Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"There's no hope for us here, there is only death."

Darren Aronofsky is a director primarily recognised for being at the helm of such films as Pi and Requiem for a Dream. The Fountain is an ambitious personal project of Aronofsky's that the director had been striving to accomplish for several years. Nuisances behind the scenes caused various complications that resulted in many delays. One would assume that a production of such exertion would generate impressive results. However, The Fountain is a vapid and confusing mess that isn't even remotely close to the masterpiece that we've been lead to believe it is. While the director passionately worked to achieve a serious and profoundly deep visionary film, Aronofsky instead delivered an ultimately pretentious and self-indulgent slice of cinema that lacks any emotional resonance.

The film may have gathered a congregation of ardent fans that defend the film incessantly, but there are many who generally loathe the film (myself included). The debate has been stated that those who don't like the film just don't "get it" and aren't "mature enough" to understand the underlying themes and alleged brilliance of The Fountain. That statement, however, can also be debated. It all boils down to a matter of opinion. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many respected critics (even the Rotten Tomatoes meter is shockingly low), The Fountain is an awfully conceited and hollow movie that recurrently formulates futile attempts to belie this fact.

In essence, The Fountain is a story concerning the search for the Fountain of Youth (here represented by the Tree of Life). The narrative is broken into three separate chunks, each taking place in a different timeframe.
The crux of the story unfolds in present day. Tommy (Jackman) is a scientist working day and night to cure the cancer afflicting his wife Izzi (Weisz). His behaviour during experiments and surgery lead his colleagues to believe he's becoming reckless and obsessive.
In a parallel storyline, Tomás (also Jackman) is a 16th century conquistador sent by Queen Isabel (Weisz again) to venture into the jungles of South America to find the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Mayan mythology plays a crucial role in these proceedings. Many interpretations exist regarding this portion of the storyline. One popular interpretation is that these characters are featured in the novel written by present-day Izzi. Another version states that the present-day characters could be remembering past lives. Like everything in this movie, there is little explication. Aronofsky wants his audience to think and draw their own conclusions.
The final piece of the story involves a futuristic version of Tom (still Jackman) and the ghost of Izzi (Weisz...as usual) floating through deep space in a bubble encompassing the tree.

The film is a deep philosophical journey, and a spiritual mediation on mankind's mortality. So what is writer/director Aronofsky aiming to say with The Fountain? "Death is a disease," Tom says at one stage. "It's like any other. And there is a cure." This prospect reverberates through contemporary society; a society that desires to cheat age, sickness, and death. As a counteraction to Tom's view, Izzi begs the question, "What if death were an act of creation?" Aronofsky appears to be suggesting that death should be accepted and embraced, and everybody can achieve immortality through the circle of life - we die, we are buried, we become part of the Earth, and perhaps we then become a component of something else...a tree, a flower, a butterfly, etc.

My views on The Fountain are somewhat mixed. I might as well get the positives out of the way first. Hugh Jackman beautifully handles the material, as does Rachel Weisz. They share wonderful chemistry and light up the frame whenever they're together. In addition, the beautiful melancholy soundtrack provokes some emotion and thought. Aronofsky also presents us with arresting visuals achieved through incredible methods. The director felt using CGI would date the film in later years, and he desired to bestow The Fountain with timelessness. He used micro-photography to capture chemical reactions in petri dishes. The effect works extraordinarily well. It also gives the film a more "organic" feel. The atmosphere always strikes the right notes.

But the negatives overpower the film's strengths. The Fountain is a film that never lets you in, so to speak. The characters, despite being executed by able actors, lack depth. They never act like flesh-and-blood humans. They are mere symbols...and we therefore feel nothing for them. We just don't care about the characters! The love story between Tom and Izzi could have moved one to tears. But even with the great performances, the love story seems contrived and unrealistic.

The most lethal flaw, though, is that it seldom makes sense. Aronofsky is too focused on creating art in his visual presentation that there is little lying underneath. A majority of the film is without adequate explication. Too many things are so damn confusing! The popular thoughts floating around in my head during the film were: "What just happened?", "Why did that just happen?" and "I don't get it." If one examines ambiguous masterpieces such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko or 2001: A Space Odyssey, the interpretations surrounding the proceedings are thoroughly fascinating. All is forgiven because the aforementioned films are thoroughly provoking. The Fountain isn't provocative. It's pretentious and asks too much of its audience. Due to this, all the interpretations seem dreary instead of interesting.

The definitive insult is the unsatisfying ending. The film will leave you cold. It may seem clever to a screenwriter who knows what point he's making, but it's unfair to an audience. It's almost as if Aronofsky genuinely believed he was making another landmark film akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece isn't even mildly threatened by the loathsome The Fountain. A comparison between 2001 and The Fountain isn't flattering to the latter. 2001 may seem like a succession of pretty pictures; however Kubrick had the good sense to do more - his shots are incredibly arresting, and are infused with some of the world's finest music. The perplexing nature of 2001 works so well that words fail me. This effect cannot be replicated by anyone. Not even Kubrick himself could equal or better his film.

The loyal fans who praise The Fountain have now used negative reviews of 2001: A Space Odyssey as evidence that The Fountain is a "misunderstood masterpiece" that will be bequeathed with the recognition it deserves in many years. The claim may seem relevant, but it's wholly misguided. One can find negative reviews of any canonised film. It doesn't make sense that a film that receives poor reviews will eventually be highly acclaimed. I mean, I certainly don't expect Uwe Boll films like BloodRayne or Alone in the Dark to replace Citizen Kane on the AFI Top 100 in a few years.

The production troubles that plagued The Fountain are widely known. Originally the budget was quite high, and production commenced in Australia in 2002. But original lead actor Brad Pitt (his co-star at that time was Cate Blanchett) left the project due to creative differences. Those funding the film pulled the plug, and the project was scrapped. Aronofsky worked to get the film off the ground again. Eventually the budget was cut in half and production was initiated with Jackman and Weisz portraying the central characters. The film's short length probably didn't give the director the opportunity to execute everything he wanted to do. Consequently, the film is a clunky mess. This was reflected in the poor box office takings.

Overall, The Fountain is a film that yielded very disappointing results. Believe me: I wanted to like the film. I had heard many things about it from the dedicated fans. Some claimed that the film bettered 2001: A Space Odyssey. (This is also a film courtesy of director Darren Aronofsky. I very much liked Requiem for a Dream.) I was therefore intrigued to see what the ruckus was about. Unfortunately, this is a tragic case of style over substance. Aronofsky is so committed to the images and nothing else. In fact, the film has "visual masterpiece" written all over it - which is exactly why it isn't one! Aronofsky was obviously so confident that this film would be praised endlessly, and his pomposity is reflected in the final product. The Fountain is confusing and baffling, with too many uninteresting diverse interpretations. This is the kind of stuff that works better as a novel.

5.2/10

"My name is Ash and I am a slave. As far as I can figure, the year is thirteen hundred A.D and I'm being dragged to my death."

Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead trilogy at long last concluded with Army of Darkness. When it came to sequels to his cult favourite low-budget horror/comedy hybrid, Raimi never imbued them with any solid chronological obligations. In fact, the second Evil Dead film (Dead by Dawn) is merely a bigger budget remake of the first film. Usually I loathe remakes as they can never capture the magic of the original film. Dead by Dawn, however, was a rare occurrence of a remake-come-sequel unquestionably outshining the original that spawned it. This remake-come-sequel was more definitive, more coherent, more fun and more humorous. Raimi had initially wanted it to be a straight-up sequel, and had wanted to tag a recap of the prior events of the first film, but there were legal problems and he was forced to just shoot some new footage instead.

Almost the same deal applies with Army of Darkness. There's mostly new footage tagged onto the beginning to set up the story so far, which helps people find their footing if they've never seen any previous Evil Dead movies. At its heart, Army of Darkness completely disregards the over-the-top violence and gore as well as the solid horror tone of its predecessors. Instead, Raimi and co aimed for a humorous action/adventure in a medieval setting. It immediately follows on from the events of the second film. The film's title deliberately didn't make any palpable references to the first two films. This was fundamentally The Evil Dead as a more commercialised and mainstream flick that could easily be devoured even if someone hadn't seen the first two movies. Instead of being influenced by horror movies, Army of Darkness is a tribute to the Three Stooges, Monty Python and Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation. There's also a dash of Indiana Jones and some subtle Tolkien thrown in for good measure. The movie is undeniably silly beyond all comprehension, but it's proud to be as such.

There are countless dedicated fans who "get" what Raimi and co were aiming for, while others don't. Those who do "get" the movie understand that it's meant to be silly. From the outset, it was never meant to be anything more than B-Grade adventure schlock just as the previous films were merely B-Grade horror schlock. Army of Darkness isn't your customary B-Grade fare though...it's the finest example of a film designed to be a silly, humorous piece of fun that wears its cheese on its sleeve. If you want the short version, here it is: this is campy entertainment of the highest order and it demands to be seen.

"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?"

Following the events of Dead by Dawn, Ash (Campbell) is sucked into a vortex that transports him back in time many hundred years to medieval England. Following Ash's abrupt arrival, he's believed to be a spy and is condemned to death. He survives the situation that is supposed to be his execution, therefore presenting himself as a saviour to the people. It has been prophesised that a "chosen one" will quest for the Necronomicon - a.k.a. "The Book of the Dead". Ash wants to be returned to his modern society, and is informed that only the Necronomicon has the power to accomplish that. Soon after this (rather unsuccessful) quest, he's called upon to defend the people against the Army of Darkness. And there's also a corny love story happening between Ash and a woman named Sheila (Davidtz).

Just like the preceding films, there's very little in the way of plot. It embraces a simple premise, and from there it's a succession of imaginative (though somewhat nonsensical) scenarios. In this case there are miniature versions of Ash attacking Ash in many different ways, a random sex scene and the very humorous final battle during which Ash must battle an army of Deadites lead by the evil version of himself. Just like its forerunners, Army of Darkness has its tongue firmly in its cheek. If you're looking for a tribute to classic horror like the two original Evil Dead flicks, you'll be very disappointed. In no way is this third part a horror movie. It may have obtained an R-rating from the MPAA, but the content is very light. The gore is never ballooned to hyperbolic proportions unfortunately. It's a straightforward tribute to the swords-and-sorcery epics that we've all come to know and love.

I witnessed a lot of moments that are seemingly inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail, especially in Ash's hysterical antics. No longer is Ash the snivelling, uninteresting coward from The Evil Dead, nor is he the slightly badass bloke from Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn. Now he's more sleazy and stupid. There's over-the-top slapstick and moments of absolute stupidity. The one-liners are side-splitting at times. As a result, Army of Darkness is definitely one of the most quoted films of all time...and rightfully so.

The film was made with a reasonably low budget, but it's overflowing with passion. Raimi competently combines moments of solid special effects with other moments that showcase some extraordinarily shitty special effects. The skeletal army towards the end is a classic example of this. That's the whole charm and appeal though: we're supposed to laugh at the generally poor effects on offer. It's this goofy appeal that keeps the film motoring along: it's a total balloon-sized laugh riot!

Army of Darkness is a film that clearly divides opinions. The hardcore Evil Dead fanatics generally detest it because they missed the comic horror tone and exaggerated gore. The film has almost as many detractors as it does supporters. Few people would stoop to call it their favourite Evil Dead movie, while others just don't appreciate what Raimi was trying to accomplish. While I did enjoy this film and admired Raimi's efforts, it's still the weakest in the trilogy by a long shot. Just like its predecessors, Army of Darkness soon joined the cult arena and many loyal fans still enjoy it to this day.

B-Movie king Bruce Campbell hits the ball out of the park with his portrayal of Ash. Campbell's charm perfectly suits the tone of his character. Although this is the weakest Evil Dead flick, this is by far the best version of Ash. He's snappy, witty, amusing and clever. The screenwriting duo of Sam and Ivan Raimi frequently give Campbell terrific quips that he fires off with overwhelming charisma. His catchphrases are hilarious and imitable. One can never forget the memorable "This is my boomstick!", "Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!", "Gimme some sugar, baby!", "Ooh, that's gotta hurt!", "Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit...and Jack just left town.", "Yo, she-bitch! Let's go!" and of course the immortal "Groovy!".
By this time in the trilogy, everyone wanted to get a laugh, and their committed attempts pay off nicely. Everyone else works in Campbell's influential shadow. No-one can equal or better him.

Overall, Army of Darkness is a fitting way to conclude Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy. As a whole, this series is almost unbeatable. "Essential" is a word I can confidently employ to describe this trilogy. All three films are campy, funny and great entertainment. Looking at the films, it's obvious that everyone had a ball making them. This fact is reflected in the performances, the terrific cinematography and the (purposely) mediocre special effects. This third instalment is overflowing with moments of comedy genius. Witness Campbell using a contemporary vehicle in the middle of a medieval battle to slice up a skeleton army (he yells "Say hello to the 21st century!!"), or even the final scene during which Campbell faces off with a hideous Deadite before getting his girl and delivering that quotable final line...

"Hail to the king, baby."

7.8/10

"There's something out there. That... that witch in the cellar is only part of it. It lives... out in those woods, in the dark... something... something that's come back from the dead."

In 1979, Sam Raimi collaborated with a young group of friends to instigate a multiple-year odyssey that ultimately became The Evil Dead. It was made on an extraordinarily low budget, but nevertheless it became an immediate hit and was rewarded with a steadfast cult following. It wasn't long before Raimi was commissioned to produce a sequel.

After The Evil Dead was released, acclaimed horror author Stephen King praised the film to the skies. He incessantly lauded it and admired the efforts of Raimi and company. Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis soon approached Raimi with a proposal to helm the cinematic adaptation of Stephen King's Thinner. The offer was eventually rejected. However, with a persuasive nudge from King, De Laurentiis agreed to fund a sequel to The Evil Dead as an alternative. As a result, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn materialised into a highly commendable cult horror film.

Dead by Dawn is a common favourite when it comes to discussions regarding the greatest addition to the eventual Evil Dead trilogy. The film's primary strength is in its ability to generate an effective balance of comedy and horror; cleverly skating the line between the two with wonderful timing. It's a terrific combination of horror, comedy and pulp fun that manages to create a zany atmosphere that succeeds on many levels. Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and company deliver a flick that is an inspired piece of camp entertainment.

However, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn is frankly more of a remake than a sequel. Scarce chronological obligations are established, the continuity appears pretty messed up, and Campbell's character would be extremely dumb to knowingly walk into the same demonic horrors again. Campbell, who plays the character Ash, goes to the same cabin with a girlfriend of the same name, in the same car, plays the same tape and fights the same kind of Evil Dead once again.

But I digress... Raimi had intended for Dead by Dawn to be a sequel and had wanted to include a form of recap of the events of the first movie. However, due to legal issues Raimi could not acquire permission to use footage from the first Evil Dead. Instead the first 10 minutes or so include an abridged retelling of the original film with less characters and less fleshing out. The original film concluded when Ash (Campbell) was rushed by a demonic Deadite. At about the 10-minute mark, this occurs and Ash is propelled back through the forest. It's essentially a sequel, but it effectively disregards any continuity between it and its predecessor.

I personally adore the first two Evil Dead movies, but my preference is this second instalment. Why? It's so much damn fun! The humour is considerably more over-the-top and therefore more enjoyable, Ash is a far more satisfying character, and the level of camp is upped for best effect.

Here's a more elaborate plot outline: Ash takes his girlfriend Linda (Bixler) to a secluded wooden cabin for a weekend getaway. Soon after their arrival, they discover a mysterious tape encompassing recordings by an aging professor. The professor had recorded translations of the "Book of the Dead" which awakens the demonic evil in the forest. Linda is soon possessed by the Evil Dead and is transformed into a white-faced zombie. This thrusts Ash into an intense battle for his life.
The plot is quite thin, to the point of essentially being transparent. Those familiar with the series will also realise that there isn't much plot for the original Evil Dead film either. It's a clichéd tale of friends being hunted by something, with an ensuing gore-fest soon commencing. However, unlike feeble horror crap such as Friday the 13th, this series is just so much damn fun. Genius humour is mixed with effective chills and terrifying moments.

Dead by Dawn is by far the best in the trilogy. A higher budget means better make-up and superior production vales. This sequel captures the horror elements of the first film really competently. The final instalment in the trilogy (so far), Army of Darkness, was all humour and campy action without the over-the-top gory horror. Therefore as an addition to The Evil Dead trilogy, Dead by Dawn cannot be beaten. Everything here is masterful: directing, editing, acting, make-up and script. Sam Raimi obviously wanted to get a laugh no matter how silly a situation is. He succeeds! When Ash's hand is possessed by a demon, you'll realise that this is purposely very campy and that's why we love it. One must also love the witty dialogue permeating a creative situation. Campbell delivers the one-liners with great comic timing. The highlights include the badass arming up followed by the random line "...Groovy". Or a demon who states "I'll swallow you soul!" just before Campbell sticks a shotgun in its mouth and replies "Swallow this!".

As I mentioned before, Dead by Dawn is fundamentally a sequel-come-remake. Raimi apparently opted to make this film the way he had wanted to make the original. For the original, the budget was too inadequate for his ideas. The funding for Dead by Dawn had been expanded to a few million dollars, allowing more of Raimi's ideas to be brought to fruition. Robert Rodriguez later used this technique with his trademark trilogy of action films. Rodriguez made El Mariachi on a shockingly low budget ($8,000!!!), then (when he was given an expanded budget) he reworked the film in the form of the remake/sequel Desperado. First-time directors ostensibly enjoy reworking their own ideas to suit their initial conceptions more faithfully. However, the $3.6 million given to Sam Raimi for Dead by Dawn didn't permit the director to make the ambitious medieval sequel he had envisioned - his 14th century vision was reduced to a single scene at the end (this idea was later executed in the form of Army of Darkness). Still, their modest budget allowed the filmmakers to create much more effective make-up, knock-out gore effects, bigger monsters and wackier camerawork. In a nutshell: this is the perfect campy horror/comedy hybrid.

Bruce Campbell apparently described Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn as "the mother of all sequels". It truly is! The perfect association of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell with producer Robert Tapert has created an ideal sequel. The wonderful visual style of director Raimi is certainly present here. His camerawork is first-rate, with an effective use of shadows, darkness and hilarious amounts of realistic gore. The film's only misstep would probably be the abundance of clichés. We probably wouldn't love it as much if the clichés were removed, but it's not going to be a perfect film with them included.
Dead by Dawn could be my favourite horror movie of all time. It's essential viewing for horror buffs and fans of the original movie. Ash's hilarious catchphrases and the high amount of hysterical physical comedy mixed with very effective horror scenes just cannot be topped. Followed by Army of Darkness.

9.0/10

"I know now that my wife has become host to a Candarian demon. I fear that the only way to stop those possessed by the spirits of the book is through the act of... bodily dismemberment."

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

"This sucks! A maniac gets ahold of my gun and runs all over the streets killin' people with it. So, instead of bein' where I oughta be, home in bed with my gal givin' her the high hard one, I'm out here doin' THIS shit: roamin' around the streets with an overdressed, charcoal-colored loser like you."

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

"Now you know what we are, now you know what you are. You'll never grow old, Michael, and you'll never die. But you must feed!"

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

"You know, I had a dream. I dreamt I was home. I've had that same dream hundreds of times before. This time, I wanted to find out if it's really true. Am I really home?"

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.

"You know what it'll be like, don't you Peggy? It may take years to get anywhere. We'll have no money. No decent place to live. We'll have to work, get kicked around."

9.2/10

"I hate mummies. They never play fair."

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

"This here's Miss Bonnie Parker. I'm Clyde Barrow. We rob banks."

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

"I fight for more than vengeance now, Sargon. I fight for what my father once believed in. And I fight for what you've corrupted."

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