Episode 50 - Based On A Story By Philip K. Dick

Philip K. Dick was a science fiction writer who was greatly under-appreciated during his lifetime. He wrote somewhere in the ballpark of 200 novels and short stories over the course of his career, but because of the general public's views on science fiction, he was never truly recognized as the creative genius that he was. Unfortunately, Dick died a mere four months before the 1982 release of Blade Runner, the first film based upon one of his works. Since his exposure to the mainstream with this successful film, his name has become synonymous with greatness in the craft of writing science fiction, but that hasn't stopped Hollywood from butchering the majority of his stories that it gets it's grubby hands on. The following are my reviews of all eight of the feature films that, for better or worse, have been based on his works to date.

Based On The Novel "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?"
Blade Runner - In the near future mankind has created human clones known as replicants who are used to perform labor on off-world colonies. However, in the year 2019 a bloody mutiny has occurred involving a group of replicants, leading to the decision that all of their kind must be terminated. A small group of replicants, wishing only to live normal, free lives like humans do, have escaped to Earth on a space craft and are hiding in plain site, almost indeterminable from normal people. Enter: Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a member of LPD's Blade Runner unit whose job it is to hunt down, identify, and destroy the rogue replicants led by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). Tired and struggling with depression, Deckard spends his days tracking down his prey although he is slowly beginning to sympathize with their desire to be free, eventually begging him to wonder if, like the replicants he is after, he isn't quite what he seems to be. No matter how hard I try (and believe me, I've been trying pretty damn hard), I just can't like this movie. Many people regard Blade Runner as a classic, extraordinary science fiction film, but the only word that I can think of to describe Ridley Scott's follow-up to the far superior film Alien, is boring. I have not personally read the novel upon which Blade Runner is based, but if this film is an accurate representation of the source material, in my opinion it was just not meant to be a motion picture. The pace of Blade Runner, I imagine, is not unlike the speed of the waiting room at a doctor's office during an outbreak of the ebola virus: excruciatingly slow. Add to this that the characters (and director for that matter) never come right out and tell you anything, and what you've got is not only a boring film, but a confusing one as well. As it is, there is a definitive answer to the question of whether or not Deckard is himself a replicant, but it wasn't until the recent Director's Cut DVD came out featuring an interview with Ridley Scott fielding this very question that anyone actually found out the answer. The reason for this is that the film never comes right out and gives you any real clues to what Deckard is, but instead throws some psychadelic visions of unicorns at you and expects the viewer to come up with their own conclusions. Now, I'd be fine with this if there was no real answer to the question. For example, I don't mind that in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction we never find out what is in Marsellus Wallace's (Ving Rhames) briefcase, or that in John Carpenter's The Thing we are never told if either MacReady (Kurt Russell) or Childs (Keith David) has been infected by the creature at the end of the film, but in both of those cases the audience is never meant to know the answers to these questions. In Blade Runner we are supposed to be able to solve the mystery of Deckard's humanity, but it's just so confusing that there's really no way to do so. The confusing plot and slow pace of the film aside, I suppose Blade Runner isn't so bad. It looks nice, anyway. The special effects and visual style of the film are damn good for when they were achieved. The acting isn't really anything too special, but I can't recall any particularly bad performances. As I said, I've tried to like this movie, but I find it incredibly hard to do so. In the same way that I never liked the original Batman film because it was way too boring for a movie about a superhero, Blade Runner just falls flat for me. It takes some ideas and situations that could be really interesting and exciting and bogs them down with a script that would have had trouble properly filling a film with half the running time of this one.

Based On The Story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale"
Total Recall - Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) had been having recurring dreams about the planet Mars for weeks when he decided to visit Rekall Inc., a company that implants memories into your head so that you may take vacations and/or go on adventures without ever having to get on a plane or risk your life. However, after Quaid undergoes his procedure, he recalls his life as a secret agent fighting an evil corporation on Mars and cannot tell whether any of it really happened, or if it was only part of his fabricated Rekall vacation. Refusing the advice of his wife, and evading the police, Quaid takes his fate into his own hands and leaves for Mars in search of the answers to his questions. When he arrives he discovers that his visions may have in fact been true as he finds himself in the middle of a class war between a society of innocent mutants and a greedy corporation in search of an ancient weapon left on Mars by otherworldly visitors millennia ago. Total Recall is an action film first and foremost, and a pretty good one at that. This movie, along with The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Predator, and True Lies, illustrates why Arnold Schwarzenegger is the household action-related name that he is today. Quite simply, Schwarzenegger kicks ass in Total Recall not only in the sense that he puts in one of the best performances of his career, but also because he beats the hell out of a whole lot of people over the duration of the film's running time. Speaking of which, the fight scenes in Total Recall are surprisingly brutal and often leave me laughing with delight in their wake. Beyond the purely musclebound draw behind this film, though, we also get a spectacular science fiction concept from Philip K. Dick in the Rekall company. Total Recall can almost be called a sci-fi film noir when you consider that it is about a spy with a mistaken identity in the future. The movie really does have a great concept, and one which was used wonderfully by writers Ronald Shussett, Dan O'Bannon, Gary Goldman, and director Paul Verhoeven to craft an exciting action romp with an intelligent, intriguing backbone. Perhaps the most notable (not to mention memorable) aspect of Total Recall, however, is neither the story nor the action, but instead the special effects. Primarily created by veteran FX artist Rob Bottin, the make-up and visual effects of Total Recall were mind-blowing when the film was released, and are still impressive and incredible to witness today. Perhaps most well-known is a scene in which Schwarzenegger, disguised as an old woman by wearing a futuristic transforming suit, removes the article. The woman's face separates into segments, retracting to reveal Schwarzenegger underneath, and the way that this effect is achieved is absolutely stunning. Ignore any instincts that you may have to stay away from this movie based on Schwarzenegger or Verhoeven's involvement and watch it right away if you haven't yet. For fans of science fiction, action, and/or special effects, Total Recall should not be missed.

Based On The Story "The Second Variety"
Screamers - Screamers get their name from the high-pitched squealing noise that they make when they attack. Created by scientists for use in a war taking place on a remote mining planet, Screamers are small robots which burrow underground and emerge, leaping through the air to attack their prey with saw blades and other sharp weapons. They are self-replicating, and the only way to avoid them is to wear a small device which hides your presence from them. Desiring to evacuate the planet and return to Earth, Joe Hendricksson (Peter Weller) has set out on a journey to find a space craft hidden somewhere in the mountains by the government as a final means of escape for political figures during a crisis. His journey becomes difficult, though, when he discovers that the Screamers have begun to evolve, disguising themselves as humans. Now, unsure of who he can trust, Joe must choose the people he surrounds himself with carefully, because if even one Screamer manages to board his escape craft and make it to Earth, it could mean then end of the human race altogether. Screamers is a film forgotten by time. It was never a big hit and the majority of movie-goers have never even heard of it. Still, it remains one of the better movies to be based off of the works of Philip K. Dick. I've had the pleasure of reading the story off of which Screamers is based, and am happy to say that the movie does a great job of sticking to the basic plot and concept of the story while expanding on some ideas and scenes to make for a better, more well-rounded film. In fact, the opening scene of the movie is taken almost verbatim from the short story, which is a joy to watch whether or not you're familiar with the subject matter. For the most part the special effects are pretty good in Screamers, but they fall apart completely at the cilmax of the movie when an event takes place that was well outside the reach of the computer generated effects available at the time when it was made. Screamers isn't an overly effects driven film, though, and relies more on the characters themselves to drive the story, which is probably why it holds up as well as it does in my opinion. Peter Weller and the rest of the cast sell the believability of the story rather well, especially in the cases of Jennifer Rubin, Roy Dupuis, and Charles Powell, who play stranded soldiers, all unsure of which of them may or may not be a Screamer in disguise. Much like John Carpenter's The Thing (though not quite as successfully), Screamers is about the questions "who is who?" and "who can I trust?" It becomes as much a question that the viewer asks themselves as one that the characters are concerned with. I cannot say that Screamers is a great film, but I personally enjoy it an would recommend it as a good example of Philip K. Dick's work represented well on film.

Based On The Story "Impostor"
Impostor - Spencer Olham (Gary Sinise) is a brilliant weapons designer for the American government during a time of war between Earth and a race of alien invaders. However, it is quite possible that Spencer has gone from our planets savior to the bringer of it's demise. Following the completion of a new weapon that could turn the tide of the war to Earth's favor, it is suspected that Olham may in fact be an alien doppleganger fitted with a bomb inside his chest that could be used to kill significant members of the government during an upcoming meeting. He swears his innocence to security officer Hathaway (Vincent D'Onofrio), only to be told that Spencer himself wouldn't know if he were carrying a bomb, and the only way to be sure is to remove it from his chest along with his heart, which would of course result in his death. Unable to accept that he isn't in control of his own fate, Olham escapes from custody and flees to the demolished ruins outside the city where he meets a group of lower class citizens fighting for their survival. He offers outsider Cale (Mekhi Phifer) access to medicine with which to cure his sick and wounded people in exchange for his assistance in sneaking back into the city where Spencer hopes to prove his innocence. This task won't be easy, however, with the entire police force searching for them. On the surface Impostor is a horrible film, and under the surface things aren't much better. The acting is sub-par, as is the directing and lighting. There is a reason (not an excuse) for some of these flaws, though. Impostor was originally planned as one of three thirty minute short films to be part of a science fiction television anthology. However, after seeing the promise behind Impostor, the decision was made to extend it and create a feature-length film. As it turns out, what was good for television was not so good for theaters. I think that just about anyone will agree that while television should not always be of a lower quality than film, it can usually get away with being so. In this case Impostor just wasn't strong enough to warrant a ninety-five minute motion picture. Perhaps if the production had been started over from scratch instead of just mutating a partially-completed television special into a feature, it would have turned out better. But it's not fair to pull any punches because of it's origins, so here are my thoughts on Impostor. First, the lighting is horrible. I'm not sure if I've ever critiqued the lighting of a film in one of these reviews before, but it is often terrible in this movie. Scenes are flooded with red or blue light way too often in Impostor, and for seemingly no reason at all. At times the poor lighting just screams "low budget, even for television". Adding to the noticeably low budget are the military uniforms, which were obviously recycled from Starship Troopers. Next we have the acting. Gary Sinise and Vincent D'Onofrio have both proven on multiple occasions that they are talented actors, but if this were the only movie I'd ever seen them in I would be hard pressed to believe it. Mekhi Phifer actually puts in the best performance here despite his incredibly stereotypical "mouthy revolutionary" character. The story of Impostor is a decent one, albeit one of Philip K. Dick's less original ideas, and the ending manages to remain a pleasant surprise, but the events that lead the viewer to this point are fairly poorly constructed. One of the highlights of the film is a scene in which the military is looking for Olham and they make use of a machine that allows them to search buildings without ever entering them. The x-ray device that they use is a simple idea, but one that I can't remember seeing in another film before. Everything taken into account, I feel as though this film was doomed to fail from the beginning because of it's origins as a television special meant to be one third of it's eventual length. Of all of Dick's movies, this is definitely the most low budget one, but if you're a completist like myself, it's certainly not the worst movie I've ever seen.

Based On The Story "Minority Report"
Minority Report - In the future, crimes can be stopped before they ever have a chance to be committed. The police employ the abilities of three children called "precogs" to see into the future and identify the locations and perpetrators of crimes prior to their execution. Then, led by Chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise), a team of trained specialists arrive at the scene and subdue the criminals as they prepare to commit their crimes. This practice has gone on for six years time, during which not a single murder has been committed. The only foreseeable problem with this method of justice is that if no crime is committed, how can someone be arrested for it? This is a problem that John Anderton finds all the more dire when he himself is fingered as a future-murderer by the precogs. Sure that he would never murder anyone, despite the fact that the children have seen visions of him doing so, Anderton flees his own people in an attempt to find out who he is meant to kill and why in the world he would want to kill them. With the police, now led by Danny Witwer ( Colin Farrell), on his tail, John uses all of his training to search for the truth behind the precogs' visions and finds that there may be more to this case than meets the eye. What we have here is the standard "one man versus the majority and his own sanity" story which Philip K. Dick is famous for. A fair portion of Dick's stories revolve around this same premise, and thus far, so do all of the movies credited to his writing. It makes for an entertaining ride, which is why almost all of his films are action/adventure stories. What we also have are some genuinely original and interesting stamps of futurity provided to us by Stephen Spielberg. and the crew of the film. Moreso than the story or the performances in Minority Report (both of which are solid), I find myself most interested in these glimpses of the future. For example, the police team equipped with riot gear and rocket packs. Jet packs generally have a cheesy feeling about them, which I think worked perfectly in Minority Report. It added a bit of a fantasy touch to the film. Then we have the precogs themselves and the way that they communicate their findings. As opposed to computer readouts or some such technological system for alerting the police to a future crime, when the children sense an offense in the future, the name of the criminal and the victim are inscribed on small wooden balls. I'm not quite sure why, but this small detail adds a whole new layer of character to the process of tracking down criminals. It would have been easier to just have the names pop up on a computer monitor, but the ingenuity behind the wooden balls shows that the filmmakers cared just a little bit more about this project than they probably had to. Another interesting concept is that in the future everything will be activated by retinal scanning, making it nearly impossible to evade the police because everywhere you go your identity is being unveiled and sent to the police. The way that Tom Cruise's character gets around this problem is also rather original and makes for some very cool scenes. As I said, the acting is solid in this film and the story manages to hold together for the majority of the running time. My only real complaint with Minority Report is the ending. The main plot wraps itself up, but then, as with many movies today, there is a little something extra to be taken care of by the main character. Unfortunately, in Minority Report this little something takes much too long to unravel. The ending of the movie didn't occur until about half an hour after the climax. The events that take place during this period are certainly important, but I'd have liked it if they had happened a bit quicker. I just felt like I should have been done watching the movie long before I actually was. Up until this point the movie is very well paced and enjoyable, though. All in all, aside from the ending, I found Minority Report to be an intriguing, well rounded science fiction action film.

Based On The Story "Paycheck"
Paycheck - Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck) is a reverse engineer. When a company releases a new product, their rivals will hire Michael to go into seclusion for weeks or even months at a time with one of these products to tear it apart and figure out how to recreate it or make it better. When he is done the company pays him well for his time (under the table of course), and erases his memories of his time working for them to secure his safety. After meeting an old friend named James Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) at a party, Michael finds himself with a new job. The job will require him to work for three straight years under tight security and then have those three years wiped from his mind. This is a very dangerous task as no one has ever erased that large a chunk of their memory before, but Rethrick promises that he will make it worth Michael's while. Cut to three years later. Michael has completed the job, though he doesn't remember what it was, and is now ninety million dollars richer. However, when he goes to pick up his payment, all he receives is a manilla envelope filled with small trinkets and nick-nacks. Confused, Michael makes a stink at the company and ends up running from the police, unsure of what he's done wrong. Only by making use of the seemingly trivial items that he has in the envelope can he escape from situations that he has no right being able to escape from as he is chased throughout the city. But who left him the small objects, how did they know he would be able to use them all, and what in the world was it that he did over those three years that has everyone so pissed off at him? Paycheck's strong suit is it's ingenious concept which comes directly from Philip K. Dick's original short story. The items in the envelope are different in the film, as well as the situations and characters, but the basic premise of having your memory erased and being forced to rely on a specific set of everyday objects to survive is brilliant. Unfortunately, not all of this film's aspects are quite so incredible. Ben Affleck is capable of delivering a decent performance in some roles, but as Michael Jennings in Paycheck he is absolutely drab. He seems at all times uninterested in what is going on and is never really convincing. Uma Thurman, who plays Jennings' love interest, also puts in a less than impressive performance. Seeing her in films such as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, I'm surprised that it's possible for her to be uninteresting on screen, but Paycheck is proof that it can happen. Aaron Eckhart, who blew me away in Thank You For Smoking, doesn't even redeem the cast of this film. He comes off as a very two dimensional character with few emotions and no real drive to achieve his goals. In general I think that the entire cast was...well...miscast. The only person to bring any true emotion to their performance at all is Paul Giamatti, who has a small role as one of Jennings' personal friends toward the beginning of the movie. With no real good characters to feel anything for, the action in Paycheck is essentially wasted. There are some interesting (albeit misplaced) action scenes in this film, but since none of the characters are all that great I never felt truly drawn into what was going on during them. The stunts and set-ups are pretty good thanks to the direction of John Woo, but as I said, they were poorly used in this movie. Speaking of John Woo, I personally feel that Paycheck was better suited for a less action-oriented director. It should have been more like The Fugitive and less like Mission Impossible 2. All in all we have a great concept put to decent use in a poor movie. In the case of Paycheck I get a strong feeling of "what if?" What if it had a better script? What if it had different actors who fit better in their roles? What if it were as good as the source material?

Based On The Novel "A Scanner Darkly"
A Scanner Darkly - Substance D is a new illegal drug that is instantly addictive. The first time you try it you are immediately dependent on it, and over time it has brain damaging effects that cause hallucinations, etc. Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is a narcotics agent undercover among a small group of Substance D users, attempting to trace the origins of the drug back to it's suppliers. He spends his days hanging around with Freck (Rory Cochrane), Barris (Robert Downey Jr.), Luckman (Woody Harrelson), and Donna (Winona Ryder), who are all addicted to D. Unfortunately for Arctor, he has also become addicted to the drug. As time goes by, Bob watches over his friends in person and via hidden camera feeds which he has set up in their house, although he never really makes any progress with his case. This is partially because he doesn't want to since these friends are where he's getting his supply of D from, and partially because Barris is so paranoid of being caught that he hides his sources well. While inside the agency, Bob wears a scramble suit which hides his identity behind a constantly morphing visage of humanity so as not to risk blowing his cover, but because of these scramble suits he doesn't realize that there is someone else among the ranks of the Narcotics Division who has been watching him all along. A Scanner Darkly may take a few viewings for some people to understand what's going on. Others may just give up and not bother watching it again to find out. It's just that kind of movie. The story, which is very faithful to the original novel by Philip K. Dick (sometimes becoming it's downfall), is incredibly interesting, albeit confusing. Intertwining stories and minute, yet important details are constantly overshadowed by the more appealing interactions and conversations between the main characters, making the story sometimes hard to follow. You really need to pay attention to figure out what is going on. The film moves slowly and often seems as though it is going off on unimportant tangents, but what writer/director Richard Linklater is attempting to do is to draw the viewer into the lives of the characters and make you feel what they're feeling. In the commentary track on the DVD, Linklater explains that he was attempting to make the audience feel as though they too were experiencing the adverse effects of Substance D. I'm not sure if this worked entirely, but I do think that he achieved what he was going for with the seemingly random scenes of dialogue between the characters. Much like Arctor as he lets his investigation slide slowly away from him in exchange for his addiction to the drug, Linklater lets the plot slide away so that the viewer can better understand what kind of world the story is taking place in and what kinds of people we are dealing with. In this way, by the end of the film when the climax happens we truly feel the betrayal and larger-than-thou impact of what has transpired under our noses during the entire duration of the film. The screw that holds the entire film together, then, is of course the actors who are drawing us into their world. Reeves, Downey Jr., Harrelson, Cochrane, and even Ryder, whom I normally dislike, constantly steal the show from one another. Almost every line that is spoken by their characters seems to one-up that which came directly before. Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson's performances shine particularly bright as the two most animated of the drug-addicted losers of the group. Beyond the acting, which takes the viewer's mind off of the downplayed directing, the most noteworthy aspect of A Scanner Darkly is the style in which it is presented. The entire movie was filmed normally, then taken into a computer program where rotoscoping technology was used to give the film an animated feel. The reason for this was so that Linklater could attempt to, as I mentioned earlier, make the audience feel as though they were under the influence of some mind-altering drug. As I previously noted, I'm not sure that this comes across completely, but the constantly shifting and morphing visuals certainly give the movie a memorable, original look. The first time I watched A Scanner Darkly I was only really focusing on this visual style and became tired of it about twenty minutes into the film, also missing out on the intricacies of the plot as I was waiting to be visually wowed. As such, I found my first viewing to be unimpressive. However, when I revisited the film I paid more attention to the story, which clued me in to several things I'd previously missed as well as allowed me to better appreciate the visuals as I wasn't constantly waiting for them to wow me. For me it took two viewings to locate A Scanner Darkly's rightful place in the echelon of my favorite films. For you it may take three, or it may just never happen. Or you could be lucky and realize it's quality the first time through.

Based On The Story "The Golden Man"
Next - Cris Johnson (Nicolas Cage) is a Las Vegas magician with the ability to see a few minutes into the future. He uses this ability to perform his magic act and makes some money on the side by also seeing into the future to cheat at gambling in the very casinos he works at. Only once has he ever seen into the future further than a few minutes, and in that vision he saw a woman named Liz Cooper (Jessica Biel) sitting in a diner at a specific time, but he's not sure what day. Convinced that this is the girl he's meant to spend the rest of his life with, Cris travels to the diner every day at exactly the same time in hopes of meeting Liz, and otherwise just lives a dull day to day life scamming people. Elsewhere, some terrorists have gotten themselves a large bomb and have every intention of using it in the near future. Based on the rumors she has heard about how good at magic and gambling Cris is, FBI agent Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore) somehow deciphers that he must be able to see the future, so she somehow convinces her superiors to let her bring him in in hopes that he'll somehow be able to help them find the terrorists before they set off the bomb. Cris, of course, doesn't want to help because he fears becoming a government lab rat, so he takes off into the desert with Liz after finally meeting her at the diner. When the FBI catches up with him though, Liz is captured by the terrorists as they attempt to escape from the feds and Cris is left with a choice: help the FBI and perhaps save the love of his life, or run for the hills and ensure himself a life of freedom. Okay, now that you've heard the plot of the movie, how about we go over the plot of the story off of which Next is supposedly based? Here goes: It's the future and a race of mutants has appeared on Earth. These mutants have strange powers and are feared by humans, so the government and the military have been hunting down all of the mutants and placing them in camps where they can't hurt people. Cut to a farmhouse in the country. A man whose job it is to search for rogue mutants has discovered that there is one living with the family who owns the farm. This mutant is very tall, his skin his gold, he never speaks or shows emotion, he is incredibly fast, and he can see the future. By sheer luck the government is able to capture "the golden man" and they place him in a cell where they test the limits of his speed and precognitive abilities. Due to his cunning, the golden man is able to escape the facility. The end. Now, let's see what similarities there are between the movie and the story. First, in both Next and The Golden Man there is a character that can see the future. Second...uh...well, I guess there's a mutant in both if you count Nicolas Cage...he looks kind of funny, anyway, and doesn't act like a normal human in most instances. Seriously. Why in the world was Next even credited to Philip K. Dick? It bears no more similarities to The Golden Man than the James Bond movie Live and Let Die, in which there is a woman who uses voodoo to see the future, any of the Final Destination movies, wherein a character always predicts their own death by seeing it happen in the future, or the television show Heroes, which features a character who sees that an explosion will occur in New York City and then tries to stop it. My blind rage that this piece of crap movie is associated with Philip K. Dick aside, lets look at it a bit more in depth. Nicolas Cage is shit. Admit it. He hasn't been good in years, and even when he was good he wasn't that good. Jessica Biel is about as hot as they come, but by no means guarantees a good performance on every outing. This is one of those cases where she just doesn't deliver. Besides, she's way too hot and much too young for Nicolas Cage anyway, making their relationship onscreen completely unbelievable. Julianne Moore is usually someone who gets me excited to see a film, but in Next she just plays the same damn hard-ass, know-it-all, FBI agent that she did in Hannibal (which, by the way, completely ruined the character created in Silence of the Lambs by Jodi Foster). The terrorists are all two dimensional and serve no real purpose in the film aside from giving Julianne Moore someone to shoot at during the climax. Speaking of which, the climax was a major let down. I won't say why in case anyone still wants to see the movie, but after the climax occurs and the scene changes and you see what really happens, I dare you not to be pissed off. You'll know what I mean when you see it. As far as what's good in this movie, really the only thing I liked was how Lee Tamahori visually translated Cris' precognitive abilities. Pretty sad, huh? The only good thing I have to say about this movie is credited to the guy who was responsible for xXx: State of the Union and Die Another Day. Take a clue, read The Golden Man, and if you're ever at a the home of a friend who owns Next on DVD, break it for them. You'll be doing them, the late Philip K. Dick, and our society as a whole a service.

Episode 49

1408 - Mike Enslin (John Cusack) makes a living writing about ghosts, or perhaps more accurately, the lack thereof. He travels around the United States visiting locales that are supposedly haunted and proceeds to investigate the truth behind these claims. After several years and several books spent searching for a real live (or dead, as it were) ghost, he receives a postcard in the mail from the Dolphin Hotel in New York City with a message on the back reading simply "Don't enter 1408". Intrigued by the message, Enslin travels to the hotel and asks to stay in room 1408, only to be ushered into the company of hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson). Olin refuses to let Mike, or anyone else for that matter, stay in room 1408. When Mike persists, Olin goes into detail as to why the room is off limits, describing the numerous deaths that have occurred in the room. Not a superstitious man, Enslin continues to insist that he be allowed to stay in the room, and due to a slight legality, is eventually allowed access. His stay in room 1408 of the Dolphin Hotel begins innocently enough. The room is a little creepy, and a quick ultraviolet scan of the room uncovers traces of a large amount of blood, but nothing overly horrifying. Before long, however, Mike Enslin the skeptic may be forced to become Mike Enslin the believer. As the night continues, more and more supernatural occurrences rake at Enslin's sanity until it is clear that only one of the two will survive until morning: Mike or room 1408. Much like John Cusack's character in this film, I was a skeptic going into the theater. Unlike Mike Enslin though, who didn't believe in the existence of ghosts, I was skeptical that 1408 would be a good movie. The trailers for the film showed a lot of Enslin's daughter (Jasmine Anthony), which gave me the impression that this would be another in a long line of recent horror movies to revolve around creepy little children. I am happy to report that this is not the case. The back story of Enslin and his dead daughter is told in a refreshing way throughout the film instead of being crammed into the opening like I thought it would. As it turns out, it is the way that 1408 breaks free from the stereotypes of every other scary movie that really makes it worthwhile. This film does not try to make you jump with cheap scares the way that your average horror film does, but instead attempts to fill you with a deep-seeded feeling of dread, which it does with some degree of success. Outside of the style of the film and it's storytelling, the thing that really makes this movie is the performance of John Cusack. I am not usually a Cusack-supporter, but he really impressed me in 1408. The film is, after all, essentially ninety minutes of Cusack locked in an evil room by himself with no other actors to interact with. Though this could be said about any film, a poor performance of the lead role in 1408 would have absolutely crippled this movie. This is more true for 1408 than most films, though, because for the majority of the running time the only character we get to see is the lead. That doesn't mean that there are no worthy supporting roles, though. Samuel L. Jackson, who is only in the movie for about ten minutes, provides some of the best scenes in the entire film. He has become a pop culture icon based on his outrageous personality in such films as Snakes On A Plane, but parts like Gerald Olin are the ones in which Jackson really shines. Though Cusack carried the film well on his own, I couldn't shake the feeling that I wanted to see more of Jackson's character. As for the scares themselves, as I said, they are meant to disturb more than shock. In this regard 1408 delivers with some truly eerie and suspenseful moments. There are a few startling events though, that may make you jump. The only variable remaining, then, is the ending. It is not uncommon for a good scary movie to have a horrible ending, which is honestly what I was expecting from 1408. Again, I was pleasantly surprised. 1408 has, in my opinion, the perfect ending to the events that occur in the plot. I was genuinely pleased with the closure we get from the film. All in all, I found 1408, which had all the odds stacked against it, to be an entertaining, original, and rewarding moviegoing experience. If you've grown tired of horror movies because of their stagnant repetition in recent years, 1408 is the movie for you.

United 93 - United 93 is the story of one of the four planes hijacked on September 11, 2001. As everyone knows, two of these planes were flown into the World Trade Center in New York, NY and a third was flown into the Pentagon. The fourth, which this film is concerned with, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The plot follows several different groups of people through the events of the day, leading up to the crash. Most notably the viewer is shown the stories of the passengers of the flight, the terrorists who hijacked it, and a group of airport employees. After the hijackers take control of flight 93, a group of passengers band together to attempt to take back control of the aircraft, which eventually results in the plane going down. Sorry to spoil the climax, but I'm sure everyone knew how it was going to end anyway. I find myself on the fence regarding the film United 93. It was an interesting, engrossing experience, but it certainly had it's flaws. First of all, the film felt more like a documentary than a movie. We are never given enough time with or background on any particular characters to allow us to grow attached to them. The story jumps around so much that there's never a chance to breath and really get to know anyone. It would have been tough to make a standard Hollywood film out of the events of this movie because of the subject matter, but I just felt as though it didn't necessarily make for a good narrative. Another problem that I had with United 93 is probably one that some people may be offended by. I know how this sounds, but I honestly felt like the film was too sappy. Near the climax of United 93, right before the passengers of the plane are about to make a stand against the hijackers, a large number of them begin to use the air phones to call their loved ones so they can exchange teary good-byes in case they should not make it back alive. I'm not clear on whether or not this actually happened on 9/11, but regardless of whether it did or not, it felt as though director Paul Greengrass was trying harder to wrench tears out of the audience than he was to actually tell the story. I'm not saying that scenes like this should have been dropped entirely, but I really felt like they were a bit overdone. This is a touchy subject because we're talking about real people and events here, but let's be honest for a moment. If this were a film made pre-9/11 and these scenes were kept intact, they would have been essentially included in poor taste. If it weren't based on real events there would be no room for the majority of the emotional tension that is involved in the ending of this movie, and what this all really comes down to is that while I thought United 93 did a good job of telling it's story, I don't feel like it was completely successful as a motion picture. The film was shot beautifully and dramatically and kept a very good pace for the majority of the running time, but as a movie I thought that it was a bit lacking. Like I said, it would almost make for a better documentary than a feature film. This is, of course, just my opinion. I can imagine that if I personally knew someone involved in the tragedy of 9/11, or more specifically the actual United flight 93, that I would have a different opinion on some of these topics, but as an average movie-goer (like most of the individuals watching this movie are), I didn't come away having greatly enjoyed watching it.

Kickboxer - Eric Sloane (Dennis Alexio) is the reigning heavyweight kickboxing champion in the United States of America. Desiring to meet a worthy new opponent, Eric and his brother Kurt (Jean Claude Van Damme) travel to Bangkok, Thailand, the birthplace of kickboxing. Just before Eric is scheduled to go up against the local champion, Tong Po (Michel Qissi), Kurt sees him training in another room and realizes that his brother has no chance of beating him. He tries to warn Eric, but he refuses to listen and enters the ring. After a severe beating from Tong Po, Eric's back is broken, paralyzing him from the waist down. In the wake of this tragic event, Kurt vows to get revenge on Tong Po, and seeks out the assistance of the reclusive martial arts master Xian Chow (Dennis Chan). Xian accepts Kurt's request for training, and over the next few months Kurt not only becomes a great fighter, but falls in love with Xian's niece, Mylee (Rochelle Ashana). Finally the day of Kurt's fight with Tong Po has arrived, but the rules have suddenly changed. First, it is announced that the battle will take place out of the ring, and instead in an ancient cavern. Second, the fighters will wear hemp gloves covered in shards of broken glass. Third, Eric has been kidnapped by Tong Po's representatives, who plan to kill him if Kurt either defeats Tong Po or doesn't last until the final round. The tension rises as the fight begins and a secret rescue mission is planned to free Eric, but will he be recovered in time for Kurt to protect his honor? Make no mistakes...Kickboxer is a terrible movie. It essentially takes the plot of Karate Kid and throws all of the character development and heart right out the window. Jean Claude is essentially an older Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio), Michel Ossi is a less interesting Johnny Lawrence (William Zabka), and Xian Chow is a sad substitute for Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita). Not to mention, the acting is absolutely horrible. While I've enjoyed Van Damme in such films as Universal Soldier, Timecop, and Maximum Risk, his character in Kickboxer is a hollow shell of a man. Kurt and his brother exude no real emotions, and there were often moments over the course of the movie when I felt as though I was watching a poorly acted student film. The only person to give a reasonably multi-dimensional performance was Haskell Anderson as Winston Taylor, the comic relief and an old friend of Xian's. I'm sure that nothing I've said about the lack of plot or quality acting has come as a surprise to anyone, but a complete surprise to me was the final fight scene between Kurt and Tong Po. The movie had been so horrible up to this point that I was shocked to find that the filming and execution of the climactic battle was actually pretty good (albeit WAY over the top). We're not talking The Matrix good or anything, but it was really exciting and engrossing (something which can't be said for the rest of the film). In a way, the final fight scene almost makes up for having to sit through an hour and a half of garbage to get there. Watch Kickboxer with a couple of friends and have a good laugh at it's many weaknesses, but don't expect to get much more out of this movie-viewing experience.

Episode 48 - This Isn't Revenge...It's Punishment!

The Punisher (1989) - Frank Castle (Dolph Lundgren) was a good cop until the day that the mob blew up a car with his wife and two daughters inside. It has been assumed that Castle himself died in the explosion as well, but no one has ever been able to prove it, including his ex-partner Jake Berkowitz (Louis Gossett Jr.). Not long after Frank's disappearance, however, a vigilante known as The Punisher appeared on the scene and began a killing spree resulting in 125 dead members of the mob over a period of five years. Many people believe that Castle is The Punisher, but again, no one has been able to prove it. When the second in command of the mob is finally killed in an attack by the The Punisher, boss Gianni Franco (Jeroen Krabbé) must return to the United States from an extended vacation in Europe to take up the reins of his toppling organization. Not long after his return, Franco convinces the heads of the other four crime families to join forces with his, but their first job as a team goes awry when it is interrupted by a gang of Yakuza hitmen lead by Lady Tanaka (Kim Miyori) and her daughter (Zoshka Mizak). Tanaka plans to take over leadership of the mob while they're in their weakened state, all thanks to The Punisher thinning out their ranks. Castle would be happy to stand by and let the mob and the Yakuza kill each other until he discovers some new information through his informant Shake (Barry Otto). When the mob bosses refused to cooperate with the Yakuza, Tanaka kidnapped all of their children to hold for ransom, which is not something that Frank, who lost his own daughters to rampant crime, is willing to let happen. Now The Punisher must take on the entire Yakuza army to save the children of the very men responsible for his own family's deaths. The original 1989 Punisher gets a ton of flak, but I'm not entirely sure why. I'm sure that some people are surprised to hear me say that, but it's true. I honestly don't think that this is a bad movie. Now don't get me wrong; there are certainly some problems with this film. In fact, let's take a look at those first, shall we? First of all, what is the first thing you think of when you hear "The Punisher"? If you've ever seen a comic book before, it should of course be a big, creepy white skull on a guy's chest. However, for some reason the people in charge of making the 1989 Punisher film felt the need to omit this from the character's design. This is like taking the "S" off of Superman's chest. The skull appears on the handle of The Punisher's knives in the film, which he often leaves stuck in the bad guys for the cops to find later, but aside from that the film is devoid of this symbol. I can't fathom why they did this, but you know, it doesn't really affect the film all that much. The other big thing that people fault this movie for is it's leading man: Dolph Lundgren. Now, I would be kidding myself if I said that he is a good actor, but if you can buy Arnold Schwarzenegger's performances in some of his earlier films, then you should certainly be able to deal with Lundgren in The Punisher. He really doesn't do much in the film aside from beating on people, shooting people, riding a motorcycle, and occasionally delivering a clever retort or pre-death catch phrase, all of which I think he managed with a worthy degree of believability. The real thing that I find odd about Frank Castle in this movie is that there are multiple scenes in which he is kneeling naked in his underground hideout. I'm not really sure what these scenes are supposed to signify, but I can deal with them. While I'm behind Lundgren's involvement in The Punisher, my real opposition to the casting lies mainly with the children in the film. None of these kids are even remotely close to good actors, and they provide the most laughably-delivered lines of anyone on the screen. Those characters aside, we have some very stereotypical representations of Japanese people and mobsters, but it is an eighties action movie after all. One character that I could take or leave is The Punisher's informant, Shake. He is a bum who gives Frank Castle intel on upcoming crimes in exchange for booze. He was obviously included as the comic relief of the film, but is thankfully not in it enough to dumb down the story. The action, for the most part, is standard eighties/early nineties fare with explosions and sub-par fight choreography in tow, which I won't fault the film for, because that's just when it came out. Now for the things that I liked. First off, The Punisher is an urban legend. He's been around for a while and has a mythic feel about him in this film. The same cannot be said for the more recent celluloid incarnation of the character. Second is the plot. I love the plot of this movie. The fact that Castle has to save the lives of his enemies' children is great. It also allowed for him to go up against some enemies who had an entirely different fighting style to his own. While brief, the fight between Frank and Lady Tanaka's daughter is really innovative in my opinion. I also enjoyed Louis Gossett Jr.'s character. He could have come off as a whiny sidekick, but instead was a badass himself. Finally, while the script was weak at some points, there were also some lines that make me smile with glee such as when Berkowitz asks, "What the fuck do you call 125 murders in 5 years?", to which Frank replies, "A work in progress." Classic. While The Punisher will turn many people off based on Lundgren's involvement and it's technical inferiority in comparison to the newer installment of the franchise, this film still stands up for me as one of those great, mindless action films of the eighties. Watch it if you get a chance, and if you've seen the more recent film, try to look at it through the eyes of someone seeing it pre-Y2K.

The Punisher (2004) - Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) is an undercover cop who has just completed his final operation before moving away with his wife and son to live out the rest of his life without fear of losing it in the line of duty. Unfortunately, during this final mission, one of mob boss Howard Saint's (John Travolta) sons was killed, which obviously doesn't please Saint or his beautiful wife Livia (Laura Harring) too much. On the day of her son's funeral Livia asks Howard to enact revenge on the man responsible for their loss, and what Livia wants, Livia gets. Recently free from duty, Frank is at a beach-side party with his entire family when Saint's lackeys show up, lead by his right hand man Quentin Glass (Will Patton). After murdering every single member of Castle's family, despite his attempts to save them, Quentin and co. beat, shoot, and blow up Frank on a pier. Discovered washed up on the shore by a local man, Frank is revived with one thing on his mind: punishment. He relocates to Florida, where Howard Saint resides, and rents an apartment in a small, run down building where he sets up shop with an armored car and every type of weapon imaginable. As The Punisher, Frank methodically takes down every aspect of Saint's business, surviving every attack that is sent his way. Meanwhile, through interaction with his three new neighbors, Joan (Rebecca Romjin), Dave (Ben Foster), and Bumpo (John Pinette), Frank also begins to feel normal emotions again like trust and compassion. However, as his mission to ruin Howard Saint's life continues, The Punisher remains an unstoppable force of vengeance, forcing Saint to repeatedly up the ante. This time around The Punisher got a bigger budget, bigger stars, and bigger action sequences. Despite all this, the 2004 incarnation of The Punisher still didn't perform magnificently in theaters. Regardless, this is a pretty good movie. Thomas Jane is certainly a better actor than Dolph Lundgren was in the previous Punisher film, and this one also has a more noteworthy supporting cast. In fact, that's really what makes this movie. Based loosely on the Garth Ennis-penned "Welcome Back, Frank" story-line from the Punisher comic books, Jonathan Hensleigh's film borrows from the comic's wonderful cast of ancillary characters. Frank Castle's neighbors Joan, Dave, and Bumpo all have their origin's in Ennis' comics, as do villains Harry Heck (Mark Collie) and The Russian (Kevin Nash). Speaking of The Russian, his scene in this film is definitely the highlight of the movie. The overall tone of his fight with The Punisher carries over perfectly from the comic book and is way more fun and funny than a scene in a generic action movie has any right to be. As far as the rest of the villains go, John Travolta puts in a mediocre performance as Howard Saint. Honestly, I had a hard time believing that anyone would be afraid of him in this film. He just didn't scream badass to me. Harry Heck was only in the film very briefly, but puts in a rather decent performance in the time alloted to him. As far as the neighbors are concerned, they are all important and play their parts well. My only complaint would be that Rebecca Romjin was a little too beautiful to believably pull off the character of Joan (at least the way she was portrayed in the comic), but that's hardly something to worry about. On the topic of the differences between this version of the Punisher and the previous incarnation, there are many, but I'll go over a few important ones. First is the skull design. Unlike the Dolph Lundgren version it is all over this movie, which is good, but the origin of it is pretty damn stupid in my opinion. The filmmakers were trying to give the skull a deeper meaning than it has and, in my opinion, they managed only to make it slightly more stupid than if it were just a skull shirt that Castle ended up with. Next we have The Punisher's public appearance. In the Lundgren film The Punisher had been around for several years and was a bit of an urban legend, which I liked. In this film he walks right up to the front of a police station to announce his existence as soon as he rolls into town. I wasn't a big fan of this, primarily because it doesn't make sense. If you're going to go around killing a bunch of people, why not be secretive about it? Realistically, as soon as the first bad guy dropped dead, the cops would have been knocking down Frank's door, but then again, we are talking about a comic book movie here. This time around we got to see the deaths of Frank's family, which are on a much larger scale than in the original film, allowing the viewer to get into Frank's head a little more. This is good and bad in my opinion, because I liked all of the character development of The Punisher in this film, but also appreciated the mystery of him in the other. When you get right down to it, despite all of the differences between the 1989 and 2004 Punisher films, I like both of them on just about the same level. The 2004 version is absolutely the better movie, but both are quite worth a watch.

Episode 47 - Transform And Roll Out!

SYNOPSIS

Thousands of years ago an item known as the Allspark (a mysterious cube that can create life) found it's way to the planet Cybertron where it birthed a civilization of living robots capable of taking the shapes of various objects. These beings became known as Transformers. For a time the species thrived until an evil Transformer known as Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving) began a war which eventually ravaged the entire planet. Megatron and his followers, known as the Decepticons, battled against the Autobots, as led by Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), for control of the Allspark. When Cybertron had been totally demolished by fighting, the Autobots took the Allspark into space where Megatron traced it, eventually finding himself caught in the gravitational pull of planet Earth. He was pulled to the surface and crash-landed in the arctic where he remained frozen until many years later when an explorer by the name of Archibald Witwicky (William Morgan Sheppard) stumbled upon his body. Using the last of his strength, Megatron shot forth an energy beam which engraved a coded map onto the lenses of Archibald's glasses which would lead anyone able to decode it directly to the Allspark's location on Earth. After some time the Decepticons were able to track Megatron to Earth and arrived there, immediately searching for the Allspark and their lost leader. Using the technology available on Earth, including the internet, the Decepticons were able to track Archibald Witwicky's glasses, and the map contained within, to their current owner, his grandson Sam (Shia Lebeouf). A high school student, Sam has just purchased his first car, which as it turns out, is an Autobot named Bumblebee (Mark Ryan) in disguise. After locating Sam, Bumblebee sends a signal out into the depths of space, calling for his fellow Autobots to join him on Earth to help find and protect the Allspark. After the cavalry arrives an all new war begins to see who will finally gain control of the Allspark: the riteous Autobots or the evil Decepticons.

REVIEW

Opening Remarks - I've decided to break this review into multiple parts because, honestly, there's a lot of ground to cover here. I was never a huge fan of The Transformers as a child. I had one or two Transformers toys, hardly ever watched the cartoon, and didn't end up seeing the original movie until I was about 18 years old. I used to watch the spin-off series Beast Wars, but that's about it. My knowledge of the Transformers is fairly limited, but as a movie buff, a science fiction nerd, and a child of the eighties, how could I not be excited to see Optimus Prime and Megatron duking it out on the big screen? So for months I read all the rumors on message boards and watched all the clips leaked online and finally the day arrived that I, along with the rest of the world, would be able to see cars turn into robots and beat the hell out of each other in the theater in full, glistening 3D CG. The following are my findings.

The Plot - The plot of Transformers is fairly simple: good robots versus bad robots with life as we know it hanging in the balance. That said, it's not unfathomable that the story could have been bogged down by unimportant subplots and/or mundane intricacies that don't further the plot progression. I am happy to say, however, that the plot of Transformers is solid. There are some flashback scenes narrated by Optimus Prime that give the viewer a brief look at the history of the events taking place which clue the audience into a few things they need to know right when they need to know them. Past that, Transformers is jam-packed with story points that are (for the most part) relevant. With that said, the story is not without it's flaws. Transformers clocks in at two hours and twenty four minutes, but could have easily been three hours long. This is not to say that it should have been, and there are certainly people who would complain that making a film longer will not solve anything, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are often instances in Transformers where the pacing feels rushed. It's as though many of the scenes were intended to be longer, but had to be cut short to meet some sort of time constraints. I think the plot suffered in some areas based on this flaw. Many characters felt underdeveloped and multiple scenes left me feeling cheated out of a properly paced bit of drama. Had the film held a better flow, I would have no real problems with the story, but as it stands it felt to me like there was a bit too much crammed into slightly too small of a space. Then there is the humor. Transformers has many more comical moments in it than I was expecting. Most of these instances were done in good taste, but I personally felt that there was sometimes too much focus on the humor. Many jokes felt justified and meaningful while a select few felt overly cheesy and forced. And finally, one of my bigger gripes about the film's plot involves the focus of the film. The movie is called Transformers, however the way the plot plays out, the film could have been called "Sam And His Transforming Pals". Now, I am not going to dispute the importance of Shia Labeouf's character in this film, but for a movie about giant robots, I really didn't feel like the robots were given quite enough to do for a great deal of the movie. They managed to be onscreen a good bit, but there were hardly any scenes of the robots talking to each other. Almost every single scene, regardless of whether there was a robot in it or not, seemed to revolve around whatever human was in the frame more than the robots themselves. I understand that Sam is the main character, and I am fine with the amount of screen time he had, but I just didn't feel like the Autobots got their due until the climax of the movie, though even then I was a tad disappointed (more on that in a bit).

The Humans - Shia Labeouf is incredible in Transformers. He is funny, interesting to watch, and absolutely believable in the role of Sam Witwicky. His interaction with the robots, both Autobot and Decepticon, is flawless, as is his interaction with his family, the love interest, and all of the various government and military personnel. Megan Fox surprised me in this film by being more than just a pretty face. She carried the role of Mikaela Banes fairly well for the majority of the movie, however I still didn't quite believe her as the badass grease monkey that she was supposed to be. Jon Voight was one of the few actors in the movie that I honestly wasn't all that impressed by. As sad as it is to say, I think that the last movie in which Voight really impressed me with his performance was Varsity Blues. He didn't do a terrible job in Transformers, but perhaps his character just wasn't explored deeply enough to make him seem all that worthwhile. Speaking of shortchanged cast members, none of the military characters such as Sargeants Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and Epps (Tyrese Gibson) really had a fighting chance of showing any real character development. All of their scenes essentially consisted of them shouting and shooting things, which they were good at, but which wasn't very rewarding as far as their personalities were concerned. John Turturro's portrayal of Agent Simmons was one of the more interesting of the human roles, simply because his character had a bit of character. He exuded some actual emotions and had a little more to do than just look concerned and shoot things. Also worthwhile were Kevin Dunn and Julie White as Sam's parents. Their characters were fairly stereotypical onscreen parents, but their interaction with Shia was entertaining and they provided some of the more worthy comical sequences in the film. Another heavily comedic role was that of Anthony Anderson, who did a rather horrible job of playing a genius computer hacker alongside the equally unimpressive Rachel Taylor.

The Autobots - As I've already mentioned, I really would have liked the Transformers (specifically the Autobots) to do a little more in this film. As it is, the Autobots (excluding Bumblebee) take their sweet time arriving on Earth, but after they get here they really don't do a whole hell of a lot. Fortunately, however, the Autobots were handled well in the scenes thay they were in. A lot of people were worried by the more realistic appearances of the robots in the movie as compared to the way they looked in the cartoon, but I was behind the designs from the beginning. What I was worried about was whether they'd stick to the heart of the characters or not. Luckily they did just that. Optimus Prime, as voiced by Peter Cullen, is the epitome of a leader. His speech alone demands respect, and when he was really in his element in this film the hairs on the back of my neck stood up at the sound of his voice. There were some silly moments involving all of the Autobots, but those aside, Optimus was handled extremely well. Bumblebee was also done decent justice in this movie. I was initially disappointed that he wasn't going to be a Volkswagon Beetle like the original character, but in retrospect I think I'd have had a hard time believing that he could do any real damage if he were in fact a VW Bug in a live-action movie. Something else that initially worried me about Bumblebee was that instead of speaking he used sound clips from the radio to talk. I expected this to be very corny and stupid, but he honestly doesn't use this ability very often in the film, and the few times he does didn't really bug me too much. The main problem with the other three Autobots of the film, Ratchet (Robert Foxworth), Jazz (Eddie from Family Matters), and Ironhide (Jess Harnell), is that they have almost no character development whatsoever. Soon after their introductions we are treated to a few little one-liners from each that give us an idea of what their personalities are like, but then they essentially have no important or memorable dialogue for the rest of the film. Overall my complaints about the Autobots all come down to their lack of importance to the plot aside from showing up for the final battle of the movie.

The Decepticons - Really, my complaints with the Decepticons are much the same as those I had with the Autobots. For one, zero character development. Megatron is in stasis for the majority of the film, so he really only has about the last half an hour of the story to build up any sort of personality or character. If it weren't for the other characters foreshadowing his arrival and talking about what a badass he is prior to his release, he probably wouldn't have come off as much of a threat at all. Then we have the rest of the Decepticons...I think there were eight of them in total. The first action scene involves Blackout, the second involves Scorponok, and the third involves Barricade (more on these scenes shortly). After that we really don't see the villains until the ending. Again, for having so many damn robots in the movie, we hardly see any of them. Not to mention, for the most part the Decepticons don't even have any speaking parts. They each have maybe one or two lines, but they're all spoken in an alien language for the most part and subtitled onscreen. This, combined with their lack of screen time in general, really impedes the viewer's ability to get to know the characters. I personally can't even list off all of the Decepticons that were in the movie or what vehicles they turned into because they just weren't important enough to the plot to be memorable. This becomes a real problem toward the end of the movie because I had no real idea who was who during the climactic all-out brawl that ends the film (that's not really a spoiler because, come on, who didn't know that's how a Transformers movie would end?). The really sad thing about the Decepticons is that the one who gets the most screen time is a little annoying robot who turns into a stereo named Frenzy (Reno Wilson). In my personal opinion Frenzy is to Transformers what Jar Jar Binks was to Star Wars. Everything about this character sucked. Even the way he moved. The filmmakers decided to make his movements very exaggerated and (in my opinion) overly-fluent, giving the character the feeling of a silly Bugs Bunny type of character. Then there was his voice. He speaks in little cartoony grunting sounds that just scream "I was added to entertain the kids in the audience." Aside from Frenzy, the thing that probably bugged me most about the Decepticons was that Starscream (Charles Adler), Megatron's second in command, was hardly in it. In the cartoon Starscream was an incredibly rich character who always seemed on the verge of getting into a fight with Megatron over the leadership of the Decepticons. There was only one real moment in the film that these two characters shared and it was probably one of my favorite of the entire movie. It showed that the filmmakers knew how to handle the characters properly, but that they just didn't bother to take the time to do so.

The Special Effects - There isn't much to say here. The special effects in Transformers were top notch. I had no trouble believing that the incredible robotic creatures onscreen were real because they fit so well into the onscreen environment. The transforming process was impressive, as were the movements of just about every CG character. The effects in Transformers were absolutely the best I've seen to date.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT
This next section discusses, in some detail, the events of the film's action sequences. If you haven't seen the movie yet you may do well to skip the following block of text and proceed to the next. You've been warned.

The Action - Frenzy was an annoying character. Many of the people/robots in the film didn't get enough character development. Several parts of the movie felt rushed and/or stereotypical of modern action movies. My biggest complaint about Transformers, though, falls into the category of the films's action sequences. The first taste of action we get is right at the beginning when Blackout (the evil helicopter) attacks an American military base. This scene was shot in such a way that we didn't get to directly see a whole lot of the action. The camera never focused very well on the villain and things were very hectic and confusing. I'm fine with this because it's the beginning of the movie and director Michael Bay probably just wanted to keep things a bit mysterious this early on. The second action scene that we get is when the survivors of the military base are attacked in the desert by Scorponok. Again, it's a bit tough to tell what's happening at times. Again, Bay seems to be focusing more on the random actions of the soldiers than the direct action of the robot, which is what everyone really wants to see. The camera moves around very quickly and shakes a lot, there are constantly demolished walls, etc. blocking our view of Scorponok, and sand and dust are flying all over the place, making things even more confusing. Okay, it must just be the location, and it's honestly still pretty early on, so maybe Bay is still just teasing us. A little while later there's a pretty cool, but incredibly short car chase between Bumblebee and Barricade (the evil police car), ending in a stand-off between the two. Then the two of them go at it, which would have been really cool if I could tell what the fuck was going on. My guess is that it was a combination of shaky cam, close-ups, and the fact that it's tough to discern between two characters when they're both just made out of a bunch of random pieces of metal, but I could hardly follow the action in this scene. Then, before you know it, the focus cuts away from the fight to see Shia LeBeouf being felt up by Frenzy and we miss the rest of the first real battle between good and evil robots. Oh well, there's plenty more action coming, right? Wrong. Fast forward to the last twenty minutes of the movie and the shit is finally about to hit the fan. Megatron's conscious, all the Decepticons are sounding off on their way to the location of the Allspark, and the Autobots are rushing toward the city. Commence fighting. What do we get? More shaky cam. More confusing, fast-paced fighting. This scene is in the daylight, and it's pretty long, involving some slow-mo, etc., so it's not all bad, but for the most part I was very disappointed with the climactic battle of Transformers. For one thing, as I mentioned before, I had no clue who half of the Decepticons were, so most of the time I felt like I was just looking at random bad guys. Second, is it just me, or did it seem like the robots were dropping like flies in this scene? I was under the impression that these things were tough, but each little conflict lasted maybe a minute and then one of the robots was being dismantled and defeated completely. This was disappointing because after all the build-up it seemed like the Decepticons were all talk. I won't dwell on the silly nature of some things like why the military decided that the best way to hide the Allspark would be to bring it into a populated city with lots of innocent bystanders to be killed in the coming battle, or why instead of taking the Allspark and driving to meet the military helicopters themselves, Ratchet and Ironhide made little ol' Sam Witwicky run down the street with it himself while they stood around and got the crap beaten out of them, but there were certainly some odd occurrences at the end of this film. All in all I just felt underwhelmed and maybe a little jipped by the climactic battle of Transformers. The best part, by far, was a short dogfight between Starscream and some U.S. fighter jets. This scene was well lit, well shot, and generally easy to see and enjoy. It was also pretty short, but it's something, so I'll deal with it.

In Closing - Transformers certainly wasn't horrible, but it definitely wasn't the amazing movie-going experience that I was expecting, nay, wishing for. Sure the effects were good, but the action was impeded by some odd filming choices that made it hard for me to enjoy them. Sure the story was perfect, but the storytelling was far from it. Yes, some of the characters were wonderful, but others were weak and poorly developed. Transformers had the opportunity to leave an impact on me like the first time I saw Spiderman swinging across the New York skyline, or the first time I saw H.R. Giger's nightmarish creation burst from a man's chest in Alien, but in the end it just felt like another standard summer action movie to me; less a failure, and more a missed opportunity.

Episode 46

Ratatouille - Remy (voiced by Patton Oswalt) is a rat, and as everyone knows, rats eat garbage. Most rats, including the rest of Remy's clan, are happy to just eat garbage, but Remy has a more heightened sense of taste and smell than most. Because of this, Remy has higher standards of what he chooses to eat, and also wishes to be a cook just like his idol Chef Gusteau (Brad Garrett). After being caught raiding the kitchen of the home in which he and his clan live, the old woman who lives there chases Remy and the rest of the rats away. During their escape Remy is separated from the group and sails through the sewers to find himself smack in the middle of Paris, France, the home of the finest cuisine the world has ever known. Making his way to the late Gusteau's restaurant, Remy observes the new garbage boy named Linguini (Lou Romano) as he accidentally messes up a pot of soup in the kitchen. Head Chef Skinner (Ian Holm) scolds Linguini when he catches him trying aimlessly to fix the soup. Meanwhile, unwilling to let an imperfect meal be served in his idol's restaurant, Remy risks life and limb to fix the soup himself before being caught by the staff. When the soup is served, the patron who ordered it gives her compliments to the chef, which surprises everyone else in the kitchen because as far as they know, Linguini is the one who made it taste so good. Upset that he's been upstaged by the garbage boy, Skinner demands that within the next few days Linguini must re-make the soup to prove that he knew what he was doing, which he of course didn't. Afraid of losing his job, and after discovering that Remy knows how to cook, Linguini offers the captive rat his freedom in exchange for assisting him in becoming a successful cook himself. After Linguini wows everyone by making delicious dish after delicious dish, word comes around that the harshest food critic in the city, Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole) will be returning to Gusteau's restaurant for the first time since he gave it a bad review (which cost the restaurant one of it's five stars) to review it once again. With time running out before Ego returns for his meal, Linguini and Remy must keep their partnership a secret, which could prove difficult because of Skinner's desire to find out how Linguini learned to cook so well. With a track record like Pixar's, including such films as Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars, it's not hard to imagine that Ratatouille is a great movie. Helmed by Brad Bird, the man responsible for The Incredibles and The Iron Giant, Ratatouille is the most stunningly beautiful of Disney and Pixar's computer animated films to date. Of course, seeing the progression that they've made from film to film, this is also not hard to believe. The city scapes of Paris at night in the film are stunning, and perhaps most impressive of all is a scene in which Skinner chases Remy through the city. Also of note is the first scene in which Remy finds himself in Gusteau's kitchen. What truly impressed me about Ratatouille though, was the story. Sure, it seemed fun and funny from the get-go, but I never expected Ratatouille to be as heartwarming and, dare I say, mature as it is. All of Pixar's movies have walked the fine line between being child-oriented and adult-oriented, and this is definitely the film that's leaned the farthest toward being meant for adults, but they still managed to keep the story simple and innocent enough to be ideal for all ages. As far as the story is concerned, as I said, it's easy to understand, even for those not familiar with the intricacies of fine-dining. It has a few morals sprinkled throughout as well, but doesn't shove them down the viewer's throat. All of the characters are likable and memorable. Linguini has a great chemistry with Remy, as well as with the one woman in the kitchen, Colette (Janeane Garofalo), who provides a potential love interest for him. All of the staff of Gusteau's kitchen and several of Remy's fellow rats have interesting designs and personalities, providing a great supporting cast with voice acting performances by the likes as Will Arnett, James Remar, Brian Dennehy, and Pixar staple John Ratzenberger. As for what I didn't like, there isn't much. One thing I wasn't a big fan of was the beginning of the film before Remy gets to Paris. I can't even put my finger on why I didn't like it, but I felt like it was the weakest part of the movie. Another small problem that I had was that I saw the ending coming from a mile away. Obviously I'm not going to say what it entails, but I knew what was coming about halfway through the film. I guess that's essentially all of my gripes, though. Ratatouille is a fine addition to Pixar's library of impeccable computer animated films and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone. And by the way, I give Brad Bird and his team great praise for making perhaps the first story about a mouse or rat that doesn't involve a single cat. Kudos.

Strange Days - In the year 1999 (lets keep in mind that this film was made in 1995), on the eve of the new millennium, there is a new form of media that you can buy on the black market known as "squids". They are called squids because of the shape of the media player that you place on your head to watch them which has several small protrusions resembling tentacles. Squids are more than audio or video, though. They're memories. Squid dealers like ex-cop turned street hustler Lenny Nero (Ralph Fiennes) pay people to rob businesses, perform death-defying acts, and have sex with beautiful women, then extract their memories of these events, upload them onto discs, and sell them on the street to people who can't or won't do the things they desire most, allowing them to live vicariously through other peoples experiences. Life is going poorly for Lenny. The love of his life, a musician named Faith (Juliette Lewis), has left him and he can't seem to get over it. Then one day someone anonymously delivers a package to him containing a squid disc that shows someone's memory of murdering one of Lenny's few friends. The only people he can turn to for help in tracking down the perpetrator are former co-worker Max Peltier (Tom Sizemore) and limo driver Lornette "Mace" Mason (Angela Bassett). Fearing that Faith may be in danger, Lenny asks Max to tail her, which is no easy task considering that her new boyfriend is a criminal named Philo Gant (Michael Wincott) who has several lackeys around them at all times. Meanwhile Lenny and Mace search for the truth behind the death of Lenny's friend, slowly discovering that the recent police shooting of an African American pop icon by the name of Jeriko One (Glenn Plummer) may be involved as well. As the plot thickens, Lenny realizes that me may be in over his head. Strange Days has flown under my radar for years, and seemingly, the radar of the movie-going public at large. This could be partly due to the fact that while James Cameron, the the man who practically invented the science fiction action genre with films such as Aliens, The Terminator, and The Abyss, devised the plot and wrote the script for the film, he left the directorial reins under the control of former wife Kathryn Bigelow. There is nothing wrong with the direction of the film, but I have a feeling that Strange Days would be a bit more well known had it been directed by Cameron himself. Chances are it would have been a little better in the directorial department as well, though. The premise of Strange Days is fairly original and makes for a decent plot, but the timing of the film seems a bit odd to me. It was made in 1995, and meant to take place in 1999, a mere four years later. There is, of course, no way that in 1995 the filmmakers could have assumed that the technology in the film would exist a short four years later, but I'm sure that they set the plot when they did so that it could revolve around the turn of the century, which plays a fairly large role in the climax of the film. Still, that bothered me a bit. Ralph Fiennes does a decent, but not outstanding job of portraying the down on his luck Lenny Nero. He wasn't horrible, but I didn't think that he was great either. Really, none of the actors turned in a particularly memorable performance. Angela Bassett and Tom Sizemore's characters felt like they could have been played by anyone. Michael Wincott was his normal evil self, which can't be hard to pull off with that voice of his. As per usual, Juliette Lewis was decent, but no matter how good she is in a role, I still find her incredibly annoying. There are some exciting moments, as there are with all Cameron films, but nothing that makes this movie really stand out in it's genre. Based on the sub-par nature of Strange Days I can see why Cameron didn't bother directing the film himself, but I can't help but wonder what it would be like if he had. Strange Days is an enjoyable viewing experience, but not one that I'm overly excited about seeing again anytime soon.