Atlantis: The Lost Empire - The year is 1914 and a young linguist named Milo Thatch (voiced by Michael J. Fox) has once again had his request for funding turned down by the board members of the university at which he is employed. The funding in question would be used continue his grandfather's search for the lost city of Atlantis. All Milo needs to convince the world that his quest isn't a wild goose chase is an ancient book known as The Shepherd's Journal. Returning home from work that very day, Milo is greeted by a woman named Helga (Claudia Christian) who takes him to meet a former friend of his grandfather named Preston B. Whitmore (John Mahoney). Whitmore gives Milo the very book that he'd been searching for along with all of the resources he needs to go on his mission. These resources include a large submarine and a skilled crew comprised of cooks, engineers, and any other specialists that could help out on an undersea expedition, such as former military man Commander Rourke (James Garner). Using the Shepherd's Journal, Milo is able to lead the team to a giant air pocket beneath the ocean where their numbers are severely depleted when the submarine is attacked by the fabled beast known as the leviathan. After scuffling with the creature, which they discover is a man-made robot as opposed to a historical beast, the remnants of the team continue toward their goal. After braving the harsh depths of several undersea caverns, Milo and co. find what they were looking for: the city of Atlantis. However, it isn't quite the wonderland that they expected. Through primitive means of communication, Milo slowly begins to learn to communicate with the remaining members of the civilization that once thrived in Atlantis before it became the ruined locale that they discovered. As a favor to the beautiful Princess Kida (Cree Summer) and her father King Kashekim (Leonard Nimoy), Milo uses his skills as a linguist to decipher ancient texts that have been indecipherable to the Atlanteans for ages in hopes of discovering not only what happened to their home, but also how the survivors have managed to stay alive for thousands of years without aging. Unfortunately, the more Milo learns about Atlantis, the closer he comes to inadvertently assisting the treacherous Commander Rourke in mining the ancient energy at the heart of the city for his own personal gain. Atlantis didn't do terribly well in theaters when it was released in the summer of 2001 and I honestly never had an interest in seeing the film myself until about three years ago. During my time at the Kubert School I learned that an artist by the name of Mike Mignola, of whom I am a fan, was responsible for much of the visual style and design of Atlantis. What began as an interest in the look of the film grew into a great admiration of the plot and storytelling as well. Atlantis has become one of my favorite animated Disney films. One of the most notable aspects of the movie remains in the design that I had initially been interested in. The undersea city of Atlantis was beautifully designed, as were all of the mechanical devices inside and out of the city itself. The submarine that delivers the characters to the bottom of the ocean is of a particularly interesting and original design. The story of the film is interesting and involves some mildly science fiction-oriented aspects which I really enjoyed. There is also a decent bit of action between the battle with the leviathan toward the beginning of the movie and the all-out chase/fight scene at the film's climax. As with just about all Disney films there is also a proper injection of comedy throughout the course of the tale and a mild love story. While not many of the characters' voices are provided by big names, Michael J. Fox delivers a solid performance as Milo Thatch, and Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of the king of Atlantis is a nice touch. When all is said and done, Atlantis is a fun, exciting, clever movie suited for all ages and enjoyable for (I'd assume) just about anyone.
Find Me Guilty - In 1986 the United States federal court began a trial against twenty members of the Lucchese crime family based on a sixty five page indictment. It would become the longest case in history, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and amassing over eight hundred and fifty pieces of evidence. In an attempt to turn crime family member Jackie DiNorscio (Vin Diesel) against his friends and associates, prosecutors offered to decrease his (at the time) 30 year prison sentence. Jackie refused the offer and opted to stand trial with the rest of the Lucchese family. Even more surprising than that, however, is the fact that amongst a courtroom full of high-priced lawyers, Jackie chose to represent himself. Find Me Guilty is based on a true story. It may not seem that incredible, but once you see the courtroom scenes in the film in which there are twenty defendants, each with a lawyer, all standing trial at the same time, the situation is put into better perspective. This was perhaps one of the most ambitious cases in the history of the United States judicial system, and at the heart of it all is Jackie DiNorscio. DiNorscio was a high school dropout who'd been in and out of prison his entire life, yet in the face of such incredible circumstances he chose to act as his own lawyer. Easily put, Vin Diesel gave the best performance in this film that I've seen from him yet. Honestly he hasn't had too many demanding roles, but even so, this is an impressive performance. You'll actually believe that he can act when he isn't wielding a gun or punching someone in the face. Find Me Guilty was an absolute bomb at the box office. I wasn't surprised to find this out since I'd never heard of the movie until I saw it on the shelf at Blockbuster. Even then, the only reason I gave it a second glance was because Vin Diesel is sporting hair on the cover. Even if I had seen the trailers for this film I most likely wouldn't have had any interest in it, but after seeing it I must say that it is a pretty good movie. Not great, but definitely worth a watch. One of the most interesting things about the movie is that almost all of Diesel's dialogue in the courtroom scenes is repeated verbatim from the manuscripts of the actual court case from the mid-eighties. Knowing this made the film even more enjoyable because otherwise it would seem as though the writers were just having fun writing Liar Liar-esque silly courtroom rants. In my opinion, aside from Vin Diesel himself, the best performance of the movie came from Peter Dinklage, who plays Jackie DiNorscio's friend who just so happens to be a lawyer in the trial. Find Me Guilty may not seem like much, but if you're ever walking the aisles of a video rental establishment and can't find anything to watch, check it out. It mixes a decent amount of comedy and drama in a film that you'll appreciate more with the knowledge that the events described within actually happened.
Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events - When their wealthy parents die in a tragic and unexplained house fire, Klaus (Liam Aiken), Violet (Emily Browning), and Sunny (Kara Hoffman and Shelby Hoffman) Bauedelaire learn that they are to inherit their parents' fortune. However, they cannot claim the money until they are of age. In the meantime the three of them are placed in the care of a distant relative by the name of Count Olaf (Jim Carrey). Olaf is an unattractive, greedy older man who maintains delusions of being an actor. Immediately upon their arrival the Bauedelaires are put to work by Olaf, cleaning, cooking, and the like. Before long it occurs to the children that Count Olaf doesn't just intend to mistreat and neglect them, but also kill them and take their money. Minding their own safety, the three youngsters alert the proper authorities to Olaf's inability to properly care for them. Taken from Olaf's home, the children are left in the care of another distant relative named Uncle Monty (Billy Connelly). Everything seems to be going well until Count Olaf arrives on the scene disguised as someone else. It is at this point that the Bauedelaires realize that Olaf doesn't intend to lose his fortune without a fight. One by one the children are shipped to the homes of different relatives, each of which is conned by Olaf into thinking that he's someone else just to get close to the children and their money. As their dire situation sinks in, Klaus, Violet, and Sunny decide that they'll have to take matters into their own hands if they want to rid themselves of Count Olaf once and for all. The first thing that I must mention about this film is the make-up that Jim Carrey dons throughout. It is incredible. The first time I saw the trailer for Lemony Snicket I had no idea that it was him. In the movie itself it's a little more obvious, but the make-up is still magnificent. The look of the film in general reminds me a bit of the works of Tim Burton. Movies like Beetlejuice, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Big Fish, and Edward Scissorhands come to mind when trying to think of those with similar themes and design. There is a very distinct Victorian era feel to the film with moments of dark fantasy scattered throughout. As for the acting, I enjoyed every role except for those of the children. Honestly Sunny was just a baby, so there's not much to complain about there, but as far as Klaus and Violet are concerned, I honestly didn't give a damn about either of them. I really didn't feel like either Liam Aiken or Emily Browning pulled off their roles terribly well. Overall I didn't much care for Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events outside of some of the design and acting (on the part of the adults). The story was very simple and dull with very predictable plot points throughout. The ending was weak and unimpressive, and the entire movie relied too much on the probability that younger viewers would be entertained by the sort of cutesy jokes and imagery that one has come to expect from the more light-hearted moments of the Harry Potter franchise. It did very little to keep my interest and ended up being a rather forgettable experience.
Mirrormask - Helena (Stephanie Leonidas) is a fifteen year-old girl who wants nothing more than to be normal. This isn't such an easy task as her father (Rob Brydon) and mother (Gina McKee) own a circus in which she performs. When Helena's mother ends up in the hospital after the two of them have a particularly ugly argument, Helena begins to feel more sorry for herself than usual. With the circus' business dwindling, pressure is mounting on Helena's family. Then one day Helena wakes up in a strange place. A very strange place. This place is home to opposing queens, odd creatures, and a black shadow that engulfs anything it comes into contact with. Soon Helena learns that she may be the only hope for the dying kingdom and that to fulfill her destiny she must find something called the mirrormask. The longer Helena resides in this strange land, the more peculiar it becomes. There are messages and secrets abound and sometimes when she looks through the windows of buildings Helena sees herself on the other side. Or at least the person she is seeing looks like her. With the help of a masked man named Valentine (Jason Barry), Helena must find the mirrormask and set things right within the troubled kingdom or she may risk being stuck there forever. Mirrormask is a movie that I knew nothing about other than the fact that I wanted to see it. The idea that a movie of this much visual intricacy would be created using so many prosthetics, puppets, and non-computer-assisted effects in this day and age drew me immediately to the film. Also, it was written and directed by the team of Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean, who are responsible for a large number of great comic books and novels between them. I had high hopes for Mirrormask, which is why I was more than a little disappointed when I came away from the film having been somewhat bored, confused, and underwhelmed. The film has a very interesting look about it. The magical kingdom in Helena's head is disturbingly beautiful and many of the beings that inhabit it were interesting to look at, but overall I found that the film was not all that visually gratifying to me. I applaud the attempts that the filmmakers made to use conventional methods to create the look and feel of the story, but it came out a bit choppy in my opinion. It was neat to look at, but not entirely convincing. It's hard to explain what I'm trying to say. It just felt like it could have looked "better". The plot was interesting at the start, but very quickly became confusing. At the climax of the film all of the loose ends are tied up and everything finally makes sense, but for more than half of the movie I had no god damn clue what was going on. The characters were trying to find the Mirrormask, but they seemed to just bumble around making no progress for about an hour. Now I admit that when the point of the movie is finally revealed that it is a really clever and original idea that I quite liked, but there was a long stretch during which I was bored to death by the movie because of the lack of direction. Perhaps now that I know what the storytellers were getting at I could enjoy the film more upon a second viewing, but the first one didn't really leave me with a desire to see it again. Maybe someday in the future, but certainly not anytime soon. I'd recommend Mirrormask to people who like to smoke lots of drugs while they watch movies as well as anyone who likes to say that they like weird movies just to be cool. Aside from those two demographics I'm sure that Mirrormask will find it's audience with some people, but I'm not one of them.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Episode 32 - Spiderman Triple Threat Review
Spiderman - Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was a nerdy high school senior living in Queens, New York with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). He had a knack for all things scientific, a crush on the girl next door named Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), and was best friends with Harry Osborn (James Franco), son of scientist and businessman Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe). He was completely normal until the day that he was bitten by a genetically altered spider in a laboratory while on a school field trip. That night he grew ill, but the next morning awoke to discover that he wasn't quite the same. His slender body had suddenly become muscular and his eyesight improved beyond the need to wear glasses. In addition to that, Peter was now more agile, he could somehow stick to walls, and after some practice he learned how to shoot long, sturdy streams of a spider web-like substance from his wrists which he could then use to tie people up and swing through the streets of New York City. Hoping to use his newfound abilities to earn money with which to buy a car and impress Mary Jane, Peter entered an underground wrestling tournament. Upon defeating his opponent, Peter was screwed out of the prize money by the manager of the event, which is why he then refused to stop a robber who'd just stolen all of the manager's money. Upon returning to where his Uncle Ben had promised to pick him up, Peter discovered that the same robber he'd let go had taken the life of his uncle. From that day on, Peter Parker vowed to use his abilities only for good as per his uncle's advice that "with great power comes great responsibility". Donning a colorful costume adorned with spider-centric designs, Peter became the super hero called Spiderman. Meanwhile, fearing the demise of his business based on poor lab test results, Norman Osborn opted to foolishly try out a new physical enhancement serum his company had developed on himself. The experiment took a bad turn, driving Norman mad; his only thoughts now focused on revenge against those who would threaten his business. When Norman, being referred to as the Green Goblin by the local newspaper (The Daily Bugle), attacked and murdered his enemies during a parade, Peter took action by swinging onto the scene to fight him as Spiderman. After this encounter Norman realized that Spiderman was now a threat to him, and after discovering his foe's identity, decided to make things personal. In the wake of the first X-Men film, word on the street was that Spiderman would be the next comic book super hero to get the cinematic treatment. Rumors spread like wild fire as to who would direct the film and who would play Peter Parker with names like James Cameron and Leonardo DiCaprio being tossed about. It came as a complete shock to everyone when Sam Raimi, known for his low-budget horror films, was chosen to helm the project. Even more controversy was created when he chose Tobey Maguire, who was previously unfamiliar with action-oriented roles, to be his leading man. However, the project pushed ahead and was finally released in theaters to high praise and the fastest grossing of one hundred million dollars in history after just three days (which has since been exceeded). But forget all that mumbo jumbo...what do I think of the movie? Well, I love it. X-Men was exciting because it was the beginning of a new era of comic book movies. It had lots of characters exhibiting cool super powers, but when you get right down to it the story was a bit weak. This is a mistake that Spiderman did not mirror. This film is primarily an origin story. It shows our hero...well...becoming a hero. He goes from nobody to somebody and endures his first big struggle against someone of fairly equal standing in a fight. In regards to the plot and the script, the first Spiderman movie is great. All of the characters are spot on with their funny book counterparts, the birth of the hero was told almost verbatim to the original story that everyone loved, and the movie mixed comedy, action, and drama in a way that very few films have. In a way, what made Spiderman such a great movie was the fact that Raimi and co. stuck to the source material. After all, why change something people already love? I'm looking at you, Resident Evil. The things that I dislike about the first Spiderman film are few, and often trivial. First and foremost: Green Goblin's costume. While I'd have liked to see the tattered rags of the comic book character, I understand the need for change. I can't even complain too much about the body suit because the writers explain early on in the movie that the suit is meant for use in combat (hence all the armor) and is also meant to enable the wearer to properly operate the glider. I'm cool with all that. My problem lies with the helmet. Where the fuck did Norman Osborn get that thing? I can't believe that Oscorp would have designed those for use by military personnel. I know he's called the Green "Goblin", but it was a bit odd to me that Norman would have a scary monster head lying around. And even looking past the face of the thing, why does it have the huge protrusion on the back as though H.R. Giger had designed it? Problem number two: the patriotic New Yorkers. You know the scene during the final battle between Spidey and the Green Goblin when people start throwing shit off of the George Washington bridge at the Goblin while shouting things such as "Why you gonna attack a guy tryin' to save a bunch'a kids?" and "This is New York! You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!"? I know that 9/11 was a tragedy, but was that really necessary? It's no secret that this scene's existence is directly related to the low number of World Trade Center towers at the time of the filming. This scene by no means ruins the movie for me, but come on...was this really necessary? In actuality, I'm just grasping at straws here because there's not much for me to dislike about the movie (although, let us not forget the cameo by Macy Gray...ugh). As such, how about I list off some more positives? Raimi rocked the damn house with this movie. Had anyone else gotten their grubby mitts on this film and it would have probably turned into a super-serious, gritty action movie. Raimi found a way to direct Spiderman so that even the brutal fight scenes seemed somehow light-hearted. The little quirks in his directing really brought a new level to the movie as well. Little sudden scares such as when Harry asks his father what had happened the night before in the lab and the inclusion of the trippy montage during Peter's transformation into Spiderman were all utilized perfectly. In my eyes Sam Raimi truly invented a new genre of film with Spiderman. While other movies like X-Men, Superman, or Batman may in fact be "super hero movies", Spiderman, under the watchful eye of Sam Raimi, truly became the first "comic book movie".
Spiderman 2 - It's been two years since the death of Ben Parker. Two years since Norman Osborn (aka the Green Goblin) accidentally killed himself while battling Spiderman. Two years since Norman's son Harry vowed to enact vengeance on Spiderman, whom he blames for his father's death. A lot can happen in two years. Peter has moved into New York City, attending college and continuing to take photographs of himself as Spiderman for J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons), the publisher of the Daily Bugle. Mary Jane has begun dating Jonah's astronaut son John Jameson (Daniel Gillies), and is performing the lead role in an off-Broadway play. On the surface things seem to be going alright, but Peter's life is in shambles. He spends all of his time protecting the streets of New York as Spiderman while the woman he loves is engaged to marry another man, his best friend blames his alter-ego for the death of his father, and he can hardly pay the rent. Not to mention, when Peter reveals to his Aunt May (who is being forced out of her home) that he is partially responsible for the death of his uncle and her husband, she becomes distant. With so much pressure mounting on Peter, he even begins to lose control of his super powers. Upon the suggestion of a friend, Peter gives up the mantle of Spiderman to live his own life and worry only about himself for once. Immediately things begin to look up. Peter's grades improve, his relationships with his friends, family, and Mary Jane improve, and best of all, he feels good about himself. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. One of Peter's idols, a scientist by the name of Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), has designed four mechanical arms which fasten onto his back and tap into his brain in order to allow him to perform dangerous experiments with fusion reactions. When one of these tests goes wrong, the accident injures Octavius, melding the mechanical device permanently to his spine and destroying the computer chip that keeps it from influencing his mind. A broken man, Otto, under the control of the advanced artificial intelligence of his four mechanical extremities, vows to recreate his fusion experiment no matter what the cost. After an initial conflict with Spiderman, Otto (now dubbed Doctor Octopus by the Daily Bugle) must go to Harry Osborn to acquire a sample of trillium, the rare material that will allow him to complete his task. Harry agrees to provide Octavius with what he needs if he'll bring Spiderman to him alive, which is just what he does. However, when Spiderman (now revealed to his friend as Peter Parker) explains that the entire city is in danger if Doc Ock achieves his goal, Harry has no choice but to let Spiderman go to save the day. Come 2004, everyone knew that the first Spiderman film would be tough to top. In addition to that, just as Spiderman had to best X-Men, Spiderman 2 now had the unenviable task of standing up to X2. The perfect casting of Alfred Molina as the villainous Doctor Octopus put many people's minds at ease, but it wasn't until Spiderman 2 opened in theaters that the feelings became near-unanimous. Spiderman 2 is better than Spiderman. Spiderman masterfully told the origin of our hero and pitted him against perhaps his greatest foe, but Spiderman 2 stepped it up a notch. With the origin tale out of the way, Sam Raimi was free to run wild with Spiderman 2, and he did just that. The characterization in this film is incredible. Each and every actor is given massive amounts of room to stretch their muscles in developing their already beloved characters. With his son so prominently featured in the film as part of a love triangle with Mary Jane and Peter, J.K. Simmons stole every scene he was in as media mogul J. Jonah Jameson. His comedic timing matched with Raimi's eye for corn-ball humor struck a chord with just about everyone who saw the movie. The laughs don't stop there, though. Sam's light-hearted take on Peter's tortured soul results in multiple scenes where so many bad things pile up that they become that of comedy gold. Perhaps the best humor of the film, though, lies within the music montage scene set to the song "Raindrops Are Falling On My Head" in an obvious nod to the classic film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Comedy aside, Spiderman 2 also delivers action by the boatload. The first Spiderman film had a few memorable moments involving Spidey and his foe, but none of them come close to the bouts between he and Doctor Octopus. There are three fight scenes between these two over the course of the movie's two hours, and they're all outstanding. As much as X2 made up for the lack of proper fight scenes in the first film, Spiderman 2 triumphed in the super hero genre as far as fights were concerned. With the seamless combination of action, comedy, and drama becoming even stronger in the sequel than in the original, Spiderman 2 remains one of the best super hero movies of all time, as well as one of my personal favorite films of all time.
Spiderman 3 - Spiderman 3 begins much differently than it's predecessor. Peter Parker is living the life. He's dating the girl of his dreams, he's got a steady flow of cash from the Daily Bugle for his photographs of Spiderman, and he's continuing to do well in school. The only real problem is that his former best friend still wants him dead because he now knows that Peter and Spiderman (whom he blames for his father's death) are one and the same. However, this hardly seems noteworthy when the entire city of New York has fallen in love with Spiderman after he so selflessly risked his life to save them from doom at the hands of Doctor Octopus. Yet as I mentioned before, all good things must end. Caught up in his own fame and popularity as Spiderman, Peter becomes distant from Mary Jane, leading to their relationship making a decline. Harry has followed in his father's less-than-admirable footsteps and exposed himself to the serum that turned him into a murdering psychopath so that he may enact his revenge on Spiderman. A new photographer by the name of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) has begun snapping photos of Spiderman for sale to the Daily Bugle, and is impeding on Peter's territory. Meanwhile, information has come to Peter's attention that links a criminal by the name of Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) to the death of his Uncle Ben. As chance would have it, while running from the police, Flint stumbled into the middle of a particle accelerator on the property of a restricted scientific research facility where his molecules were bonded with those of sand. Now known as the Sandman, Marko has the ability to turn into a being made of sand and morph his body into various shapes. But perhaps worst of all is the symbiote. After a meteorite carrying a black alien slime crashes in New York, the being bonds itself with Peter, becoming one with one of his Spiderman uniforms and turning it black. The symbiote, as Peter's friend and professor Curt Conners (Dylan Baker) reveals, feeds on emotions and makes them stronger. Due to Peter's anger regarding Flint Marko, the symbiote feeds on his emotions and brings out a bad side that Peter never knew he had. Over time he begins to ruin any relationships and progress he'd made with his friends and loved ones before realizing what was going on. After being humiliated by Peter while under the influence of the black costume, Eddie Brock stumbles into the church where Peter is trying to rid himself of the symbiote. When the alien being transfers itself from Parker to Brock, it's no surprise that Eddie's newfound hatred for Peter and the symbiote's current dislike for Spiderman would combine to create one angry individual known as Venom. Spiderman was a fantastic film. Spiderman 2 was even better. Why, then, should I have had any doubt that Spiderman 3 would be great as well? Perhaps because prior to it's official release, Spiderman 3 was bombarded by negative reviews from critics and fans alike. Word came down the grapevine that there were too many villains this time around (three as opposed to both of the previous films' one), not enough character development (due to the introduction of too many new characters), and a weak plot. Regardless of everything I'd heard I held my head high and went to see Spiderman 3 on it's opening night (May 4, 2007). I have only one question: Did everyone else see the same movie that I did? I thought Spiderman 3 was great. I wouldn't proclaim that it topped the second one the same way that it had the first, but it was still an excellent movie. I loved the plot, I loved the characters, and I loved the movie. That said, I have a few complaints. Portions of the film (primarily toward the beginning) seemed a bit rushed. Honestly, there was a lot of story to cram into this movie, which is why it clocked in a full twenty minutes longer than the previous two films at two hours and twenty minutes in length. Even so, I honestly believe that an extra ten minutes, resulting in a nice round two and a half hour length, would have allowed for the correction of the few scenes that I felt were slightly short-changed. I've heard some skepticism about Venom in the film. I loved the way he looked. Many people seem to disagree. What I didn't much care for was his voice. Whenever the symbiote was completely covering Eddie Brock's face, the character spoke much deeper, but the particular voice just didn't do it for me. It's also true that Venom doesn't appear until late in the movie, but this just gave Raimi more time to experiment with "anti-Peter" while he was under the influence of the black costume. Speaking of which, the scenes in which Peter displays his bad side are magnificent. Sam Raimi uses more quirky scenes like those utilized in Spiderman 2 (a la the "Raindrops Are Falling On My Head" scene) to really push the idea that Peter is a whole different person when he's wearing the symbiote. It wasn't all Raimi that made these scenes great, though. Tobey Maguire takes charge of these moments incredibly well. In addition to those scenes, he and Topher Grace really fought for the screen whenever they were together. They played off of each other wonderfully. Topher was a great addition to the cast. Along with him, though, we get Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy, a love interest for Eddie and Peter alike. Howard is not only perfect in the role (which blew my mind as I initially thought she was the wrong choice for it), but is also much more beautiful than I've yet seen her onscreen. And let us not forget Thomas Haden Church. This man exhibits so much emotion in every scene that it's sometimes almost unbearable. He has this sad, tortured glare that never leaves his face and really pushes the admittedly simple/cliche story of a man forced into crime by the desire to save his daughter's life. Particularly compelling (although Church isn't actually in the scene) is the point at which Flint Marko first attempts to use his new abilities to reform his body into a human shape. I realize that the character was entirely CG in that scene, but it's heart-wrenching nonetheless. The ending, which I won't give away here, is something else that I hear getting a lot of flak from critics (professional or otherwise), but everything taken into account, I think the ending does it's job quite nicely in tying up the film in a nice little package. So in closing, Spiderman 3 is not the best of the series, but it certainly fits right in with the first two to create one of the best trilogies in existence today...in my opinion, of course.
Spiderman 2 - It's been two years since the death of Ben Parker. Two years since Norman Osborn (aka the Green Goblin) accidentally killed himself while battling Spiderman. Two years since Norman's son Harry vowed to enact vengeance on Spiderman, whom he blames for his father's death. A lot can happen in two years. Peter has moved into New York City, attending college and continuing to take photographs of himself as Spiderman for J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons), the publisher of the Daily Bugle. Mary Jane has begun dating Jonah's astronaut son John Jameson (Daniel Gillies), and is performing the lead role in an off-Broadway play. On the surface things seem to be going alright, but Peter's life is in shambles. He spends all of his time protecting the streets of New York as Spiderman while the woman he loves is engaged to marry another man, his best friend blames his alter-ego for the death of his father, and he can hardly pay the rent. Not to mention, when Peter reveals to his Aunt May (who is being forced out of her home) that he is partially responsible for the death of his uncle and her husband, she becomes distant. With so much pressure mounting on Peter, he even begins to lose control of his super powers. Upon the suggestion of a friend, Peter gives up the mantle of Spiderman to live his own life and worry only about himself for once. Immediately things begin to look up. Peter's grades improve, his relationships with his friends, family, and Mary Jane improve, and best of all, he feels good about himself. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. One of Peter's idols, a scientist by the name of Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), has designed four mechanical arms which fasten onto his back and tap into his brain in order to allow him to perform dangerous experiments with fusion reactions. When one of these tests goes wrong, the accident injures Octavius, melding the mechanical device permanently to his spine and destroying the computer chip that keeps it from influencing his mind. A broken man, Otto, under the control of the advanced artificial intelligence of his four mechanical extremities, vows to recreate his fusion experiment no matter what the cost. After an initial conflict with Spiderman, Otto (now dubbed Doctor Octopus by the Daily Bugle) must go to Harry Osborn to acquire a sample of trillium, the rare material that will allow him to complete his task. Harry agrees to provide Octavius with what he needs if he'll bring Spiderman to him alive, which is just what he does. However, when Spiderman (now revealed to his friend as Peter Parker) explains that the entire city is in danger if Doc Ock achieves his goal, Harry has no choice but to let Spiderman go to save the day. Come 2004, everyone knew that the first Spiderman film would be tough to top. In addition to that, just as Spiderman had to best X-Men, Spiderman 2 now had the unenviable task of standing up to X2. The perfect casting of Alfred Molina as the villainous Doctor Octopus put many people's minds at ease, but it wasn't until Spiderman 2 opened in theaters that the feelings became near-unanimous. Spiderman 2 is better than Spiderman. Spiderman masterfully told the origin of our hero and pitted him against perhaps his greatest foe, but Spiderman 2 stepped it up a notch. With the origin tale out of the way, Sam Raimi was free to run wild with Spiderman 2, and he did just that. The characterization in this film is incredible. Each and every actor is given massive amounts of room to stretch their muscles in developing their already beloved characters. With his son so prominently featured in the film as part of a love triangle with Mary Jane and Peter, J.K. Simmons stole every scene he was in as media mogul J. Jonah Jameson. His comedic timing matched with Raimi's eye for corn-ball humor struck a chord with just about everyone who saw the movie. The laughs don't stop there, though. Sam's light-hearted take on Peter's tortured soul results in multiple scenes where so many bad things pile up that they become that of comedy gold. Perhaps the best humor of the film, though, lies within the music montage scene set to the song "Raindrops Are Falling On My Head" in an obvious nod to the classic film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Comedy aside, Spiderman 2 also delivers action by the boatload. The first Spiderman film had a few memorable moments involving Spidey and his foe, but none of them come close to the bouts between he and Doctor Octopus. There are three fight scenes between these two over the course of the movie's two hours, and they're all outstanding. As much as X2 made up for the lack of proper fight scenes in the first film, Spiderman 2 triumphed in the super hero genre as far as fights were concerned. With the seamless combination of action, comedy, and drama becoming even stronger in the sequel than in the original, Spiderman 2 remains one of the best super hero movies of all time, as well as one of my personal favorite films of all time.
Spiderman 3 - Spiderman 3 begins much differently than it's predecessor. Peter Parker is living the life. He's dating the girl of his dreams, he's got a steady flow of cash from the Daily Bugle for his photographs of Spiderman, and he's continuing to do well in school. The only real problem is that his former best friend still wants him dead because he now knows that Peter and Spiderman (whom he blames for his father's death) are one and the same. However, this hardly seems noteworthy when the entire city of New York has fallen in love with Spiderman after he so selflessly risked his life to save them from doom at the hands of Doctor Octopus. Yet as I mentioned before, all good things must end. Caught up in his own fame and popularity as Spiderman, Peter becomes distant from Mary Jane, leading to their relationship making a decline. Harry has followed in his father's less-than-admirable footsteps and exposed himself to the serum that turned him into a murdering psychopath so that he may enact his revenge on Spiderman. A new photographer by the name of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) has begun snapping photos of Spiderman for sale to the Daily Bugle, and is impeding on Peter's territory. Meanwhile, information has come to Peter's attention that links a criminal by the name of Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) to the death of his Uncle Ben. As chance would have it, while running from the police, Flint stumbled into the middle of a particle accelerator on the property of a restricted scientific research facility where his molecules were bonded with those of sand. Now known as the Sandman, Marko has the ability to turn into a being made of sand and morph his body into various shapes. But perhaps worst of all is the symbiote. After a meteorite carrying a black alien slime crashes in New York, the being bonds itself with Peter, becoming one with one of his Spiderman uniforms and turning it black. The symbiote, as Peter's friend and professor Curt Conners (Dylan Baker) reveals, feeds on emotions and makes them stronger. Due to Peter's anger regarding Flint Marko, the symbiote feeds on his emotions and brings out a bad side that Peter never knew he had. Over time he begins to ruin any relationships and progress he'd made with his friends and loved ones before realizing what was going on. After being humiliated by Peter while under the influence of the black costume, Eddie Brock stumbles into the church where Peter is trying to rid himself of the symbiote. When the alien being transfers itself from Parker to Brock, it's no surprise that Eddie's newfound hatred for Peter and the symbiote's current dislike for Spiderman would combine to create one angry individual known as Venom. Spiderman was a fantastic film. Spiderman 2 was even better. Why, then, should I have had any doubt that Spiderman 3 would be great as well? Perhaps because prior to it's official release, Spiderman 3 was bombarded by negative reviews from critics and fans alike. Word came down the grapevine that there were too many villains this time around (three as opposed to both of the previous films' one), not enough character development (due to the introduction of too many new characters), and a weak plot. Regardless of everything I'd heard I held my head high and went to see Spiderman 3 on it's opening night (May 4, 2007). I have only one question: Did everyone else see the same movie that I did? I thought Spiderman 3 was great. I wouldn't proclaim that it topped the second one the same way that it had the first, but it was still an excellent movie. I loved the plot, I loved the characters, and I loved the movie. That said, I have a few complaints. Portions of the film (primarily toward the beginning) seemed a bit rushed. Honestly, there was a lot of story to cram into this movie, which is why it clocked in a full twenty minutes longer than the previous two films at two hours and twenty minutes in length. Even so, I honestly believe that an extra ten minutes, resulting in a nice round two and a half hour length, would have allowed for the correction of the few scenes that I felt were slightly short-changed. I've heard some skepticism about Venom in the film. I loved the way he looked. Many people seem to disagree. What I didn't much care for was his voice. Whenever the symbiote was completely covering Eddie Brock's face, the character spoke much deeper, but the particular voice just didn't do it for me. It's also true that Venom doesn't appear until late in the movie, but this just gave Raimi more time to experiment with "anti-Peter" while he was under the influence of the black costume. Speaking of which, the scenes in which Peter displays his bad side are magnificent. Sam Raimi uses more quirky scenes like those utilized in Spiderman 2 (a la the "Raindrops Are Falling On My Head" scene) to really push the idea that Peter is a whole different person when he's wearing the symbiote. It wasn't all Raimi that made these scenes great, though. Tobey Maguire takes charge of these moments incredibly well. In addition to those scenes, he and Topher Grace really fought for the screen whenever they were together. They played off of each other wonderfully. Topher was a great addition to the cast. Along with him, though, we get Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy, a love interest for Eddie and Peter alike. Howard is not only perfect in the role (which blew my mind as I initially thought she was the wrong choice for it), but is also much more beautiful than I've yet seen her onscreen. And let us not forget Thomas Haden Church. This man exhibits so much emotion in every scene that it's sometimes almost unbearable. He has this sad, tortured glare that never leaves his face and really pushes the admittedly simple/cliche story of a man forced into crime by the desire to save his daughter's life. Particularly compelling (although Church isn't actually in the scene) is the point at which Flint Marko first attempts to use his new abilities to reform his body into a human shape. I realize that the character was entirely CG in that scene, but it's heart-wrenching nonetheless. The ending, which I won't give away here, is something else that I hear getting a lot of flak from critics (professional or otherwise), but everything taken into account, I think the ending does it's job quite nicely in tying up the film in a nice little package. So in closing, Spiderman 3 is not the best of the series, but it certainly fits right in with the first two to create one of the best trilogies in existence today...in my opinion, of course.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Look Out, Here Comes The Spiderman!
There are a TON of big movies coming out this summer. Transformers, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Shrek the Third, Ocean's Thirteen, Live Free Or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum, Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End, Ratatouille, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Simpsons Movie...the list goes on and on. However, for my money Spiderman 3 is the one I'm looking forward to the most. And with only two more days until it's official release I'm pretty damn psyched. In fact, I already have plans to see it not only on Friday, but Saturday as well.
Now, as I'm sure everyone has heard, Spiderman 3 is getting less-than-spectacular reviews. Every tidbit I read online from someone who's seen the movie, be it an official review or not, is saying that there are too many villains or that there's not as much character development as before or what have you. These reports have placed the slightest bit of doubt in my mind as to whether the film will be up to my expectations. I still can't submit to the belief that Spiderman 3 will be a bad movie, though. And I'll tell you why...
In preparation for the release of Spiderman 3 in theaters, I planned to watch both Spiderman and Spiderman 2 over the next two days. This way I'd be not only primed to see the third installment of the franchise, but also primed to write a triple threat review of the entire series right here on this very blog.
Tonight I got a bit ahead of myself and watched both films back to back. After doing so, and knowing that Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and the rest of the gang are all back for the third go 'round, I just don't see how Spiderman 3 could be a bad movie. Maybe not as good as the second one, or even the first, but I still expect to walk out of the theater after seeing Spiderman 3 with a two hour-old smile on my face.
As I count the hours until the film's release, we can only wait and see...
Now, as I'm sure everyone has heard, Spiderman 3 is getting less-than-spectacular reviews. Every tidbit I read online from someone who's seen the movie, be it an official review or not, is saying that there are too many villains or that there's not as much character development as before or what have you. These reports have placed the slightest bit of doubt in my mind as to whether the film will be up to my expectations. I still can't submit to the belief that Spiderman 3 will be a bad movie, though. And I'll tell you why...
In preparation for the release of Spiderman 3 in theaters, I planned to watch both Spiderman and Spiderman 2 over the next two days. This way I'd be not only primed to see the third installment of the franchise, but also primed to write a triple threat review of the entire series right here on this very blog.
Tonight I got a bit ahead of myself and watched both films back to back. After doing so, and knowing that Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and the rest of the gang are all back for the third go 'round, I just don't see how Spiderman 3 could be a bad movie. Maybe not as good as the second one, or even the first, but I still expect to walk out of the theater after seeing Spiderman 3 with a two hour-old smile on my face.
As I count the hours until the film's release, we can only wait and see...
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
You Have My Sympathies...
Some of my fondest memories from my youth involve watching movies. I'm not really an anti-social person, but growing up on the outskirts of a town with a population numbering somewhere similar to the follicle populace of Homer Simpson's scalp made for many evenings spent in my parents' room watching mid-day film marathons on television channels with fuzzy reception. Today, being sunny and cool, walking around the house with the windows open and nobody around reminded me of a topic that's been finding it's way into my thoughts more and more frequently these days. Where are all the monster movies?
I think it all started with Slither. In late 2005 I began seeing the trailers for Slither, complete with slug monsters forcing themselves down people's throats and terrorizing a midwestern town that never saw them coming. It reminded me of the low budget monster movies that I grew up watching. I can't quite explain what it was that reminded me of the films of my youth, but Slither had a presence that I remembered quite fondly. The odds were stacked against it, but Slither delivered. For me, anyway. The film did horribly in the theaters, and something tells me it's DVD sales have been less than impressive.
Next came Grind House. The obvious draw of Quentin Tarantino aside, Grind House began to stir up some of the same feelings as Slither. Now, Grind House isn't strictly a monster movie. In fact, Tarantino's portion of the film is far from it. Robert Rodriguez's offering, however, is essentially one big wink and a nod to fans of eighties-style action/horror/monster flicks. The day of the film's premier arrived and I was there with eyes wide and expectations high. I certainly wasn't disappointed. The same can't be said for the general populace, however. Grind House, the movie that had everything going for it and that everyone expected to bust the box office wide open, earned just over ten million dollars in it's first week. It's now been almost a month and the film still hasn't come close to making back the sixty-odd million dollars that it cost to make.
Then, out of left field came another contender: The Host. I began reading about this film all over the internet. Word had it that the movie had broken all box office records for a Korean film in and out of it's country of origin. Great! A monster movie finally getting the recognition it deserves. I scoured the web for showings near my home. The closest locale I could find was a forty five minute drive away in Gettysburg, PA. With all the acclaim that the movie seemed to be getting I expected quite a showing, especially considering how few and far between the venues for the film were. A whole ten people were in the theater for the showing, including myself and my movie-going companion. This put into perspective how poorly the film was actually doing despite breaking Korean records (which must not be a very high bar to shoot for).
All these instances taken into account, I sat down and really began looking at the monster movie situation. Allow me to run down a brief history of worthwhile monster movies from the last thirty years.
"Thirty?!" you ask? "That could take forever!"
Actually, it really couldn't. Let us not forget that I said worthwhile, and while opinions on the subject may vary, I think my timeline exhibits a fair standard of quality by which to judge other films in the genre. Here it is in chronological order:
Alien (1979)
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)
Aliens (1986)
Predator (1987)
Tremors (1990)
Slither (2006)
And there you have it. The eighties had us covered pretty well. The big two (Aliens and Predator) were there in full force, as was cult classic The Thing. The decade was preceded by Alien less than a year earlier and capped off with Tremors less than a year after it's end. Slither, however, clocks in much, much later leaving me to wonder: "What happened to the monster movie genre in the fifteen years between Tremors and Slither?" I recently posed this very question to Sean Dwyer, of the website Film Junk, and his co-hosts on the Film Junk Podcast, Jay Cheel, and Greg Gaspari. Below is the clip in which they address my concerns from the most recent episode of the podcast, dated April 29th, 2007.
The guys made some good points; namely the ever-changing market and the over-saturation of a particular genre when one becomes too popular. Jay and Greg even went so far as to offer some suggestions of monster movies that may quench my thirst for creature features. However, I have to take the stance that while some of their recommendations do in fact involve monsters, they may not be properly labeled as monster movies. Blade, for example, is better referred to as an action movie or even a comic book movie, although it does contain vampires. Generally, unless there is a specific and original twist on zombies or vampires, I hesitate to call them monster movies as opposed to zombie movies or vampire movies.
So the question remains: "Where are the monster movies?" Or perhaps more suitably: "What does the general population have against them?" With the sudden release and seeming failure of such films as Slither and Grind House, I have to wonder why monster movies are viewed so poorly. Is it the gore? I dare say not with the advent of slasher/torture films such as Hostel, Saw, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Is it the horrific beasts themselves that turn viewers away by the truckload? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that in the wake of hugely popular fantasy films populated by inhuman creatures like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. So what is it then?
Monster movies can bring so much more to the table than just creepy-crawlies mangling unsuspecting country folk and astronauts. When done properly, a monster movie of the particularly science-fiction-oriented variety can raise interesting questions and suggest incredible circumstances that no other genre of film can. If you look past the disembowelings and buckets of slime, films with not-of-this-Earth cast members are just like any other film, but perhaps with a bit more imagination. If you'd like an example of this, there may be none better than The Host, which is more about political commentary, family values, love, and overcoming extreme odds than it is about a giant mutated fish with lots of teeth. It just uses the scare-inducing sea-life to get it's point across.
While we may be a ways off from a revolution in monster movies, or even from deciphering the reason for their disappearance in the first place, I'm positive that there are a few out there that not even a fan such as I have seen. As such, it is you, the reader, that I charge with the mission of searching the depths of your own childhood memories for any films featuring ghastly ghoulies that you may remember fondly, and informing me of their existence. I am, after all, always in search of more movies to review, and why not discover a few more frightening favorites in the mix?
I wouldn't leave you hanging though, and in the spirit of spreading the word, here are a few more creature features to keep an eye out for (in addition to those listed above), along with a couple to avoid at all costs:
Alien3 - Not quite on par with the first two, but definitely worth a watch, and a fine end to the trilogy.
Alien Resurrection - This is the unwanted child of the series that should have been aborted shortly after conception.
Predator 2 - A good idea with a sub-par execution. So much potential, but pale in comparison to the original.
Alien vs Predator - If you appreciate the properties that either of these creatures were birthed from there is no way in hell that you should like this movie. Complete and utter garbage.
Tremors 2, 3, and 4 - They get worse as the series goes on, ending with the sad shell of a film that is the fourth movie. Two and three are watch-able.
The Faculty - If the WB made their own version of John Carpenter's The Thing, this is what you'd get. Look past the similarities and you've got a damn good monster movie.
Phantoms - High concept, low budget. A bit slow and ambiguous, but with a great performance by Liev Schreiber.
Virus - Another good concept with a less-than-breathtaking execution. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Give it a try.
The Relic - Some people trapped in a museum with a large four-legged creature. Forgettable, but worth a watch.
Mimic - Neat monsters and that's about it. Avoid the sequels at all costs.
Deep Rising - Cool monster and several like-able characters. Deserving of a sequel.
The Stuff - Low budget movie about a substance that tastes good, and when eaten takes over your body. Good luck finding a copy, but if you do you're in for a cheesy treat.
The Blob - Everyone's heard of it, but have you seen it? We're talking the 80's version. Creepy as hell. You'll never look at a sink drain the same way again.
Leviathan - Creature attacks the crew of a deep sea lab. Entertaining until the end when the budget apparently ran out and the special effects ceased to be impressive.
Critters - Little furry bastards from outer space with lots of teeth. Entertaining, but very cheesy. The first one's good, the second is even cornier but still not bad, the third is pretty weak, and the fourth takes place in outer space (in other words it sucks).
Pitch Black - Great concept for a species of monsters that leaves a lot of room for suspense. Unfortunately, the film quickly becomes more about Vin Diesel than the creatures.
Species - This movie gets a lot of flak because of it's infamous nudity and sex, but it's actually a great concept with a great cast. The second one is horrible, and I can only imagine that the third is as well.
Feast - Product of the third season of Project Greenlight. Incredibly fun, fast-paced monster movie. Lots of blood, guts, scares, and laughs.
In closing, I'd like to remind everyone to visit the guys over at Film Junk and give their podcast a listen. Also, I'd like to thank them for taking the time to address my question and help me out with recommendations.
Extra Credit - The first person who can tell me the significance of this post's title to the topic contained within gets a pat on the back next time I see you.
I think it all started with Slither. In late 2005 I began seeing the trailers for Slither, complete with slug monsters forcing themselves down people's throats and terrorizing a midwestern town that never saw them coming. It reminded me of the low budget monster movies that I grew up watching. I can't quite explain what it was that reminded me of the films of my youth, but Slither had a presence that I remembered quite fondly. The odds were stacked against it, but Slither delivered. For me, anyway. The film did horribly in the theaters, and something tells me it's DVD sales have been less than impressive.
Next came Grind House. The obvious draw of Quentin Tarantino aside, Grind House began to stir up some of the same feelings as Slither. Now, Grind House isn't strictly a monster movie. In fact, Tarantino's portion of the film is far from it. Robert Rodriguez's offering, however, is essentially one big wink and a nod to fans of eighties-style action/horror/monster flicks. The day of the film's premier arrived and I was there with eyes wide and expectations high. I certainly wasn't disappointed. The same can't be said for the general populace, however. Grind House, the movie that had everything going for it and that everyone expected to bust the box office wide open, earned just over ten million dollars in it's first week. It's now been almost a month and the film still hasn't come close to making back the sixty-odd million dollars that it cost to make.
Then, out of left field came another contender: The Host. I began reading about this film all over the internet. Word had it that the movie had broken all box office records for a Korean film in and out of it's country of origin. Great! A monster movie finally getting the recognition it deserves. I scoured the web for showings near my home. The closest locale I could find was a forty five minute drive away in Gettysburg, PA. With all the acclaim that the movie seemed to be getting I expected quite a showing, especially considering how few and far between the venues for the film were. A whole ten people were in the theater for the showing, including myself and my movie-going companion. This put into perspective how poorly the film was actually doing despite breaking Korean records (which must not be a very high bar to shoot for).
All these instances taken into account, I sat down and really began looking at the monster movie situation. Allow me to run down a brief history of worthwhile monster movies from the last thirty years.
"Thirty?!" you ask? "That could take forever!"
Actually, it really couldn't. Let us not forget that I said worthwhile, and while opinions on the subject may vary, I think my timeline exhibits a fair standard of quality by which to judge other films in the genre. Here it is in chronological order:
Alien (1979)
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)
Aliens (1986)
Predator (1987)
Tremors (1990)
Slither (2006)
And there you have it. The eighties had us covered pretty well. The big two (Aliens and Predator) were there in full force, as was cult classic The Thing. The decade was preceded by Alien less than a year earlier and capped off with Tremors less than a year after it's end. Slither, however, clocks in much, much later leaving me to wonder: "What happened to the monster movie genre in the fifteen years between Tremors and Slither?" I recently posed this very question to Sean Dwyer, of the website Film Junk, and his co-hosts on the Film Junk Podcast, Jay Cheel, and Greg Gaspari. Below is the clip in which they address my concerns from the most recent episode of the podcast, dated April 29th, 2007.
The guys made some good points; namely the ever-changing market and the over-saturation of a particular genre when one becomes too popular. Jay and Greg even went so far as to offer some suggestions of monster movies that may quench my thirst for creature features. However, I have to take the stance that while some of their recommendations do in fact involve monsters, they may not be properly labeled as monster movies. Blade, for example, is better referred to as an action movie or even a comic book movie, although it does contain vampires. Generally, unless there is a specific and original twist on zombies or vampires, I hesitate to call them monster movies as opposed to zombie movies or vampire movies.
So the question remains: "Where are the monster movies?" Or perhaps more suitably: "What does the general population have against them?" With the sudden release and seeming failure of such films as Slither and Grind House, I have to wonder why monster movies are viewed so poorly. Is it the gore? I dare say not with the advent of slasher/torture films such as Hostel, Saw, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Is it the horrific beasts themselves that turn viewers away by the truckload? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that in the wake of hugely popular fantasy films populated by inhuman creatures like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. So what is it then?
Monster movies can bring so much more to the table than just creepy-crawlies mangling unsuspecting country folk and astronauts. When done properly, a monster movie of the particularly science-fiction-oriented variety can raise interesting questions and suggest incredible circumstances that no other genre of film can. If you look past the disembowelings and buckets of slime, films with not-of-this-Earth cast members are just like any other film, but perhaps with a bit more imagination. If you'd like an example of this, there may be none better than The Host, which is more about political commentary, family values, love, and overcoming extreme odds than it is about a giant mutated fish with lots of teeth. It just uses the scare-inducing sea-life to get it's point across.
While we may be a ways off from a revolution in monster movies, or even from deciphering the reason for their disappearance in the first place, I'm positive that there are a few out there that not even a fan such as I have seen. As such, it is you, the reader, that I charge with the mission of searching the depths of your own childhood memories for any films featuring ghastly ghoulies that you may remember fondly, and informing me of their existence. I am, after all, always in search of more movies to review, and why not discover a few more frightening favorites in the mix?
I wouldn't leave you hanging though, and in the spirit of spreading the word, here are a few more creature features to keep an eye out for (in addition to those listed above), along with a couple to avoid at all costs:
Alien3 - Not quite on par with the first two, but definitely worth a watch, and a fine end to the trilogy.
Alien Resurrection - This is the unwanted child of the series that should have been aborted shortly after conception.
Predator 2 - A good idea with a sub-par execution. So much potential, but pale in comparison to the original.
Alien vs Predator - If you appreciate the properties that either of these creatures were birthed from there is no way in hell that you should like this movie. Complete and utter garbage.
Tremors 2, 3, and 4 - They get worse as the series goes on, ending with the sad shell of a film that is the fourth movie. Two and three are watch-able.
The Faculty - If the WB made their own version of John Carpenter's The Thing, this is what you'd get. Look past the similarities and you've got a damn good monster movie.
Phantoms - High concept, low budget. A bit slow and ambiguous, but with a great performance by Liev Schreiber.
Virus - Another good concept with a less-than-breathtaking execution. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Give it a try.
The Relic - Some people trapped in a museum with a large four-legged creature. Forgettable, but worth a watch.
Mimic - Neat monsters and that's about it. Avoid the sequels at all costs.
Deep Rising - Cool monster and several like-able characters. Deserving of a sequel.
The Stuff - Low budget movie about a substance that tastes good, and when eaten takes over your body. Good luck finding a copy, but if you do you're in for a cheesy treat.
The Blob - Everyone's heard of it, but have you seen it? We're talking the 80's version. Creepy as hell. You'll never look at a sink drain the same way again.
Leviathan - Creature attacks the crew of a deep sea lab. Entertaining until the end when the budget apparently ran out and the special effects ceased to be impressive.
Critters - Little furry bastards from outer space with lots of teeth. Entertaining, but very cheesy. The first one's good, the second is even cornier but still not bad, the third is pretty weak, and the fourth takes place in outer space (in other words it sucks).
Pitch Black - Great concept for a species of monsters that leaves a lot of room for suspense. Unfortunately, the film quickly becomes more about Vin Diesel than the creatures.
Species - This movie gets a lot of flak because of it's infamous nudity and sex, but it's actually a great concept with a great cast. The second one is horrible, and I can only imagine that the third is as well.
Feast - Product of the third season of Project Greenlight. Incredibly fun, fast-paced monster movie. Lots of blood, guts, scares, and laughs.
In closing, I'd like to remind everyone to visit the guys over at Film Junk and give their podcast a listen. Also, I'd like to thank them for taking the time to address my question and help me out with recommendations.
Extra Credit - The first person who can tell me the significance of this post's title to the topic contained within gets a pat on the back next time I see you.
So It Begins...
Welcome to the official blog for What I've Been Watching.
My name is Rian Miller. My first love is comic books, and by association, art. I am an alumnus of The Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphic Art in Dover, NJ, and am currently a freelance artist/writer.
My second love is film. A lot of people find the viewing of movies to be a passive experience. I am not one of these people. I take cinema very seriously, and have dabbled in the medium myself from time to time (IntoDecember Films).
Most nights I sit at my art table and work until about 2 or 3 AM, at which point I clean up, grab a snack, and watch a movie. I've made it my goal to always have something to watch by a steady regiment of renting, borrowing, downloading, and purchasing new movies multiple times throughout the week. On the eve of the year 2007, with so many films at my disposal, I began reviewing them and posting these reviews in the blog on my MySpace page. After a while I decided that it was time to move these reviews to a more focused outlet, which over time has become this blog.
What I've Been Watching works in episodes. I post new episodes as often as possible, sometimes up to three or four times a week. Each episode contains (on average) between one and five film reviews. The episodes are numbered, but I will also keep an alphabetical list of the films I've reviewed, complete with direct links to them, on a page outside of the blog. I will provide a link to this list as soon as it's completed. EDIT - The Alphabetical Film Review Index can now be found by clicking HERE. A permanent link to the page is also located on the blog's sidebar directly under my profile along with a link to this post.
My reviews usually contain a brief plot synopsis followed by my thoughts on various aspects of the film. Some reviews are long, in-depth, and go off on related tangents while others are short and to the point. This all depends on my mood at the time of the writing and my enthusiasm about the films in question. You won't find any grading system here such as __ out of 5 stars or anything, but hopefully if you read through a review you will get a good feeling of whether you'd like to see that particular film or not.
As for the films I'll be reviewing, they will be many and varied. I will watch just about anything that is put in front of me. I keep an ever-growing list of movies that I am hunting down to watch, but sometimes none of them are available. In the case that there isn't anything that I particularly want to see at my disposal, I will always watch something that I'm not looking forward to viewing. I will not be reviewing strictly new films, but usually things that I have obtained on DVD. In the event that I see a film in the theater, I will do my best to review those right away.
Comments are enabled and welcome. If you found a particular review helpful, I'd certainly like to hear about it. If you completely disagree with a review, I invite anyone to voice their opinions in a civilized manner. If you have any questions about anything involving the films that I've reviewed, I'll be glad to reply to any inquiries left in the comments. I'm also open to any recommendations you may have for films that I should watch and review.
Finally, I try to keep an open mind when watching any film. I am often personally surprised by what I enjoy and what I don't. Regardless of my opinions on a film SPOILERS MAY OCCUR, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST TO AVOID DISCUSSING EVENTS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RUIN A MOVIE IF REVEALED. When posting reviews on MySpace, I began every episode with that line written in caps, bolded, and in a larger font than the reviews themselves. As this blog's sole purpose is to feature my reviews, I'll be taking for granted that you, the viewer, realize this going in.
My name is Rian Miller. My first love is comic books, and by association, art. I am an alumnus of The Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphic Art in Dover, NJ, and am currently a freelance artist/writer.
My second love is film. A lot of people find the viewing of movies to be a passive experience. I am not one of these people. I take cinema very seriously, and have dabbled in the medium myself from time to time (IntoDecember Films).
Most nights I sit at my art table and work until about 2 or 3 AM, at which point I clean up, grab a snack, and watch a movie. I've made it my goal to always have something to watch by a steady regiment of renting, borrowing, downloading, and purchasing new movies multiple times throughout the week. On the eve of the year 2007, with so many films at my disposal, I began reviewing them and posting these reviews in the blog on my MySpace page. After a while I decided that it was time to move these reviews to a more focused outlet, which over time has become this blog.
What I've Been Watching works in episodes. I post new episodes as often as possible, sometimes up to three or four times a week. Each episode contains (on average) between one and five film reviews. The episodes are numbered, but I will also keep an alphabetical list of the films I've reviewed, complete with direct links to them, on a page outside of the blog. I will provide a link to this list as soon as it's completed. EDIT - The Alphabetical Film Review Index can now be found by clicking HERE. A permanent link to the page is also located on the blog's sidebar directly under my profile along with a link to this post.
My reviews usually contain a brief plot synopsis followed by my thoughts on various aspects of the film. Some reviews are long, in-depth, and go off on related tangents while others are short and to the point. This all depends on my mood at the time of the writing and my enthusiasm about the films in question. You won't find any grading system here such as __ out of 5 stars or anything, but hopefully if you read through a review you will get a good feeling of whether you'd like to see that particular film or not.
As for the films I'll be reviewing, they will be many and varied. I will watch just about anything that is put in front of me. I keep an ever-growing list of movies that I am hunting down to watch, but sometimes none of them are available. In the case that there isn't anything that I particularly want to see at my disposal, I will always watch something that I'm not looking forward to viewing. I will not be reviewing strictly new films, but usually things that I have obtained on DVD. In the event that I see a film in the theater, I will do my best to review those right away.
Comments are enabled and welcome. If you found a particular review helpful, I'd certainly like to hear about it. If you completely disagree with a review, I invite anyone to voice their opinions in a civilized manner. If you have any questions about anything involving the films that I've reviewed, I'll be glad to reply to any inquiries left in the comments. I'm also open to any recommendations you may have for films that I should watch and review.
Finally, I try to keep an open mind when watching any film. I am often personally surprised by what I enjoy and what I don't. Regardless of my opinions on a film SPOILERS MAY OCCUR, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST TO AVOID DISCUSSING EVENTS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RUIN A MOVIE IF REVEALED. When posting reviews on MySpace, I began every episode with that line written in caps, bolded, and in a larger font than the reviews themselves. As this blog's sole purpose is to feature my reviews, I'll be taking for granted that you, the viewer, realize this going in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
