforms himself into an invisible giant scorpion! You know the budget has gone to shit when the special effects budget doesn't stretch far enough to include a full CGI creature for the final showdown. Adding further insult to injury, the invisible scorpion's final moments are when he's splattered by some kind of paint or something so Mathayus can see it. This makes the thing look like it's a creation of Windows 95 or the first skeletal rendering of a video game creation. It makes you feel embarrassed to be watching this.
Furthermore, the battles are quite tame and bloodless to attain the blessed PG-13 rating. With a bit more blood and a bigger budget we could have had a guilty pleasure on our hands. But with this PG-13 rating the battles look so weak. It amuses me to think that the PG-13 rating was for as much profit as possible. Yet it's direct-to-DVD so profits are already going to be astronomically low. The tamer rating is not going to make a difference. The action scenes are so weak and underwhelming due to the limited budget and the pathetic "invisible scorpion" makes the CGI creation of The Rock as half human and half scorpion (these special effects were berated by director Stephen Sommers himself) look incredible in comparison.

Look, The Rock is not an Oscar-worthy actor but he possessed some form of charisma in the first film that saved his performance from total disaster. And face it: he could kick some ass. He was the only redeeming feature of the original film. Michael Copon is an awful replacement. This kid played Blue Ranger for crying out loud! He's there as eye candy and nothing else. His lines are wooden and poorly written.
Karen Shenaz David appears as the childhood flirt of Copon's Mathayus. She's fairly contrived as well.
Simon Quarterman brings some degree of charm to his role with a crisp accent and a likeable screen persona. Not great by any means, but rises above the set standard.
Randy Couture is another pro wrestler given a shot at acting. He's quite terrible as well. His character's black magic is tragically out of place in a swords-and-sandals epic.

The first few scenes of The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior make one thing perfectly clear: it was funded and made to cash in on the success of the third The Mummy film. The Scorpion King 2 is at least better than its predecessor and the third Mummy flick...this is still a faint praise because what wouldn't be?! This is another key example of an attempt to capitalise on a successful franchise and make a quick buck. The low budget is painfully obvious and it detracts from the entertainment value. To make matters worse, it runs for 110 minutes! You probably won't be bored as you laugh at the appalling filmmaking (one of the film's limited merits), but you sure as hell won't be impressed. It's filled with plot holes, inaccuracies, ridiculously unbelievable scenarios, and it destroys the continuity of the series. Only those who seriously love the first film will have any reason to give this one a shot.
Unfortunately this is a case of money over quality. I mean, the studio was so cheap they hired the guy who wrote Speed 2! It was only the fourth movie of screenwriter Randall McCormick, so he was probably a very cheap option. The rest of the film suffers from this cheapness as well.

4.1/10

English filmmaker Shane Meadows shrugs off the cynical, bittersweet working class standpoint evident in his preceding films, such as Once Upon a Time in the Midlands, and interchanges it with a savage, gripping, genre-defying, sinister contemporary tale of violence and retribution: an austere examination of small-town revenge.
Very rarely do modern filmmakers challenge a mainstream genre. In this day and age, we feel as if we've seen it all. Director Shane Meadows develops adequate courage to craft a crime/thriller/horror/slasher flick as a social commentary. Dead Man's Shoes blends riveting horror, supernatural elements, dark comedy and social realism in relation to modern-day England. Rarely has director Meadow displayed a darker side in his filmmaking. Here he gives full vent to the potentially violent compulsions that lurk within all of us. Dead Man's Shoes is a superlatively efficient, brutal, hard-hitting, stripped-down creation of vigilante cinema.

The story is extraordinarily straightforward, yet this simple plot is conveyed in a gut-wrenchingly effective manner. Richard (Considine) has spent much of his life looking after his mentally-challenged brother Anthony (Kebbell) in the Midlands in England. Richard then joins the army and is shipped away for several years of service. Years later, Richard is a disaffected soldier who returns to his homeland. Revenge is the sole thought on his mind. He wants to dish out vengeance to a local group of druggies who abused his brother. At first Richard wishes to scare the miscreants by stealing their possessions and utilising paint for a laugh. Following these harmless warnings, Richard starts to get serious. He begins to elaborately and gruesomely execute these local tough guys as flashbacks reveal the full extent of his Anthony's mistreatment.

Dead Man's Shoes contains little in the way of director Meadows' trademark provincial humour; nevertheless the film embraces his distinctive signature. This isn't an Americanised version of Britain, occupied with hard-nut gangsters pretending to be Goodfellas. Instead the hustlers presents are benefit-scammers and dole moles that live in semi-detached houses, flick through grotty magazines, dress improperly and flog poor quality gear.
The depiction of contemporary England pulls no punches. It's a grotty, uncompromising picture with a depressing atmosphere. This raw revenge flick is essentially a slasher that revolutionises the genre. No longer do we have brainless Friday the 13th-style deaths with impeccable timing and helpless victims...we see the film prominently from the killer's perspective. Meadows humanises the victims and the killer who's pursuing them: there are palpable motives and realistic character depictions.

Meadows aimed to convey a point regarding revenge and the futility of counter-violence. Giving the killer a deep persona helps personify this message. As Richard implements his bloody revenge, he's shown searching for reason and resolution in an endeavour to obtain a spiritual counter-weight. Actor Considine, who also co-wrote the script with Meadows, manages to express this maelstrom of internal conflict with a razor-raw edge; his agitation rankles like a wound that won't close.
Furthermore, the killings are done extremely effectively. Instead of dwelling on the gore, ala Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, the gore is used sparingly. Meadows relies on suspense and realistic acting instead of gory deaths that look stupid but reward the gore-hounds. If you're searching for a gory flick, look elsewhere. This is an innovative slasher that disregards the clichés and creates a provocative social commentary. The result is a thoughtful, possibly controversial horror film unlike anything preceding it.

Dead Man's Shoes is a naturalistic horror/thriller with much of Meadows' customary techniques in evidence. At times there is improvised dialogue to further solidify the film's realism. It almost feels like documentary footage as it oozes haunting pragmatism in the compelling images. It's a low-budget feature and by golly it does feel like it at times. The audio mix in particular sounds so naturalistic that it sometimes never feels like an official movie. Meadows' approach, which was to make the film outside a studio system, allows him freedom to do what he wants. He doesn't have studio heads hovering around him, paranoid about a scene and begging him to remove it. On top of this, the confronting flick is blessed with a melancholy and atmospheric score. It's overbearing at times, but this increases the film's emotive qualities. Throughout the entire film, the music sets the tone. The music is particularly moving and effective during the flashbacks or at the mere mention of Anthony's name.
It's truly a knockout movie that will stun you with its unfathomable power.

Perhaps Meadows' sole mistake was that the improvised dialogue occasionally felt quite awkward and unbelievable. However, whenever Considine appears he forms a magnetic centre around which the others can happily orbit. The acting skills exhibited by Considine are amazing. He made his searing film debut in the 1999 Shane Meadows film A Room for Romeo Brass. Since then, he's reached the status of one of England's best actors. His performance here is just amazing. Never does he tread a wrong foot or strike a false note. In a sense, his character is England's answer to De Niro in Taxi Driver.
Toby Kebbell's character is subject to some confusion. Many features relating to Kebbell as the mentally-challenged brother are open for interpretation. Perhaps in a slasher this is slightly out of place. Still, Kebbell's performance is impeccable.
The rest of the supporting cast carry out their duties. While being stalked by Considine's Richard, their fear is palpable. They are realistic characters that are played extraordinarily well by a capable cast of relative unknowns.

Overall, Dead Man's Shoes is proof that the British film industry is still alive and thriving. The film was literally made on a zero-dollar budget. With talent like this behind the camera making films on a budget like this, there's a bright future for both contemporary cinema and British filmmaking. The film may occasionally seem generic and predictable; nevertheless the film cleverly transcends its genre and it emerges as one of 2004's best movies. It's powerful, intense, thrilling and unbelievably riveting.

9.1/10

Spin-off movies are risky endeavours. Following the enormous success of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns it was destiny that the studio would either develop another sequel or a spin-off. In 2002 it apparently seemed more convenient to develop an adventure featuring an underused and underdeveloped character from The Mummy Returns. In this case, pro wrestler The Rock (whose real name is Dwayne Johnson) had about 5 minutes of genuine screen-time in the aforementioned The Mummy Returns, not counting the extra few minutes when he appeared as a poorly-rendered CGI creation of a hybrid between a scorpion and a man. The Scorpion King attempts to give The Rock's minor character a proper back-story in the form of a swords-and-sandals medieval flick akin to Conan the Barbarian.

The initial worrying factor was that The Rock is a pro wrestler. In The Mummy Returns he really doesn't say anything at all and never showed much acting. This begged the question...could a wrestler carry a movie and display satisfactory acting skills?
Still, in the lead-up to the film's release I had expected some decent results, especially with Stephen Sommers (the writer/director of the first two The Mummy flicks) among those involved with writing the screenplay. The Scorpion King falls into a very unsuccessful genre where swords, axes, bows and arrows are utilised to dispatch enemies. There certainly aren't very many decent flicks in this genre so far. Well...there still aren't. This is not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.

The story is set roughly ten years preceding the main character's appearance in The Mummy Returns. Already, there is a massive fault in the film's story. In The Mummy Returns he's a villain with plans for world domination. Here, we're supposed to cheer for him as the hero. Oops...
Mathayus (The Rock) is among the last of the Akkadian warriors. These warriors are trained from birth as elite mercenaries who work for a hefty price. As fate would have it, he's hired to kill someone but finds himself in an elaborate set-up.
The plot is trite, clichéd and boring. It wants to be a thrill-a-minute action ride, but it's not. It's lame! Furthermore, it's entirely forgettable with the inclusion of the pointless and irritating action scenes that are poorly shot and difficult to believe.

The biggest flaw of the movie relates to the dreadfully clichéd script and below average actors. The characters in particular are clichéd beyond belief. There's the muscle-bound protagonist who exists to kill as many people as possible, the beautiful woman who spends half the time naked, the annoying sidekick who's supposed to be funny and witty, the big bad guy who sits on his throne and can carry out preposterous superhuman abilities (I mean, he can catch an arrow? Come on!) and of course a strong warrior to fight alongside the big muscle-bound hero. Probably the most disappointing facet of the characters is the poor way they've been written. The central bad guy, played by Steven Brand, never strikes fear or intimidation into the audience. He's a forgettable weakling and does not belong in a film such as this. Looking back at Conan the Barbarian, the main villain was played with sinister gusto by the capable James Earl Jones. Jones had a commanding voice and always seemed threatening. How I miss the days of the 80s.

The Rock does everything he's supposed to do throughout the movie. He delivers corny lines rather well - better than Arnold Schwarzenegger did in his first few movies. But the pro wrestler isn't the problem: the problem lies in everything else the film has to offer. It appears that the script suffered from a dose of committee writing - that is, lots of people insisting their ideas get inserted. Kelly Hu's role is a prime example. One voice says that she must be naked most of the time, while another voice insists that nothing naughty is ever shown because they must get their PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Hu therefore emerges from the water with strategically placed long hair covering up the juicy bits.

There's also the fact of the action. The script includes an abundance of pointless action to cover up for the lack of plot. Then the rating again comes into question. With the MPAA giving the film a PG-13 rating, it means more profitable run at the box office. We hear the gore, but don't see it. Once again I must compare this to Conan the Barbarian: in that film we cheer for the hero and love seeing the villains getting their just deserts as they are very violently offed. Let's face it - over-the-top violence is entertaining! In this case, though, The Scorpion King has no balls. It aims for money rather than quality. With the inclusion of more brutal battle violence the film would have at least been a guilty pleasure. Unfortunately, it can't even achieve that status. It's crap! Pure, genuine, bloodless crap with nothing redeeming!

Another thing: if one looks at Conan the Barbarian it's more entertaining because there always seems to be a sense of gritty realism. The Scorpion King is embarrassingly low-brow because of how unbelievable it is! It defies the laws of physics, and of course must include slow motion fight moves. Like in the final battle when an arrow is shot at a man. We follow the arrow in ultra slow motion, then it collides with a man and he's thrown back several feet. How they hell can an arrow, weighing a little less than a kilo, knock a 90kg man off his feet?! And I have no idea how contemporary directors settle on the inaccurate conclusion that slo-mo fight scenes look cool. Maybe the teenagers enjoy savouring the pathetic concept, but in my opinion it's cheap and unnecessary. It completely takes you out of the movie. It reminds you that it's just a fluffy piece of celluloid. If one wants to see things in slow motion, use the option on your DVD player!

All things considered, The Scorpion King wants to be in the league of the films that spawned it. The Mummy Returns is quite an awful movie, but at least it had an entertainment value. The Scorpion King has too many flaws. Everything is poorly done. Bad directing (director Chuck Russell was quite inexperienced), poor editing, over-the-top special effects, unbelievable plot points and a story riddled with endless clichés. It's so predictable! When it comes to the action genre, things usually are predictable. Be that as it may, the ride should be fun to take. The Scorpion King is not a fun ride to take at all! You'll be sneering instead of enjoying. It's so incredibly stupid!!! Worse yet, Kelly Hu's character of a sorceress appears to be a direct duplication of Jane Seymour's character in the James Bond film Live and Let Die. When filmmakers are taking inspirations from a spy series for a Conan the Barbarian facsimile, you know there's something horribly wrong here.

If only the script and story were as strong as the film's title actor. Followed by The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior.

2.1/10

Charles Laughton's The Night of the Hunter is another definitive example of a monochrome masterpiece tragically overlooked and criticised upon initial release. Director Charles Laughton was reportedly so disappointed and saddened by the film's poor critical and commercial reception that he vowed never to direct again...and he never did. Truth be told, every moment of Laughton's film is riveting and thrilling...haunting performances, evocative music and a terrific contrast of light and dark.

Film critics from 1955 have a lot to answer for. Said critics ridiculed The Night of the Hunter: it was continually and collectively criticised as more funny than sinister, and seldom suspenseful. Frankly, one must wonder if they were watching the same movie because, once all these geriatric buffoons were securely ensconced in retirement homes for anguished movie-folk, decent contemporary film pundits have acknowledged the genuine splendour of Laughton's cinematic achievement. The film is certainly corny, and it probably comes across as pretentious and overwrought. Much of the repetitive music has dated and lost its potency. And yes, at times the film is laughable and some facets are impossible to believe...yet every frame is gripping and it's hard to lose interest. Ignored for decades, but now the film is impossible to ignore. Currently it's rightfully regarded as a masterpiece: the title it should have been granted in the first place.

Harry Powell (Mitchum) is a crook disguised as a preacher. Harry travels across America from town to town; convinced he's doing the Lord's bidding as he murders widowed women whom he believes should no longer be a target for the lust of men. He arrives in another small town where he's arrested for car theft. Harry shares a cell with a man named Ben Harper (Graves). Ben stole $10,000 and murdered a number of people, and is condemned to face the hangman's noose. But he hides the money with his two children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce). Harry Powell learns of this money and desires to get his hands on it. After being released from gaol and witnessing the execution of Ben Harper, Harry then pursues Ben's widow Willa (Winters) with the objective in mind of obtaining the money. Willa doesn't know of the money's location, but John and Pearl do. Harry marries the gullible Willa with a secret agenda on his mind. It soon becomes clear to John of Harry's true intentions...but no-one will believe him.

Robert Mitchum is mesmeric as the evil pseudo-preacher. Mitchum grinds out an unsettling study in menacing, inveighing malevolence on a par with his performance in the original Cape Fear. Harry Powell is a truly sinister, hymn-chanting "preacher" who roams the countryside as he steals and kills. This psychopath abhors sexuality and all things feminine as he leaves a trail of dead women in his wake. Mitchum is truly incredible at the film's dramatic core. His character of Harry Powell is one of cinema's greatest villains: he's the archetypal evil stepfather that only a child can see through. Apparently Mitchum's performance is so highly regarded that it was among Robert De Niro's chief influences when he portrayed Max Cady in Martin Scorsese's 1991 Cape Fear remake (ironically, Mitchum portrayed Cady in the original Cape Fear). The interminable sound of Mitchum's Harry Powell spitting out a repetitive hymn is haunting. This certain hymn is so unforgettable in Mitchum's performance that it disturbed me for weeks.
The rest of the cast cannot match Mitchum or even come close to his standard. Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce are fairly impressive as the kids considering their age. Director Charles Laughton hated kids so much that he despised directing them throughout the production. Consequently, Mitchum directed the kids a number of times.
Shelley Winters is worth mentioning as the troubled widow. She presents a very impressive portrayal.

As I previously stated, Laughton is terrific at handling the directing duties. The Night of the Hunter is such a suspenseful experience imbued with immortal, haunting images and tunes. Laughton's direction and Stanley Cortez's cinematography creates a banquet of visual delights. There are ambitious helicopter shots, deep focus, underwater photography (an astonishing, virtually surreal picture of a corpse sitting in a car at the bottom of the river, hair streaming in amongst the river weed with throat deeply cut is pure genius) in addition to incredible utilisation of light and shadow. The opening sequence is probably the most memorable image the film has to offer: an arrestingly modern aerial shot, followed by the moment when Mitchum's sociopathic preacher appears on the screen, "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles.
Like I said before, the film has unfortunately dated as well. There are a few technical imperfections that cause an audience to wonder what just happened. Perhaps if a few things were better distinguished the film would have stood the test of time more effectively. Still, the filmmakers had guts to create a story like this during the 1950s.

All in all, The Night of the Hunter is a suspenseful horror film that succeeds in creating a nightmarish atmosphere for its characters to develop in. It's definitely dated and occasionally comes across as slightly cheesy...nevertheless this is essential viewing. It's also worth noting that credibility is occasionally this film's enemy. It's difficult to believe that a woman would agree to marry a man a mere 24 hours after their first meeting. Robert Mitchum is still magnetic enough to keep his audience enthralled throughout the film's sometimes silly occurrences.

7.9/10