Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I've always believed that a portrait captures a person far better than a photograph. It truly takes a human being to really see a human being."

Simply put, Monster's Ball is one hell of an outstanding movie. Marc Forster's direction is first-rate, the script is meticulous, and there's superb acting right down the line. The story conveyed by this hauntingly compelling masterpiece cannot be easily swallowed. This is a powerful and poignant movie not merely about racism and redemption (as one might initially presume), but about one of the most urgent and unanimous of human desires - that of finding solace for anguish and solitude. Brutal, riveting and brilliant - Monster's Ball daringly strides into territory seldom explored by usual contemporary motion pictures. The film is emotive and provocative, and relentlessly delivers a message about life in the American South.

The title of Monster's Ball is a term that was used in 19th century Europe to describe a night of feasting traditionally had for a condemned prisoner the night before he or she was to be executed. The title may seem confusing, but if one understands what the term means in the context of the film's plot, it makes sense.

Hank Grotowski (Thornton) is a soft-spoken, embittered Georgian prison guard in charge of the Monster's Ball: he organises a condemned prisoner's last rites and final evening. Hank lives with his openly racist redneck father Buck (Boyle). His offspring Sonny (Ledger) also works at the local prison and has been caught in his family's passionate racism, which he tries to stand against. Sonny's job at the prison is purely due to the expectancy to carry on family tradition. Hank's final execution is that of prisoner Lawrence Musgrove (Combs). Following this, a family tragedy occurs and Hank feels mentally unfit to continue working at the prison. By chance he meets young African-America woman Leticia (Berry) and they form and unpredictably intimate bond. Leticia was the wife of the last man Hank executed, but both of them are initially none the wiser.

Monster's Ball is artful and solemn, magnanimous and atmospheric. It's inlaid with wordless scenes accumulated to produce a mosaic of meaningfulness about life in the American South and the possibility of redemption through love. Its message is conveyed effectively and relentlessly. There is never any reluctance to display gratuitous racism or sex. The controversial sex scene in particular between Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry is graphic and explicit...almost pornographic material. It's these scenes, along with several others, that create an engaging hook to compellingly reel in a viewer for the (approximately) 110-minute duration.

The film is supported by a stellar screenplay. The film's sole negatives are in the script, though. Most of the character behaviour seems forced and ludicrous. The sex scene, although tastefully done, never seems to have much of a purpose. An emotionally vulnerable black woman would not seek comfort in a man she barely knows. Probably a feature to reveal her character, but it seems very sudden and difficult to buy. Despite this, the film is an incredible experience. There are admirably unconventional and unsentimental moments included in the script. Leticia and Hank never profess undying love for each other. In fact, there never seems to be any love included: it's all lust. "Make me feel good!" Leticia pleads Hank before forcing him into the nitty gritty. The characters never feel good per se, but they do feel better. The film does not end with any clichés. The love interests don't ride off into the sunset together or live happily ever after. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest the two will be together very long. As an alternative the film concludes on a beautiful note of ambiguity...and perhaps a glimmer of hope.

With each film, Billy Bob Thornton continues to convince me that he's one of the finest actors working today. He's a true filmic chameleon who brings life and adequate realism into every single role he portrays. It's impossible to overlook his amazing performances. Be it A Simple Plan, Bad Santa, Sling Blade or Bandits - Thornton's acting skills are sensational. His character of Hank Grotowski is a quintessential Thorntonian. Never does he put a foot wrong.
Halle Berry's acceptance speech at the Oscars forever sits badly in my stomach. She pretty much embarrassed herself in front of the millions of viewers. Despite this opinion, Halle deserved her Oscar for portraying a character with such emotional depth. It's a shame her character was cheapened by the unnecessary sex scene, but nevertheless her acting is incredible. No matter what situation she's been placed into, Halle can do wonders with her character.
Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) is used for an unfortunately short duration. In spite of this, Ledger gives his character depth and motivation. He abhors the racism ripening in those he usually looks up to. His character feels horrible about being forced to dish out capital punishment, and this is palpable in Ledger's emotions. His character is also reduced to "relieving" himself with a prostitute to escape his awful life. It's a shame the actor died so young. A promising career would have been ahead of him.
Peter Boyle takes a shocking career turn as the racist grandfather. For years I've seen Boyle as the hysterically witty grandpa in Everybody Loves Raymond. Surprisingly, Boyle pulls off this serious role admirably.

Overall, Monster's Ball is a challenging, stimulating and confronting drama that shows the ugly side of humanity with stark realism. Suicide, capital punishment, graphic sex and racist slurs are among the contents of this unforgettable production. Said contents are not sugar-coated in any way. The gripping screenplay and Marc Forster's transcendent direction "tells it like it is". As a result the film is an intense, emotionally-wrenching and powerfully affecting experience that requires dedication and attention. Superb performances permeate the proceedings, adding density, depth and feeling to the hard-nosed drama. It may seem dour on the surface and some features of the script are ridiculous...however the film conveys an unsentimental, expressive, achingly eloquent and affirming story of transformation and hope.

8.2/10

"When you've been in prison as long as I have, you remember every story about pussy you ever heard."

It took eight years, a bundle of writers, endless rewrites and a few Beverly Hills Cop movies before the classic 48 Hrs. screen duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte re-teamed for the highly anticipated sequel. Unfortunately, Another 48 Hrs. materialised into an enormous disappointment. Considering all the effort that went into the script, the film is even more disappointing. Eddie Murphy was also among the screenwriting committee (under a fake name), making this rubbish sequel a further disappointment. In addition to this, all the other elements were right: Nolte and Murphy back in action, as well as director Walter Hill taking the helm once again. Another 48 Hrs. crawled out with steadfast potential, but tragically died on arrival. The problem was not with director Hill, or the impeccable duo...the problem stems from the material they were given to work with.

The script suffers from a bout of committee writing - that is, several screenwriters begging to have their ideas incorporated. This is worn on the film's sleeves: there is action aplenty, violence and foul-mouthed characters...with zero laughs, zero charm, zero wit, zero laughs (yes, I know I mentioned 'laughs' twice, but it's such a criminal exclusion that it deserves to be mentioned twice) and a bunch of unenergetic actors desperately searching for their next pay-check. Nolte and Hill hadn't seen a hit since the original film, whereas Murphy obtained fame in abundance. Perhaps convincing Murphy to star in Another 48 Hrs. was a cheap attempt by Hill and Nolte to score another hit without having to work too hard. This is palpable as well. It seems like a substandard rehash of 48 Hrs. with the negatives of said predecessor inflated and the positives deflated.

Set several years after the events of the first film, the story follows officer Jack Cates (Nolte) who's working to catch a drug lord only known as the Iceman. For years Jack has investigated, only for extraordinary coincidences to continually occur that leave his investigation dead in the water. Jack soon discovers that his old buddy Reggie Hammond (Murphy) is on the Iceman's hit list. At the end of the first film, Reggie had 6 months left of his prison sentence. Apparently another 5 years were added and now he's about to be released. The addition of these extra 5 years are touched upon, but not greatly explored. It's an irritating red herring, included merely as an excuse to place Reggie in prison again for him to sing his trademark rendition of 'Roxanne'. Worse yet, the strong camaraderie established between Reggie and Jack is gone because they haven't seen each other for so long. Once again, this is an unrealistic inclusion purely to introduce a heated rivalry again. It makes little sense.

So anyway, Reggie and Jack work to track down the Iceman. Oh, and Jack's career is in trouble and he's been suspended. This marks yet another pathetic cliché. There are already tonnes of clichés, so another one is like another duck in a heavily populated pond. One would think someone held a cliché convention and the screenwriting team acquired a 3-day pass!

As one has probably also noticed, Another 48 Hrs. is a mindless "everything must go" sale of clichés. Also, it's probably obvious that the script is a mess. It was rewritten many times, and there were so many writers brought in, but it's a clunky piece of trash. The palpability of a group of writers penning the script is further cemented by a few other elements. One such instance is the police composite drawing kit, used early in the film. It's used to create an image of a suspect they're searching for. Later we find out that Reggie knew what the Iceman looked like all along. When Jack learns this information he drags Reggie across the city, asking him to point out the Iceman. Why couldn't he just use the drawing kit again?! On paper the film would have sounded worse than the eventual product. At least the visuals have the stylish touch of Walter Hill, marking one of the only positive things about the movie. The action is exciting, even if it doesn't make much sense.

Poor villains are another drawback. Instead of being memorable and menacing, the dumb baddies don't do anything but kill people for the hell of it. Their motivation doesn't exist, especially with the convoluted plot being so excessively dragged out.
The relationship between Reggie and Jack is appalling. No witty lines, no interesting twists, and worst of all no friendship under pressure. They yell at each other and punch each other in every second scene! To make matters worse, there are many scenarios used here that were also used in the original film. It's probably some feeble attempt at nostalgia. The acting is just absurd. Eddie Murphy has aged and his changed Reggie character is just boring. I expected to be laughing occasionally...but I wasn't. I wondered whether the screenwriters ever even saw the first film. Nolte is grouchy, cranky and looks bored. The horribly written villains are the furthest thing from realistic. The rest of the cast appear to say their lines rather than meaning them. Director Hill let too many faulty moments get included, it seems.

Another 48 Hrs. should be in the running for "Most Disappointing Movie Sequel of All Time". As a standalone motion picture, the film is still a pile of shit. It may be watchable during the action sequences, but everything else is frequently boring. As a sequel to the classic original action/comedy, Another 48 Hrs. is dire beyond words. It's a crime for a supposed action/comedy to spend its duration without a single funny gag or witty line. If someone pulled in a few decent screenwriters as opposed to useless hacks, something interesting could have transpired. As it is, this is just another damned sequel that never should have happened. This is a purposeless waste of the talents of everyone involved. If you're an enormous fan of the first movie, this sequel just isn't worth it.

3.9/10

"You know, for years now I've listened to all these idiots on barstools, with their pet theories on Dallas. How it was the Cubans, or the CIA, or the white supremacists, or the Mob. About whether there was one weapon, or whether there was five. None of that's meant much to me. But Leary... he questioned whether I had the guts to take that fatal bullet."

In the Line of Fire still remains the indomitable king in the realm of political action-thrillers. It may seem that a majority of the basic plot elements appear somewhat proverbial to a mainstream audience (i.e. an aging law enforcement officer who's passed his prime, a bureau reluctant to trust the aging officer, a psycho killer who establishes communication with the hero, the psycho killer endeavouring to get into the head of the aging protagonist, etc), but with the impeccable Clint Eastwood in front of the camera and acclaimed director Wolfgang Peterson at the helm...In the Line of Fire is far from ordinary.

The movie is a supremely crackling political thriller featuring intricate and artistic direction, an intriguing screenplay, and it moves at a feverish pace from one fascinating plot point to the one succeeding it. Clint Eastwood may have been in his early 60s when the cameras rolled for this film, but it's the greatest modern Eastwood actioner since the original Dirty Harry. In fact, In the Line of Fire confidently positions itself in the league of Unforgiven as well as other classic Eastwood westerns. The film benefits mostly from the meticulous script by Jeff Maguire that contains intelligent scenarios and witty dialogue. Every shot in itself is a work of art, created by a director who excels at his craft.

Veteran Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) has passed his golden years. Back in the 1960s, he was personally picked by John F. Kennedy and was his favourite Secret Service agent. But on November 22 1963, Frank failed to react to the bullets that blew Kennedy's head apart. His failure to protect the president has haunted him for decades. 30 years later Frank is doing undercover work to bust counterfeiters for the Treasury Department. Frank and his new young partner Al (McDermott) are assigned to investigate what appears to be a routine, commonplace threat to the current president's life. But the man behind the threat begins calling Frank at his home. He shares his thoughts with Frank and boasts of his intentions to kill the President of the United States. The alleged assassin calls himself "Booth" (Malkovich) in honour of John Wilkes Booth (who killed President Lincoln...just in case you didn't know). As communication between the two intensifies, Booth begins to torment Frank in relation to his failure to take a bullet for the president back in the 1960s. Driven by his determination not to let another president die, Frank quickly finds himself having to confront his inner demons to catch Booth and prevent the proposed assassination from coming to fruition.

The theatrical release date for In the Line of Fire was between The Firm and The Fugitive, not to mention that the film was also sandwiched between the two significant Eastwood tentpoles of Unforgiven and A Perfect World. Out of these aforementioned films, In the Line of Fire and Unforgiven are the best of show: each film respectively marking a return to form for Eastwood, with a western (like his breakthrough performance in the western A Fistful of Dollars) and an intense action-thriller (similar to the original Dirty Harry).

Jeff Maguire's remarkable screenplay earned an Oscar nomination, and rightfully so. The intelligent script tracks an extraordinary game of cat-and-mouse of superlative quality. This thriller is certainly a cut above the pack, due mainly to Maguire's outstanding script. There's a high amount of realism and detail in the storytelling. The depiction of the Secret Service is thoroughly accurate. The methods shown are apparently quite precise. Most impressive are the surprising plot twists of which there are plenty. The characters are realistic as well. What could have been a two-dimensional slate of characters are instead given astounding depth. The psycho villain in particular is bequeathed with comprehendible motives and a fascinating personality. Probably the only drawback would be a number of clichés. It's mostly forgivable though, because a majority of these clichés were invented by this film.

German director Wolfgang Peterson is probably most recognised for the critically acclaimed Das Boot. Following In the Line of Fire, Peterson went on to direct such films as Air Force One, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak, and several others. He crafts his movies with wonderful filmic merits present in each shot. The final showdown is probably the strongest 15 minutes in the flick. It's suitably intense, nail-biting and clever. You will be kept on the edge of your seat until we're allowed to breathe again.
Probably the main highlight of the film is its terrific score courtesy of composer Ennio Morricone. Morricone's music constantly sets the tone to great effect. With a great editor handling great material shot by a great cinematographer, the only touch making it better is the tingling sound of Morricone's music.

The remarkable characters are performed by an above average cast. Clint Eastwood hasn't lost his touch. Some compare this film to the original Dirty Harry, and with good reason. If the name of Frank Horrigan was changed to Harry Callahan, it could have worked as a fitting farewell to the trademark action hero. The only thing missing would be the wisecracks and badass attitude. Despite that, there are a lot of Eastwoodisms to be found. One of the most interesting Eastwood moments is when he's making love to Secret Service agent Lilly Raines (Russo). They attempt to remove each other's clothes and the irritatingly excessive hi-tech equipment...and then Lilly is called away. "Damn!" Eastwood finally says, looking disappointed and annoyed. "I've got to put all that shit back on, damn it!"
John Malkovich was nominated for an Oscar for his electrifying, career-best performance as the villain. He does a sneeringly terrific job, pulling off multiple appearances as his character creates new disguises for himself. Malkovich has the look of a cool, calm killer as he relentlessly murders people without hesitation and only rarely losing his temper. When on the phone to Eastwood's character, he's menacing and chilling. Apparently to add further credibility to the frequent phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, they were filmed for real.

The rest of the cast are given the unfortunate task of working in the shadow of two tremendously talented actors. Rene Russo is likeable as always in her performance as the committed female Secret Service agent. The only real drawback of the film is in Russo's character. Not that her performance was faulty, but the way she was written is slightly disappointing. Being a love interest for Eastwood doesn't fit. In addition to the baffling age gap, it appears to weaken and cheapen the supposedly solid character. All other cast members do their job effectively.

Overall, In the Line of Fire is a fantastic political action-thriller that moves at an invigorating pace and provides solid entertainment for its 125-minute duration. The film benefits from top-notch moviemaking in every aspect. From directing to cinematography, editing to scoring, sound effects to visual effects...the faults are too scarce to notice. It's been a number of years since the film's initial release, yet it has hardly dated. Perhaps the digital insertion of Eastwood into old JFK footage is a little obvious, however little else is flawed. The film may not encompass the outlandish action of Con Air or Peterson's later Air Force One, but nevertheless the film stands confidently on its own merits.

9.2/10

"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