Centurion [2010]

A Roman legion is ambushed by the Picts (a Scottish tribe) and the few survivors must try to make it back safety before they are hunted and killed.

Neil Marshall’s play on the legend (mostly myth) of the Roman 9th legion in Britain – an unstoppable group who went “missing” while guarding their post. What I really liked about the movie is that you are given two sides – both give the viewer equal justification to root for. The Picts are defending their land against invaders – as well as Etain who has her own brutal reasons for wanting to hunt down the Roman scum. Then you have a somewhat likable group of Roman soldiers headed by Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender – who plays the title Centurion) – who you realize are pretty much left up to their own – with no cavalry coming to save them simply looking to get back home.

Marshall gives us his traditional theme of having strong women characters who don’t need men to save their asses – and they don’t need to show their asses. His films are violent and gory – and very masculine in that sense – but you throw in the strong female badasses in his films they are very feminist. That duality is one of my favorite things about Marshall’s films – the female characters don’t cower until they are “saved” – they stand up for themselves the entire time.

I think the cast did their part quite well - Fassbender brought a weight an sympathetic side to Quintus which worked very well and Olga Kurylenko was awesome as the silent assassin Etain. – and though the plot was thin – it was good enough for a fun survival-chase “genre” film. It’s a “you get what you pay for” Neil Marshall film – with plenty of gore and in camera effects – instead of the computer generated nonsense.

I wasn’t as enthusiastic about Marshall’s direction of Centurion as a whole – I felt he had a real energy and eye in his previous works – I’m not sure what really happened in this one. He still managed some beautiful shots – and some great compositions – but it felt a bit more vanilla.

Out of the 4 feature films Neil Marshall has done – it has no place to go but 4th on the list due to the strength of his previous work and obvious weaknesses in Centurion. Being a dork I just realized that this is his first film that didn’t start with D – The Descent, Doomsday & Dog Soldiers – and he was attached to Drive for a long while before Winding Refn took over the project (that would have made a VERY different film – but equally as awesome in a different way).

I liked the movie – but I can easily see how others would think it is derivative and just a boring hack and slash film. It is just a lot of bloody fun.

Sucker Punch [2011]

An orphan girl [sad song] is sentenced to a lobotomy so that a crooked man [sad song] can steal her inheritance [sad song] and she imagines that she’s fighting back [techno song].

I swear I watched a solid half hour of this film – then the fast forward button was used liberally. I counted those music queues and there were 3 within the first 17 minutes of the movie – this started to make me really angry – because I felt I was watching a series of crappy sad sack music videos.

OPEN YOUR POUTY ASS MOUTH AND TELL THE FUCKING POLICE WHAT THIS GUY WAS DOING AND FUCKING STOP STANDING AROUND LOOKING FUCKING SAD!!!

Sure, there were some nice visually nifty action sequences that I forwarded through – but it became an obvious style over substance issue for me. I’m glad I didn’t waste my time watching the full movie – because to get to THAT ending would have pissed me off.

The Bridge On the River Kwai [1957]

I liked THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI – but honestly I wished I liked more. The movie was 2 hours and 45 minutes – and it felt every bit of it. It was two different stories – and they weren’t blended together well – even though I understood why and liked each story it just felt like “we showed the British officer’s side of the story – let’s now show the American soldier’s side of the story”. There were some great performances – and I really liked the build up to the conclusion (even though it’s become one of those famous scenes that you can’t help but run into – so you kind of already know how it ends). I’m glad I finally watched it – but I’m also glad I didn’t purchase it like I intended to at the Half-Price Books Labor Day sale – it’s not a keeper to me at the moment.

Drive [2011]

By night he’s a getaway driver – by day he’s a Hollywood stunt driver – when he gets mixed up with a girl and the mob - things get violent.

First of all, I have been anticipating this film for several months now. The talent in front of the camera (Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks & Bryan Cranston) as well as the talent behind the camera (Nicholas Winding Refn) got me pretty psyched up for what appeared to be a hard hitting fast paced action film.

I really did not expect the film that I watched though. My presumption disparity was blown out of the theater – and though I expected something with more pep – I got an intelligent, beautiful film that’s going to linger with more far longer than what I went in expecting. I should have expected this considering Winding Refn was at the helm – as this was an essentially an extension of VALHALLA RISING – slow build ups – questions everywhere – and graphic acts of terrifying violence.

The film was all about building tension – the slow thoughtful pacing of the film – the long pauses in conversation – the low key ethereal synth music soundtrack – the static camera – was all carefully crafted and used in order to really help build up the underbelly of the film. When an act of violence would happen – it was graphic and startling – just the way it should be – it was realistic and horrifying. I gasped – LuLu Danger jumped – it was satisfying.

The acting was top notch – Ryan Gosling at times has an approach of being blank and not showing anything and it bothers me (FRACTURE) but when given a different context that bored/blank look of his has underlying issues – there’s nobody better. His lack of emotion – his lack of dialogue – just made his character endear to me more. LuLu and I walked out asking each other back and forth questions about him – agreeing there’s ton more that we’ll never know about him – and we loved it.

Carey Mulligan was sweet and complex – there was a certain level of complete perfection about how she behaved – the elevator scene will go down as one of the greatest scenes of her still very early career – she showed a maturity unlike many actresses and hit every emotional queue in such a broad spectrum like a fucking pro.

Albert Brooks is one of my favorite comedic actors of all time – but in DRIVE he terrified me. As much as Gosling kept it internal – Brooks allowed it to flow through his pores a bit more – and I got the feeling he was a man willing to do anything (there’s early Oscar talk for Brooks in this role – and I agree – I was seriously terrified of him). Bryan Cranston has a knack for acting fatherly and believable in whatever role he tackles – which he mixed with a slimy fast talker into this role – and he did it with a certain expertise.

I don’t have any complaints about the film. There is no other director that could have pulled off a film like this – the tone – the artistic styling. The acting was all exactly pitch perfection for what this film became. Maybe it needed more driving considering it was called DRIVE – but that’s not the point.


The comparisons to exploitation films are fair – with a slow building sense of tension exploding into graphic and perverse violence. I can see how this film wouldn’t speak to everyone’s tastes – as I realized how the tone of the movie was being set very early on – I worried LuLu wouldn’t like it – but I think it’s the reality of the film’s story and the compelling performances - really proved me wrong and she loved it. I did too.

P.S. LuLu and I were enthralled by Gosling’s white satin jacket the entire film – there was a certain fucking badass look to that jacket – though it was a dated look. It really reminded me of how Christina Lindberg looked in THRILLER with the eye patch and trench coat and how there’s something simplistically amazing about it. If LuLu and I ever make it to a Comic Con – I think I know what I would like for us to dress up as.

P.P.S. I'll throw my hat in there and say even though I've been incredibly picky about what I've watched this year - this is my favorite of the lot thus far in 2011.

13 Assassins [2010]

The Shogun’s younger brother is an evil man with hate and cruelty in his heart. When the depth of his evil becomes apparent to a senior government official he hires the samurai Shinzaemon to assassinate him before he can ascend in power. Shinzaemon goes on recruit 11 more samurai for the mission – who are joined on their journey by a hunter – making it the tale of the 13 assassins.

This is a remake of a film of the same name and though I can’t find the original to rent and compare – it seems moot as it’s the exact plot of SEVEN SAMURAI – with the main differences being the number of characters – and the threat is from the government rather than bandits. Let me remind you – Rule #1 – originality is overrated. You’ve seen this movie before – I promise you – but the story is compelling never-the-less.

Given the nature of the heroes of this film are samurai – and samurai are not normally known for being expressive – that leads to what can be perceived as little character development – that perception is mostly reality. This lack of character development though – does not lead to any less desire to wanting to see them succeed with every ounce of your being. The majority of the real character depth is with the villain – and he is such a wonderfully evil villain. With his apparent evil and condescending above the law nature – you wouldn’t care if smurfs were after him – as long as someone was.

The villain’s character development is a major triumph for this film – because if you consider giving 13 characters a personal sense of purpose – goals – motivations – and the like would be exhausting and make the film 4 hours long – much like SEVEN SAMURAI (which is one of my top 5 favorite films of all time – so I’m not knocking it). But if you give the bulk of the character development to the villain – you come to accept the assassins as being in the right even if you don’t know them – and it makes each of their deaths equally sad.

The film – in the cut that was released to Blu-Ray in America is roughly 2 hours – with the final 50 minutes of the film being essentially a bloodbath. Not once through the final battle did I think that it was taking too long or getting boring. I saw it as less of an extended action scene and more of a dramatic scene that kept me engaged throughout. There was no music playing over the bulk of the battle – as to not falsify the emotion and give you the traditional movie triggers to tell you to care. The clangs of the swords, the screams and shouts and the visuals of the mud and blood – was enough to jar me into caring and kind of leave me dumbstruck.

That’s not to say the film was essentially a build up to the action scene – as the assassin’s quest prior to the battle was an interesting story. There wasn’t a cheap scene in the build-up – which is just strong storytelling. The conclusion of the story was extremely satisfying – and even a little bit of a twist that didn’t exactly fit in with the exact nature of the story – but it was pitch perfect to resolve the film (though I interpreted it one way – and considered it the only solution – I guess some could want to believe the other).

For some, I can see how the lack of character development could lead to a lack of recognition while they fought and died muddied and bloodied – but with such beautiful noble samurai deaths – it didn’t phase me. Several of the assassins were given a small bit of this or that that allowed me to recognize them upon their demise – several were not and I didn’t recognize them as being X or Y – but like I said – it didn’t worry me.

I guess I found a few small instances of new technology a tiny bit distracting – but it was used so few and far between that it didn’t impact me that much. I would say for the most part – a lot of old school directing techniques and action sequences helped sell me.

Netflix refused to send this movie to me for a while – though it sat on the top of my rental queue with no wait – which brought up my excitement – and could have easily made the presumptive disparity hard to overcome – but it met and exceeded my expectations. This is not just a renter – but a movie I want to own and kind of wish I didn’t already returned it because I want to watch it again already – I highly recommend it.

* I apologize for lack of pictures – I like to use them to break-up the text – but it appears that once I Googled some up most have been removed due to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act – which is a shame it’s a visually stunning film and would like to showcase it in my review

Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011]

A young scientist eager to discover a way to create virus that will reverse the damage Alzheimer’s does to the brain – creates something that makes the apes he’s testing it on super intelligent.

I watched all I could of the original PLANET OF THE APES films – which consisted of the first film – quickly losing interest in the second – and the boring Tim Burton remake. So, I was quite surprised when I found myself becoming more excited for this “reboot” – or origin tale – I’m not sure what it’s meant to be. It seemed to be garnering a fair share of positive reviews – and less scrutiny than I figured it would get – even some Oscar talk for Andy Serkis. I had to admit after watching the commercial a few times – it looked well executed – even if all they advertised was the apes going nuts – it might be a fun action film.

The first thing I noticed was that the tone was grounded in Will Rodman’s quest to help his father defeat Alzheimer’s – but as discoveries were made and the focus shifted to Caesar the heart of the original tone remained strong. It’s easy for effect films to start out strong with identifiable feelings to get the audience to connect with the characters – then use that initial connection to get you through the nonsense effects that follows – but this isn’t one of those films. It successfully worked with the special effects to create a fully realized story – something that could work without the effects.

The effects were wonderful – you’re never lost on the fact that Caesar was a chimpanzee – which is glorious considering he was being portrayed by Andy Serkis and motion capture. The effects weren’t distracting as make me feel like I was watching a fake monkey. The human aspects Serkis brought were so smartly used that the blurring the lines between the two species were difficult to grasp. Serkis’ performance was powerful – it really made Caesar a sympathetic character and the most fully realized rounded character of the film.
When it comes to the human characters each was essentially a caricature of the mad scientist/misunderstood creature film – but it works because they were framed creatively and each character is allowed to hit their marks instead of being forced into each plot point. The story was injected with enough heavy handed moments to make the story as a whole a success.

Casting was a great strength – James Franco was excellent as Will Rodman the man who was desperately trying to discover a way to save his ailing father Charles - played expertly by John Lithgow. Brian Cox is an expert at playing the uncaring asshat who runs the animal sanctuary – and Tom Felton who plays his son is dangerously close to being typecast as a menacing little git – this should be his last Draco Malfoy performance for a while.

My only regret was watching this movie at a brew & view – where I was pulled out of watching some of the scenes by a waitress asking if I wanted a refill on my iced tea. Trying to get the pen to work and sign my tab – made me miss the culmination of the major end battle scene. Missing some of the big action though didn’t detract my enjoyment of the film – as I thought it was a great film for the entire journey not just the results of the journey.

The possibilities of sequels were hinted at throughout and nods to the original series were made – I hope for the continuance of the intelligent filmmaking that made RISE a success and never to give up the real emotional threads for effect films. I’ve only seen 4 movies in the theater this year – but this is my pick for best summer movie.

Battle Los Angeles [2011]

Essentially, BLACK HAWK DOWN meets an alien invasion. We follow a group of marines into the war zone - to rescue refugees hiding in a police station before Santa Monica is bombed to stop the alien invasion.

It was pretty good – though some of the action was incomprehensible because of the shaky cam – but you’ve got to use the camera to do that in modern intense war movies these days (I guess). I wish they would use camera angles and lighting to create that suspense rather than shake the camera all around leaving the audience more confused and disoriented than the marines. The smoke from the city burning was good enough to create tension and confusion with the audience – the shaking of the camera was just unneeded cheap tricks.

Aaron Eckhart was excellent in the “I’m one day from retirement” marine role and his subplot was interesting – lent enough depth to his role. The rest of the cast did their job – by staying in formation, shooting, panting, running, dying and stuff – standard stuff – don’t need to be an acting genius in a film like this. The action that you could make out was great – the aliens were interesting, there were some stunning visuals of the destruction of Los Angeles and I liked that the 24-hour news cycle was still going trying to fill in cracks with speculation about the invasion. Overall – it was fun – it wasn’t dumb – it was exactly what it advertised itself to be – a “get what you pay for” action war alien movie.

What I think I really liked - was there was so much noise and explosions happening in the background that they can take this one incident and expand it to be a franchise but different squads - different parts of town - different characters... Just show different aspects of the same attack.

Valhalla Rising [2009]

What a fucking spectacular film!

I read the description on the Netflix envelope before I watched it – and thought – sounds like it’ll be average. Then I re-read it after I watched it – and thought that was NOT the movie I just watched – but all is forgiven – because there’s really no good way of describing the film. Not that the film is indescribable – it’s just it’s loose on the narrative story – so a synopsis of the film would essentially be me telling you everything that goes on (as the Netflix envelope does).

You have the Pagans and the Christians – ‘One Eye’ and the kid – the Holy Land and Hell. The Christians are on a quest to convert the Pagans by force. ‘One Eye’ is a brutal caged fighter for the Pagans – who escapes. The Christians take ‘One Eye’ with them to fight in their Holy War. The story is rich with metaphor – but not as much with a traditional narrative where you have the characters describing their emotions and what their reactions are to everything – it’s more intuitive than that.
‘One Eye’ (played by Mads Mikkelsen) was one of the most interesting characters I have seen in what’s basically an ‘action’ film in a long time – the fact that he doesn’t say a word – and you wonder about his motivation the entire film. What drives a character like this? Then as the metaphors unfold – you realize his character as ugly and brutal as he is – could be viewed as something more. He’s so much deeper. Why doesn’t he talk? Why does he allow himself to be dominated by living in a cage? Who is he in relation to the Pagans? Who is he in relation to the Christians?

I really liked the idea that was beginning to unfold that all the speaking adults were prone to paranoia – but it almost seemed that it was because they spoke and didn’t think themselves through which made ‘One Eye’ in comparison kind of a brutal Buddha. He’s savage – but also so peaceful – it’s a wonderful contradiction of a character!
I would describe this as an action film – but that’s more because there is an intensity/tension even when there’s no “action” going on. The violence in this film is hard, brutal and graphic. The pacing is probably not for everyone – it’s more poetic than your typical action film – if you need a fast paced action film this will probably not do. (I'm looking at a couple websites and I notice the critics seem warm to this film - but the public seems sour on it - it does feel like more of a 'critics' film - or a film for people who've seen thousands of movies and appreciate something interesting)

I love me some good cinematography – and this one was so satisfying – it was brilliant! There was one scene where ‘One Eye’ stops to drink from a puddle and rests for just a moment – where I back tracked just so I can enjoy the composition of that shot again.

It reminds me a lot of Werner Herzog’s AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD on several elements of how the plot unfolds – maybe a bit more blunt – but I found it equally intense and interesting. It was one of those movies that once it was over – I was ready to watch it again right away. After seeing Nicolas Winding Refn's direction of this and BRONSON - I'm really excited to see him direct LOGAN'S RUN and if I can locate it catch DRIVE in the theaters - this guy has some stones.

X is for... [part 2]

X2 does a fine job of picking up where X-Men left off, giving fans more of what they liked the first time around. Under the serious-minded custody of returning director Bryan Singer, the second film of this Marvel comics franchise ups the ante on Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and the superhero mutants from the first film, pitting them against a mutant-hating scientist (Brian Cox) who's determined to wipe out the mutant race by tricking Xavier into abusing his telepathic powers. More a series of spectacles than a truly satisfying thriller, X2 introduces new mutant allies while giving each of the X-Men alumni--notably the temporarily helpful Magneto (Ian McKellen)--their own time in the spotlight. Well aware of the parallels between "mutantism" and virulent intolerance in the real world, Singer lends real gravity to the proceedings, injecting dramatic urgency into a continuing franchise that, in lesser hands, might've grown patently absurd. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2003

directed by Bryan Singer

Black Death [2010]

The GAME OF THRONES chatter on the various websites I frequent has made me interested in watching Sean Bean in stuff – unfortunately Sean Bean did not carry me through this film. The film itself felt like it just kind of chugged along not wanting to pick a pace – not bothering to endear itself to any of the characters OR build up the spook talk enough for me to be interested in what was going to happen. I found the monk character to be particularly flat and uninteresting – and the fact that the knights did not explain what they expected of him – made me not care a lick about his subplot. I just felt that there were scenes missing – and what should’ve ended up on the cutting room floor was what was left.

Once they started having dinner at the village – I told myself that I was giving the movie another 15 minutes to capture my interest – then I promptly fell asleep until they were being shouted at in cages – and didn’t want to go back and see what lead them to that point. I realize I was too sleepy to watch it and be fair – but it’s not one that I feel like I need to go back to apologize to.

Is it worth going back?

The Man From Nowhere [2010]

The child of a pawnbroker’s neighbor is kidnapped by the local gangsters – and he’s pulled into a drug drama between the cops and the gangsters. Good thing he’s got the skills to deal with it.


This is a nice little revenge film that’s very reminiscent to Leon: The Professional, Man on Fire and Taken. Unfortunately, for this film – it takes a more subdued approach than those films which are more over-the-top – and though The Man From Nowhere attempts the over-the-top style in parts – it doesn’t quite abuse them to the point that it should.


The characters are cartoonishly outlandish – I think they were my favorite part of the film. The hairstyles and personality traits to all the characters were very bold – and over-the-top – it was great! I felt like with the way they were shot – that I was watching an anime – though (thankfully) it wasn’t shot like an overly-caffeinated headache-inducing anime.


The fact that the characters were so very outlandish – but the action did not follow that nature was what I kind of found disappointing. Some of what could’ve been defining action was off camera – where you saw a window crash – or just saw bodies on the ground – and you were left with the discovery of what happened – made the film feel slow.
There were a couple of great knife sequences – and a knife fight that was quite amazing – but the fact is; they were knives. Knives are hard to follow action-wise when they are as short as they are.


For a hard hitting epic revenge ending – yes – this one deserves to be on that list I made last month. It was improbable as all get out – but that’s what you want! The ending showed what was possible the entire film – but I guess it could be argued the film was building to it – and didn’t want to expend energy in the build-up – but you’ve got to keep us interested as an audience.


The film concentrated too much on the police – who are important characters – but not as important as the Pawnbroker and the Gangsters. I’m not saying they dominated the film – but some of their sequences were unnecessary – 15 minutes could’ve been trimmed of their story and made a tighter film that would’ve felt more action packed.
The cops spent time concocting a plan to discover the true identity of the Pawnbroker – when as an audience – for the past 20 years – we have been trained to know that this Pawnbroker is actually an ex-special-something-guy... It’s wasted time discovering what the Pawnbroker used to be – but discovering the reason why he cares so much – that’s interesting – but it was ultimately answered by the Pawnbroker – so the cops side stories were unnecessary.


I do appreciate that the directing was more subtle – and it portrays more of the sad story of the Pawnbroker – and even though I WANTED it to be over-the-top (and if you make note of my critics they are mostly based on what I WANTED not what the FILM ACTUALLY IS) – I need to get over it and admit – it’s a pretty damn good film – and when I go back and watch it with a different mindset – I will be in a better place to fully appreciate it for what it is.


I recommend it – for what it is – it’s a plot hole riddled, hard hitting, fun revenge film.

U is for... [part 2]

Luc Besson wrote and directed the stylish thrillers La Femme Nikita and The Professional; though he didn't direct Unleashed, the script has his trademark fusion of outrageous sentimentality and over-the-top violence. Hong Kong action superstar Jet Li (Romeo Must Die, Hero) stars as Danny, a man raised to be a brutal attack dog by a nasty gangster named Bart (Bob Hoskins, Mona Lisa)--when Bart removes Danny's collar, Danny pulverizes everyone in the room. But a chance encounter with a blind piano tuner (Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby) reveals to Danny the possibility of a less brutal life, and when a retaliation attack gives him the chance to escape, he does--but Bart won't let him go that easily. The fighting in Unleashed is effectively jolting; Li and fight choreographer Yuen Wo Ping (The Matrix) have purposefully stripped away the smoothness of most movie combat (especially with a genuine martial artist like Li) with raw, unnerving results, especially when juxtaposed with the sweet and earnest scenes of Li regaining his humanity with Freeman and his step-daughter (Kerry Condon). This freewheeling cocktail of bloody noses and ice-cream cones isn't for everyone, but fans of both Besson and Li will leave satisfied. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2005

directed by Louis Leterrier

T is for...

This is the film that Quentin Tarantino (Director, KILL BILL VOL. 1 & 2, PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS) called "the roughest revenge movie ever made!"… THRILLER – A CRUEL PICTURE is finally making its U.S. DVD debut in this Uncensored Limited Edition. With only 25,000 units in the total DVD production run, this cult gem will soon be gone forever! Order now so you don’t miss out on THE exploitation DVD release of the year!

Growing up mute after a childhood sexual assault, a young girl (played by beautiful cult starlet Christina Lindberg) spends years working on a remote farm. After missing the bus one day, she is picked up by a suave young man who takes her out to dinner, drugs her and forces her into a life of drug addiction and prostitution.

Torn away from home, she rebels against her captor only to have one of her eyes gouged out as punishment (in a scene rumored to have been filmed with an actual corpse). After learning of the death of her parents and fed up with the cards life has dealt, she trains herself in the fine arts of fighting, killing and revenge. Transformed into a one-woman killing machine (and armed with a sawed-off shotgun), she uses her new skills to enact bloody revenge on those who have done her wrong.

Synapse Films has painstakingly restored THRILLER – A CRUEL PICTURE from original vault materials to bring you the totally uncensored version of the ultimate revenge-exploitation movie! Originally released in the U.S. in a heavily truncated form as THEY CALL HER ONE EYE, THRILLER is presented here with all the graphic sex, violence and action intact. Over 20 minutes of additional footage has been restored! (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1974

directed by Bo Arne Vibenius

S is for... [part 3]

Only twelve minutes into Sex & Fury, our badass heroine Ocho (Reiko Ike) duels a dozen men in the snow with a samurai sword--stark naked! You can bet Quentin Tarentino watched a lot of "Pinky Violence" flicks as he was working on Kill Bill. Ocho--gambler, pickpocket, and all-around babe--wants to avenge the murder of her father. She picks up their trail after helping a would-be anarchist assassin escape from the law, only to become embroiled in political machinations with a Western badass gambler/secret agent of dubious loyalty (Christina Lindberg, Thriller: A Cruel Picture, a.k.a. They Call Her One-Eye). You'd expect a movie like this to have a lot of lurid sequences but no plot to speak of; the particular glory of Sex & Fury is that lurid sequences abound--rape of a virgin, girl-on-girl action, garish spurting blood, a squad of switch-blade-wielding nuns (!)--and it has a coherent (if utterly preposterous) story. Ike, star of similar movies like Female Yakuza Tale: Inquisition and Torture and the Girl Boss series (all exemplary of the Japanese "Pinky Violence" subgenre), is by turns vulnerable and tough as nails. Her powerful presence lifts Sex & Fury above mere sadistic kicks and gives it an actual emotional core, underscored with psychedelic guitar. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1973

directed by Norifumi Suzuki

S is for... [part 2]

Unanimously hailed as one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of the motion picture, Seven Samurai has inspired countless films modeled after its basic premise. But Akira Kurosawa's classic 1954 action drama has never been surpassed in terms of sheer power of emotion, kinetic energy, and dynamic character development. The story is set in the 1600s, when the residents of a small Japanese village are seeking protection against repeated attacks by a band of marauding thieves. Offering mere handfuls of rice as payment, they hire seven unemployed "ronin" (masterless samurai), including a boastful swordsman (Toshiro Mifune) who is actually a farmer's son desperately seeking glory and acceptance. The samurai get acquainted with but remain distant from the villagers, knowing that their assignment may prove to be fatal. The climactic battle with the raiding thieves remains one of the most breathtaking sequences ever filmed. It's poetry in hyperactive motion and one of Kurosawa's crowning cinematic achievements. This is not a film that can be well served by any synopsis; it must be seen to be appreciated (accept nothing less than its complete 203-minute version) and belongs on the short list of any definitive home-video library. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1954

directed by Akira Kurosawa

R is for... [part 2]

One of those movies that helped usher out the era of action films that had plots that made any sense (and also helped reverse the direction of Patrick Swayze's career arc), Road House concerns a handsome, existential bouncer in a rinky-dink honky-tonk who owns both a degree in philosophy and a Mercedes. And that's perhaps the most believable aspect of the whole movie. Swayze stars as Dalton, "the best bouncer in the business," who runs afoul of Wesley (Ben Gazzara), the meanest SOB round these parts, by taking up with his former girlfriend, Doc (Kelly Lynch)--the only woman in town with an IQ approaching double digits, even if she had unfathomably hooked up with such a lowlife. Swayze had complained about being typecast as beefcake when this was made, but that didn't stop him from revealing as much skin as possible--even guys like him, as revealed in a luridly seedy scene in which one of Wesley's goons tells Dalton that he reminds him of the kind of boyfriend he had in prison (albeit in much saltier terms). It's so insulting to its audience that it's nice to be able to turn the tables and laugh at the filmmakers. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1989

directed by Rowdy Herrington

Q is for...

Daniel Craig hasn't lost a step since Casino Royale--this James Bond remains dangerous, a man who could earn that license to kill in brutal hand-to-hand combat… but still look sharp in a tailored suit. And Quantum of Solance itself carries on from the previous film like no other 007 movie, with Bond nursing his anger from the Casino Royale storyline and vowing blood revenge on those responsible. For the new plot, we have villain Mathieu Amalric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), intent on controlling the water rights in impoverished Third World nations and happy to overthrow a dictator or two to get his way. Olga Kurylenko is very much in the "Bond girl" tradition, but in the Ursula Andress way, not the Denise Richards way. And Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, and Giancarlo Giannini are welcome holdovers. If director Marc Forster and the longtime Bond production team seem a little too eager to embrace the continuity-shredding style of the Bourne pictures (especially in a nearly incomprehensible opening car chase), they nevertheless quiet down and get into a dark, concentrated groove soon enough. And the theme song, "Another Way to Die," penned by Jack White and performed by him and Alicia Keys, is actually good (at times Keys seems to be channeling Shirley Bassey--nice). Of course it all comes down to Craig. And he kills. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2008

directed by Marc Forster

P is for... [part 2]

Before it ever arrived in the U.S., this epic, animated 1997 fantasy had already made history as the top-grossing domestic feature ever released in Japan, where its combination of mythic themes, mystical forces, and ravishing visuals tapped deeply into cultural identity and contemporary, ecological anxieties. For international animation and anime fans, Princess Mononoke represents an auspicious next step for its revered creator, Hayao Miyazaki (My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki's Delivery Service), an acknowledged anime pioneer, whose painterly style, vivid character design, and stylized approach to storytelling take ambitious, evolutionary steps here.

Set in medieval Japan, Miyazaki's original story envisions a struggle between nature and man. The march of technology, embodied in the dark iron forges of the ambitious Tatara clan, threatens the natural forces explicit in the benevolent Great God of the Forest and the wide-eyed, spectral spirits he protects. When Ashitaka, a young warrior from a remote, and endangered, village clan, kills a ravenous, boar-like monster, he discovers the beast is in fact an infectious "demon god," transformed by human anger. Ashitaka's quest to solve the beast's fatal curse brings him into the midst of human political intrigues as well as the more crucial battle between man and nature.

Miyazaki's convoluted fable is clearly not the stuff of kiddie matinees, nor is the often graphic violence depicted during the battles that ensue. If some younger viewers (or less attentive older ones) will wish for a diagram to sort out the players, Miyazaki's atmospheric world and its lush visual design are reasons enough to watch. For the English-language version, Miramax assembled an impressive vocal cast including Gillian Anderson, Billy Crudup (as Ashitaka), Claire Danes (as San), Minnie Driver (as Lady Eboshi), Billy Bob Thornton, and Jada Pinkett Smith. They bring added nuance to a very different kind of magic kingdom. Recommended for ages 12 and older. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

directed by Hayao Miyazaki

released 1997

Weekend Viewing - April 23-24, 2011

I watched BIRDEMIC & TROLL 2 on Saturday night – details of which I posted on Sunday. We were going to watch my blu-ray of HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT. 1 but obviously – it got a little late for a 3 hour film (or half a film).

Sunday – it was HEREAFTER and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS – both fairly solid films – with flaws on both.

HEREAFTER is another absolutely magnificent directing effort by Clint Eastwood – he lets his characters work their story. Clint is an actor’s director – he appreciates what it was like for him to be in front of that camera – and knows what it takes to pull the performance of the actors out of a solid story. The story is what kind of lets down HEREAFTER – it is good – but there’s not as strong of a thread connecting everyone – and the kind of hidden epiphanies that they go through didn’t work for me.


THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS was all right – certainly not as good as I thought it would be. The film probably suffers from the fact that I’ve seen a lot of films that followed and copied it – and that simply made me feel like this film was weak. Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor – but I wanted more scene chewing. (C’mon – take a big bite, Danny! Nom nom nom!) The action was pretty good – fairly intense – yet disjoined in parts that made me just not enjoy the film for all that it was. It’s something I will probably rent later to take a second glance – as it’s one I will probably think about for a little while.

Logan's Run [1976]

In the year 2274 people live in a society encapsulated in a dome – there is everything you can hope – no disease – encouraged random sex encounters – and no old age. That’s not because they have discovered the fountain of youth – but because of the ritual death sentence once you turn 30. Some embrace it as part of life – some run. Logan is a “sandman” (assigned to stop the runners) – Logan is given a mission to find the underground – where all the lost runners have ended up. This turns Logan from a hunter to the hunted – this is Logan’s “run”.

I quite liked LOGAN’S RUN – I found it fun and interesting – though incredibly dated. The jumpsuits – the inside of the dome looks much like shopping mall “of the future” (pretty much like Epcot Center) – the special effects were pretty cheesy especially the robot that looked like the maid on the Jetson’s – the old studio looking props and matte paintings were clean and tacky – the actors were obviously over 30 in a society that emphasizes youth under 30 - but all that adds a certain charm that is usually found only in sci-fi from the studios in the 70’s.

Of course the obvious message is that our society values youth – but it’s also a totalitarian society – where some unseen forces or group is controlling everything that happens in their little city. I’m interested in that aspect of the film – was it supposed to be inferred that the computers were controlling the society completely? I expected at the end of the film – that this issue would’ve been dealt with in more detail – that’d we’d know that the society is ultimately hopeless to be saved or if a force would try to keep the status quo.

The society as a whole felt like infants – very trusting – but I guess that’s what you’d want if you were to have this society – everyone that “programmed” that everything can work on its own.

The direction of the film was interesting – this film was pre-STAR WARS – so it had its pace – a pace that really wouldn’t have cut it in a post-STAR WARS world of science-fiction filmmaking. The acting was very soap opera – nothing special – a good hearty “ha ha ha” for when they laugh – and nicely shouted and well emphasized speeches. The action mostly involved running into a room – slapping each other – someone getting a dramatic push to the ground – and that’s about it.

No! I still find this film quite fun and entertaining – and no matter what I say to make it sound like cheese – I’m standing by my enjoyment. I mean it is cheese – but hell – it’s fun – and isn’t that what you want from a movie? I hear there are rumbles to remake it with Ryan Gosling in the lead – and that sounds like a lot of fun too – as long as they stick to the story and don’t try to make too much out of it. There’s no reason we need to franchise this as an action summer blockbuster series – not when there’s GoBots and MASK waiting to be turned into movies.