Rodent's Reviews

[The Rodent]

No plot spoilers contained in any of my reviews.

All of my reviews are given a neutral percentage rating, regardless of how much I like, or dislike, the film.
What I have devised however, is a symbol system based on my Avatar that shows my own personal feelings toward each individual film.
---

Young Guns
Ok, an older film but I thought, seeing as it's my favourite movie.

Based loosely on the Lincoln County War of 1878 and the beginnings of the Billy The Kid Legend. Film makers decided the use of 'Brat Pack' actors would be good for a serious movie and they hit on a very special cast.

For a start, the acting from all parties is spot on. Terrence Stamp as John Tunstall is (as always with Stamp) a very inviting character, mature, wise and mildly amusing.
Emilio Estevez as Kid is an inspired piece of casting, Estevez carries the Kids persona extremely well. Young, cheeky, trigger happy, streetwise and also naive.
Supporting/almost main actors include Jack Palance, Charlie Sheen (before he was apparently 'winning'), Kiefer Sutherland, Casey Siemaszko, Lou Diamond Phillips and Dermot Mulroney.
All in all, the handsome cast of 'good guys' teamed against Palance's group of grizzly, hairy bad guys makes you route for the Regulators even more.

The entire movie has a feel of being shot with a sepia filter on the camera lense, not a bad thing though, it adds to the authenticity of the Wild West setting.
The climactic gunfight scenes are wonderfully staged if a little slow to get going.

The bad points: It's loosely based on fact. Said to be the most accurate movie based on the Lincoln War, and I'd agree it is the most accurate film outside of a documentary, but it's still far from actual fact.
The Lincoln War it's self has more to it, which could have made for a longer, maybe more interesting movie.
Though throw those thoughts aside, crack open a bottle and enjoy a well made western.


One thing that will throw the audience is that, what appears to be an OTT gunfight ending, actually happened in real life.

My rating 90%.
rating_4_5





A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Remake)

It's always a mistake to remake any film, but to take an icon like Kruger (ok, Kruger's sequels weren't great but the original was cool) is almost stepping on hallowed ground.

The movie suffers from what I call 'Scott's Robin Hood Fever':
Take an idea and story, remove the slight campyness of the movie's villian and hero, remove the tongue in cheek giggles and completely remove the dash of popcorn fun...

... and then repeatedly and persistantly rabbit-punch the viewer in the face with the mentality of 'this is serious and real, you will be shocked and scared and sit in awe because this is serious and real'.
It just makes the whole thing fall flat on it's @rse.

Slow, tedious, basic teen slasher with no genuine explanation to how the teens in the movie are able to figure out in their heads what's going on around them, they just seem to know what's happening automatically. Coming from a bunch of teenagers who all, apparently, are thick enough to have no memory at all of when they were 5 years old. Seems slightly, no, massively like a bad piece of rewriting.
Maybe they saw the original Nightmare on their iPads.

The only good thing in the film is Jackie Earle Haley as Kruger. His twist on the character is fresh and makes it his own creation, but it's still not enough to warrant making the movie.

All in all, about as scary, as well written and as mysterious, as a 1960s episode of Scooby Doo.

My rating 12%
rating_1

[Sedai]

Thanks for the reviews. :)

[The Rodent]

2012

Let's start at the concept. The Mayan calendar predicts that the end of the world will be in the year 2012.
Basing a movie on that would/could be a sound investment. Lots of action, lots of characters being brought into a web of storylines, lots of stuff blowing up and grand adventure.

I'm afraid it just didn't work. Not even with Roland Emmerich at the helm.
Now, Emmerich is the modern king of the disaster movie, Independence Day was a half decent film, Day After Tomorrow wasn't quite so good but still watchable.

2012 should hit all the right buttons with the huge budget and a director that knows his way around the genre.
Instead the only buttons being hit were when I'd actually started playing games on my phone instead of watching the movie. It's boring.

Bunch of people, all introduced in a very simple succession, none of them very engaging or hold the screen very well and reciting their lines as if they'd just read them from a cue-card.
Except for Woody Harrelson. He lifts his character from the page brilliantly and as always, Harrelson hits the spot with the paranoid acting he does so well.
Woody, cheers!

It just feels like a very linear, childlike storyline hidden under a very large blanket of computer generated close escapes.

The close escapes come thick and fast too. To the point that you're actually willing something to take out the characters so you can turn it off and watch something better. "Oh no, the Pilot is dead!" (voice from the back) "That's ok, I can fly!" is the premise for the half million CGI situations that are thrown at the viewer.

Ok, visually thrilling, the CGI is tip top but it's just not, well, thrilling.
Rated with a 12 certificate? Should really have been be rated a U...

... for Unwatchable.

My rating 15%. 10% of which is based solely on Harrelson's performance

rating_1

[earlsmoviepicks]

Thanks for the reviews! I agree with your take on 2012. The multiple close escapes and shameless CGI use turned me off to it as well.

[The Rodent]

Cowboys And Aliens

Another 'western' from me, kind of.

Interesting concept based on a comic book of the same name and it certainly feels like it too. But mostly in a good way.

The way the two ideas are put to screen don't quite gel properly, though maybe that's down to the whacky idea in the first place.

Though in saying that, Cowboys And Aliens doesn't try to be a western, nor does it try to be a sci-fi. It's somewhere in between. A genre I've never seen before outside of a Dr Who episode or even the terrible Wild Wild West.

Daniel Craig is interesting as the rough and tough 'man with no name'. Similar in ilk to Eastwood, though Craig's story is explained over the duration of the film.
Harrison Ford is almost perfectly cast as a grizzled old war veteran with a heart. He does the job, but you can't help feeling sombody else could have done it better.
As too is Olivia Wilde as the beautiful western Damsel in distress. But with a twist.

Supporting cast from Sam Rockwell and produced in part by heavy weights Spielberg and Ron Howard, the movie almost can't go wrong.

As far as the writing and action goes, it's definitely a popcorn movie.
Fun, loud, storyline written about as good as it could have been, the dialogue well written and is well recited from the cast and the CGI is wonderfully rendered.
The film makers, especially director Favreau, at least had the gumption to hide the CGI based enemy in the shadows till the end. When unveiled, the Aliens don't disappoint either.

Seen as a low percentage scorer when it first hit cinemas, I think that should be ignored and let the viewer decide whether they like it or not.
Certainly a must see for anyone who hasn't, solely because of the chalk and cheese premise.

I for one am a believer.

My rating 75%

rating_4

[The Rodent]

Thanks for the reviews. :)

Thanks for the reviews! I agree with your take on 2012. The multiple close escapes and shameless CGI use turned me off to it as well.

Cheers for the replies guys. I'll probably keep this thread going from now on for all my reviewing. More than likely it's all I will be doing on the site.
Love writing up my thoughts.

[The Rodent]

Cloverfield

Yet another movie using the Blair Witch style of shooting: Homemade video at it's best.
Maybe.

Billed by the film makers as an 'American Godzilla'.
An unknown, unexplained entity hits New York, tears up the place and is caught on camera by a bunch of 20 somethings who were enjoying a leaving party for one of their group.
Not much to say about the plot exactly, it's more of a run, scream, run some more, scream again then run away sort of premise.
There is a love story thrown into the mix though between two of the characters. Sadly, you don't really get attached to them enough to care if it works out between them or not.
The film does give you a connection to the characters to a point though, the beginning of the movie, before the city starts falling apart around them, allows you enough time to get to know them at almost a personal level and sets up the love triangle. But as I said, only just enough to make the smallest connection.

Slow to get going, but when the monster hits, it's all go from then on with only a few reprises in the action.
The CGI monster is rendered well too with footage kept to a minimum with only the occasional full on shot of it in all it's glory.
Definitely a good thing, it adds to the mystery of what the creature is and still allows your mind to process how wierd it is too.

The dialogue from the cast is extremely well recited, the home movie feel the makers wanted certainly comes out in the cast. It feels like they're ad-libbing their lines.
Very well done.

Many people I've spoken to said they wished you could see the monster more though. I can't help thinking, if you had seen it more, it would just be another Broderick Godzilla movie.
The other downside when the movie came out was the 'motion sickness' that the audience felt while watching. Ok, it is shot using the 'shaky handheld camera style', but it works brilliantly, and didn't make me feel ill in the slightest.

Then, with the film ending just as abruptly as it began, the viewer has to decide the beginning and the end of the story, ie; where the monster came from and what's the outcome?
There is a secret twist at the end, but as I said, no direct spoilers on my reviews, just keep your eyes open and you'll see it.

My rating 80%

rating_4

[Sedai]

I loved Cloverfield! :D

[Yoda]

Likewise (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/cloverfield.html). I was actually pretty shocked by how much I liked it. On top of that, though, I have a deep meta-appreciation of it because it flaunts so many things I hate about modern movie marketing, like giving the entire game away in the trailer, or putting a higher priority on casting than on storytelling. Whatever one thinks of it, it's a great pushback against those sorts of things.

[The Rodent]

Cheers guys! What do you think of my style of reviewing? Hopefully it's working.
Glad my stuff is being read anyway!

[The Rodent]

Leon

From director Luc Besson, who's style of film making is odd at the best of times, comes another highly improbable sequence of events that are somehow very engaging.

The plot evolves around a streetwise but extremely naive 12 year old girl Matilda (Natalie Portman) and hitman Leon (Jean Reno). Thrown together in an 'odd couple' situation after Portman's family are killed by crooked cops, led by Gary Oldman.

It shouldn't work. It really shouldn't work. The premise of the situation is unreal, odd and very provocative, which, oddly, actually forces it to work.

It's the way Besson presents the characters and the way the actors carry thier roles that's spot on.

Portman's Matilda is almost uncomfortable to watch at times due to the 'Lolita' essence that Besson has put into the character. Though Portman, even at that young age she was, carries the role perfectly. The naivity of the character is seen in a very real sense at times too.
Jean Reno acts Leon as being wonderfully withdrawn from reality. Leon seems to just follow events as they happen and deals with each outcome accordingly, never really planning ahead, occasionally he realises what's going on and gets uncomfortable when reality hits. Eventually coming to care for Portman as a father figure.
Now, as for Gary Oldman, where to begin? His drugged up DEA officer is menacing while onscreen yet you can't take your eyes off him. Twitchy, unstable and dangerous when provoked, which doesn't take alot either. Oldman actually makes the viewer feel uncomfortable even when he's not doing anything.
He's certainly a runner in my top 50 movie villians of all time.

The movie's humour tends to come from the awkward, mildly sexual moments between Leon and Matilda, which gives the movie a few 'shouldn't laugh' moments, but Leon's reactions are what makes it funny, as Jean Reno again, is spot on.

Though slightly unreal in the premise, all in all a momentarily funny and very engaging movie with a hit of action at the end. Not beautifully shot but certainly stylish and the characters are extremely well written and played.

My rating 74%

rating_4

[The Rodent]

Dreamcatcher

Based on a Stephen King novel, Dreamcatcher is about an Alien invasion in a remote mountain setting in Maine and four, (now grown up) school friends.

Starring Hollywood favourites Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore (Heat, Saving Private Ryan), Timothy Olyphant (Hitman, Die Hard 4), Jason Lee (Mallrats, My Name Is Earl) and Thomas Jane (Deep Blue Sea) and Donnie Wahlberg (Saw 2, NKOTB), the movie feels as though that's where all the budget went.

Though the actors do their jobs well, you never really get into the events happening around them.
Sure, there's some mystery at the start, but it's quickly and simply explained away, leaving the viewer with no real reason to keep watching other than for full on CGI action.
The beginning of the movie is probably about the best part, the 'buddy feelings' hit on by the main cast work well. But it isn't enough to hold the viewer.

The CGI effects are sub-standard too, as I said, the movie's budget seemed to go on the actors' wages. Plus, the creatures are shown near the start of the film, leaving the viewer with nothing to really look forward to.

The story also hasn't moved from King's book to the screen very well at all. It feels rushed, almost unfinished.
Some interesting concepts are their though, 'memory warehouses' and magical ways of finding 'lost things' give the aura of the film a different depth, but not much.

Sadly, it could have been a lot, lot better.

My rating 44%

rating_2_5

[Tyler1]

Review #7: Dreamcatcher.


Sadly, it could have been a lot, lot better.

My rating 30%.

I actually adored this movie a lot - The atmosphere, the sort of "coming-of-age" story, and not to mention one of the most hilariously scary toilet scenes ever.

[ash_is_the_gal]

#2: A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Remake).

It's always a mistake to remake any film
well, not always. The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, Cape Fear... all better than their originals if you ask me. though i do plan on staying away from this particular remake. thanks for the heads up.

welcome to Mofo. :)

[ash_is_the_gal]

hm, i've aways been semi-interested in Cloverfield... the trailer made reminded me of REC, which i loved.

[The Rodent]

Cheers for the input guys. I do try to be as fair as I can but tend to go with my gut more than often.

[The Rodent]

Alien 3, Theatrical Release vs Definitive Edition

A movie hit with budget cuts, internal arguments between producers, director and writers, storyline changes (before during and even after filming) and studio executives having no leniency or confidence with director David Fincher.

The story, set just after James Cameron's Aliens, involves Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash landing on an almost abandoned planet with an enormous yet run down and barely populated prison after her cryo-tube is ejected from the Sulaco mothership.

The usual happens, an Alien Facehugger follows her in the Emergency Evacuation Unit and eventually spawns an offspring which disappears into the prison.

At first, as usual, Ripley's magical tale of giant aliens with acidic blood and a mouth for a tongue is ignored by the powers that be (the prison super-intendant and his second in command). The Alien eventually runs amock, sending the prisoners and the prison staff into fits of panic by picking them off one by one.
Ripley eventually is looked to for help in fighting the creature while they all await a rescue ship from 'The Company'.

Theatrical Version:
The theatrical release of the movie is the version most people are familiar with. The Alien gestates inside of a dog that belongs to one of the prisoners.
This version contains a limited storyline as it was cut and shredded in the editing room against Fincher's wishes. It's also a good 30 minutes shorter.

It also contains limited interaction between the viewer and the actors/characters, many of the prisoners are nameless faces treated like cannon fodder for the Alien.

Only a handful of characters are expanded on for the viewer: Ripley, Dr Clemens (Charles Dance), Dillon (Charles S Dutton), Morse (Danny Webb) and Aaron '85' (Ralph Brown) and that's about it.

The Alien, gladly is kept to the shadows as much as possible and many of the attack scenes are shot relatively close up to put ther viewer in the midst of the action. Which works to an extent but can get disorientating.
The prison also is kept almost as secret as the nameless prisoners. The viewer never really feels part of the setting. Giant corridors that all look the same make the audience just as lost as the storyline.

Ok, the theatrical release is a marmite movie for fans, they either love it or hate it.
I'd say that it works as a horror and is a good film in its own right, but it feels unfinished and rushed. I didn't like it at first, but over the years, it grew on me.

Definitive Edition:
Now we're talking.
Fincher was put to making two similar beginnings to the movie, the theatrical version being the one the studio wanted, this 'definitive' edition being Fincher's prefered.
The dog in the theatrical version is never seen in this version, instead, an ox (used as a tractor by the prisoners) is the Facehugger's choice of gestation.

The story is expanded between the audience and pretty much all the characters, especially Golic (played by Paul McGann), a psychotic murderer and rapist who actually sympathises with the alien creature.
Most of the nameless prisoners now have speaking lines and the storyline feels much more finished and that more time has actually been taken in making it work.

A huge chunk of the middle of the film contains the same scenes as the theatrical release but with the extra/original scenes added back in, it gives the entire movie a completely different aura.

The bad point of the Definitive Version is also, sadly, the added scenes.

That might seem contradictory but the problem is this; The sound hasn't been looped in an editing room, which gives the added scenes a 'hissy' background sound. Some of the added original scenes are fine, others not so.

It's a shame really, as the Definitive Edition is by far a superior movie.

Though if you can look past the small sound problem, even if you didn't like the theatrical Alien 3, you'll certainly prefer this one.

Give it a go. I did, and even though I like the threatrical version, I'll never be going back to it now.


Overall Theatrical Version rating: 75%.
Overall Definitive Version rating: 90% (would be 95%, just the sound lets it down).

rating_4

[Godoggo]

I loved Cloverfield! :D

Me too! I actually just watched it again the other night for about the fifth time.

[The Rodent]

The 'Burbs

Another older film from me again.
Starring Tom Hanks, Rick Ducommon, Bruce Dern, Corey Feldman, Henry Gibson, Brother Theodore, Wendy Schaal and Carrie Fisher.

An almost perfect neighbourhood is thrown into disarray when 3 wierd European people (the Klopek family) move in next door to Tom Hanks' almost perfect family.

Odd behaviour, from digging the garden in the rain at 2am and strange noises coming from their basement, to driving their garbage down the driveway to the curb and then thrashing it with a garden hoe, makes all the neighbours weary of the new arrivals.
To make things worse, the elderly man who lives alone at the end of the road, has now vanished without a trace.

Rather than phoning the cops, Ducommon who lives on the other side of Hanks' property ropes Hanks, Feldman and Dern into spying on the strange new neighbours using strange 'suburban legends' of murder and wierdos as a catalyst for their already growing paranoia.

Hanks, under the dissapproving eye of his wife (Fisher) starts to lose sleep and have nightmares when he does doze off.

Eventually, after mounting up evidence of what they believe is murder, Hanks, Ducommon and Dern decide to take steps and find out exactly what the Ghoulish family have been up to in the basement after the Klopeks go out for the day.

Is their paranoia going too far or has the strange family really been up to hijinks?

It's an odd design for a movie but it makes well with the feeling of paranoia that lives in every suburban area; Never knowing who your neighbours are.
The unreal premise is dealt with decently by getting the characters to do things you might like to do when wierd people move into your area.

The movie is also very, very funny with Hanks, Ducommon, Dern and Feldman on absolutely top form by playing it serious, which makes the whole, completely unreal premise even funnier and even more engaging and makes well with the slapstick comedy that comes through from time to time.
Directed by Joe Dante, the movie can't go wrong.

Certainly one of my favourites. My rating 80%

rating_4

[The Rodent]

Starship Troopers
Based on the novel of the same name, Paul Verhoeven’s ST is a futuristic sci-fi based on the concept of humans v giant insects.
Different to the novel, the movie follows a handful of school leavers who embark on a life journey by joining the military in the fight against ‘The Bugs’ (also known as Arachnids), a species of giant insect that live on the other side of the Milky Way.

As usual with Verhoeven, the movie undertones itself on political and social failures. Something not understood is destroyed or imprisoned.
Characters in the movie are totally blind to what the viewer is seeing ,which makes the movie work as it gives it a sense of realism.
The special effects in the movie, from giant spacecraft fleets and CGI soldiers to giant insects to even bigger beetles, all work with a relative ease. The CGI is flawless.
　
Only two faults with the movie: Hollywood beauties Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards. Their acting isn’t great though Van Dien makes the most of the lead role and actually improves his acting as the movie progresses.
Richards, as usual, doesn’t.
She’s wooden and doughy eyed whenever onscreen and tends to just pout when the going gets tough. Gladly though, her screen time is cut down to being that of a supporting storyline rather than a main character.
Their characters though, are well written and have a connection with the audience.

Supporting roles from Neil Patrick Harris, Michael Ironside, Clancy Brown and Dina Meyer give the movie some more well written and well played characters for the audience to care about.

Patrick Muldoon is particularly good as the smarmy 'villian' for Van Dien's chisel jawed hero, yet he still eventually proves his worth toward the end.

All in all a well made movie, great CGI, borrowing from a wonderful novel and Verhoeven is definitely at his best.

My rating 94%

rating_5

[The Rodent]

Review #11: Predator.
Ok, another alien sci-fi, but hey, it's my forte.
A heavy hitting cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers and Sonny Landham.
Based in a Central American Jungle, a Special Forces Group go in search of what they think is a Cabinet Minister and his company, whom found themselves lost across a National Border and end up captured by an enemy force.
Their mission is to go into the danger zone, find the V.I.Ps and bring them home.
They hit their targets with ease, these guys are the best of the best of the best…

… yet find themselves picked off one by one from a strange and upsetting outside force.


One of the men in the Special Forces group is seriously spooked from the deaths of his team-mates and says of what’s killing them off: "It ain’t no man".
Extremely guerrilla film making, relatively low budget with most of the cash spared for the special effects, this movie is an absolute must see for any sci-fi fan.

A well written yet extremely simple storyline make for even more entertainment.
The very well and simply written characters and their personas are even more of a bonus to the film.

Arnie is at his best, as too are the other actors for what they’re worth, the director John McTiernan has eeked the most and the best from the cast. Keeping in mind Arnie’s English was almost non-existent at the time of filming, both Arnie and McTiernan did an exceptional job.

One thing that makes the movie great, is the fact that even after only a short amount of screen-time, you still give a sh*t about the characters. Awesome.

If sci-fi isn’t your thing, still watch. Horror, intrigue and fear are the order of the day for any first time watchers.

The special effects, even for the mid-80s, are spectacular and have even set the benchmark for every Predator film that has followed since, yet has never been bettered.
A sense of claustrophobia is felt throughout the entire movie, the jungle setting adds to that and the sci-fi feel never lets up as you always feel as though you’re being watched by something other-worldly. Again, awesome.

By far the best, and probably ever will be the best Predator movie and very close to being the best movie in my Library.

The perfect horror for first time watchers with a chunk of action thrown in and, yet, also the perfect 'horror action' for 'vets' of the movie.
For me, just near the perfect movie.

My rating: 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[nebbit]

Nice reviews thanks :)

[Tyler1]

Predator is one of my favourite sci fi films. I like how McTiernan contrasts how they were able to take out an entire army division but are picked on one by one by an unseen enemy.

[The Rodent]

Review #12: Robocop.

Ok, I’m going for the older movies at the moment but Robo is one that needs to be reviewed by someone as new to the site as I am.
Yes, I know, also another Verhoeven movie.

Set in the future, a cop is gunned down brutally by a head gang of criminals.
After extensive surgery, he is turned into a modern ‘Million Dollar Man’ crossed with Frankenstein, though with no memory of his ‘human life’ from before.

An almost post apocalyptic look at the future of mankind sees the cop called Murphy attempt to find his past, and his future, by piecing together the technicalities that lead to his ‘death’.

‘Computer programmed’ as a ‘product’ of the police force and their officials to the point of almost mental incapacitation, he faces adversaries from not only the outside, but also from deep within.
Robocop is not just an ‘actioner’ or a sci-fi, or even a futuristic movie of death and destruction. It’s a long close look at where humanity is going.

The movie in a whole is so far ahead of it’s time that at 20 odd years ago, when the movie was released, it seemed far-fetched with the police uniforms and cars and society’s views and Military tactics involved in the film.
These days though, it seems on the tilting point of dated due to being only a few years behind modern day (2012).

An absolute masterclass in film making. Verhoeven’s take on the future is a spookily realistic and well visioned view of our future. Something Verhoeven is a master of.
Weller as the titular Robocop is another masterclass on the acting scale. Miming robotic bird movements and bringing a human element to a creature made almost entirely of titanium is a wonder. How he does it, is almost a myth.


Rob Bottin’s creation of Robocop’s armour and makeup (especially when Robo removes his upper mask) is a wonder to behold. It looks, even by today’s standard, genuinely real and has yet to be bettered in any movie I’ve yet to see.

What makes the movie really special is the quiet moments, where Robo is reliving some of his past ‘unerased’ memories. It’s something that really brings the audience on a par with Robo’s torn feelings of duty, love, humanity and sheer programming.
Mixed with the haunting soundtrack, the movie will live with you for a long time, if not forever.

Add to that mix some awesome shoot’ em up action scenes, explosions, black humour and melting men in vats of acid and you’ve got a sure fire hit.

Even if sci-fi isn’t you thing, again I say, this is still a must see. You haven’t seen a movie until you’ve seen this one. Just make sure you’ve got the popcorn ready.


I said that my last review, that #11 Predator was a near perfect movie at 99%.
100% to Director Mr Verhoeven, Writer Mr Nuemeier, Designer Mr Rob Bottin and the music by the wonderfully enigmatic Basil Poledouris.


My rating: 100%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[The Rodent]

Review #13
John Carpenter's The Thing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/ThingPoster.jpg

The movie is based in the Antarctic, a group of scientists find themselves completely snowed in and cut off from the outside world during a heavy storm.
Norwegian scientists from another nearby science base and a husky sled dog all appear at their camp in less than comfortable circumstances, the group are then forced to defend themselves from the two unstable, trigger-happy Norwegians.
Upon checking out the Norwegian base to find out what happened, they find a scene of horror and torture and decide to bring back a terribly mutilated and inhuman corpse to their own camp for analysis...

... then the nightmare that overtook the Norwegian base becomes increasingly realised to the American scientists, as they are plunged into a world of pain, paranoia, sheer horror and a fight for survival against an enemy that can hide in plain sight.


Said by many to be a remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World", Carpenter's movie is simply based on the same novel "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell.
The Thing is a closer take on the novel than the 1951 movie, which featured a 'man in suit' monster that resembled more of a giant vegetable crossed with Frankenstein’s monster.

Carpenter's masterpiece is a joy to behold. The tension of the cramped base corridors makes the feeling of being watched all the more potent and the paranoia between the characters can be felt by the viewer, right down to the toes.
There's also fantastic exposition, especially with the use of flashbacks seen on video recordings made by the Nords. It adds an element of untold mystery to the proceedings and gives the events much more depth and realism.


The movie's special effects are absolutely top notch, the collaboration between Rob Bottin and Stan Winston is very, very special.
Utilising animatronics, hand puppets and the very occasional ‘man in suit’ costume, the movie excels at putting the audience on the backfoot.
Only one, partially fake special effect is used in the entire movie in the form of a matt painting combined with Bottin's awesome mechanical effects, the rest is practical, real, juicy and extremely well modelled by the two effects geniuses.

The other thing with the effects and action is that they're used when needed.


The acting is also spot on. Kurt Russell, who is mediocre at the best of times, is wonderfully 'take charge' and tough when needed, his brooding take on the strange sequence of events works brilliantly.

Star turns from Wilford A Brimley, Keith David, Richard Masur and Donald Moffet make the characters work even better, these guys really hit their roles with perfection.
Keith David in particular plays with the audience's paranoia too with his more highly wound temperament.


Mix all that with Carpenter’s spooky, low tone soundtrack (a soundtrack that beats all of his others hands down) makes this another must see movie from me, especially before the ‘prequel’ (based at the Norwegian camp) is released this year.



---


All in all, one of the finest creature features ever made and one the finest horror stories put to screen. It plays not only with script devices but also with the audience expectations and gives frights, thrills, spills and sheer paranoia in bucket loads.

My rating: 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
rating_5

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :)

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :)

[The Rodent]

Cheers mate. Currently working on both AvP movies.

After that, the Terminator franchise and then The Fourth Kind.

[The Rodent]

Review #14: Alien Vs Predator (AvP) and Aliens Vs Predator (AvP 2: Requiem).
Starting at the premise, a cross-over of two movie heavyweights, first seen by many in comic books, others in a particular scene in the movie Predator 2.

AvP.
AvP falls flat at the first hurdle: Game to Movie maestro Paul WS Anderson being director. He may be ok at converting video games, but movie-universe crossovers, he is not.
Let’s face it, Mortal Kombat is probably his best movie to date and even then that was a run of the mill all-action no-brainer.

The first film’s first good point starts with being able to successfully combine the two franchises relatively well. Though the overall plot is unbelievable, it works.

A company, owned by super-billionaire Charles Wayland Bishop, using satellites discovers a heat signature under polar ice.

A team of scientists, archaeologists and mercenaries is sent out to investigate the mysterious appearance and find themselves embroiled in a millennia long, macabre ‘tradition’ held by the Predator species.

The movie tries it’s best to be mysterious and brooding and tries to push itself into claustrophobic ‘haunted mansion’ territory.

Sadly, after all the build up, the mysterious back-story is slapped down with a very quick and simple explanation.
Usual of Anderson, get the story out of the way after a pretty good build up, then crack on with the explosions and fist fights.

Which is pretty much all the film is from then on after: Alien Vs Predator.

Another thing that the movie suffers with, is lack of snot and gore. Something the Alien and Predator franchises both utilise efficiently. It feels as though the makers wanted to dumb down the blood and guts to appeal to a wider, young audience.

Probably the best part of the entire movie is the acting.
Sanaa Lathan, Lance Henriksen and Ewen Bremner do their best to make the plot plausible, playing it as straight faced as they can.
The special effects are a close second. The CGI Aliens are well rendered.
Sadly, that's about it.

All in all, another no-brainer from Anderson, good for post pub 1am entertainment.

My rating 25%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5

AvP 2: Requiem.
For a start, a change in director is the best decision the studios could have made. The Brothers Strause definitley know what they’re doing.
Set barely minutes after the first film, the Predator ship from the first movie crashes in a small Colorado town, unleashing the Facehugger contents of their hold onto the unsuspecting town inhabitants.

For a start, this sequel is by far superior, the action, the writing, the more practical special effects all make for a much more fun movie. CGI is kept to a minimum, though when used, it’s used extremely well.

One fault with the movie is it’s very dark. I don’t mean in humour, I mean the lighting. Sadly some of the action and background shots can be missed on first viewing.
The only other fault is, as with AvP, the blood and gore is kept to a minimum. Though the filmmakers went in another direction: Shocks.
The movie excels and making the audience feel uneasy with some of the death scenes.

The acting is standard for the type of movie. Gladly though, it's believable, the cast aren't all huge names which gives the audience a connection to the characters.

AvP 2 tries to go back to basics with the look too. Think James Cameron’s Aliens crossed with elements of McTiernan’s Predator and set in a concrete jungle, on a similar note to Predator 2.
Another thing the movie utilises is a plotline from Alien 3, the Alien takes on the characteristics of it’s host. This time, the Alien has gestated inside one of the Predators though I’ll leave it at that, you’ll have to watch.

All in all, not a fantastic movie, fairly standard, but a superior movie to AvP.

My rating 42%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
2.5

[nebbit]

Not a big fan of Predator movies :nope:

[The Rodent]

Review #15: Terminator Franchise:
The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines and Terminator Salvation.

The Terminator.

Set in the 1980s, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is stalked by a humanoid machine sent from the future. Her only hope and help, is a man called Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), also sent from the future, to stop the machine. If Sarah dies, the human race will become extinct as her (as yet unborn) son will become a freedom fighter and leader of the human resistance, in a war between man, and an entire army of these humanoid machines.

James Cameron’s sci-fi horror is a masterclass of how to make an expensive looking sci-fi, on a shoestring budget. Written absolutely perfectly, Cameron has made a well-established piece of movie history. A modern day fairy tale almost.
Being that the concept of The Terminator machine itself came to Cameron in a fever induced nightmare gives me at least, a respect for the depths of the human psyche and for Cameron’s imagination.

The film does suffer from slightly dodgy special effects. The stop-motion Terminator was mediocre at best even for the standard of the 80s.

What really makes the film’s effects a success though, is Stan Winston’s prosthetics on Arnold Swarzenegger.

By today’s standard, again, they are fairly rudimentary but they still work. You genuinely believe Arnie’s face is coming off.
Mix to that, not just the way the movie is written, but the way the movie is made. The direction, scene placing and overall aura of the subject matter are a joy to watch.

Hamilton, Biehn, Swarzenegger are all fantastic in their roles.

Hamilton is beautifully lost in the series of terrifying, far-out events and eventually becomes a tougher person as the movie progresses.
Biehn’s rough, tough, emotionless soldier of the future becomes more human-like as he spends more time with Connor.
Arnie is wonderfully wooden as the over-6-foot 500lb non stop killer machine.

All in all this fantastic roller coaster is one for the movie history books.

My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
4.5

Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Sarah Connor is once again embroiled in the fight for the future. Again, a machine is sent from the future to take out the leader of the human resistance, though this time, the target is John Connor himself.

Between the movies, Sarah has given birth and raised John with a military upbringing.
The movie begins after that sequence of events when Sarah has been locked in a mental institute and 10-year-old John, now seen by the authorities as a wild-child and criminal, has been put into foster care.

Again, the human resistance has sent another protector for Sarah and John. Not a mere man this time though, but a reprogrammed Arnold Swarzenegger.

Again, Cameron hits the nail right on the head. The movie drops most of the horror genre and goes on full out sci-fi action with only the occasional horror touch.

A bigger budget, utilised by the filmmakers perfectly, gives T2 even better effects and this time round, there’s beautifully rendered CGI in the form of the bad guy: A ‘liquid metal’ Terminator for Arnie to have a rumble with.

The action, when it gets going is fast, furious, explosive and is gladly, broken up by short spells of quiet acting from the cast. The movie is very well put together.

Hamilton is fantastic in the role of Sarah Connor, this time round she’s a rough, tough soldier, almost like Biehn in the first movie, though her dreams of the impending apocalypse have sent her beyond madness. She plays the role perfectly.
Edward Furlong, in his first role of any kind (he was picked off the street) isn’t perfect, but being that he had no experience, he still does a job that several actors since haven’t been able to better.
Arnie as the Terminator is again, wonderfully wooden at the beginning, though as the movie progresses, like with Reese and Connor in the first movie, he is able to take on and learn characteristics of those around him. Eventually he becomes more humane than the humans in the movie.
Robert Patrick as the liquid metal T1000 is an absolute wonder to watch. He has the emotion the original Terminator and has such a menace about him, you can’t take your eyes off him.

All in all a sci-fi popcorn wonder. File it directly under The Terminator in the movie history books.

My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5


Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines.

This is where things got messy for the franchise.
Once again, John Connor is thrown into a fight for survival. A female Terminator is sent from the future to take Connor out, Arnie is once again sent back to protect him.
Most of the scenes in this third outing are unintentionally funny. Some have been written to be funny, yet they aren’t.

The makers have turned the franchise completely in the wrong direction: Horror sci-fi to sci-fi action with horror, to…

… comedy? Oh dear.


The whole thing just feels cheap, cashed in, rushed, and a storyline that does nothing to expand on the existing material.
It tries to expand, but falls flat on its face. It just doesn’t try hard enough.

The action is explosive, grand and loud. It’s definitely a popcorn no-brainer.

The other thing with the way it’s been written is it’s very gimmicky.
A female Terminator who uses Nano-bots and is a cross between Arnie and Patrick, no Sarah Connor but John has a female accomplice and Arnie is a good guy again, it’s just, well, samey.

Arnie seems to just go through the role like he’s going through the motions. He’s got that wooden-ness that we’re all familiar with, but it feels unintentional this time round.
Nick Stahl as Connor is another huge mistake. The guy can barely get his lines out without shouting and breathing heavily. Is that really what an actor needs to do to seem serious?


The good point of the movie is the CGI used on the Terminatrix. It works great, but what made the first two movies special, was actually having practical effects mixed in too.
All in all a miss on the grandest of scales.


My rating 27%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5


Terminator Salvation.

Back to basics for the franchise, almost.
Relying heavily on action and with a decent story thrown in, Salvation works, it’s better than T3, but still, isn’t great.

This time round the makers have based the movie in the future. Set after the initial apocalypse, John Connor is a soldier fighting for the resistance, he’s not a leader yet and is talked down to by his commanders.

The mission of the movie is that Kyle Reese has surfaced in Los Angeles and is being hunted and targeted by the machines.
It’s up to Connor to save him and make sure that the future of mankind is saved, as Kyle is the one who will go back and protect Sarah.

That’s about it really as far as the story goes but the CGI action is very well put together. One thing missing from the movie though, are the scenes of the ‘future war’ that were shown in the first two movies: Dark, skulls everywhere and scores of Terminators fighting at ground level against battered and beaten humans.
The overall look of Salvation seems to be dumbed down from that apocalyptic look. Hopefully, if a sequel is released, it’ll be added back in.


Christian Bale as Connor does a good job, if very growly. As always with Bale, his physical presence on screen carries the character well.
Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese is almost spot on. Yelchin does a fantastic job at recreating Biehn’s speech pattern and accent, he looks the part too.
Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright is brilliantly confused as the mysterious man who is more than he appears. Though only very occasionally he misses his mark.
The movie isn’t perfect. It lacks soul, but is far superior to T3.

Though Schwarzenegger doesn’t make an appearance per say, his model of Terminator is seen using some exceptionally well rendered special effects.


All in all welcome return to a more serious kind of Terminator movie.


My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
3

[nebbit]

Now that's better :yup: a big fan of the Terminator series even the bad ones :blush: Love the watch the whole 4 one after another on a cold rainy day :yup:

[The Rodent]

　
Review #16: The Fourth Kind.

The premise of the story is about a psychiatrist, Dr Abigail Tyler, trying to uncover what appears to be a number of abductions in a small Alaskan town. Supposedly based on a true story, the movie cuts between footage shot for the movie, with Milla Jovovich as Tyler, and real life footage of interviews with Dr Abigail Tyler.

Some scenes are split screen footage, showing both the ‘movie’ and the ‘interviews’.
It’s a hard movie to get used to at first, the way it’s shot throws the audience into a flurry of confusion though you can’t help but noticed that it’s intentional.
After a few minutes you get used to it, though some scenes are still hard to follow with split screen footage of both people, sometimes more, all talking at the same time.
The storyline is easy to understand, it's just the finer details that are jumbled into a group of chattering voices.

The movie seems a little rushed at times too, it seems as though the makers have tried to get as much stuff into the smallest amount of running time as possible.

Jovovich too, seems to be fed up with the whole thing and appears at times to be giving attitude when delivering her lines. It’s as if she’s pi$$ed at being part of it.

Acting support from Elias Koteas does give the movie some weight. When he’s around, you feel safer. Koteas is probably the best thing about the movie.

Some of the time the viewer can feel bored, there’s not much in the way of story. For what appears to have been made as more of a detective/mystery story, it’s something that really should have been built on more kindly.

The real life footage is a good point. It feels real, though at times feels staged, it works at putting the viewer into the subject matter.

Another good point is there are genuine moments of shock and Jovovich and Koteas carries the tension well.
Some of the ‘jumpy’ moments are very well conceived and give the viewer a heartfelt judder and most of the time you never know what exactly is going to happen next, but it’s not enough. The movie feels bare and meaningless.

All in all a genuinely jumpy movie that's good if you want to get the girlfriend a little closer, but the shooting style is empty and confusing.


My rating 34%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
2

[Tyler1]

Ranking Terminator films:

The Terminator 5
Judgement Day 4
Rise of the machines 3
Terminator Salvation 3

The first is the best imo. :) Its been a long time since I last saw Rise of the machines and Terminator Salvation.. but i love both of them.

[The Rodent]

Review #17: Jurassic Park.

The premise, by Michael Crichton is a partially fact based scientific endeavour to bring Dinosaurs back to life using preserved blood found in fossilised insects.

Let’s start at the movie: John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), a multi-squillionaire with delusions of grandeur has set about and succeeded in turning an entire island into a theme park full of unnatural-abominations.

After inviting along two scientists (Sam Neill and Laura Dern), a chaos theorist (Jeff Goldblum) and a lawyer (Martin Ferrero) to the park while his own grandchildren are there (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), things inevitably take a turn for the worst when fences fail from a power cut.
The group, who are all now separated into their own survival stories have to hide and run in a desperate attempt to restore power to the park and call in the helicopters to take them home.

The movie as a whole is extremely well made. The character build up and strong acting make the movie very weighty.
Sam Neill with Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello are a chalk, chalk and cheese buddy-trio-movie in their own right.

The story adapted from the novel differs to the novel in many respects but is still extremely well written.
The cast is not just extremely good at what they’re doing, they fit the theme.
The movie is also shot beautifully. It’s very grand in feeling. Some of the sets are also extremely spooky.

The special effects used were not just cutting edge for the time (1992-1993), they still beat most movies of modern times. The ILM and Stan Winston Studios collaboration is very special.
Most of the computer work for the dinosaurs had to be created solely for the movie (albeit adapted from existing technology). What makes the movie’s CGI special is that the movie-makers asked a very simple question: "What is impossible?". Then they achieved the impossible.

The main place that the movie fails, is that it’s extremely loosely based on Crichton’s fantastic novel.

Anyone who has read the book will know that, as always with Spielberg, things got dumbed down to a more friendly atmosphere for a wider audience. There are substantial changes in the characters and character deaths.
Even so, at rated PG in Britain, which basically means anyone can watch (under 13s with supervision), I still wouldn’t let my own children at 5 and 6 years old watch it just yet. All I’m saying is Raptors In The Kitchen.

If the filmmakers had stuck to the book and Spielberg had been a bit braver, the movie would/could/should have been a hell of a lot better.

At time of release, the movie itself was so big it stayed in cinemas in my local town for nearly two years.

All in all a popcorn movie with a decent story and some genuine scary bits.


My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

[The Rodent]

Review #18: Pirates Of The Caribbean. The Curse Of The Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End.

Let’s start at the first movie:

The Curse Of The Black Pearl.

Started as a project based on the Disney ride, Black Pearl is a movie that has invigorated the Pirate Genre.
Cutthroat Island starring Geena Davis tried it, but it failed worse than miserably, pushing the genre back to the point of obscurity.

Screen writers Ted Elliot, Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert thought differently.
Getting Gore Verbinski as director was another wise move, his natural imagination is a wonder.

For a start, using the famous Disney ride as a platform is a mark of genius. They’ve expanded the ‘story’ of the ride beautifully and have created a world of pure imagination, urban legend, slapstick, raw humour, love, terror and action.

The premise of the story revolves around the Black Pearl, a pirate ship who’s crew carries a curse. All they want is to lift said curse and get back to ‘honest pirating’.
Mixed into that, Captain Jack Sparrow, an original Captain of the ship, just wants the ship back in his command and Will Turner, a young blacksmith just wants to get back his one true love, Elizabeth Swan, from the cursed crew who have kidnapped her. She’s also a Damsel-In-Distress with a difference.

The movie is wonderfully playful, very tongue in cheek and, extremely well and beautifully shot.

The acting is absolutely spot on, the actors seem to just know their roles inside and out from the get go. There’s no messing around finding their place.

Johnny Depp in particular is fascinating as Jack Sparrow. He’s become a legend of the pirate world in only a very short time. Intelligent and sly yet loveable and beautifully charismatic.
As too is Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbossa. He’s the perfect south-western English pirate, evil, cunning and knows exactly what and where he’s going, only occasionally fooled by Sparrow.
Orlando Bloom as Will Turner seems a little held back at the start but when the going gets tough, his role really reveals it’s self.

As for the special effects, particularly when the computers are brought into play for the cursed crew, they certainly don’t fail the eye. They’re raw, animated and work extremely well for the subject matter. The one on one between Barbossa and Sparrow is fantastic.

The on fault I’d say with the film is that it could do with a little more scope. It feels relatively small scale in terms of story and universe.

All in all a fun ride with some perfect writing and characters that really hit the mark, definitely the modern Swashbuckler.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Dead Man’s Chest.

The first movie was supposedly set as a stand-alone film, though, this is Hollywood and Black Pearl was such a huge hit, the sequel was inevitable.

Further more, it doesn’t disappoint. Not by a long shot.

The story revolves around Davy Jones and his crew and Jack Sparrow. Sparrow owes a debt to Jones and, obviously, doesn’t want to pay. Jones will stop at nothing to get what he’s owed. This time, Elizabeth Swan is called into the story as not just the Damsel-In-Distress, but as a force in her own right after Will Turner is the one in need of help after Davy Jones takes him aboard his ship. A kind of reversal in Will and Elizabeth’s storyline.

As a whole it’s bigger, brasher, funnier and grander and hits the nail on the head in almost every respect.

The action is brilliantly choreographed and the CGI is even better. The movie does tend to rely on more CGI than it’s predecessor, but it’s utilised perfectly for Jones and his crew, who mirror Barbossa’s crew from the first film as being cursed (to an extent).

Again, the acting from all parties is bang on the money. There’s expansion on some of the existing characters and a few new faces to add to the various pirate crews, though it’s easy to follow and fun to watch, the writing is brilliantly put to screen.

Nighy in particular, as the Scottish ghost-boat Captain Davy Jones, made it to #1 in my top 40 movie villains of all time. He’s absolutely brilliant.

A fault with the film is that Jones and his crew’s story is kept under wraps. You get a taster of their past, but nothing more. No real expansion.

All in all it hits the same places as the first movie but is a better movie and a brilliant piece of writing again from Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio.
Verbinski’s direction is another piece of artwork.


My rating 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5


At World’s End.

The third of the original trilogy feels a bit of a step backward sadly. It’s better than the first film, but not as good as the second.

It suffers from Star Wars syndrome.

The movie revolves around Barbossa, Turner and Elizabeth having to rescue Sparrow from Davy Jones’ clutches in a desperate attempt to bring together the ‘Pirate Lords’ in a final stand-off against the East India Trading Corporation who in turn, are using Davy Jones and his invincible crew as a weapon.

The whole universe of the pirate world created by the writers is expanded on extensively, there’s more Swashbuckling, more wonderfully rendered CGI (in many ways the CGI is better) and the cast of actors are still, all hitting their roles with perfection.

The movie’s storyline is extremely well put together, it’s relatively complicated but easy to follow, the expansion of character storylines and additions of new characters is something that, as I said, the second movie lacked.
This one has it all in that respect.

But, sadly, this movie also has its faults.
It feels as though the whole thing was pieced together in a rush to get it done before people lost interest.
It feels very gimmicky. It’s more ‘actiony’, even with the expansion of the universe and the storylines and goes more toward a feeling of seriousness rather than the tongue in cheek humour of the first two.

Almost to the point of becoming a parody of the genre that the first two films have successfully recreated.
　
All in all it’s better than the first, but a step backward from the second, still though, it is a fun ride to take and wonderfully grand in scale.


My rating 96%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[The Rodent]

Review #19: The Dark Crystal.

One of my childhood favourites.

Designed, written and directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz, The Dark Crystal is based on an imaginary land that has been plunged into darkness when an all-powerful crystal was shattered.

A young Gelfling called Jen, a kind of Elf type creature, has to take a legendary journey to repair the crystal and stop the evil forces known as the Skeksis race, from ruling forever. That's really about it for the story, there are a few extras thrown in, but not much.


The movie itself took 5 years to make, mainly due to the fact that the entire thing is made with puppets. There are no real living things on screen.

It looks fantastic, Henson and Oz really know how to build a world based on imagination and being that it’s the first movie of its kind, it’s as well made as it probably could have been.

The puppetry, not just in how they’re used, but also how they’re made is fantastic, the Skeksis and Mystics are wonderfully realised and brilliantly modelled.

As for the story, it’s a strange one this, it works on so many levels yet is incredibly simplistic, to the point that a child could have written it.
It’s very open too as most of the mysterious happenings and characters are very quickly explained leaving nothing really to build on in a mystical way. It’s a shame really though there is a small twist at the end that even I didn’t see coming.

Some of the dialogue is childlike too, though it doesn’t take away that the Skeksis and some of the other characters are genuinely disturbing and also very engaging.


The movie as a whole is definitely a kids movie, it’s rated PG in Britain though personally I’d refrain from showing it to under 5s, but it will still appeal to adults just the same with the darker characters and darker subject matters involved.

All in all, not a brilliant movie but worth watching for the brilliantly conceived puppets and puppet work and the fact that the world created by Henson is a wonderful trip to take.


My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
3

[The Rodent]

Review #20: Tremors.

For my 20th review, I decided to use one of my all time favourites.

Set in a valley in the Nevada desert, a handful of residents in a tiny little town called Perfection are subjected to a hidden terror when large, unseen underground creatures appear and start picking them off one by one.

The movie mainly revolves around two handymen, Valentine McGee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), who unwillingly become the ‘go-to men’ for the group.

The cast involved are fantastic in the movie, they all play it real which makes the funny moments even funnier and the jumpy horror moments even more of a surprise when they happen.
Fred Ward (who is another mediocre actor in my book) is at his absolute best as the grumpy, almost wise elder of the main duo.
The biggest surprise of the cast though, is Michael Gross as the gun loving survivalist Burt Gummer. In the past his acting has gone from mediocre to worse, his acting in the Tremors sequels is abysmal. In this film he is absolutely brilliant. He encapsulates his character with a seriousness and when needed, is able to carry the comedy too.

The film itself is a cross of many genres: Comedy, horror, monster flick and almost, a ‘modern day western’ with the setting, characters and date.

The comedy comes from real reactions and down to earth acting. The film’s funny moments are very well choreographed, Tremors utilises reality in unreal circumstances extremely well. A lot of the humour has an undertone of ‘tongue in cheek’ too. It’s lots of fun.

Then there’s the jumpy/horror moments, they’re very well put together. They’re ‘actiony’ as well as gory, but they also give the viewer a real sense of excitement and the occasional fright.

The special effects are, like most films of the time, all practical, there’s no CGI used in the film and the effects certainly don’t let the viewer down. They’re raw, gory, slimy and very well modelled.
Tom Woodruff. Jr and Alec Gillis’ physical creations of the writers’ original idea is such a realised concept that the movie really comes into its own.

The thing that lets the movie down, is that it’s a little on the short side, only 90 minutes of running time. I couldn’t help but want more after the film had finished.

The worst thing about the Tremors idea though, is the awful cash-in sequels and even worse TV series that it spawned.

Forget the sequels, I beg the audience to treat the movie as a stand-alone film.
All in all a joy ride of a comedy-horror.


Lot’s of fun and well worth 90 minutes of your time.


My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[Deadite]

Nice reviews. Big fan of the first Tremors here too. Didn't particularly care for the sequels. They never seemed to recapture the spirit and inventive fun of the original.

Dark Crystal was also a childhood fave. I re-watched finally about a year ago to see how it held up compared to memory, and it's a very decent dark fantasy-adventure for kids.

[ash_is_the_gal]

oh man, haven't watched Tremors since the 90's. i might have to revisit this one soon. thanks for the reviews.

[The Rodent]

Cheers for the replies guys.

Coming soon: Paul. Full Metal Jacket. Demolition Man. Dumb and Dumber. Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.

[The Rodent]

Review #21: Paul.

What was a largely anticipated movie from creative wizards Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, comes a relatively disappointing turn of events.

Paul, an Alien who crash lands on earth decides that he wants to go home and with the (initially) unwilling help of Pegg and Frost he heads off across America on a buddy road trip.
Cue lots of situation-nostalgia-placement and too-many-to-count ‘nods’ toward the major sci-fi movies and TV series’ of the last 50 years.

Ok, some of the comedy in the film works. A lot of it is well realised and well written, occasionally it borders being laugh out loud but it’s just too much when scene after scene after scene after scene after scene (and so on) are very large and very painful slaps across the face with tributes to other movies.

The movie as a whole works to an extent. It successfully encapsulates the feel that it wants to. I just don’t think everyone else wanted it to.


Paul as a CGI character is by far the best thing in the film, he's fantastically rendered and very realised in the way he looks and moves. He's certainly the best CG character I've seen since Golum.
Seth Rogen as the voice of the character works, but could have been better. He feels a little wooden at times.


By far the worst thing about the film is Nick Frost. His character on screen is extremely bland and very wooden.
Obviously, while filming, the CG Paul wasn’t there, so the actors had to pretend, but Nick’s acting lets you know that Paul wasn’t there. He just recites his lines like a kid in a school nativity play.
He’s extremely disappointing to the point that all the work that went into making Paul’s character work, is shot down by a fat guy who can’t act.

There are people who will defend the film. I’m just not one of them.

All in all, if you want a Frost and Pegg film, watch Hot Fuzz or Shaun Of The Dead.


My rating 34%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
2

[The Rodent]

Review #22: Full Metal Jacket.

Based during the Vietnam War, the movie starts with a bunch of new recruits in the Marine Corps. Initially following their adventures in the basic training programme then following some of them when they’re shipped off to fight the war.

The beginning of the movie, though brutal and realistic, is incredibly funny and extremely engaging. The young school leavers are thrown into a world they’ve never seen before and the humour comes from their uneasy relationship with their Drill Sergeant.
The relationship between Private Leonard Lawrence (aka Private Pyle) and the rest of the group, in particular with the Sergeant is extremely laugh out loud and at times even cringe worthy, right up until the end.

After the initial hit of humour, the movie takes a serious turn when the setting moves to Vietnam. The brutal and harsh conditions faced by the soldiers is brilliantly portrayed and very real. The movie tends to delve into how the soldiers feel about the war but still has the occasional hit of humour mixed in too.


The main fault with the movie, is that even though the second half of the film is just as well made as the first, it doesn’t quite have the same appeal. It’s much more raw, which can put a lot of people off.


The acting from all parties is absolutely brilliant, Matthew Modine as the main character the film follows is at his absolute best as the naïve recruit who physically changes over the film into a well trained U.S Marine.
R Lee Ermey as the tough Drill Sergeant is absolutely brilliant, a role so infamous that has often been parodied in many a film, even by Ermey himself. He absolutely steals the first half of the movie.

Even if Vietnam War movies aren’t your thing, it’s worth watching for the basic training.

All in all a very well made Vietnam War flick, though the second half is a little more of a Marmite question, it’s well worth your time.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5


Review #23: Demolition Man.

Set in the future, this highly implausible action movie still seems to push all the right buttons.

In present day, cop John Spartan (Sly Stallone) is charged with the deaths of hostages in a botched rescue, he is frozen in suspended animation as a ‘jail’ sentence. At the same time, an ultraviolent Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) is also frozen as he was the one who initially kidnapped the people.

In the future, Phoenix is released to find that the place is a giant utopia of peace and tranquillity. He immediately sets about showing the softy residents and police officers how it’s done ‘old skool’ and goes about trying to make the city his own.
So Spartan is released also. They need an old fashioned cop to catch an old fashioned criminal.

As you can imagine, with Sly and Snipes in the lead roles, from then on it’s all smash and crash and cheesy one-liners for 90 minutes.

It’s a fun no-brainer, primarily aimed at mid-teenaged boys and the acting is about standard for the type of smash-em-up movie it is.

One thing that doesn’t make sense, is that this utopian future is based solely in one city after the event of a massive earthquake. What about the rest of the world outside? Surely this is the movie’s biggest plot hole.

Snipes in particular is fun, doing all the things most of the mid-teens watching would like to do.
Stallone is at his usual.
The supporting cast works well, Sandra Bullock is wonderfully out of place amongst the action and Nigel Hawthorne is, as always, very natural in his surroundings.

All in all a loud, brash no-brainer that shouldn’t make sense, yet in a way, does.
My rating 73%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4


Review 24: Dumb and Dumber.

One of the finest comedies ever made. Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunn (Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels) are two hopelessly dippy individuals looking for a better life, yet do nothing to actually make it happen.

When Lloyd comes into possession of a briefcase belonging to what he thinks is his one true love, Mary Swanson (a beautiful looking Lauren Holly before she went skinny). The pair head off on a road trip to return the case to Mary and hope she "plucks them into the social pipeline".
Unknown to them, the case actually contains a ransom for Mary’s husband and they’re being followed by a hitman who wants the case for his boss.

After that, the movie goes from funny, to laugh out loud, to hysterical, to pant wettingly hilarious. It’s incredibly well written in terms of humour.
Every line spoken in the movie is either a double entendre or is something that one of the duo has misunderstood.

Be warned though, the movie contains a lot of rude and crude humour too, including Lloyd’s reactions to an attempted male rape and Harry’s poopy-toilet scene after Lloyd spikes his drink for a vengeful-laugh.

It also has it’s fair share of buddy moments, Carrey and Daniels have brilliant chemistry throughout the entire movie, they bounce off one another perfectly and when the occasional hit of tragedy strikes, you really feel for them.

The acting, overall, from all parties is spot on.

The only fault with the film as that it’s just not long enough. You want more and more and more.

All in all, the best comedy I have seen to date outside of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[The Rodent]

Review #25: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.

For something that is based on a series of 1000 year old, incomplete ballads, Robin Hood is something that is never seems to leave the mind of the populous.
The movie is set before Robin Hood’s legend of ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’.
It’s more of a lead up to the legend. How Robin came to be the outlaw we all know and love.

Sadly, it’s a very confused story, it takes elements of the legend, elements that are seen during the robbing and giving, mixed with some new stuff and crosses them over.

Some elements are completely ignored from the original ballads, for instance how Robin and Little John become friends.

The problem is also the seriousness of the movie. Robin Hood is a campy legend. Always has been. I’m not just on about the movies of the past, I’m on about the original ballads too.
Any self-respecting Englishman will know that Scott’s take on Robin is a pile.

As far as the story goes, sadly, what Ridley Scott and his team of ‘writers’ decided to do, is steal all of the most inaccurate ideas from all of the other Robin Hood films of the past 100 years.
Then they decided to confusingly modge them all into a giant cake full of disappointment.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the original legend.

I understand that Scott wanted to update the legend but I’m afraid it just didn’t work.
　
The movie as it is though, is actually quite entertaining, the action is pretty well choreographed and exciting, but that’s about it.
The acting is about standard for the type of movie, it’s not bad, but nothing that should win awards.
Think Gladiator but without the charisma.


The only thing that’s really going for the film is that it’s fairly close to being historically accurate with it’s look and feel.
Now, I’m not an expert, but I am a student of history and I know that Scott’s movie is relatively close with setting, props, character attitudes, costume and even the accents.
Russell Crowe was hammered by film buffs for his accent when the film came out. I will defend him though, he’s not far off the truth.
I guess these critics know little of English history.

The sequence of events is a load of tosh though, which lets down the only thing the film has going for it: Accuracy.
　
All in all an entertaining movie if you know nothing of Robin Hood, for me, it’s worse than Costner’s accent.


My rating 17%, mainly for the historical feel
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1

[JayDee]

Somehow I had completely glossed over this thread until now. Some very nice reviews. :yup: Even if I don't agree with all of them - I'd give Leon and Jurassic Park a hgher rating, and the Pirates... sequels a lot lower. But other than that very close in my views with you.

Oh and Tremors is a cracking little film. Forgot about it on my previous top 100 list, will be under consideration for any update.

[honeykid]

I adore Demolition Man. It's one of those 20-30 films that could have, on another day, made my top 100. :up:

[The Rodent]

Thankyou for the feedback guys. It means a lot. It's nice to know I'm being read.

Currently working on the Superman franchise. The review will be with you very shortly.

[The Rodent]

Review #26: Christopher Reeve Superman Franchise (Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Superman 3 and Superman 4: The Quest For Peace) and Superman Returns.

Based on the comic book super-hero and a movie franchise that has shaped the franchise since.

Superman: The Movie.

The premise of the first movie is around Kal-El being sent to earth by his father and mother, as the planet Krypton is due to be destroyed by a natural disaster.
Upon his arrival on earth, he is a small child and is discovered by a friendly, homely couple called Martha and Jonathan Kent. They raise him as their own on their farm and name him ‘Clark’.
Eventually the day comes for Clark has to leave home to discover his heritage after finding a green crystal in the barn amongst the wreckage of the comet/ship that he came to earth in.

After 12 years of study in the hidden Fortress Of Solitude, he returns to the world as an all-powerful "Super Man" and moves into the city of Metropolis and, as Clark, he gets a job as a reporter with The Daily Planet Newspaper.
After only a day or so, he shows himself to the world and is dubbed Superman by his Daily Planet Newspaper work colleague, Lois Lane.
What awaits him though is arch criminal Lex Luthor. A brilliant mind yet is, as always, slightly inept at taking on the Supe.


It’s a beautifully shot movie, the action scenes are extremely well choreographed and the writing of the characters is absolutely spot on.
The story contains many aspects of great cinema, tragedy, seriousness and tongue in cheek humour. Mix to that a great cast who can carry all of these aspects, you’ve got something very, very special.

The acting too is fantastic.

Hiring the unknown Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark Kent was a mark of genius by the filmmakers. He doesn’t just change his acting style, his physical appearance changes too. As the Supe he’s tall, powerful, confident and very charming. You genuinely believe he is indestructible. As Clark, he slouches, becomes uncomfortable and bumbling, incompetent in most situations and he carries the role in a way that nobody else could have even imagined. Reeve has the perfect split personality for a super-hero.
Margot Kidder as Lois Lane too is a mark of genius. Ok Kidder’s other films are almost unheard of and her acting has never been great, but as Lois she really shines. She was born to play the role.
Gene Hackman is another great choice as Lex Luthor. Hackman is as always, fun to watch, engaging, theatrical and campy as the villain.
Ned Beattie as Luthor’s dummy sidekick Otis is an absolute marvel to watch. He’s incredibly funny and Valerie Perrine adds some sexy-class as the gangster’s Moll.

The movie’s effects are a little primitive by today’s standards, though at the time the effects were absolutely cutting edge. Though today, they do still work.
You genuinely believe a man can fly (ahem).

The only thing that lets the movie down, is that you can tell some of the scenes are experimental. A movie like this had never been made before and though the makers did a fantastic job, their naivety occasionally shows.


All in all, one the finest super-hero movies ever made. Often copied, never bettered. A definite must see.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5


Superman 2.

Set not long after the first movie, Clark has settled into his duel role of Clark/Superman.
He’s found feelings for Lois and she too has found feelings for the Supe, let’s face it, all the girls in the city love him. She treats Clark quite ignorantly though, he is after all just a nerdy work colleague.

The main story revolves around three other people however.
Superman has unwittingly released kryptonian villains General Zod, Ursa and Non from their prison.
Kal-El’s father Jor-El had imprisoned the three villains in the ‘Phantom Zone’ at the beginning of the first movie before Krypton was destroyed.
Supe’s destruction of a nuclear weapon in space has cracked the ‘zone’ and freed them. They’re now heading for earth, endowed with all the same powers as Superman.
Upon realising Superman is the son of their jailer (Jor-El), they make their prime objective: To enslave and crush him and then rule the rest of the world.
Aiding them, is a returning Lex Luthor.

Cue lots of destruction and plenty of fistfights between Superman and the three super-villains.

There is a twist in the story for Superman himself too before he is able to fight the villains.

The film, like the first, is a masterclass in how to stage a super-hero movie. The writing and storyline are again near perfect. It starts off small and then rapidly grows in scale to something more thrilling.

Again the acting is bang on.
This time round the cast involves Terrence Stamp as Zod, Sarah Douglas as Ursa and Jack O’Halloran as the mute powerhouse Non.
Stamp made it into my top 40 movie villains at #15. He’s very camp, inhinged and is the epitome of the super-villain.
Sarah Douglas adds more sexy-class as a villain-ess and O’Halloran is perfect as a giant brute with absolutely no intelligence.
The special effects are utilised with more pizzazz than in the first. The money was very well spent, in particular on the four-way Metropolis fight.


To be honest, in terms of faults, I’m finding it hard to find any. Maybe one thing would be the use of the miniatures in the special effects. Ok CGI was unheard of at the time, but every now and then the miniature work is too obvious.


All in all, believe it or not, it’s actually an improvement on the first, better in every way. Another definite must see.
My rating 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5


Superman 3.

Sadly, this is where the Superman series started dropping off the scale.
The movie revolves around Gus Gorman (played by Richard Pryor). He’s an unwitting and unwilling computer genius, hired by his corrupt boss to control satellites in a bid to destroy his rivals’ businesses.
Superman of course throws a spanner in the works and becomes the target of the villains’ custom-built super-computer.


The movie itself is a product of its time. Super computer paranoia and weather changing satellites.
It goes heavily toward comedy too and steers clear of the elements that made the first two so special: Tragedy, tongue in cheek humour, campness and action.
It’s very slapstick and cliché. Turning Superman into a bad guy could have been worth while, but with the simplistic way he gets out of his predicament, it just didn’t work.


The defining feature is Pryor. He adds his own personal touch to the comedy and plays his role brilliantly, but he’s out of place in the franchise.
No show from Hackman.
Margot Kidder is written out of this one too, she appears briefly but isn’t seen throughout the rest of the movie.
Reeve is as always spot on.


All in all a hit and miss affair, mainly miss. Worth watching if you’re under 10 years old.


My rating 70%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png
3


Superman 4: The Quest For Peace.

This was the final nail in the coffin for the Supe. Written on an idea by Reeve himself but slashed budgets and infighting within the studios the movie suffers terribly.
The movie is another product of its time. This time based on Nuclear War. Superman decides to destroy all the nukes in the world by throwing them at the Sun.
Luthor returns and attaches some of Superman’s DNA and a computer chip to a nuke. Somehow it creates a super-villain with all of Superman’s powers. Luthor then pits his creation against the Supe.


It’s an extremely bad piece of movie making. The story could have worked but the way the movie was made just feels incredibly cheap.
The special effects were obviously cut from the budget. They look cheap and make the poorly shot action scenes even more lacking.

Many of Superman’s ‘solves’ to Nuclearman’s attacks are simply rewound footage of the catastrophe he created. Yes, really!


Supe and Lois are put together in a kind of love story and Reeve and Kidder are able to carry the roles ok, but they seem fed up with it all. Kidder is also starting to look too old for the part.

Mariel Hemingway is incredibly wooden as Clark’s new squeeze.
Mark Pillow as the super-villain just isn’t very threatening. He just shows his teeth and frowns a bit.

Jon Cryer as Luthor’s nephew is just annoying as a kind of ‘yo dude’ character.
Hackman is probably the best part of it all. He hits his role professionally as always and never misses a beat.

All in all, miss this one. It’s the worst movie I’ve ever seen.
My rating 0%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png
0


Superman Returns.

A nostalgic turn from the filmmakers brings the audience some of the magic from the first two movies.
The storyline evades Superman 3 & 4 and carries on after the events of Superman 2 as if 3 & 4 didn’t exist.

It revolves around Clark doing some searching. Scientists believe that they have found Krypton using powerful telescopes and he has just returned from a journey to see if it really is there.
Upon his return to earth he discovers that Luthor has been released from prison and has stolen Supe’s crystals from the Fortress Of Solitude and plans on using them as a weapon.

The simplistic story works, but it’s just not enough. Brandon Routh as the Reeve-looking Superman works to an extent, but he has none of the charisma of Reeve and he barely changes character when playing Clark.
I can’t help but feel that the movie needed more than just the gimmick of nostalgia. It needed expanding, I’m not sure how, but it needed it.
Ok, Supe’s twist at the end is something I didn’t see, but it still needed something braver.


The best part of the movie by far is Kevin Spacey as Luthor. He doesn’t try to emulate Hackman. He turns the role into his own and makes it better in the process.
Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth do an apt job at pretending to be Reeve and Kidder, but they just aren’t.

The movie as a whole is entertaining. It’s just a very nostalgic miss on all fronts.
There’s not much else I can say about Superman Returns, though I really wish there was…

All in all, worth a watch, but it’ll leave you just as quick as it makes its impression.
My rating is a mid 50%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
2.5

[JayDee]

I adore Demolition Man. It's one of those 20-30 films that could have, on another day, made my top 100. :up:

Oh yeah I missed that one. Would have that a bit higher as well. It's also one that I considered for the tail end of my top 100 list. Might make it next time round

[The Rodent]

Review #27: Batman Begins.

At first, I was extremely dubious about a reboot of the Batman franchise. After the debacle of Schumacher’s attempts I really thought the franchise in the movie world was dead and buried.

Christopher Nolan really has proved me wrong.

Batman Begins is literally that, how he becomes the Bat. Borrowing from the source material (the comics) and some of Burton’s Batman too, mixing in a few new things and an updated selection of Bat-Gadgets on the Utility-Belt, Batman Begins really hits the nail on the head on how to make a super-hero movie.

It revolves around Bruce Wayne’s parents being murdered and the subsequent slump of self-pity and depression he falls into over the following years.
After a soul-searching trek-of-the-world and studying various martial arts forms and getting into trouble with the law in various countries, he comes across an Illuminati who call themselves The League Of Shadows.
He’s trained in their forms of fighting and secrecy and eventually returns to Gotham City with the full intent of using his new found mentality and skills to strike fear into those who prey on the fearful.
Awaiting him though, are forces he cannot comprehend.

The movie is very well shot.
The Gothic feel of past Batman movies has been dropped slightly, it’s more brooding and moody than being Gothic.

The action feels a little held back but when it gets going, it really goes well. The filmmakers had the sense to make the action ‘just enough’ rather than going into the first movie with all guns blazing. It’s very cleverly put together.

The acting also is fantastic.
Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman is a brilliant choice. Some people say he’s a little too gruff when speaking his lines as Batman but I think he does the job well. He plays his naivety well at the beginning too. Bale took the physically demanding role so seriously, he bulked up his muscle mass too much and ended up having to actually lose some weight before they could fit the Bat-Suit.
Michael Caine as Wayne’s Butler, Alfred, is a perfect choice. He’s warm, funny, engaging and down to earth and is tough when needed. Alfred’s character this time round is more human too. He doesn’t beat around the bush when telling Bruce the truth. Caine is fantastic.
Gary Oldman as Detective Gordon is a marvel. He looks and acts like he’s jumped directly from the page of the comic book. Absolutely brilliant.

The only thing that lets the movie down is Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes (Bruce’s long time friend). She’s only on screen for a short time but you feel she’s just an add on, even when the character is placed in jeopardy. Holmes gives an apt performance, but Holmes herself just feels out of place.
As too is Cillian Murphy. Like Holmes, he plays the character well, you just feel as though another actor could have done it better.

The little cliff-hanger at the end between Batpants and Gordon really makes you yearn to watch the sequel.

All in all a near perfect starter for a super-hero franchise.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5


Review #28: The Dark Knight.

This movie is the defining point of the franchise so far.

It’s based around The Joker and his unbending need for destruction. He’s been hired by the various mob bosses of Gotham to take out Batman. The Bat has basically destroyed their businesses and had most of their employees locked away.

The mob didn’t count on how incredibly dangerous and unhinged The Joker turns out to be. In the words of Alfred: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Again, the movie is shot perfectly, this time round they used IMAX cameras to give the screen a depth to it. It looks beautiful and detailed.

The broody feel of the first movie is still there, though it’s toned down slightly. The movie feels more open to the visual aspect of a real city.

The expansion of certain characters is worked on, especially Gordon. You see how he goes from being a standard cop to the 'Commissioner Gordon' we all know and love.
As too is Alfred, though it’s brief, there is a small insight to his background.
The writing is fantastically put together.

The Joker’s evil twist on literally pitting everyone against everyone is an absolute masterclass in how to write a real villain.

The way The Joker destroys Harvey Dent at a personal level is very well conceived.

As for the acting…
Star turns again from Bale, Oldman and Caine. Katie Holmes is replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, a wise move.
There’s a wonderful turn from Aaron Eckhart too, who acts both of his roles absolutely perfectly as ‘Gotham’s White Knight’ Harvey Dent.



Now, The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger is something I was dubious about before I saw the movie.
Everyone was raving about his part in the movie and I couldn’t help but think, "It’s only because he died not long after making it". I was never a fan of Ledger or his movies, to be honest, I thought he was a mediocre actor at best.

After seeing the film, I hold my hands up now.

I was wrong.

Heath Ledger, who made it to #2 in my top 40 Villains, is by far the best thing in the movie.

Ledger spent a month in isolation in a hotel room with the script, just acting out the role before shooting even began.

You can tell too. He’s seriously uneasy to watch though at times he’s funny too.
The humour is more of a dark, black humour than the comic-book-Cesar Romero-Nicholson humour that we’re all used to.

Ledger’s portrayal of a hyperactive, giggling psychopath is almost primordial and is very disturbing. Especially his eyes and the little ‘ticks’ he occasionally shows.

As ledger, he’s completely unrecognisable. He is The Joker.



All in all, better than the first and even if Batman isn’t your thing, it’s worth watching for Ledger’s performance.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[The Rodent]

Review #29: Ghostbusters.

The movie initially wasn’t made as a kids movie, it was intended to be an adult tongue in cheek comedy based on a premise of ‘firemen who catch ghosts rather than fight fires’.
It just proved popular with 80s kids, including myself and eventually a dumbed-down-for-kids sequel and entire franchise of cartoons and toys were spawned off the back of the movie.

This review is about the original film.

The movie starts with Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler (Dan Ayckroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis, respectively) slacking off and taking a relatively lax approach to paranormal study at their university. Ray being the most upbeat and normal member of the brainy trio, Egon the brainier scientist and Peter being a brilliant mind also but very down to earth and extremely lazy when it takes his fancy.

Shortly after making what they perceive as a breakthrough in their ‘work’ on the paranormal, they’re kicked out of university for basically being slackers.

They take their research and some money they make from selling (an unwilling) Ray’s house, using their combined intelligence and their companionship, they start up a business in Paranormal Investigations and Eliminations as the Ghostbusters.
Unbeknownst to them, they’re being watched by outside authorities and their research has shown a massive spike in paranormal activity around the city of New York that stems from a particular building near Central Park.

After a woman who lives in the building comes to them and explains some of the strange things she’s witnessed there, it’s up to them to investigate and stop whatever lurks in the building.


The movie takes itself seriously at times, when it does, it works very well, the jumpy scary moments are fantastically put together.
Most of the time it utilises humour and extremely subtle timing as a catalyst for the comedy.
The dialogue is also extremely funny and very well delivered by the cast.
The whole movie is, in the words of the makers, "One long, very well written joke".

The action, though quite short and sweet, is well choreographed and uses the limited special effects brilliantly. Ivan Reitman’s direction is superb. It’s exciting and staged wonderfully.

The actors too are extremely comfortable in their roles.
Murray in particular is at his absolute best, he plays the role with an ease not seen outside of Groundhog Day or even Scrooged.
Ayckroyd is as usual, he’s funny, upbeat, offbeat and very engaging as the ‘heart of the Ghostbusters’.
Ramis does a fantastic job as the fungus loving brainbox, Egon. You really believe this guy is the Einstein of the 80s.
Ernie Hudson is introduced halfway through the film as the ‘everyman’ of the story. His character is used initially as the guy who gets the scientific stuff explained for the audience. He plays the role with a coolness and down to earth. He’s very likeable.
Sigourney Weaver, who at the time was mostly famous for her tough role in Alien is perfectly cast as a relatively homely and very scared Dana Barrett, (now Venkman’s love interest), she has a real connection to the audience and has wonderful chemistry with Murray. Her role becomes a key point of the paranormal plot too.

A special mention should go out to Rick Moranis. His character, Louis Tulley, is very, very funny. Though not seen a massive amount in the film, he too is an important role in the plot. Moranis actually ad-libbed most of his dialogue and movement too, which makes the character even funnier.


The one fault with the movie, if you can call it a fault:
The effects of the movie are a Marmite question for a lot of people.
When the effects are first seen in the hotel during the Ghostbusters first job, they hit the audience with a delightful shock.
After that, some of the effects can let some people down, they’re very cartoony. The filmmakers have said in the past it was due to a limited budget rather than a style choice.
I say, if the effects were any different, it wouldn’t have worked as well as it did. It adds to the movie’s feel of not taking itself too seriously. They're bright and colourful, lots of fun and make the movie stand out a mile.

Add to all that, fantastic sound-effects (particularly the Proton-Packs) and a stomping theme tune you've got a very special movie.

All in all, an absolute classic 80s film. Funny, engaging, occasionally frightening and brilliantly cast.


My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[honeykid]

I bloody love Ghostbusters. Another of the films that came close to making my top 100 list. Even Sigorney Weaver can't ruin this film for me. In fact, I kind of like her in this. :goof:

[The Rodent]

Cheers matey, you'll like my 30th review, I've got something special planned for it but you'll have to wait a day or two.

It's going to take me that long just to write it up. It's masseeeve.

[The Rodent]

Review #30: Star Wars Franchise, Episodes 4-6 and Episodes 1-3.

For my 30th review, I thought I’d ping up something special. A favourite of most, a nightmare for others.
All 6 Star Wars movies in one big review, in the order they were made, starting with A New Hope and ending with Revenge Of The Sith.


Episode IV: A New Hope.

What was initially set as a stand-alone movie under the title of Star Wars, it has become something that has shaped the movie world forever. It’s hard to imagine how big the movie was at the time of release but it broke the mould in many unbreakable places.

Set in and around an ongoing war between the evil Galactic Empire and a group of Rebels, a young farm boy called Luke Skywalker dreams of leaving his hum-drum life and heading out among the stars to fight the evil Empire.
Holding him back is his uncle, Owen. All Owen wants is for Luke not to end up like his father, Anakin.

Upon buying androids (C3PO and R3D2) from some Jawa (alien) traders, Luke is plunged into a world of mystery when R2D2 suddenly plays back a recording of a woman in distress and is asking for the help of somebody called Obi Wan Kenobi. Luke makes an assumption that Obi Wan may be related to Old Ben, a kind of old hermit who lives not far away.

The following morning, R2D2 has vanished and Luke and C3PO go looking for him, in the process they stumble across Old Ben. Ben watches R2D2’s recording and asks Luke and his droids to help him in fighting the Empire. Luke turns down the offer, but forces outside of Luke’s control push him into following Ben out into the stars and off to grand adventure.
Along the way, Ben has told Luke about the truth of who his father was and that he will teach him about an almost extinct way of life, the life of a Jedi and how to harness and use the powers of a mystical force known simply as The Force.
By the end, Luke joins the Rebels and pits himself against the Empire’s greatest weapon, the Death Star.

The movie is a benchmark for not just sci-fi, but any and all adventure and action films.
The story and the characters, the setting and settings, in fact the entire universe that George Lucas created when making the movie is incredibly realised. It’s dirty, grimy, well used, old and feels very real.

Almost every detail has been thought about, from the sounds to the creatures to the vehicles. It’s incredibly original.
It’s as the movie’s start sequence says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

It’s small at the start and grows into something far grander, then grows some more.

The movie contains hits of humour too. Mainly between Han Solo and Chewbacca as a soul-mate duo and between the droids C3PO and R2D2 as another soul-mate buddy couple. The droids in particular are laugh out loud at times, especially when they argue.

The special effects in the movie add another depth to the story, they’re extremely well developed. Even today, they hold up against most CG films.
The acting in the movie is exceptionally well directed. Lucas had the gumption to hire unknowns in the lead roles, with the exception of Sir Alec Guinness as Old Ben and Harrison Ford as the space pirate/smuggler Han Solo.
Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were moments of genius. Hamill’s naivety as an actor makes the character’s naivety work even better and Fisher is absolutely perfect as the young but educated Princess in distress.
Alec Guinness as the old, wise wizard is a marvel. He encapsulates the character and lifts it from the page wonderfully.

Initially, Harrison Ford was only hired to help the casting director with reading lines for the other applicants, thankfully, they saw something in him and took him on as Han Solo. He does a tremendous job as the dashing, cocky, self-assured yet occasionally bumbling, loveable space pirate.

Ford and Fisher’s on screen chemistry is wonderful too. They start out hating each other, but you know deep down they fancy each other. They bounce off each other brilliantly.
As for characters, Darth Vader, who made it to #4 in my Top 40 Villains is an absolute icon of the well made and realised movie character. He is the epitome of theatrical evilness. With James Earl Jones voicing Vader, he has the screen presence that rivals anyone else.

A fault with the movie? Hmm. Not a lot really.
There are times you can tell that the film is the first of it’s kind. The odd show of naivety from the filmmaker/s shows through in the writing and direction, but it’s so easily missed, it barely makes a difference.

What makes the movie really hit home though, is when it’s tied in with John Williams’ brilliant, unforgettable and iconic soundtrack.

All in all, one of the finest sci-fi/space movies made. Everything about it shaped the genre and is still held in many respects as the God of modern film.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

Being that Star Wars was said to originally be a stand-alone movie, the fact that it was such a huge hit, Lucas decided to expand his idea into a full on franchise and redub Star Wars as Episode IV A New Hope.
We, the audience were then treated to Episode V.
The story revolves around Luke doing some more in-depth study into the Jedi ways that Ben showed him in the first movie. He’s been drawn toward a distant planet to find a man called ‘Yoda’. Upon arriving, he discovers Yoda is actually a little green goblin looking thing that speaks in a strange way. Though Yoda is more than meets the eye.

In a separate storyline, Leia and Solo have been fighting their feelings for one another, or that’s what Solo thinks anyway.
Solo has another mission too. He has to face the brutal gangster Jabba The Hutt, who has put a bounty on his head.

Introduced to the story is an old acquaintance of Solo’s, a man called Lando Calrissian.
After an attack from the Empire, Solo, Chewbacca and Leia have fled to Lando’s city for refuge, unwittingly though, they’re heading into even more danger, especially for Solo.

It’s up to Luke though, after seeing their predicament in a ‘vision’ he heads off to save them, leaving his new mentor, Yoda, to brood.

Cue one of the biggest plot twists in movie history and something that nobody could have seen coming.

As a sequel, it’s another masterclass in it’s own right. It far outweighs the original.

The universe is expanded extensively and there are more highly original characters and settings, planets and societies seen in the film.
It’s a much grander look at the new universe that Lucas created.

The story too is far more extensive. It’s easy to follow but has many, many subtle levels and sub-stories. The introduction of new characters is another easy to follow point but allows the movie to broaden its horizons vastly.

What hits the movie hard though, is that it isn’t the average ‘hero wins at the end’ kind of film. The ending is a rather sombre cliff-hanger. Relatively downbeat and leaves the audience wanting more.

The cast are all still on top form. This time round Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian is an added element of coolness and charm. He’s like Solo, but with more money and political power.

The special effects are another far bigger and better element of the movie. Obviously the success of the first movie allowed Lucas to pile more money into them and it really shows. The sets too are far grander.

Again, like with the first film, I’m finding it very hard to find any faults with the movie. This time round Lucas’ naivety has vanished and the change in director has ironed out all the creases of Episode IV.

All in all a vast improvement on Episode IV’s already perfect lead up.
My rating is another 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi.

Revolving around Luke living with the aftermath of the plot twist in Episode V and a rescue attempt of Solo at the beginning.
Luke eventually then takes up his training again with Yoda and has many of his questions answered about that plot twist.

Yoda then gives Luke a new mission. He must face and defeat Vader and become a fully-fledged Jedi Knight. One thing that stands in Luke’s way though, is that Vader’s Master, The Emperor, has decided to show his ugly mug and will be there when Luke and Vader clash their lightsabres together one last time.

Leia, Solo, Chewbacca, the droids and Lando take their own separate line again too, a Rebel attack is forming against a new, more powerful Death Star. It’s up to them to lead the attack on various fronts and stop the Empire’s new super weapon.

The third of the original trilogy is a darker looking take on the franchise. Its brooding, moody atmosphere can put people off but it’s an element that really makes the subject matter work.
The subject matter in question is Luke, Vader and The Emperor in a three-way battle to turn Luke and his new found Jedi powers to the Dark Side Of The Force. It’s a brave move but it hits the nail on the head.

It’s a very low tone movie and takes a more serious turn of events too. The comedy and humour seen between the main characters in the first two movies is dropped and replaced with a more depressed feel.

There is still some comic relief in the form of a tribe of primitive space-bears called Ewoks. The tribe becomes an important plot device in helping Solo, Chewbacca and Leia in their fight against the Empire. So it’s not a total loss on the humour front.

There isn’t much of an expansion in the universe either, but the film certainly utilises what the first two built so well. It’s more of a ‘wrap-up’ for the franchise rather than another ‘build-on’ movie.

As for the effects, they seem the same as in Episode V. There’s no real improvement as such but they’re certainly not lacking. I think that the technology of the time was at its peak and basically, they couldn’t improve any more than they already had.

The acting from all parties is again, spot on. By now the actors knew their roles and have aged well with the franchise, both mentally and physically and it shows through their performances.

Sadly, the bad point is the lack of swashbuckling charm that was seen in the first two films. It’s a more linear movie in terms of writing and there’s little in the way of expanding the world that Lucas built.

All in all it’s a slight step backward from the first two, definitely a step back from Episode V though it’s still a romping space adventure and is a wonderfully brooding end to a fantastic build up.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

After years of waiting, the fans of the Star Wars franchise got what they wanted, but sadly, not what they wanted.
Set 30 years or so before Episode IV, the movie revolves around the Trade Federation placing a blockade of their battleships around the planet of Naboo.
This of course brings the Galactic Senate into play. They send two Jedi Knights, Master Qui Gon Jin and his apprentice Obi Wan Kenobi, to bring an end to the trade dispute (the Jedi in this movie are as Old Ben said in Episode IV, "Guardians of Peace and Justice").
In turn, this causes the Trade Federation to act irrationally under the orders of a Master Sith Lord called Darth Sidious and they land a ground invasion of the planet.

Queen Amidala of The Naboo, under the protection of the Jedi and must do everything in her power to either politically stop the invaders, or resort to more violent measures to save her planet and her people.

In the midst of this is a young boy called Anakin Skywalker who has been spotted by Jedi Master Qui Gon as being very powerful with The Force. Qui Gon takes Anakin under his wing and introduces him into the world of the Jedi, without the consent of the Jedi Council.

It’s a very simplistic story that feels very simplistic. The original pull of Episode IV was that the simple story was utilised and expanded with decent writing, touches of tragedy and subtle humour. Lucas seems to have just gone for a simple story laced with amusing characters called Jar-Jar Binks and slapstick frog looking CG creatures. Then smeared the whole thing with brightly coloured CGI and high-speed chases.

It’s very cashed in. You feel great when the movie starts, but after around 25 minutes, you start getting fed up with it all.

The CGI isn’t great looking either, with the massive amounts of cash and talent thrown at the movie, it should have been a hell of a lot better than just an expensive cartoon.

The acting, well, Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor as the Jedi Knights are spot on. They’re fit, athletic and have studied hard at the sabre fights. They carry their roles perfectly too. McGregor in particular is fantastic as the young Alec Guinness. A very good choice of actors.
Natalie Portman is apt as Queen Amidala but nothing that will win awards.

Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker is one massive mistake from the filmmakers. Ok he’s only a young lad, but surely there are other kids out there that can actually act.
For such an important role, Lucas really missed the mark. If a young enough actor couldn’t be found, why didn’t Lucas just age Anakin’s character a year or two to make sure the role was acted properly?

The story involves an almost love story between Anakin and Amidala. They make friends when they meet and the actors try their best at working with Lucas’ lacklustre writing, but it’s just not believable.


One of the biggest let downs of the film is Lucas’ new take on the Jedi way of life in regard to The Force.

Apparently this all-powerful force that surrounds us and binds the galaxy together is actually a bunch of microscopic creatures that live inside all living things.
I’m sorry, but where the hell did that come from, George?
It would appear you’ve completely smashed a major plot point for the entire franchise. Bell*nd.
　
Before I carry on with this review, I’m just popping out into the garden for a minute. I’ve got some battery acid that needs pouring on my award-winning Rose Garden…
　
… aaah, much better. Now, on with the review.


The action though, I will say, is very well choreographed. Visually it’s exciting and fast paced and the lightsabre battles are the highlight of the movie. But sadly, that’s about it.

Episode I, was the most anticipated movie in history. The question being asked by fans was, "Where did the story begin?"
Sadly, it started in a thrown together excuse for a prequel hidden under a blanket of CGI.

Add to that, Qui Gon Jinn’s use of a tarted-up Ladies’ Sensor Excel Leg-Razor as a communications device and you’ve got a sure-fire stinker.

All in all a disappointing start to the new trilogy.
My rating 22%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5

Episode II: Attack Of The Clones.

With the debacle that was Episode I, you’d have thought Lucas would have learned his lesson and improved the new trilogy. Sadly again, he didn’t.

The movie revolves around Obi wan Kenobi’s and Anakin Skywalker’s adventures around the galaxy.
A bounty hunter named Django Fett has been hired as a mould for a Clone Army, ordered in secret by a (now dead) Jedi Knight.
Obi Wan is sent to the planet Kamino to investigate this disturbing event and let the council know what the truth of the matter is.
Anakin has been reassigned to protect Amidala (now a Senator) as an unknown party and an unknown assassin have targeted her for termination.

Anakin and Amidala’s love story is expanded on as they spend more time together alone in hiding. Eventually finding a common ground and falling in love.

Anakin’s feelings of jealousy toward other Jedi and his delusions of grandeur show a hotter side to his temperament. Eventually a murderous side surfaces when he returns to his home planet of Tatooine and is met with family tragedy.
Obi Wan in the interim has discovered more about the Clone Army and has discovered that the Trade Federation are still up to no good and are working alongside another Sith Lord called Count Dooku and an alien race called the Geonosians to build a super weapon.
Eventually Obi Wan is captured while snooping and Anakin and Amidala decide to rescue him.
In the meantime, the Jedi Council have gathered all the nearby Jedi and are also heading to Obi Wan’s aide. The Jedi have utilised the Clone soldiers too, to aide them in fighting Dooku, the Trade Federation and the Geonosians.
At the end, Anakin and Amidala marry in secret.

The movie is far more action orientated. It’s full of chases and sabre fights and relies extremely heavily on CGI.
The movie as a whole feels as though Lucas wanted to stick the characters in as many different (and unentertaining) CG cartoon situations as possible.

Yoda, C3PO, the Jedi, the Clones and even Django Fett are all, at some point, turned into a CG character.
R2D2 can apparently fly now too.


It’s incredibly gimmicky and cliché. It’s almost an experiment in what they can do with CGI.


You can tell also that Lucas didn’t have a single set built for the film. It’s all green-screen. All of it.
The writing too is substandard.

Lucas’ take on romance between two beautiful young people is incredibly cringe-worthy.
A child could have written it in crayon and still given it more passion and chemistry.

McGregor is again spot on though as Obi Wan, but you can see he’s starting to wonder what he’s doing in such a pile.
Portman is more wooden this time around. Though she tries her best with the poor script, she seems fed up too.
Count Dooku is a mild highlight. A star turn from Christopher Lee brings a touch of campness to the movie. Eventually though, he too is turned into a CG character.

Anakin Skywalker is again, played by a complete muppet.
Hayden Christensen has absolutely no charisma and recites his lines as though he’s forgetting them as he does so.
He also has no chemistry with love-interest Portman. He’s apt with a lightsabre though but sadly it’s just not enough. Two great big thumbs down from me. He’s actually worse than Jake Lloyd.

To be honest, I’m finding it hard to find a good point on this one. Even the huge Jedi/Clone fight on Geonosia is a bit of a miss affair. It looks thrilling and flashy, it’s just got no substance.

I’m thinking the storyline is better suited to Star Wars than Episode I was. Anakin’s darker side is expanded to an extent, but it doesn’t save the movie.

All in all the worst of the Star Wars franchise, a better story than Episode I but still not anything worthy of the Star Wars title.
My rating 17%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1

Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith.

Almost back to basics for the franchise.

Revolving around Anakin’s fall into the Dark Side Of The Force.
He has been sent with Obi Wan to rescue Chancellor Palpatine from the clutches of another bad guy called General Grievous. Grievous is the commander of a droid army and is working along side Dooku. Both however are under the command of Darth Sidious.
After the rescue of Palpatine, they all return to the planet of Coruscant (home of the Jedi Council and the Galactic Senate) and Anakin meets up with Amidala.
She drops the news on him that she is pregnant with his child. This tears Anakin’s feelings inside. Does he stay with her and admit everything to the Council and risk his future with the Jedi, or keep everything secret with her and risk being caught out?

In the meantime, Obi Wan has been sent on a mission to recapture General Grievous without Anakin by his side, which upsets him even further.
To make things worse, Anakin’s having visions of Amidala dying in childbirth.
Finding solace with Chancellor Palpatine, Anakin has his ego blown up by Palpatine’s praises and seeds of doubts are also sown when Palpatine says the Jedi don’t trust Anakin. Palpatine starts sowing seeds of temptation when he mentions that the Dark Side is much more powerful than the Jedi’s power.

With seeds sown, Palpatine reveals his true purpose in the story and Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side is completed when he kills a Jedi Master. Upon meeting the newly appointed Emperor, Anakin is redubbed as Darth Vader.

It’s now up to Obi Wan and Yoda to bring an end to this startling turn of events before Vader’s murderous rampage wipes out all of the Jedi in the galaxy.

Episode III is by far the best written of the prequels in terms of story.
Lucas’ dialogue is still childlike but the story is far superior to the first two.
It’s complex and yet is still easy to follow.

There isn’t a massive expansion in the universe per-say, but the expansion of the Anakin/Emperor/Amidala/Kenobi circle is very well pieced together.
Anakin’s fall, (though loosely told in this review) is a very realised sequence of events. It’s very real in the fact that Anakin doesn’t realise he’s actually now a bad guy.

The effects of the movie, though heavily CGI, are much better placed than in the first two prequels. They’re less cartoony and edge more toward real looking. They’re also utilised in a more viewer friendly way rather than just smashed into your face with colourful abandonment.

The action in the movie, particularly between Obi Wan and Vader is an absolute joy to watch. They really went all out for the sabre fight.
It does go a little awry when they throw some CG fire and explosions in there though. All the audience needed was Kenobi Vs Vader.

As for the acting, Hayden Christensen is quite a shock as Anakin. He must have had acting lessons between the two movies. He’s still not perfect, but he’s certainly improved.
McGregor and Portman do apt jobs as usual and Portman and Christensen have more of a chemistry on screen this time round too.

The movie as a whole is similar to Return Of The Jedi. It’s darker and more brooding than its predecessors. It’s much more violent too, it’s the only Star Wars movie to be rated higher than a PG. In Britain it carries a 12 certificate.

All in all not a perfect movie, still nowhere near to the original trilogy, but far superior to Episodes I & II.
My rating 55%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
3

[tomas12343]

Wow,you really put some effort and thought into it...good work, although I did like alien 3 a lot..

[JayDee]

I too love Ghostbusters. Would have made my top 100 list a few years back but I think I've watched it too often now and the impact has lessened a touch. Will need to leave it a while and return to it fresh.

Love Batman Begins as well and massively preferred it to The Dark Knight, which I just found too dark and depressing. I felt Begins got the mix between gritty action film and fun superheroics just right.

[The Rodent]

Cheers guys. Once again I'm glad my reviews are working.

I've got some special movies lined up for the next week or so:

Review #31: Critters.
Review #32: The Matrix Trilogy.
Review #33: Arachnophobia.
Review #34: Gremlins and Gremlins 2.
Review #35: The Shawshank Redemption.
Review #36: Walking Tall.
Review #37: Ransom.
Review #38: John Carpenter’s The Fog.
Review #39: Dog Soldiers.
Review #40: The Shining.

[honeykid]

Assuming that's The Rock version of Walking Tall, may I recommend this.

http://uk.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/14/MPW-7354
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070895/

[The Rodent]

How did you know? :D

[akatemple]

I really liked Dog Soldiers, thought it was a great movie, looking forward to see what you think.

[honeykid]

How did you know? :D
Lucky guess? :D

Yeah, Dog Soldier's rocks. :cool:

[The Rodent]

Review #31: Critters.

Low budget horror flick that was part of the 1980s Puppet Creature Feature market. Other favourites include Troll, Ghoulies, Gremlins and Munchies.

A handful of tennis ball sized aliens known as ‘Crites’, who have escaped from their space prison, crash land on earth just outside a small town called Grover’s Bend.
They then make their way to the nearest farm (owned by the ‘Brown’ family) and cause them a whole night of havoc and terror. Hot on their trail though are two Intergalactic Bounty Hunters.
Upon eating various farm animals and the occasional person too, the Critters start growing in size and become a more formidable foe.

It’s a brilliantly made movie that uses the ‘people trapped in house’ plot as it’s basis.
The movie also heads out into the town too when the Bounty Hunters arrive and the ‘fish out of water’ premise is utilised when they can’t seem to find the Crites and the town’s folk don’t take them seriously.

There are elements of all sorts of genres too. Many regard the movie as either sci-fi or horror.
It’s actually a modge of all sorts: Tongue in cheek comedy, gory horror, shocker, claustrophobic haunted house style and sci-fi.
It mixes all the elements really well too.

I wouldn’t say the shooting style is any better than any other movie of it’s type but it’s very well put together in terms of action, shocks and acting.

Scream-Queen Dee Wallace Stone and Billy Green Bush as the wife and husband Heads of the Brown family are very well played by both. They have an on-screen chemistry and a homely comfortableness about them.
Nadine Van Der Velde as the daughter is spot on as the teenage daughter and beautiful Damsel in distress (sort of).
Billy Zane makes his second ever movie appearance as Nadine Van Der Velde’s new squeeze. Being that he’s on screen for a short time, he’s actually a memorable character.
Scott Grimes plays the main part of the cast as the youngest of the family. Even at such a young age Grimes really shines in the role as the mischievous scamp who’s got an old soul about him. You knew even back then that Grimes has a long career ahead of him.

The effects of the movie are a touch dated by today’s standard but they work with the low budget shooting style of the film really well.

The characters too are well realised, especially the Crites (who are also ''puppeted' brilliantly too) and the Bounty Hunters are brilliantly original.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the pretty weak writing for the ending, but for budget constraints and the feel of the movie, it does kind of work.

All in all it’s a funny, shocking, mildly gory but relatively standard sci-fi-comedy-horror and is a very close runner up to Gremlins in the Creature Feature genre.
My rating 89%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

[akatemple]

I just rewatched Critters 1 & 2, I haven't seen them since I was like 12 so it nice see them again. It's always funny to watch stuff like that and see what you thought was so scary when you were a kid is now just funny and Critters is just so bad that it's good, nice review. :)

[The Rodent]

Review #32: The Matrix Trilogy.

The Matrix.

An original take on alternate realities, The Matrix revolves around a computer hacker calling himself ‘Neo’, who feels that something isn’t right with the world he lives in.
A group of strangely dressed and oddly acting people appear in his life and explain that they can ‘free’ him from the constraints of a humdrum life and can explain to him exactly what this concept of The Matrix is.

He takes up their offer and falls into a world of intrigue and mystery and super-human powers.
Eventually he unwillingly realises that he will become the most powerful of these people and will lead them to victory in an ongoing war that’s taking place in another reality between man and machine.

The movie as a whole is very well put together. It keeps the air of mystery going throughout the entire running time. The audience follows Neo’s journey of discovery brilliantly. The ideas of the discoveries are kept under wraps until Neo discovers them, putting the viewer on a par with the character’s surprise and shock.

The effects too are fantastically developed. The first movie of it’s kind, on a par with Jurassic Park, the filmmakers actually invented certain technologies to make their vision come to life and in the process they coined the phrase "Bullet Time".

The filmmakers went toward a lot of practical effects too, rather than just full on CGI.
The entire film is also cutting edge in its design, especially some of the plotlines.

The acting is absolutely bang on too.
Keanu Reeves really hits his role with perfection. With the movie being such a far out idea, he really encapsulates the lost-puppy persona needed for Neo.
Lawrence Fishburn is marvellous as Morpeus. The leader of the group who take Neo on his journey. He’s the epitome of cool.
Hugo Weaving is fantastic as the otherworldly and emotionless villain Agent Smith. He made it to #33 in my Top 40 Villains.

The one fault with the movie is that it’s extremely serious. There’s little in the way of humour or respite in the depressed feelings of the characters.

All in all it’s a brilliant sci-fi-mystery ride into a different yet also very recognisable world.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
4.5

----------

Matrix Reloaded.

This is where things already started to go awry for the Matrix franchise.

The movie revolves around Neo again. This time he’s become an all-powerful super human and has unlocked his mind from ‘reality’.
Agent Smith is up to his old tricks and has learned a few new techniques for defeating Neo from within The Matrix and outside of it too.
The premise is that of the first movie, an ongoing war between man and machine and a twist in the story for the human city called Zion.

The movie is orientated toward action and flashy imagery more than anything else.
There is expansion in the storyline with Neo’s new missions and an introduction to the human city of Zion and new characters are introduced to the story but it feels extremely linear.

The special effects are an improvement to an extent but a lot of it has been turned from practical camera use, into full on CG scenes that show a lot of break up as they’re not rendered brilliantly. Some of it is, but most of it isn’t.

What made The Matrix such a success was the development of things the audience had never seen before. This movie just feels like a typical Hollywood sequel: Flashy and hollow.

The action is exciting though, it’s well choreographed, but it’s just too CG to be anywhere near as exciting as the more practical first movie.
The martial arts scenes with Neo are probably the best part of the whole movie though, a lot of work went into the fights and Reeves really shows his worth as an action star.

The acting again though is bang on the money. The addition of the new characters and new sub-plots broadens the scope of the movie.

All in all a vast and sprawling action-up with a stretched out story that is exciting at times, but it’s just too much like an expensive cartoon.
My rating 69%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png
3.5


----------

Matrix Revolutions.

The third of the franchise revolves more around the war outside of The Matrix, rather than Neo and the group’s interactions within The Matrix.

Neo’s new mission is to take on Agent Smith’s new found super powers and make a pact with the machines, as Smith is now becoming a serious threat to them too.
Cue a big showdown both inside and outside The Matrix that lasts most of the movie’s running time.

The problem is that the movie has no real mystery to it anymore.
The plotline is very, very linear: The characters have an idea, they make it happen, then move onto the next idea and so on. After the first half-hour you feel bored with it all and are hoping for the ending to come along.

The CG is extremely heavy again but this time it’s utilised with much more thought. It’s more reality based than being an expensive cartoon, so thumbs up for that.

The action too, though heavily CG is actually very entertaining and much more exciting than the second movie, especially during the fighting in Zion.

The Neo/Smith CGI laden showdown however is a bit of a letdown. The filmmakers went for style rather than substance and it feels very hollow.

The actors are starting to look a little tired of it all too. They do there jobs well, but the charisma and energy they had in the first two movies has somewhat diminished.

All in all, better effects than the first two, a few extra sub-plots and much more exciting in the action scenes, but not really a great end to what started out so promisingly.
My rating is the same as the second movie at 64%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
3.5

[The Rodent]

Review #33: Arachnophobia.

Implausible comedy horror revolving around a Venezuelan super spider that escapes its surroundings and ends up in a small American town and mates with a house-spider and creates a pile of deadly offspring.
The town is then subjected to jumpy terror and painful death and Jeff Daniels and John Goodman have to do what they can to find the spider’s nest and kill the main mating pair.

The movie, for what it’s based on is actually very entertaining.
Some of the jumpy bits are well conceived and would certainly put an Arachnophobe on the edge of their seat. Everyone else just gets the jitters watching the creepy-crawlies hiding under various things and jumping out at people, including toilet seats.

The acting is about as standard for the type of low budget horror movie it is. Jeff Daniels plays it relatively serious and hits the odd piece of subtle comedy brilliantly.
John Goodman in particular is funny. More in a subtle way rather than his usual wacky outlandishness and it’s a shame that he’s not seen on screen more often.

The effects of the film are at times extremely poor. The giant animatronic/puppeted spiders aren’t very convincing and there are a lot of mistakes with the puppetry.
However, the work the filmmakers put in when using real spiders is well choreographed. A lot of the time you wonder how they did it.

There's not much else to say on the film really.

If it weren’t for the mistakes and puppetry, the movie would rate a lot higher, though still, all in all it’s a cosy night in with the girlfriend cuddling your arm.
My rating 68%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
3.5

[nebbit]

Saw Arachnophobia at the movies, went with my friend and her children, they were very scared :eek:

[honeykid]

I like Arachnophobia, but then, I like a lot of those disaster/nature against man films. If you do, I'd recommend this beauty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Kingdomofthespiders.png
Kingdom Of The Spiders

[The Rodent]

Review #34: Super 8.

Small change in the above list I posted before. I’ve decided to review Super 8 instead of Gremlins.

Based on the premise of a train crash caught on camera by a bunch of school kids in the late 1970s.
A creature of some kind, being transported on the train, has now been released into a nearby town and is causing the disappearances of people and animals and even more strangely, the disappearance of electronic gadgets, from microwave ovens to air-conditioning units and power-lines.

On the creatures heels are Army and Government types who (unbeknown to the group of kids), are also after whoever filmed the crash as one of the head-honchos has found a film box left behind at the crash site.


What starts off as a promising mystery horror/shocker, sadly turns very, very slowly into a sci-fi thriller and then drops it’s clever build up and turns into full on CG sci-fi and extremely quick successions of explanatory dialogue.

The writing is pretty simplistic and the story is very linear too.
It’s a simple ABC-123-set-of-events and circumstances that grow larger as the film progresses, eventually the simplistic climax of the movie arrives and isn’t exactly as grand as the viewer would hope.


There are the usual Spielberg-esk family-life subplots going on between the characters: Broken homes and divorced parents, other parents that are dead, various kids all fancying the same person, etc, etc, with all the various different characters having to reconcile all of the various differences between them all.

There are some well-conceived jumpy bits and occasional hits of family orientated humour mixed in though, another Spielberg-esk touch.


The effects of the movie reminded me a lot of Cloverfield, keeping the creature in the shadows with only the occasional glimpse, but sadly, unlike Cloverfield, this creature doesn’t give the viewer a thrill once it’s revealed. It’s designed very much like the Cloverfield monster too, just smaller.

Don’t get me wrong, the CGI is well rendered, really well rendered, it’s just a very bog-standard creature for such a well put together build up.


The acting in the film is probably the best part of it all.
The kids used as the main bunch of characters are all non-actors. They play their roles really well too. They’re believable and carry the story and emotions fantastically. There are scenes of genuine upset and emotion that the audience can’t help but feel too. The kids’ acting is brilliant.
The adult cast all carry their various roles well too, but it’s the kids that make the film worth watching.

It’s sad really, being a sci-fi fan, I so wanted to like this film.
However it feels too much of a rip of various ideas from various other films, E.T, Close Encounters, Cloverfield etc. Even the music reminded me of J.J Abrams' Star Trek.

A lot of the homage paid to other films made me think I was watching a bigger budgeted version of Paul, only without the comedy. There's just nothing really new about the film.

All in all it’s entertaining and flashy on the outside, but feels a little too hollow and linear to make the ranks of classic film in ten years time from now. To be honest, I think it’ll be long forgotten well before then.
My rating 33%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
2

[The Rodent]

Review #35: The Shawshank Redemption.

Another fantastic movie appearing in my reviews, based on Stephen King novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.

It revolves around a banker, Andy Dufresne, being incarcerated in Shawshank Prison for murdering his wife and her lover.
He’s subjected to beatings and rape by other inmates and eventually finds friends in some of the other inmates and even a few of the Guards due to his financial knowledge, eventually becoming a well known and respected inmate himself. Eventually he’s caught up in a money-laundering scam with the prison Warden.

Every day, he defends his innocence for the murders, claiming that he loved his wife.
After 30 years of imprisonment, possible evidence appears that he was actually telling the truth all along.

It’s a wonderfully shot and beautifully written movie, if at times very disturbing and brutal.
The story telling is extremely well put together. Some might say it’s a basic sequence of events but the little twists and turns and the occasional surprise in the plot make the movie a joy to watch.

The character writing is also absolutely well executed. They’re funny, rude, stupid at times, depressing, violent and very, very real.
You really care about the main group of characters and the odd hit of tragedy really hits the viewer hard.

At times the movie can be hard to watch because of the nature of nature and the human psyche that the movie delves into throughout the running time. Not hard in a boring way, hard in an emotional way, the movie encapsulates human nature better than any movie of its kind.

The acting is absolutely bang on the money from all parties, Tim Robbins excels in his best role I’ve ever seen him play as Dufresne. As the movie progresses his character changes incredibly, he even physically ages as the movie progresses.
Morgan Freeman as Ellis Boyde Redding, Dufresne’s best friend and cohort in the prison is brilliantly wise and yet approachable and friendly. The friendship between him and Dufresne is almost a kinship and the acting really shows their connection.
Clancy Brown is again the ‘hard case’ Guard who’s not afraid to dish out the occasional beating, typecast maybe but Brown is actually at his best. The brilliant writing of the characters gives him a human side, which makes you like his character to an extent.

All in all, it’s a very low key movie and feels low budget in the way it looks but don’t let that put anyone off, Shawshank is a movie that should be, no, must be viewed by anyone who enjoys movies. It has absolutely everything and certainly surprised me when I saw it for the first time.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[JayDee]

Agree almost totally with your last two reviews. While I'd rate Super 8 slightly higher I did find it incredibly disappointing. And Shawshank is just wonderful!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Kingdomofthespiders.png
Kingdom Of The Spiders

Is that film as gloriously dreadful/awesome as it looks? :D

[The Rodent]

Review #36: The Abyss.

Another change in movie, I was going to write up a review for Walking Tall, but decided that The Abyss was a better choice.

A team of underwater oil-drillers using a sophisticated underwater rig is called in by the Navy to salvage nuclear warheads from a sunken submarine.
Hesitant at first, the team decide to help with the recovery and find themselves plunged (excuse the pun) into a world of wonder, terror and amazement when they’re cut off from their company’s ship and the rest of the Navy fleet during a sudden storm.
With two of the crew having seen strange lights outside in the ocean depths and the Navy Seals who have come aboard starting to show signs of pressure induced psychosis, life for the drill team is going to get a whole lot more interesting than just the normal day-to-day drilling for oil.

James Cameron’s underwater epic is an absolutely magnificent piece of filmmaking.
It utilises every trick in the book, from shocks, violence and claustrophobia to wonder, amazement, mystery and even comedy.
It’s exceptionally well written.
The underwater and flooding scenes are brilliantly choreographed too, I couldn't help but gasp for air while watching.

The twists and turn in the story telling (and there are several) keep the audience on the edge of their seats as you never know where the story is going to go next.
A lot of the plot devices and ideas seen in the film are very original too.
The special effects in the movie are, even today, fascinating. The water tentacle especially, is one of the highlights.

ILM paved the way for films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and pretty much every other CG movie since with the technology created for the movie.

Maybe one thing that lets the movie down is that there is some puppetry used at the end of the film that is quite obvious, but it does work with the film’s several subject matters.

The acting is also brilliant.
The entire cast are extremely comfortable around each other, giving the effect needed of people who have spent a long time with each other in their work and the uncomfortable feelings they get when the Navy arrive on their rig is felt by the viewer.
Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are wonderfully comic as the feuding soon-to-be-divorced husband and wife Heads of the drill team.
Michael Biehn as Lt. Coffee is an absolute joy as the Navy team leader whose character changes rapidly over the film. Biehn made to the top 10 in my top 40 villains for his role in the film.

All in all a near perfect thrill ride of CG wonder and claustrophobic fear.


My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[cinemaafficionado]

Review #36: The Abyss.

Another change in movie, I was going to write up a review for Walking Tall, but decided that The Abyss was a better choice.

A team of underwater oil-drillers using a sophisticated underwater rig is called in by the Navy to salvage nuclear warheads from a sunken submarine.
Hesitant at first, the team decide to help with the recovery and find themselves plunged (excuse the pun) into a world of wonder, terror and amazement when they’re cut off from their company’s ship and the rest of the Navy fleet during a sudden storm.
With two of the crew having seen strange lights outside in the ocean depths and the Navy Seals who have come aboard starting to show signs of pressure induced psychosis, life for the drill team is going to get a whole lot more interesting than just the normal day-to-day drilling for oil.

James Cameron’s underwater epic is an absolutely magnificent piece of filmmaking.
It utilises every trick in the book, from shocks, violence and claustrophobia to wonder, amazement, mystery and even comedy.
It’s exceptionally well written.
The underwater and flooding scenes are brilliantly choreographed too, I couldn't help but gasp for air while watching.

The twists and turn in the story telling (and there are several) keep the audience on the edge of their seats as you never know where the story is going to go next.
A lot of the plot devices and ideas seen in the film are very original too.
The special effects in the movie are, even today, fascinating. The water tentacle especially, is one of the highlights.

ILM paved the way for films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and pretty much every other CG movie since with the technology created for the movie.

Maybe one thing that lets the movie down is that there is some puppetry used at the end of the film that is quite obvious, but it does work with the film’s several subject matters.

The acting is also brilliant.
The entire cast are extremely comfortable around each other, giving the effect needed of people who have spent a long time with each other in their work and the uncomfortable feelings they get when the Navy arrive on their rig is felt by the viewer.
Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are wonderfully comic as the feuding soon-to-be-divorced husband and wife Heads of the drill team.
Michael Biehn as Lt. Coffee is an absolute joy as the Navy team leader whose character changes rapidly over the film. Biehn made to the top 10 in my top 40 villains for his role in the film.

All in all a near perfect thrill ride of CG wonder and claustrophobic fear. My rating 98%.

Ahh.... the rat turned into a prince ( refering to your avatar ):D
Which Walking Tall were you going to do, the Joe Don Baker one or The Rock re-make?

[The Rodent]

It was going to be The Rock (aka Dwayne).
Decided not to. Might do it later at some point. Anyways, here's two more for the collection.

Review #37: Troll Hunter.

A third change from the above list. I saw Troll Hunter when it was first released but saw it again the other day and had to let everyone know what I thought.
I’ve watched the movie in both formats i.e.; In Norwegian with English subtitles and also in redubbed English.

Another movie based on ‘found footage’ reveals three 20 somethings making a documentary about a hunter who is illegally shooting bears in Norway find themselves thrown into a world of Norwegian mythology when they decide to follow the hunter in question.
It turns out that this hunter is actually a troll hunter working for a secret government system and he takes the three filmmakers on a trip of terror and discovery in the wilderness of northern Europe.

The films premise is sound, basing it in real life situations is a mark of originality by the filmmakers but the movie itself mainly falls flat after that.
The only other redeeming features of the film are the CG trolls. Though the movie is relatively low budget, the CGI is exceptionally well rendered and very original. They utilise existing mythology too with the look of the creatures which adds authenticity as well.

The acting in the film is sadly, lacklustre at best. It’s very wooden and obviously scripted. There’s no naturalness with the dialogue either.

The physical reactions of the cast are also very scripted which is another sad part of the film, it destroys the aura of reality that the film is trying desperately to build.

There are also sections of the plot that are based on what the filmmakers had to work with due to low budget.
A side effect of this is that certain plot elements are unintentionally laugh-out-loud funny, anyone who has already seen the movie will know what I’m talking about when I say "Electrical Pylons".

All in all a well rendered CG film when the CGI is actually used. Sadly, it’s unintentionally funny, badly acted and certainly not worth the £16 that I paid for it on DVD.

My rating 11%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5


Review #38: John Carpenter’s The Fog.

As a small American fishing town prepares to celebrate the 100th anniversary of it’s completion, strange and disturbing things start occurring just after midnight on the anniversary when a strange glowing fog rolls in from the ocean.
Car alarms start going off, animals become disturbed, gold coins transform into pieces of wood and a fishing boat is found adrift at sea with all the crewmembers either dead or missing.
During the incidents’ occurrences, a Priest finds a diary that was written by his Grandfather at the time of the town’s completion. It contains disturbing and upsetting stories of murder and theft that lead to the town’s beginnings 100 years before.

The movie is an absolute entertainer. Carpenter’s writing is extremely well put together.
His take on a simple ghost story is incredibly original.

The effects are very rudimentary, it’s mainly fog and lights, but work absolutely brilliantly. Rob Bottin’s creations are simple, gory, dark and at times are quite disturbing when seen. They’re kept to the shadows and are hidden behind fog most of the time too, which gives the scary moments more impact.

The acting too is top notch. There’s no actual lead role as such, it’s more along the lines of various town’s folk in their own survival story.
An incredibly sexy Adrienne Barbeau, Scream-Queen Jamie Lee-Curtis, John Houseman and Janet Leigh are all on top form as the runners, screamers and hiders.
The thing that let’s the movie down? Not a lot really, as usual with Carpenter he makes his own soundtrack for the movie and it’s far from being his best.

All in all a cracking little horror that keeps things small-scale and is very atmospheric.


My rating 74%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4

[The Rodent]

Review #39: Dog Soldiers.

A small group of British Squaddies on a training programme in a forest in the middle of Scotland’s nowhere, is thrown into a night of horror survival when they find themselves preyed upon, by what they perceive as a pack of giant wolves.
They happen upon the gruesome remains of another group of soldiers and immediately take ammo and weapons and head for a way out of the forest.
Eventually they find themselves trapped in a farmhouse and have to spend the night defending their stronghold against an inhuman and seemingly invincible enemy.

The low budget horror movie makes a welcome return to the screen.
Dog Soldiers starts out as a normal, funny buddy movie and rapidly nosedives into a genuinely funny, gory and shocking horror movie with gun-action thrown in for good measure.

The writing is pretty simple, it’s the bog-standard ‘trapped in house, monster trying to get in’ thriller in a similar vein to Romero’s Zombie movies. It’s kept small scale and utilises suspense perfectly.
But the addition of the prey being a bunch of Squaddies gives the movie a much broader range with the action and especially, the comedic elements.

The characterisation of the soldiers is absolutely spot on, especially with the attitudes and dialogue, they’re funny, pally and also know how to kick @rse and take orders when needed.

The main sense of realism incorporated into the movie is with the cast that were picked for the various roles, they’ve all got different accents and are in their late teens and early 20s, with only the Sergeant and Corporal being older than the rest.

The cast doesn’t disappoint either.
They’re funny, engaging, serious and tough and are believable as British Soldiers. They all hit their lines with professionalism and never miss a beat during action scenes.
Jon Pertwee as the Sarge is particularly good, he’s extremely believable and well cast in the role.
As too is Kevin McKidd who takes charge when the Sarge is injured.
Liam Cunningham adds a touch of British Villainy to the mix and has an air of campness about him too.

The effects of the movie are, for a low budget film, extremely well made. The creatures are kept to the shadows until the end and when revealed, certainly don’t disappoint. They’re men-in-suits, but with a difference and there’s no CGI contained in the movie either, which gives the whole thing a grounded feel.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the running time, it’s just not long enough.
100 minutes? I wanted at least another hour.
Still, that doesn’t remove the fact that it’s an extremely good piece of writing, acting and shooting.

All in all it’s a thrill-ride of comedy, horror and realism, in a set of unreal but still, oddly believable circumstances.


My rating is an easily given 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[cinemaafficionado]

Review #35: The Shawshank Redemption.

Another fantastic movie appearing in my reviews, based on Stephen King novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.

It revolves around a banker, Andy Dufresne, being incarcerated in Shawshank Prison for murdering his wife and her lover.
He’s subjected to beatings and rape by other inmates and eventually finds friends in some of the other inmates and even a few of the Guards due to his financial knowledge, eventually becoming a well known and respected inmate himself. Eventually he’s caught up in a money-laundering scam with the prison Warden.

Every day, he defends his innocence for the murders, claiming that he loved his wife.
After 30 years of imprisonment, possible evidence appears that he was actually telling the truth all along.

It’s a wonderfully shot and beautifully written movie, if at times very disturbing and brutal.
The story telling is extremely well put together. Some might say it’s a basic sequence of events but the little twists and turns and the occasional surprise in the plot make the movie a joy to watch.

The character writing is also absolutely well executed. They’re funny, rude, stupid at times, depressing, violent and very, very real.
You really care about the main group of characters and the odd hit of tragedy really hits the viewer hard.

At times the movie can be hard to watch because of the nature of nature and the human psyche that the movie delves into throughout the running time. Not hard in a boring way, hard in an emotional way, the movie encapsulates human nature better than any movie of its kind.

The acting is absolutely bang on the money from all parties, Tim Robbins excels in his best role I’ve ever seen him play as Dufresne. As the movie progresses his character changes incredibly, he even physically ages as the movie progresses.
Morgan Freeman as Ellis Boyde Redding, Dufresne’s best friend and cohort in the prison is brilliantly wise and yet approachable and friendly. The friendship between him and Dufresne is almost a kinship and the acting really shows their connection.
Clancy Brown is again the ‘hard case’ Guard who’s not afraid to dish out the occasional beating, typecast maybe but Brown is actually at his best. The brilliant writing of the characters gives him a human side, which makes you like his character to an extent.

All in all, it’s a very low key movie and feels low budget in the way it looks but don’t let that put anyone off, Shawshank is a movie that should be, no, must be viewed by anyone who enjoys movies. It has absolutely everything and certainly surprised me when I saw it for the first time. My rating 100%.

Very nice review. Shawshank Redemption is probably the best prison movie ever made.
Quite a while back (1969) there was a gritty prison movie you might find interesting called Riot. Jim Brown and Gene Hackman head the cast. Other prison theme movies I liked:

Bruebaker ( Robert Redford )
Dead Man Walking ( Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon)
The Green Mile ( Tom Hanks )
An Innocent Man ( Tom Selleck )
Monster Ball ( Billy Bob Thorton, Halley Berry, Heath Ledger)
Penitentiary I,II,III ( Leon Isaac Kennedy )
Runaway Train ( John Voight, Eric Roberts )
Undisputed I (Ving Rhames, Wesley Snipes), II ( Ben Cross ), III ( ScottAdkins)

[The Rodent]

Thanks for the list. Green Mile was good, might take a look at An Innocent Man though, I like Selleck.

[The Rodent]

Review #40: The Shining.

Based on Stephen King’s novel.

Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) takes a job at the Overlook Hotel when everyone has left during the winter closing season. His job involves taking care of the grounds and the inner workings of the hotel’s systems, including central heating, maintaining the electrics and basically keeping the hotel in one piece while nobody is there.

Stories about the last caretaker of the hotel murdering his family and then killing himself are ignored by Jack and he takes the job without much hesitation, bringing with him is his wife, Wendy, and their young son, Danny, to the hotel to stay with him over the winter months.
After only a short time the family are snowed in and Jack starts having bad dreams and behaves erratically, scaring Wendy and Danny.

When Danny too starts having nightmares and says there are strange people in the hotel with them, Wendy realises there’s something very wrong with Jack, Danny and the Overlook Hotel and has to fight for her and her son’s life to get away.

It’s another well-made horror movie from me, The Shining is one of the all time greats that shows exactly how to make a horror work.
The movie is exceptionally well put together in terms of writing and scene placement. As too are the sets used for the film, they’re claustrophobic at times with the long, thin, winding, identical corridors and extremely atmospheric and spooky when the movie extends to other parts of the hotel, including the outside maze in the hotel gardens.

The scenes of horror and violence in the film are also extremely well played by all the actors.

The movie also contains a lot of unanswered questions and leaves the viewer in a mild state of confusion at the end, which makes the movie all the more haunting.

There aren’t any special effects per say in the film but occasionally there are spooky flashbacks containing disturbing scenes, which are handled extremely well.

As for the acting, Nicholson is an absolute joy as the twisted Jack Torrance. He made it to #3 in my Top 40 Villains list. He’s edgy, twitchy and Nicholson even manages to get some (albeit satanic) humour out of the character.
Shelley Duvall as Wendy is more of a scream queen in the film. Hats off to Shelley though, she cries pretty much throughout the entire film and handles the quieter scenes with a motherly care, she is at times a little wooden though, which is probably the only bad thing in the film.
Danny Lloyd as the son, Danny, is another marvel. At only 7 years old he really hits the role with the professionalism of much older actors.

All in all a marvel of horror, gore and spooky thrills. An exceptional piece of work from Stanley Kubrick.


My rating 96%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[Nausicaä]

All in all a well rendered CG film when the CGI is actually used. Sadly, it’s unintentionally funny, badly acted and certainly not worth the £16 that I paid for it on DVD. My rating 10%.



I'm with you(the acting didn't bother me though), really don't get the praise Troll Hunter has been getting. My blu-ray was only £9... I feel your pain. ;)

[earlsmoviepicks]

I like your review style-- to the point and reasonable. And I find myself agreeing with much of your take on things, so you must be right! :D:D

[The Rodent]

I like your review style-- to the point and reasonable. And I find myself agreeing with much of your take on things, so you must be right! :D:D

I'm with you(the acting didn't bother me though), really don't get the praise Troll Hunter has been getting. My blu-ray was only £9... I feel your pain. ;)

Cheers guys. Glad I'm doing a good job and you're enjoying my writing.

Coming up for reviews 41-50 are going to be mainly franchises and sequels and only three completely original movies (be prepared though, some of these are going to be torn apart).

41: Indiana Jones Foursome.
42: Rodriguez Predators.
43: Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy.
44: Rocky 1-6.
45: The Lost Boys.
46: Evolution.
47: Alien Franchise (including my review for Alien 3 from an earlier review).
48: The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3 (plus a runover from my earlier Jurassic Park review).
49: Gremlins 1 & 2.
50: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (original).

[The Rodent]

Review #41: Indiana Jones Foursome.

Decided to kick off the 40s with all 4 Indiana Jones movies, in the order they were made, in one big review. Hope you enjoy.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

A schoolteacher and archaeologist, Dr Henry Walton ‘Indiana’ Jones, is called into action to locate and/or discover what is believed to be the Ark of the Covenant.
Also on the trail of the Ark however, are the Nazis and Indiana Jones has to stop them before they can use it’s power to plunge the world into darkness.
‘Tagging’ along is Indy’s ex-girlfriend and old cohort, Marian Ravenwood. What awaits the duo is something greater than either can imagine and powerful enough to look into their very souls.

The first and original movie is an all time great, it mixes elements of all genres: Western, adventure, mystery, mythology, comedy, tragedy, and to an extent even a touch of sci-fi mixed in with mystical magic.

It’s an absolute masterpiece in how to write and carry out a story. The scene placement and look of the film is absolutely bang on with the old-school feel of grand adventure and discovery. Lucas and Spielberg have even been noted as saying they wanted to encapsulate the old adventure stories seen on TV in the 1930s and they really have managed it.

The effects of the movie are another good point. Most of the film is practical, explosions, gunfights etc and is extremely well choreographed. It’s only near the end that the computers and other special effects are brought into play and even by today’s standard, they hold up extremely well.

The action too is very well put together. It’s very heroic and engaging and Indy’s character is different to most as he has a human side and is vulnerable during fights. It’s not the run-of-the-mill-relentless-march-of-victory that’s seen in most film s of its type.

The acting from all parties is also bang on the money.
Harrison Ford was born to play Indy. Not only does he look right for the role, he’s smooth with the women, tough in a fight, rugged around the edges, yet is at times extremely approachable and friendly. He’s also as I said, vulnerable, which gives him a real side.
Karen Allen as Marian is another wonderful touch. She’s also tough and yet extremely vulnerable when she’s in jeopardy. Allen plays the role as almost a tomboy with a heart.

Mixing to all that, John Williams’ awesome soundtrack, it’s a sure-fire classic.
It’s extremely difficult to find a fault with the movie. It’s definitely a one of a kind.

All in all a great adventure/mystery/discovery and full of laughs and tragedy too. One for the history books.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
5


Temple Of Doom.

Indy and his little protégé, Shorty Round and a beautiful singer called Willie Scott, find themselves trapped in India after an old acquaintance tries to kill Indy. While there they come across a village that has a sacred stone taken from the village temple and that their children have also been stolen.
The village Elders believe that Indy has been sent from the Gods to help them.
Reluctantly Indy takes up the challenge and still being young he thinks about the money that would be involved in finding the precious rock.
Unbeknown to Indy and his two followers, what awaits them is a Temple of devil worship and torture, lead by a man who has seemingly superhuman powers and strength.

The second movie (though based before the first) is a Marmite question for Indy fans. You either like it or hate it.
Personally, I loved it just as much as the first, though unlike the first movie, this one does have faults.

It’s not much of a story compared to Raiders, it feels quite simplistic with the writing. There is a story there and some elements of mystery too, it’s just a simple ABC-123 set of events.

The characters in the movie have been written with a touch more comedy too rather than finding real life comedy in their predicaments.

The movie also, is a lot darker than its predecessor with the subject matter. I didn’t mind too much, it makes it stand out from the others.

The action and effects of the movie are again, very well choreographed and put together. It’s exciting and keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The acting, once again, is wonderfully played.

This time round there a touch of comic relief with Indy’s little helper Shorty Round. Key Huy Quan is brilliantly streetwise and also naïve at times in the sequence of strange events. He’s also brave and tough when called for.
Kate Capshaw as the spoilt brat Willie Scott, is another touch of comedy relief. She tends to become funnier in times of danger and when she’s in situations involving the outdoors, dirt and broken nails. Capshaw plays the role perfectly.

All in all, apart from the simple story, it’s another rollercoaster (ahem) of adventure and discovery.
My rating 99%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Last Crusade.

Set after the first movie, Indy is called into action again as the Nazis are on the hunt for more Christian antiquities. This time their after the Holy Grail, aka; The Cup Of Christ, and Indy has discovered that his father, Professor Henry Jones, a man who is the world’s leading expert on the Grail, has gone missing while trying to stop the Nazis.
Indy takes along Marcus Brody, a fellow schoolteacher and friend of his father and Dr Elsa Schneider, an Austrian Art Professor who had worked alongside Indy’s father when he went missing.
With a race against time for his father’s life and a race for the Grail, Indy will once again be thrown into a world of discovery and mythology in a bid to save mankind.

The third of the series is a fantastic return to the Indy that made the first so successful. It’s fantastically written and has many subtle levels of mystery and mythology. The mystery of the Grail is discovered throughout the story through Indy’s father’s teachings and is extremely well revealed over the running time.

The little twists and turns throughout the film are also well conceived.

The action scenes are again, choreographed with perfection. They’re exciting and explosive and again, are kept to being practical throughout the movie rather than outlandish effects.

The acting is by far the best of all three movies. Sean Connery as Professor Jones is an absolute mark of genius from the filmmakers. Connery, (even though he was James Bond) and Denholm Elliot as Marcus Brody, seem so out of their element as the stay-in-the-classroom Professors it actually gives them a loveability and a sense of comedic timing. The acting is bang on in their roles too.
John Rhys-Davis as Sallah returns from the first film as Indy’s cohort and friend and is gladly expanded as a character rather than a bit-part from the first film.
Alison Doody as Indy’s new love interest, Dr Schneider, is brilliantly sexy and has an untrustworthy edge about her.

All in all it’s a brilliant return to the Indy everyone loves and has more to it than the first movie too.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5


Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.

An ageing Dr Jones finds himself kidnapped by the Russian Military in 1957, in a bid to find an artefact that contains a great power. They wish to harness this power and rule the earth from beyond the constraints of modern technology.
Tagging along is a young man calling himself Mutt Williams, who claims that his mother and a mutual friend call Harold ‘Ox’ Oxley have also, been kidnapped by the Russians.
It’s up to Indy and Mutt to save their mutual friend and Mutt’s mother and stop the Russians from gaining a power greater than anything known in this world.

Sadly, it’s very hard to find anything good in this film.

The writing is extremely substandard and linear. There’s very little in the way of exciting action or any kind of mystery or mythology.
It feels extremely rushed, cashed in and very, very cheap.
A little twist in the Indy Legacy is in there, but it feels more of a gimmick rather than anything else.

A lot of the ideas used in the film are unused ideas from other Lucas and Spielberg collaberations, including the now infamous Nuking The Fridge scene.

The subject matter too is by far the worst part of it all. The filmmakers seem to have forgotten what Indy was all about. The 1930s TV series adventure. Ok the movie is now set in 1957, but the aura of Indy has been stamped on and left for dead.

The actors too are simply going through the motions as their characters. Ford as Indy seems kind of lost with it all, wondering why the hell he’s doing this.
A returning Karen Allen could have been a nice touch, but she too is extremely wooden.
Shia LeBeouf is a huge mistake. He delivers his lines like a robot and certainly doesn’t have the physique for the role he’s been cast into. He also tends to just flare his nostrils and look on with wide eyes when something remotely interesting happens.
By far the best part of the film is Cate Blanchett as the villainess Soviet Agent Irina Spalko. She revels in her role and never misses a beat and she’s certainly got an air of danger about her though she's still not perfect and seems also to be wondering why she's there.

As for the effects, Spielberg seems to have gone for full on CGI rather than practical effects and it’s not good CGI either. I’m afraid swinging through the jungle with CGI monkeys was completely lost on me.
CGI is used even when there’s no action on screen either, the entire movie feels hollow because of it.

All in all it’s a good job this wasn’t the first Indy movie. If it had been, it would have killed the franchise 30 years ago.
My rating 10%, mainly for Blanchett’s performance
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
0.5

[akatemple]

Great review of the Indiana Jones films, and I couldn't agree more with you about The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, here's hoping the next one will be better.

[The Rodent]

Review #42: Predators.

4 soldiers, all from different armies, a Yakuza hitman, a Colombian gangster, a criminal and a doctor, all strangers, find themselves waking up in mid-airdrop and land in a jungle.
Quickly they learn that an unseen force is hunting them and have to team up with one another and find a way out of their predicament and out of the jungle before they’re killed off one by one.

It’s a happy return to a more serious Predator movie. AvP had almost killed off the franchise with the universe crossover that it failed to construct.

Rodriguez has taken all the things that were great with the Predator franchise and utilised it in the best way that he could have and has added new takes and expansion to the mix as well.

The writing is simplistic, but there are a few touches of originality in the storyline and the filmmakers have gladly kept to the original Legends as much as possible. They’ve also expanded only just enough to make it watchable for those who have never seen the original movies and make it an acceptable movie for the already existing Preds fans.

The action too is very Predator-esk. It’s loud, fast and exciting to watch and often appears out of nowhere.

The effects of the film are another welcome return. The CGI is utilised brilliantly and the ‘dogs’ seen in the film are certainly a threat and look the part too.

The acting is pretty standard for the type of movie. I was dubious about Adrien Brody in the lead role but he really encapsulates the no nonsense soldier role brilliantly.
A sexy Alice Braga with a gun, is also good to watch. Her @ss is awesome.
Walton Goggins is probably the best of the lot as the convict. He’s rather strange and plays the role with a memorable, ‘bull-sh*tter’ style.

The main fault with the movie is that the snot and gore has, to an extent, been toned down in place of more stylish violence.
There are scenes of blood and guts, just not as graphic as the original movie and certainly less than Predator 2, though I guess that’s Rodriguez’ way of making a movie.
The thing is though, it works and makes the movie memorable.

Many say that Predators is a re-run of the first movie and I’d agree, it feels very samey, almost being the Superman Returns of the Predator franchise, but Rodriguez’ and director Nimrod’s collaboration really does work very well.

All in all it’s a surprisingly good, if less gory re-run of Predator and expands the legend in all the right places and at just the right amount.


My rating is a well deserved 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
4

[The Rodent]

Review #43: Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy.

Spider-Man.

Peter Parker, a nerdy, bullied schoolboy is bitten on the hand by a genetically enhanced super spider while on a school outing at a science lab. After a night of illness, he awakens the next morning to find he has strange new powers that allow him to jump far and crawl up walls and a strange marks on his wrists that allow him to squirt a web-like substance.
After a car-jacking incident takes the life of a family member, he vows to use his new powers to make sure the tragedy that he has suffered, never happens to anyone else again.
Designing himself a suit, he becomes the all-powerful Spider-Man.
Unknown to him, what will become his most well known enemy, the Green Goblin, has also been born in a lab experiment gone wrong. Goblin’s goal is to wipe out all threats to his company Oscorp, and becomes a danger to the city in the process.

Raimi’s movie is an absolute joy. Though grand in feel, it’s relatively low-key and short-but-sweet with a lot of the action but utilises the look and feel of a comic book brilliantly.

It’s written perfectly too, the scene placement and storyline is wonderfully put together. The audience are given time to actually care about the characters too.
The love story between Peter and Mary-Jane Watson is worked on too, which is a nice sub story to care about.

The special effects are the absolute highlight of the film. The movie is very heavy on CGI. There are one or two glitches here and there but seeing Spidey swing through the streets of New York is a thrill-ride. It’s fast, exhilarating and colourful and is extremely well rendered.
The action scenes, though short at times, are lots of fun.

Toby Maguire as Parker/Spidey is a perfect choice for the role. Maguire took the role seriously enough to physically train as hard as he did and has the perfect physique for the Web-Slinger and acts the role overall, brilliantly. He has the cheeky, self-assured Spidey down to a T.
Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is a joy to watch. He goes from normal guy to extremely evil, to comic book campy with absolute ease.
James Franco as Harry Osborn, Norman’s son and Peter’s best pal is good, but the role, apart from the half attempt at a love triangle, is barely expanded to more than a sub character.
J.K Simmons as Daily Bugle editor J Jonah Jameson is by far the most memorable of the characters. He absolutely smashes the role, he feels just like he’s stepped out of the comic. For me, he steals the movie when on screen.

Sadly though, the movie feels a little bare and empty for a Spider-Man film. It could do with more smash-em-up action in the mix.

All in all it’s a fun ride, lots of comic book fun and very colourful.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

Spider-Man 2.

Peter Parker has settled into his dual role as Peter/Spidey. The problem is that he’s settled too much. His college work and job are suffering and he’s running the risk of getting fired and flunking his studies.
Adding to that, his social life has tumbled and Mary-Jane is marrying another man.
With all the stress in his life, his powers have started to fail him.
A brilliant scientist, Dr Octavius meanwhile, has pioneered a new powerful form of energy through his research at Oscorp (now owned by James Franco’s character, Harry). Through a freak accident, Octavius’ Artificial Intelligent mechanical arms, (used for physically handling the energy), are welded to his spine and the A.I begins to control him. Spurned on by his love of his work, Octavius becomes a reckless danger to everyone in the city, with only one goal, personal gain. Harry, who blames Spider-Man for his father’s death, decides to use Octavius’ new power to kill Spidey in return for funding Octavius’ energy research. Unknown to Harry though, is that Spidey is his best pal, Peter.

Raimi’s sequel is a much grander thrill ride of effects and story writing. The legend of Spider-Man and his trials and tribulations is expanded massively throughout the movie. The story between him and Mary-Jane is worked on extensively too and also with Spidey’s relation to Harry.

It’s brilliantly put together on the story telling front.

The effects of the movie are also expanded and improved massively. The CGI action is bigger, louder and feels more like the comic book has jumped from the page.
The action itself is much grander in scale too rather than in short bursts.
The acting again is bang on the money. Maguire is given much more range with the tormented Peter/Spider-Man.

Kirsten Dunst and James Franco also are given more screen time and broader storylines.
Alfred Molina is another example of great acting, he really shines in his role as Octavius/Doc Ock. You can tell he’s enjoying every moment.
J.K Simmons steals the show again though when he’s on screen.

All in all a vast improvement on an already great start from Raimi, it’s grand and exciting.


My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Spider-Man 3.

Peter and Mary-Jane are now together in a rocky relationship. Peter’s dual life has taken it’s toll on their love-life and Mary-Jane has started to wonder if it’s all a mistake.
Harry, now knowing who and what Peter is, has undertaken the same research that nearly killed his father, Norman. He now has the mindset and powers to take out Spidey once and for all. However, Harry, now the new Green Goblin, is injured badly when he takes on Spidey and loses his memory.
Flint Marko, a runaway criminal (who is trapped in a particle accelerator and transformed at a molecular level into the Sandman), tangles with Spidey alongside Venom, an all-powerful, malevolent alien life-form that Spidey has been using for extra powers, in place of his normal Spider-Man suit.
Venom eventually finds its way to another host called Eddie Brock Jr, after Spidey realises it’s making him do bad things. Eddie has a vendetta against Peter for showing him up as a fraud at the Daily Bugle and uses his new found powers in Venom to take Spidey and Peter out.
Adding to the mix is some confusion about Uncle Ben’s death from the first movie, throwing into doubt Peter’s actions.

The story should work, it’s expanded, not greatly but it is expanded and the characters are all thrown into personal and interpersonal battles and the addition of the new villains should make for a broad plot.

Sadly though, it feels more like a rushed cash in to the first two gems.
The new love circle between Peter, Mary-Jane, Harry, Gwen Stacy and Eddie is another expansion, but again, it falls flat. You just don’t care if they work it all out or not. To be honest, neither do the actors.

The CGI in this film isn’t brilliantly improved. Some of it is very cartoony. By far the best thing in the CGI stakes is Sandman but the budget for the effects seems to have been spent solely on him, with the rest having to make do.

The action though I will say, is fast and exciting. Some of it is a little gimmicky but the end fight between Spider-Man, Green Goblin, Sandman and Venom is particularly good.

The one other good thing about the movie as a whole, is that it delves into a darker feel than the first two, but it’s just not enough when everything else is missing the mark.

The acting, sadly, has suffered also.
Maguire is his usual self in the role, but the addition of a bad attitude when he dons the black suit just isn’t Maguire’s forte.
Dunst is starting to look fed up with it all.
Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy is a breath of fresh air. She's absolutely beautiful and plays the role with a tongue in cheek flirtiness.
Topher Grace and Thomas Hayden Church as Venom and Sandman respectively, are good in their roles. Grace in particular is slimy and evil.
Franco is a highlight as Goblin Jr. You can tell he’s enjoying his part as a real bad guy and hits his mark really well after his character’s memory loss.

All in all a sad ending to a terrific build up. Though it’s watchable, it most definitely should have been better.
My rating 35%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
2

[The Rodent]

Review #44: Rocky 1-6.

Rocky.

Rocky Balboa, a down on his luck amateur boxer and debt collector for mobsters is given a shot at the big-time when he’s approached by the managers of the current World Heavy Weight Champion, Apollo Creed, in a bout for the title.
Creed and his managers see it as a publicity opportunity, never for a second believing that an unfit amateur slugger can stand up to a chiselled athlete like Creed.
Rocky on the other hand, takes it more seriously than they imagined and, with the woman of his dreams now on his arm, he trains harder than he’s ever trained before, for the fight of his life.

Stallone’s writing is pretty simlistic, but it works tremendously. His underdog story is an absolute masterpiece in simplicity. Keeping in mind he wrote the movie’s plot in a few minutes, it’s stood the test of time brilliantly.

The character development is very subtly written and played out over the running time of the film. Adrienne’s development and Rocky’s maturity growing over the film together is brilliantly conceived with the love story between Rocky and Adrienne, with Adrienne coming out of her shell through Rocky’s outgoing nature and eventually becoming a rock for him in return when he doubts his fighting ability.

The audience is also given time to really care for the characters too, it’s not just a punch ‘em up boxing movie.

The ending fight scenes aren’t perfectly put together but they work with the tone of the overall film.

The acting too is absolutely fantastic.
Stallone as Rocky is great. By far Sly’s best performance in any movie. His natural slurred speech and almost simpleton mannerisms are perfect for a punch drunk never-has-been. Though being a fighter, his sweet nature and humanity really makes you care about him too.
Talia Shire as Adrienne is another fantastic role played to perfection. She physically transforms over the movie as the character comes out of her shell.
Carl Weathers encapsulates Apollo Creed brilliantly too. A mediocre actor at best, this is another top performance. He’s loud, proud, brash and confident and fits Creed’s persona perfectly.

Stealing the show though, is the late and very great Meredith Burgess as Rocky’s manager and Trainer, Mickey. Burgess as always never misses a beat and though he’s a tough, rough ex-fighter, he has a human, fatherly side to him that really gives Rocky what he needs.

All in all it’s a brilliant, well acted and original sports-drama and has heartfelt action at the end.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Rocky 2.

Rocky and Adrienne have now gotten married and are using the money and fame Rocky made to pay for better accommodation and a better life.
Adrienne has also fallen pregnant and a lack of money is starting to weigh on Rocky’s mind. Maybe one more fight can sort out their financial problems.
Creed has also decided that he wants a rematch with Rocky. Creed believes that their first encounter, with Rocky going the distance, was basically luck on Rocky’s behalf.
Adding to his problems is that his right eye has been damaged, making him almost blind on one side. Mickey has told him that if he fights Creed again, he’ll be going it alone as he doesn’t want to be responsible for sending Rocky blind. Adrienne too, is weary of Rocky fighting again.
With all this troubling Rocky, Creed makes a public embarrassment of him and after a family upset, Adrienne makes a turn around and eventually gives her praise for him to take on the Champ again.
With an angry Mickey by his side, Rocky takes up the challenge.

Some say the movie is a re-run of the first but Stallone’s writing has allowed for expansion for the characters.
Their attitudes are the same from the first film, Rocky is tough but human and Adrienne is still breaking through her shell in some areas, but their storylines are pushed into new and occasionally upsetting directions.
There’s definitely more of a drama sense with the film.

One thing that pulls on the viewer though is that it’s very downbeat, there’s too much bad stuff going on in Rocky’s life.

The fight scenes are happily an improvement in the movie.

The acting is also improved from all parties. They seem comfortable in their roles and carry the characters extremely well.
Burt Young as Paulie, Rocky’s brother-in-law, is expanded within the story too. He plays the part of the drunken waster brilliantly.

All in all it’s certainly on a par with the first movie, improved in a few ways too but lacks the originality of the first.
My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Rocky 3.

Rocky has now become a megastar in the boxing world. He’s been top of the Heavyweight Division for a while and has decided that he would like to retire on a high note. Much to Adrienne’s delight as she gets worried every time he fights.
A young boxer called Clubber Lang has other ideas. He wants Rocky’s title and challenges him to a fight, insulting Adrienne at a press conference too, causing confusion and anger for Rocky.
Adrienne is less than happy with the idea though. Though Rocky has become a celebrity in his home neighbourhood, she feels as though Rocky hasn’t got anything left to prove, she also tells him that there’s no way that he can beat Lang as he’s too strong.
Sadly for Rocky, a tragedy occurs at ringside when he fights Lang, which causes Rocky to lose the fight and his title to a far superior and incredibly dangerous fighter.
Seeing an opportunity, Creed reappears and offers training to Rocky. A dubious and broken Rocky, takes up the offer and with Adrienne lending her support too, he trains harder than he’s ever done before, for an even harder fight of his life.

This third instalment is a chalk and cheese film for fans. The writing is about as good as it could have been but it feels as though the filmmakers are clutching at straws to keep the legend alive.

There are a few new original ideas going on with Rocky losing and having to make a comeback and a couple of little twists with who Rocky can and can’t trust anymore but that’s about it.

The fight scenes and training montages are well choreographed though. They’re far better than the first two movies.

The acting too is about as good as it could be, the lead roles in Stallone, Shire and Weathers are the same, but Mr T as Clubber Lang, sadly, is extremely wooden.
I’m a fan of Mr T but in Rock 3, he really does stink.

All in all it’s a more stylish take than the first two, with invincible enemies and new training regimes and has a few twist here and there and though it’s enjoyable, it’s a hollow shell compared to the originals, though personally, I enjoyed it.
My rating 75%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
4
　
Rocky 4.

A new upcoming Russian super-athlete called Ivan Drago, has surfaced in America and his managers have been pressing for him to fight America’s best. Apollo Creed decides to come out of retirement with Rocky as his manager and takes on the Russian man-mountain with horrific consequences.
Spurned on by guilt over Apollo’s death, Rocky heads for Russia with Apollo’s old manager and Paulie and Adrienne by his side to take on Drago in a revenge match and to show the Russian super-fighter how it’s done, his way.

That’s about it really for the story, it’s incredibly simplistic like the first film, but contains much less in the way of drama or character development.

The filmmakers also decided to go for full on 1980s gimmicks too, talking robots, Russian paranoia, another indestructible enemy, enemies can love one another too etc.

What makes the movie stand out though is the ending fight between Rocky and Drago. It’s brilliantly choreographed and edited (if extremely cheesy at the end) and really gets the viewer on the edge of their seat.

The acting again is the same as usual, Dolph Lundgren, who made it to #34 in my top 40 villains is fantastically athletic and really looks the part. His acting isn’t the best but he’s kept quiet most of the time. The fact that Stallone and Weathers both were nearly killed by Lundgren during fight scenes, really speaks for his part in the film.

All in all a more bash ‘em up action orientated boxing movie but is extremely cheesy at times, though it stands out amongst the others.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
4

Rocky 5.

After Rocky’s bout with Drago, he discovers that he’s been hit with the thing all boxers fear, brain damage.
To make things worse, Paulie has squandered the family’s fortune and they find themselves back in their old crummy neighbourhood again.
Having to forcibly retire from his beloved sport, he takes on Mickey’s old gym and finds himself a protege in a young, street urchin fighter called Tommy Gunn.
In the process, Rocky’s relationship to his young son is put in jeopardy as he spends more and more time training Gunn.
With a new found fame, Gunn turns his back on Rocky’s teachings and management, in favour of a hollow lifestyle full of flash cars and lots of money. Eventually Gunn hits the big time and earns his Heavyweight title but is slammed by the newspapers for what he did to Rocky.
In a fit of rage, Gunn attacks Paulie in a bar while the TV cameras are rolling, forcing Rocky into one more punch up, this time against his ex-student.

Again, it’s a simplistic story, but it works with the little twist that’s added between Rocky and his son. The drama and heartache Rocky feels with the relationship between him and Tommy Gunn is worked on well too.

Apart from that that’s all there really is to say.

The acting seems to have dropped in calibre as well. Stallone and Shire do there best to keep up appearances but they look bored with it all.
Stallone’s real life son, Sage Stallone as Robert (Rocky Jr) was a nice touch and he carries his role really quite well for a young actor.

Sadly, the new villain in Tommy Morrison playing Tommy Gunn wasn’t much of a great choice. He can box really well, Morrison is a real boxer, but he certainly can’t act.

All in all, it’s a sad, low key ending to something that was already starting to falter. The story could and should have been much, much better played out.
My rating is a mid 37%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5

Rocky Balboa.

Rocky, now a retired boxer in his late 50s and widower after Adrienne’s death, is running a small Italian Restaurant in Philadelphia. His relationship with his son is failing too, they hardly speak and Robert feels his father’s fame is too much of a shadow.
A computer-simulated match between Rocky in his prime, and the current Heavyweight Champion, Mason Dixon, is shown on TV, and Rocky wins the simulated fight.
A slightly disturbed and curious Rocky decides to take a battery of tests to see if he can still fight professionally.
On hearing that Rocky has passed the tests, Dixon’s manager approaches Rocky with the offer of making the computer fight a reality and lots of money to go with it.
Initially, a reluctant Rocky is spurned on a new by found Little Marie (seen as a child in Rocky 1) and eventually his son too.
He takes up the reigns in the training room with Apollo’s old manager again and trains himself up to take on another life time challenge and get rid of the Inner-Demons that have haunted him for nearly 20 years.

Again, another simple plot for the Rocky franchise is smothered with sentimentality. However this time round, it’s a welcome return to the ring for fans of Balboa.
It’s very well put together in writing terms and feels almost nostalgic with the way it’s edited. There are also many subtle levels of story telling within the plot too and character development is forefront in the plot.

The gimmicky feel of Rocky 3, 4 & 5 has also been dropped.

The fight scenes are also a really well made piece of choreography.
Stallone and Antonio Tarver really trade punches in the fight too, which caused a nightmare for the injury-continuity team.

The training montage is another highlight, it’s really encouraging to see Rocky do his thing with such a determination.

The acting is another improvement in the franchise. Stallone is back on form as the Rocky we all know and love and is a little older and wiser too.

The biggest surprise in the acting is real life boxer Antonio Tarver as Mason Dixon. He’s not on screen a great deal in the acting stakes but he really makes an impression as the headstrong, arrogant fighter.

All in all it’s a really welcome return to the Rocky everyone loves and doesn’t pull any punches (ahem) with sentimentality.
My rating is up there with the originals at 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

[The Rodent]

Review #45: The Lost Boys.

Two brothers, Sam and Michael, move to Santa Carla with their Mother to live at the Grandfather’s home after their Mother and Father have divorced.
Stories from their Grandfather about Santa Carla being the Murder Capital Of The World, spark Sam and Michael’s imaginations.
Within a few days in their new surroundings, Sam makes an impression on two comic book storeowners know as the Frog brothers. They tell Sam stories of vampires in Santa Carla and try to push him into reading horror comics, saying that they’re more like survival manuals. Sam of course, laughs it off and accuses them of sniffing too much ink.
In the meantime, through a girl calling herself Star, Michael makes friends with a group of young leather-clad bikers lead by a young man called David, and they introduce him to their hideout. While there, they tease him with what appears to be hallucinations and give him some red wine to drink.
For the following few days after, Sam notices Michael is behaving abnormally and begins suspecting that the Frog brothers were telling the truth. In a brotherly confrontation, Sam brings a sudden realisation to Michael that all may not be right and a meeting between Michael and the group of bikers brings Michael’s worst fears to a horrific reality.

It’s a fantastic story of redemption, soul searching/saving and family ties and is wonderfully written with comedy-horror in mind. The subject matters of the movie are at times quite disturbing too, there are some genuinely scary and gory bits thrown in for good measure. The comedy tends to come from the situations that the young trio (the Frogs and Sam) find themselves in.
There's also a nice, well concieved twist at the end.
The dialogue is also brilliantly placed and played by the cast.

The effects are also a wonder, they’re practical and gritty and have shaped the look of pretty much all vampire movies since. There is only one, partial green screen effect in the entire film and you can’t even see it it’s that well covered.

The acting is another bonus. Most of the cast are young, sexy and very 80s.
Corey Haim as Sam is brilliantly naïve and has a wonderful, concerned kid brother feel about him and he carries the comedy and horror elements with style.
Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander are great as the Frogs. They’re young wannabe-commandos with a strangely competent air about them, and show signs of naivety too in the strange situations.
Jason Patric is another great choice as Michael. In the words of Joel Schumacher, ‘he has a wonderful big brother element about him’, he also plays the role with a great intensity.

By far the best of the cast is a young Kiefer Sutherland as David. He’s barely on screen and yet he makes a massive impression on the story and on the viewer. It’s by far his most memorable role.

The soundtrack is haunting at times and also very 80s in the style.

Maybe one bad thing about the film is the running time. I’ve said this about movies before but you don’t want The Lost Boys to end, it’s that good.

All in all, for me it’s the best vampire movie made to date and wrote the rulebook for most vampire movies since. An 80s classic.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5


Review #46: Evolution.

After a meteor crash lands into Glen Canyon, all sorts of strange and weird creatures start appearing in the local area. It’s up to two college professors Ira Kane and Harry Block who were the first to discover the meteor’s secrets and Dr Allison Reed (a military employee), to find out what these things are and find a way how to stop a possible invasion. Along with a witness to the crash, Wayne Grey, they head out into the local town to discover new, alien life forms.
Involved is the U.S Army, lead by an old colleague of Kane’s, Brigadier General Woodman, whose hardheaded ways may put a dampener on the foursome’s plans of research and prevention.

It’s an extremely funny piece of filmmaking. Like with a lot of Ivan Rietman’s movies, it starts out relatively real, then heads down a path of unreal and very funny situations.
It’s also very well put together on the discovery front too, the audience is kept in the frame when it comes to finding out about the alien creatures involved.

The acting is a surprise.
Julianne Moore as Dr Reed is a surprise in a comedic role. She’s absolutely bang on with the theme of the movie.
Orlando Jones is his funny too as Professor Block, he carries the cheeky, wisecracking character well.
Seann William Scott as Wayne Grey is his usual self too, wacky, funny, occasionally slapstick.
The biggest surprise is David Duchovny as Dr Kane. Duchovny has shown signs of comedic timing before but in the movie he’s absolutely brilliant as the serious doctor who’s comedy comes from being occasionally cheeky and down to earth in a set of strange circumstances. The X-Files actor also lends himself to the theme brilliantly.

The special effects are another welcome surprise, the CGI is absolutely tip top.
The creatures involved in the film are also very original, with some bordering on comedic themselves. You can tell the filmmakers had a lot of fun with the creatures.

All in all, it’s a fun, funny movie with tongue in cheek comedy, great CGI and also seriousness thrown in too for good measure.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

[The Rodent]

Review #47: Alien Franchise (including my review for Alien 3 from an earlier review).

Before RIdley Scott brings out his 'prequel' to the Alien Universe later this year, I thought I'd ping up a review of all 4 current Alien movies.

Alien.

Set aboard the spaceship Nostromo, the crew are woken from hypersleep due to a starnge Alien signal coming from a nearby planet. Due to Company contracts, they’re obliged to check it out.
On landing on the planet, three of the crew head out into the unknown and discover a crashed ship, filled with hundreds of two-foot tall eggs. When one of the eggs hatches, it releases a strange organism that attaches itself to one of the trio’s face and sends him into a coma.
The other two drag him back to the landing craft, unknowingly placing the rest of the crew in mortal danger.

Ridley Scott’s sci-fi horror is an original masterpiece. It combines the two elements absolutely perfectly, adding to the mix genuine dread and fear, wonder, imagination, mystery and claustrophobia too.

It’s also extremely well written in terms of character, universe and dialogue.
Inspired by Lucas’ Star Wars, Scott built a future full of dirty, grimy and well used surroundings and characters that are real and ordinarily original.
He also added a few twists to the overall story telling with original ideas on certain characters and heroes.

The acting is another bonus.
The entire cast is absolutely spot on with their characters. They’re real in their surroundings and various roles throughout the ship and in the series of terrifying situations.

The creature also is an extremely original piece of design by H.R Giger. Though it falters slightly as the man-in-suit costume, it’s still something that captures the imagination and has lived in movie history for the nearly 4 decades.

All in all it’s a brilliantly original movie that has shaped the sci-fi horror movie world since its creation.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Aliens.

Set years after the first movie, Ripley has woken from hypersleep to find that the world she knew has vanished. Surrounded by company officials and investigations, she’s ridiculed for the stories she tells about what happened on the Nostromo years before.
It’s revealed to her that the planet she described has now become part of a terraforming project and that contact has been lost with the colonists.
With a squad of Interplanetary Marines by her side, she’s sent out to the original planet as an advisor for the squad where she faces the possibility of more horror and has to face her fears that have haunted her for as long as she can remember.

James Cameron’s sequel to Scott’s masterpiece has it’s fair share of shocks and claustrophobia and borders on the horror genre but is much more action orientated than the original sci-fi horror.

It’s also just as well written too. It expands the universe that Scott created too. There’s more scope with the horizon of the storyline and there are new characters and an expansion in the ‘Company’ added in as well.

The acting again is bang on the money.
Sigourney Weaver as Ripley is expanded from the tough officer type to that of a mentally tormented, reluctant heroine. Eventually digging deep to do what’s needed. Weaver was nominated for an Oscar in the role too.
Michael Biehn is spot on as Corporal Hicks. He’s tough and take-charge and has a very approachable human quality about him too.
The Marines are primarily made up of stunt actors too, which adds to the authenticity of their roles.

The effects, especially the creatures are improved as well for the movie. Cameron, having a background in special effects, had the knowledge to use camera angles and wire work for the creatures, which expands their character brilliantly and he has a nice twist with the Alien lifecycle. The action is fantastically choreographed too.

All in all it takes a different approach to the original and is the rare exception where the sequel is as good as the first.
My rating is another 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
5

Alien 3, Both Versions.

A movie hit with budget cuts, internal arguments between producers, director and writers, storyline changes (before during and even after filming) and studio executives having no leniency or confidence with director David Fincher.

The story, set just after James Cameron's Aliens, involves Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash landing on an almost abandoned planet with an enormous yet run down and barely populated prison after her cryo-tube is ejected from the Sulaco mothership.

The usual happens, an Alien Facehugger follows her in the Emergency Evacuation Unit and eventually spawns an offspring, which disappears into the prison.

At first, as usual, Ripley's magical tale of giant aliens with acidic blood and a mouth for a tongue is ignored by the powers that be (the prison super-intendant and his second in command). The Alien eventually runs amuck, sending the prisoners and the prison staff into fits of panic by picking them off one by one.
Ripley eventually is looked to for help in fighting the creature while they all await a rescue ship from 'The Company'.

Theatrical Version:

The theatrical release of the movie is the version most people are familiar with. The Alien gestates inside of a dog that belongs to one of the prisoners.
This version contains a limited storyline as it was cut and shredded in the editing room against Fincher's wishes. It's also a good 30 minutes shorter.

It also contains limited interaction between the viewer and the actors/characters, many of the prisoners are nameless faces treated like cannon fodder for the Alien.

Only a handful of characters are expanded on for the viewer: Ripley, Dr Clemens (Charles Dance), Dillon (Charles S Dutton), Morse (Danny Webb) and Aaron '85' (Ralph Brown) and that's about it.

The Alien, gladly is kept to the shadows as much as possible and many of the attack scenes are shot relatively close up to put the viewer in the midst of the action. Which works to an extent but can get disorientating.
The prison also is kept almost as secret as the nameless prisoners. The viewer never really feels part of the setting. Giant corridors that all look the same make the audience just as lost as the storyline.

Ok, the theatrical release is a marmite movie for fans, they either love it or hate it.
I'd say that it works as a horror and is a good film in its own right, but it feels unfinished and rushed. I didn't like it at first, but over the years, it grew on me.

Definitive Edition:

Now we're talking.
Fincher was put to making two similar beginnings to the movie, the theatrical version being the one the studio wanted, this 'definitive' edition being Fincher's preferred.
The dog in the theatrical version is never seen in this version, instead, an ox (used as a tractor by the prisoners) is the Facehugger's choice of gestation.

The story is expanded between the audience and pretty much all the characters, especially Golic (played by Paul McGann), a psychotic murderer and rapist who actually sympathises with the alien creature.
Most of the nameless prisoners now have speaking lines and the storyline feels much more finished and that more time has actually been taken in making it work.

A huge chunk of the middle of the film contains the same scenes as the theatrical release but with the extra/original scenes added back in, it gives the entire movie a completely different aura.

The bad point of the Definitive Version is also, sadly, the added scenes.

That might seem contradictory but the problem is this; The sound hasn't been looped in an editing room, which gives the added scenes a 'hissy' background sound. Some of the added original scenes are fine, others not so.

It's a shame really, as the Definitive Edition is by far a superior movie.

Though if you can look past the small sound problem, even if you didn't like the theatrical Alien 3, you'll certainly prefer this one.

Give it a go. I did, and even though I like the theatrical version, I'll never be going back to it now.

Overall Theatrical Version rating: 75%.
Overall Definitive Version rating: 90% (would be 95%, just the sound lets it down)
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

Alien Resurrection.

The USM Auriga, a military ship has, after 200 years, managed to clone Ripley and the Alien Queen. Their goal is to use the Alien as an ultimate weapon.
In the cloning process, Ripley’s and the Alien’s DNA have been crossed at a genetic level, giving Ripley a superhuman strength.
After the creatures escape from their cells and the military personnel on board the ship are either killed or escape, it’s up to Ripley and a small group of survivors, mainly space pirates, to get off the ship and destroy the Auriga before it can land on Earth.

Sadly, after a great build up and the marmite question of Alien 3, the fans of the franchise were hit with this abomination.

It’s very stylish and contemporary in the way it looks and in the character design but the writing, particularly the dialogue is mediocre at best.
There are little original twists in the story and some of the characters and creatures but they feel more gimmicky than anything else and there’s a lot of very samey plotlines going on too.

The acting is also extremely hammy and borders on wooden at times, especially Winona Ryder.
Weaver is about as good as she could have been but looks fed up with it all.
The best of the acting comes from Ron Perlman, he encapsulates his thug of a character brilliantly and adds a touch of loud humour too.

The action is very stylish rather than realistic and doesn’t really excite the viewer. Coming from a French director I guess that’s expected but it does make the film stand out from the others. The underwater scene is by far the most memorable scene of the entire film.
The creature effects are relatively good and the CGI is well rendered.

All in all, it has a very stylised feel and look and is mainly a miss affair, but it’s watchable for post-pub entertainment.
My rating 27%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
1.5

[Deadite]

I was enjoying Resurrection pretty well up until that cringe-worthy last section.

[The Rodent]

Shame really, could have been good to see an expansion on the universe but instead we got a European Art-house wannabe.

[Deadite]

Yeah, I enjoyed the humor and such, and Ron Perlman's performance was cool, but that was hardly an Alien film. Definitely the weakest of the series by far. People complained about 3 but it was frigging genius compared to the sloppy execution of Resurrection.

[The Rodent]

Yeah, I enjoyed the humor and such, and Ron Perlman's performance was cool, but that was hardly an Alien film. Definitely the weakest of the series by far. People complained about 3 but it was frigging genius compared to the sloppy execution of Resurrection.

Alien 3 Definitive is the one to go for if you fancy watching the third film. By far the superior. The Theatrical is ok but still.

In regard to Resurrection, it's that bad that if you look at my past reviews, you might notice that AvP and AvP Requiem actually scored higher lolol!

[Deadite]

I actually like AvP and own it. I can't really recall the second one.

Alien 3 was underrated, and people complained it was too gloomy and they didn't like the ending. I thought it was fitting, and the film felt much more like Alien than Aliens. They should've just left well enough alone, I guess.

[The Rodent]

Review #48: The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3 (plus a runover from my earlier Jurassic Park review).

Jurassic Park.

The premise, by Michael Crichton is a partially fact based scientific endeavour to bring Dinosaurs back to life using preserved blood found in insects.

Let’s start at the movie: John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), a multi-squillionaire with delusions of grandeur has set about and succeeded in turning an entire island into a theme park full of unnatural-abominations.
After inviting along two scientists (Sam Neill and Laura Dern), a chaos theorist (Jeff Goldblum) and a lawyer (Martin Ferrero) to the park while his own grandchildren are there (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), things inevitably take a turn for the worst when fences fail from a power cut.
The group, who are all now separated into their own survival stories have to hide and run in a desperate attempt to restore power to the park and call in the helicopters to take them home.

The movie as a whole is extremely well made. The character build up and strong acting make the movie very weighty.
Sam Neill with Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello are a chalk, chalk and cheese buddy movie in their own right.
The story adapted from the novel differs to the novel in many respects but is still extremely well written.

The cast is not just extremely good at what they’re doing, they fit the theme.
The movie is also shot beautifully. It’s very grand in feeling. Some of the sets are also extremely spooky.

The special effects used were not just cutting edge for the time (1992-1993), they still beat most movies of modern times. The ILM and Stan Winston Studios collaboration is very special.

Most of the computer work for the dinosaurs had to be created solely for the movie (albeit adapted from existing technology). What makes the movie’s CGI special is that the movie-makers asked a very simple question: "What is impossible?". Then they achieved the impossible.
The main place that the movie fails, is that it’s extremely loosely based on Crichton’s fantastic novel.

Anyone who has read the book will know that, as always with Spielberg, things got dumbed down to a more friendly atmosphere for a wider audience. Even so, at rated PG in Britain, which basically means anyone can watch, under 13s with supervision, I still wouldn’t let my own children at 5 and 6 years old watch it just yet. All I’m saying is Raptors In The Kitchen.

If the filmmakers had stuck to the book and Spielberg had been a bit braver, the movie would have been a hell of a lot better.
At time of release, the movie itself was so big it stayed in cinemas in my local town for nearly two years.

All in all a popcorn movie with a decent story and some genuine scary bits.
My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5


The Lost Word: Jurassic Park.

The premise is based on secrets kept by the Ingen company. There is a second island with dinosaurs on and Hammond has decided to send in a team of scientists to research how they have managed to live for so long without the injections needed for survival.
Ian Malcolm has been drafted in unwillingly as his girlfriend Sarah Harding has been sent to the island ahead of schedule, alone.
Cue lots of running and screaming.
　
It’s another marmite movie from me, the fans of the original film were divided with this one.
As it is, it’s a decent movie, the filmmakers approached the idea with the mindset of "we’ve achieved the impossible with JP, now how far can we push it".
It really shows too, it’s louder, faster, has more dino’s and has far better special effects.

The action is by far the best thing about the movie, it’s very exciting and fantastically choreographed. The cliff top T-Rex scene is certainly a heart stopper.

The downside is that the story has suffered. It feels as though Spielberg felt obliged to make a sequel and, though he resorted to Crichton’s books again, it feels kind of hollow and rushed. Not cashed-in exactly, but certainly empty of story.
There are nice little touches throughout the film, for example with the T-Rex, and some of the action sequences, but again, Crichton’s masterpieces of storytelling have been torn apart again.

The acting is good though. Jeff Goldblum reprises his role as Malcolm, he hits the nail right on the head.
Julianne Moore as Harding is another good point, she very likable.
The late great Pete Postlethwaite makes an appearance as a Great White Hunter and though he’s only around for about a half of the movie, he makes a lasting impression.

A marmite point for fans is the second act of the film, some loved it, others not so. Personally I though it was an original touch.

All in all it’s a thrill ride of effects and action but lacks the charm and mystery of the first.
My rating 74%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
3.5


Jurassic Park 3.

The premise, is that thrill seekers are using the second island (from the second film) as an adventure holiday sort of thing. Ben Hildebrand and his stepson Erik Kirby vanish when their parasailing trip goes wrong and they land on the island.
Erik’s mother and father (Tea Leoni and William H Macy) kidnap Alan Grant (a returning Sam Neill) and his assistant Billy (Alessandro Nivola) and take 3 mercenaries with them too, to the island in search of their son.
Again, cue lots of running and screaming and dino’s.

This is certainly the first and final nail in JP’s coffin. It was an anticipated movie by fans but sadly detaches itself from the JP universe almost completely. The only exception being Sam Neill and a 30-second cameo from Laura Dern. It’s also written without any input from Crichton, which really shows in the extremely poor storytelling.

The filmmakers try to add a broken family trying to fix their problems into the mix, but it falls flat, you just don’t care about the characters enough and the ending is so abrupt and unrealistic it smashes any hopes that the film may have had.

There are more Dinosaurs shown throughout the movie and the Raptors in particular have been updated to modern scientific fact, but sadly that’s the only good point, and sadly again, it pushes the movie even farther from the JP universe with continuity errors. The addition of a new super-predator could have been worth while but it comes off as a cheap, badly animated gimmick.

It’s kind of a double barrel; the good points are actually a bad point.
The island and buildings seen on the island also bare absolutely no resemblance to the second movie either.

The effects are another bad point, the creatures seen are extremely animated.
When I say animated, what I actually mean is that they look like cartoons.

Getting Joe Johnson to try to live up to Spielberg's calibre, was certainly a bad choice by the studios, it’s simply an extremely poor film compared to Spielberg's lead up.

Sam Neill looks absolutely tired of it all.
William H Macy and Tea Leoni aren’t too bad, but their comedic ‘divorcee differences’ don’t do much to lift the story.

All in all, it’s a miss so big it wouldn’t get wet if it fell out of a boat.
My rating 10%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)
0.5

[The Rodent]

Review #49: Gremlins 1 & 2.

Gremlins.

A failing inventor called Randall Peltzer is searching through Chinatown in search for a Christmas present for his son, Billy.
While there he’s taken to a small shop by a boy where he finds that the boy’s Grandfather has a small animal in a cage.
Besotted by the little creature, he offers to buy it, the old man refuses saying there is a lot of responsibility with it.
In secret, Randall and the young boy make a deal for the little animal and the boy explains that there are rules that need to be followed with caring for it.
Don’t get him wet. Don’t ever feed him after midnight. Don’t expose him to bright light, especially sunlight, as it will kill him.
On returning home, he gives Billy his present, now named Gizmo and within a few days, Billy breaks the first two rules and unleashes a an army of evil, malignant little creatures on his home town.
It’s up to him and his girlfriend and Gizmo to stop the little monsters before they end up spreading beyond control.

It’s a pretty simplistic story and sets itself up quite easily for the viewer, but the concept as a whole is very original.
Joe Dante’s direction is another bonus, he really creates an atmospheric set of circumstances and keeps the mystery of the creatures going throughout. There are also some jumpy moments mixed in as well.

Though the movie is seen as a big hit with kids by modern standard, at the time of release though, some cinemas actually banned it and warnings had to be aired to TV during trailers, warning people not to take their kids to see it. Gremlins is more of a comedy-horror than anything else, but humour is very dark at times and borders throughout on macabre and sadistic too.
It also contains some quite violent scenes, particularly the attempted killings of innocent people.

The effects are also a bonus. Using mainly hand puppets for the creatures they have a very real organic feel to them and they’re brilliantly modelled.
There is one stop motion scene as well, but it’s really well put together.

The acting is again, a good point. The actors play it relatively serious throughout, which makes some of the comedy work better.
Zach Galligan as Billy is a brilliantly nerdy, normal guy thrown into horrific circumstances.
Phoebe Cates as Kate Beringer is another normal character who has to dig deep during the horror.

A bad point is that some of the story telling is really very simple and set up in an ABC-123 set of scenes. Though, it’s not much of a downer as the film as a whole is really well made.

All in all, it’s a funny, if dark movie that has proved its worth over the past 30 years.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png
4.5

Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

After the death of Gizmo’s owner (the Grandfather from the first film), the large Clamp Corporation takes over the city block and builds a large skyscraper. Gizmo is also snatched by the company’s genetics lab and kept in a cage in the building.
As it happens, Billy and Kate are now working in said building and Billy finds out that Gizmo is there and rescues him from the lab.
Of course, Billy leaves Gizmo alone for a few hours where he ends up getting into trouble and gets wet, spawning the New Batch of the title.
Cue lots of destruction and hijinks in the skyscraper.

It’s another simplistic story from director Dante and sadly, all the dark humour and horror from the first film is dropped completely for a more friendly family film that’s suitable for kids.
The movie is a prime example of Hollywood catering for taste and wider audience, rather than for making decent films.

It’s very comic book in feel too. The filmmakers decided to go mainly for wacky comedy and funny sound effects and the movie is laden with gimmicks, especially when the creatures end up in the genetics lab and start drinking the various potions.
There are a lot of nods and homage to other films as well.

The effects are improved with the creatures though, the puppets are much better modelled but they’re very cutesy for a younger audience appeal.

The acting is a good point though.
Zach and Phoebe hit their roles perfectly again.
This time round the viewer is treated to John Glover as the Squillionaire Daniel Clamp (head of the Clamp Corporation). Glover is absolutely fantastic in the role and has a very subtle, comic book comedy about him. He's lots of fun and very enigmatic.

Another bad point of the film is that some of the soundtrack (music) is existing material from other Dante films.

All in all, it’s a big step back from the first film, but as a whole, as it is, it’s actually quite entertaining and fun to watch.
My rating 45%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
2.5

[The Rodent]

Review #50: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990).

For my 50th, I decided to do a review of a childhood favourite of mine and yes, I do still enjoy watching it even though I'm now in my 30s :o

Four turtles, around the ages of 15 and 16, live in a New York sewer with a rat. What makes them special is that all five creatures have been mutated into human sized freaks of nature. The rat, once a pet of a Japanese Ninja Master called Hamato Yoshi, has taken it upon himself to train the turtles with the knowledge he acquired from his time with Yoshi.
After a chance meeting with a news reporter, they make themselves enemies of a secret band of Ninja Thieves calling themselves The Foot Clan, who have been operating in New York.

The story is incredibly well put together. It contains elements of the original graphic novel mixed with elements of the Saturday morning cartoon and blends them in a perfect mix of violence, stylish martial arts, fantasy, comedy, tragedy and especially, storytelling.
It’s fun, fast and exciting to watch and has perfect elements of mystery, haunting backstory and discovery added to it too, that are revealed over the course of the movie.

Some of the scenes are quite haunting too, the music adds to the feelings of upset and anguish when tragedy strikes which is something not many films of this type are able to put together.

It can be very brooding and dark at times too with some of the subject matters involved.

The effects, particularly the creatures are a marvel. By today’s standard they show a few mistakes but they hold up pretty well. The actors in the suits, mainly martial artists and stuntmen, are absolutely brilliant to watch during fight scenes.
Another plus is that all of the effects are practical and animatronic, there’s no CGI.

The acting is also bang on.
Judith Hoag as news reporter April O’Neal is fantastically out of her depth as the damsel in distress and proves her worth toward the end.
Elias Koteas as Casey Jones is another plus point. His character starts out as an enemy but eventually befriends the Turtles and becomes a key figure in the fight against The Foot.
There’s also a small but memorable turn from Sam Rockwell as a head thug of The Foot.

The main area of attention needs to go to the stunt-actors in the suits and their voiceovers.
Michelan Sisti as Michelangelo, voiced by Robbie Rist.
Josh Pais as Raphael voiced by Pais himself.
David Forman as Leonardo voiced by Brian Tochi.
Leif Tilden as Donatello voiced by Corey Feldman.
James Saito as Shredder, voiced by David McCharen.

The above parties involved are absolutely bang on the money. They’re very real and draw the audience into actually caring about the characters.

Saito’s portrayal of Shredder in particular made into my top 40 villains.

One thing that lets the movie down is that it hasn’t really stood the test of time fantastically with the effects as I said a moment ago. Still though, they work and don’t let the film down too much.

All in all, it’s a fantastically put together comic book movie and is brilliantly choreographed. An extremely rare piece of filmmaking considering the material it’s based on.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
4.5

[akatemple]

I am just glad to see that you gave Jurassic Park (1) the best out of the three, if you hadn't then I would have lost all respect.
What's your thought on the 4th on that is getting made?

[The Rodent]

I am just glad to see that you gave Jurassic Park (1) the best out of the three, if you hadn't then I would have lost all respect.
What's your thought on the 4th on that is getting made?

Personally, I think they should scrap the idea of making a 4th.
They should go back to Crichton's novel and reboot the entire thing and actually use the book as the source material rather than just using certain elements.

That way they could make it a 18 rated movie with decent story rather than the family friendly adventure that Spielberg made.

[akatemple]

I think that is one of the rumors about the 4th is remaking the 1st, it will have Sam Neil and the girl that played the main female part I can't remember her name, so that is one of the rumors is that it is a remake.
Anyone who has read the books would like to see a remake page for page remake of the book, the movie should have been rated R if it was based on the book but as with a ton of movies that does not happen because of the crowd they are trying to attract, I don't think there is any 100 percent proof of what the 4th will be but I am kind of hoping that if will be a remake/re-think/whatever you want to call it of the first movie, but you have to keep Sam Neil and the girl I can't remember, and from what I have read they are going to do that much at least,,,,,, so who knows.

[akatemple]

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=782202

[The Rodent]

Review #51: 30 Days Of Night.

The most remote northern town called Barrow is subjected to 30 days of perpetual darkness every year. This year will be different.
The local Sheriff has been finding strange things in the days leading up to the dark winter, missing mobile phones, dead sled dogs etc.
What awaits the town’s residents is a ‘family’ of sadistic and brutal vampires that have been waiting for the month of night-time to arrive so they can have their fun and feed on the people of Barrow.

Based loosely on the graphic novel of the same name, 30 Days is, I have to say, one of the most thrilling vampire films I’ve seen in a while. The last decent vamp film would probably be the original Blade over a decade ago.

It’s hard, cold, fast and extremely well realised, the fact that the concept of the town’s perpetual night-time winter is based on truth it gives the movie a little more weight too.

The action is also extremely brutal but is really well choreographed, especially with the movement of the creatures against the mere running and screaming humans that they’re tearing apart.

The creatures themselves have an aura of originality about them. They’re not just the basic bloodsuckers, the filmmakers have gone for a more grounded feel of reality with them.
In the words of the director: Something that wants to kill you, eat you and drink your blood is neither sexy nor romantic.
It works too, they’re very spooky at times and some of the scenes are quite sadistic and macabre, particularly when they kill whole families and make them watch as they do.
The make up and prosthetics and even touches of CGI on their faces is really well put together too.
It’s also very gory when it gets going, especially against the plain white backdrop of a snow-covered town.

The acting is also pretty good for a slash ‘em up movie. Though not the best in the movie world it’s pretty up there with other horrors.
Josh Hartnett as the town’s Sheriff is ok, he’s at his usual self in the role but is believable.
Melissa George is a spot of beauty among the carnage and she’s not just the regular damsel in distress either.
Mark Boone Junior has a small and memorable role too, he’s at his usual too but makes an impression and plays a key part in the storyline.
Danny Huston steals the show though as Marlow, the ‘head’ of the creatures. As usual, he encapsulates his character brilliantly and is extremely withdrawn from reality.

One fault with the movie would be the resolve at the end i.e.; How they find a way to defeat the creatures. It’s a little contrived but coming from a graphic novel, it works to an extent and gives the movie it’s own little twist.

All in all it’s an original and enjoyable, if at times a gory and disturbing look, at the vampire legend. A surprisingly good movie.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)
4

[The Rodent]

Review #52: From Dusk Till Dawn.

Two brothers, on the run for the brutal murder of innocent people and police officers, kidnap a family while on the road and force them into driving across the America-Mexico border where they have promised to let them go free.
Upon crossing the border just before nightfall, they stop at an out of town strip club where they find a world much more dangerous than anyone could have ever imagined.

It’s another extremely well made movie from Rodriguez and Tarantino. The storytelling is absolutely brilliant with character design and dialogue placement.
The second half of the film is another original point, the viewer never sees it coming (which is why I'm leaving this review relatively bare with smaller details, in case there are people reading who have never seen the film).

There’s also expansion with the characters and their pasts and a coming-to-terms plotline for most of them too, for instance with a faithless preacher who must rediscover his faith and the losses and gains that all of the characters experience throughout the film.
There’s a massive amount of Rodriguez’s stylish violence too. It’s loud, fast, brutal and gory and contains a lot of humour throughout the action scenes too, which give an extra level of authenticity to the action. It’s also really well choreographed.

The acting is another massive thumbs up.
George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino as the brothers are brilliantly contrasting. Clooney is tough and take charge and extremely calculating and intelligent, where as Tarantino is the perverted, slightly dumber ‘follower’ and a bit of a loose cannon. The audience even begins to care for the brothers toward the end too, which is a brilliant piece of writing and acting.
Juliette Lewis is fantastic as the daughter of the family, who is out of her depth in the circumstances who has to toughen up toward the end.
Harvey Keitel as the father of the family and faithless preacher, is also absolutely spot on. Keitel really lifts the troubled character from the page.

It’s hard to find any faults with the film really.
Maybe the special effects at the end suffer a touch with the low budget, but it’s barely recognisable as a fault. More of a Ghostbusters fault i.e; The effects have their own low budget style, but yet, fit the film.

All in all, it’s a brilliantly written, funny, gory, stylish and violent film with some great twists and even better acting, and all on a relatively low budget.
It’s also very underrated, though my rating is still up there... at 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

Nice review of the Turtles by the way. :up: My favourite film as a kid and still a strong favourite even now. So much so that I placed it at #20 I think on my top 100 list.

And I've also always been a fan of Evolution even though it doesn't get a lot of love

An extremely rare piece of filmmaking considering the material it’s based on.

Just wondering what you mean by this though

[The Rodent]

Tmnt source material being exactly that: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

It's such an odd idea and so far out there, that to make a film that is as good as it is, that is by far one of the best films of its genre, time and well, time, is absolute genius.

To the point: It is a rare piece of filmmaking.

[akatemple]

Review #51: 30 Days Of Night.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=776705

Watch the sequel, I thought it was one of the worst sequels ever, curious to know what you think.

[Deadite]

I was pretty disappointed by 30 Days of Night. I didn't hate it exactly.... it just felt mediocre and shallow compared to its premise, which I thought was really cool.

My main problem with it was that they bungled the passage of time in the film so badly, it never felt like the epic struggle for survival that it should have been. Also, the acting was less than engaging. Not exactly bad... just predictable.

I would watch a remake if it had more interesting players, and was a longer movie that spent more time on build-up, characters, and didn't rush through the weeks after the vamps slaughter most of the town just to get to some trite "exciting" predictable climactic showdown.

I have nothing to say about the sequel other than it looks cheap.

[cinemaafficionado]

I don't know. I really liked the cinematagrophy in 30 Days OF Night and Josh Hartnett wasn't bad. The sequel was not as good.

[Deadite]

Oh, I liked the look of the film too, and the vamps were great. I just think the execution didn't live up to the potential, story-wise.

[The Rodent]

Review #53: I, Robot.

Based on Isaac Asimov’s short stories, a murder investigation draws a police detective into a secret experiment that was carried out by the man who was murdered.
Within the experiment is a robot named Sonny, who is more than he seems. Along side is a computer ‘psychiatrist’ who will help the detective with the mystery of ‘apparent killer robots’ and the officer in question is also, more than he seems.
However, there are more powerful entities in their way and the mystery of the ‘killer robots’ is much more deadly than they had first feared.

It’s a good piece of writing for a Hollywood story though as usual with Hollywood, it utilises an original idea from the past, in this case from 1950, and updates it with CGI, gimmicks and flashiness.

The CGI however doesn’t disappoint, it’s absolutely bang on the money and doesn’t fail in any way, but sometimes it gets a little too much.
More practical effects could have been welcome in the film, it feels too separated from reality. It goes for more flash than substance.

The storyline and plot itself is another good point, it’s easy to figure out straight from the start, but it keeps its tension and mystery throughout which isn’t easy considering the audience can see the reveal right from the very start.
The elements of comedy within the dialogue and occasional hints of character expansion are a welcome addition, but sadly, there’s just not enough to keep the viewer fixed to the screen for the running time.
It’s extremely 123 with the plot and story. Typical of Hollywood.

The main problem lies with the fact that Asimov’s original writings are pretty much ignored throughout, only the basic plot point are used are the Three Laws Of Robotics and a scene where Sonny attempts to hide in a crowd.

It’s not the only fault either, Will Smith is relatively type-cast as the hero: The line "…You’re a cat, I’m black…" says it all.
Smith is very ‘1990s Fresh Prince’ and nowhere near the futuristic society character the movie strives to achieve.
Smith however, is an enjoyable Lead Actor as usual, and does his thang in his style.
The rest of the acting however, is pretty standard for the CGI laden epic it tries to be.
Alan Tudyk as the voice and motion capture of ‘Sonny’ is a brilliant piece of filmmaking and acting. He's extremly believable and very well modelled.

I will say though, after all the bad points, is that the action scenes are extremely well choreographed, very exciting, fast and explosive. They’re by far the best thing about the film.

Other than that, all in all, it’s an enjoyable film for anyone who hasn’t read the short stories, and for teenagers who want to see exciting CGI action. Anyone else may find themselves digging dirt out of their fingernails during the running time.
My rating 60%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #54: Spielberg’s War Of The Worlds.

Ray, a divorcee and lazy and absent father, has his two kids pushed onto him for the weekend when his ex-wife goes away with her new hubby. His son hates him and his daughter treats him like his ex-wife used to.
Out of the blue, a massive lightning storm hits his hometown and shorts out every electronic gizmo in the area. Cars, phones, watches, everything is shorted out.
Before the trio is able to gather their thoughts on the mysterious event, an alien attack hits and they are thrown into a fight for survival where Ray must now become a protective father to his kids and they in turn must do as their father says.
Cue lots of odd trio situations and mild humour amongst the fall of mankind.

It’s an interesting take on the WOTW storyline. The absent father and broken family fixing all their problems is a typical Spielberg trait and mixing it to a remake of a 1950s sci-fi classic.

Sadly though, it feels just as lazy as the lead character Ray.
It is literally that, a remake of the original movie, but with the added sub stories and plot changes, it feels even farther removed from the original source material of Wells’ book.
It’s just another alien attack movie and not a very good one either.

I will say though, that the CGI is pretty good, it’s rendered well and the aliens themselves are (albeit nothing like the original film or the book) pretty original and well rendered. The aliens are quite spooky at times too.
What lets the CGI down, especially the tripod machines, is that they’re barely threatening and, near the beginning they’re hidden behind sun flares in the camera lens.

The other thing missing is any mention of the planet Mars, instead using a lazy, last-minute-thought 'twist' on where the aliens come from.

What the film really lacks is any depth. It tries to get it using Tom Cruise’s character Ray having to go through the emotional battle of being a dad for the first time but, sadly, it’s Tom Cruise in the lead role.
He does an apt job, the filmmakers were quoted as trying to "De-Tom-Cruise, Tom Cruise", but I can’t take Cruise seriously outside of anything other than a pearly-toothed-romantic-comedy-hunk, or, a full-on-brainless-action-hero role.

Dakota Fanning is good as the daughter, she has an old soul about her, though she does little but squeal and shout, throw tantrums and cry throughout the entire film, which gets a little tiresome by the end.

All in all, it’s mainly a miss affair and certainly not worthy of the title it carries, but is a half decent movie in its own right. It will appeal to anyone who wants a non-threatening CGI adventure with a Spielberg-esk family subplot as a backdrop. Personally, if I wanted that sort of film, I'd watch Close Encounters.
My rating is a mid 50%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #55: Blade Runner.

I said last night that I’d ping up a review for Blade Runner. So here it is.
A group of genetically engineered androids, known as Replicants, return to Earth illegally in search of their creator. Replicants are perfect imitations of life, whether it be human, or animal.
A retired cop called Rick Deckard, who was once a Blade Runner (basically a hunter/killer of malfunctioning Replicants), is brought back into action to stop the droids as they have been deemed as malfunctioning and classed as dangerous after they begin killing people in their search of their master.

The story, as a whole, is an absolute masterpiece from Ridley Scott. It contains almost every part of the movie world’s genres: Humour, satire, morals, humanity, sci-fi, sex, violence, exciting action, everything. It even adds the aura of mystery with the characters too, especially the Replicants. Are they truly just imitations of life?
It’s extremely well written in terms of storyline too. It’s a basic premise: Robots searching for their creator, who in turn are being hunted.

But around this premise, Scott, using Phillip K Dick’s original writings and has created an entire Universe around it.

It’s also a very grounded movie in its self as well.
Yes it’s laden with futuristic sci-fi, but like with Scott’s other sci-fi marvel Alien, it feels real in the way it looks and plays out.
There’s no superhuman quality to the ‘hero’ Rick Deckard, he’s not some super-robot-hunter, he’s human and has weaknesses. The Replicants ‘powers’ are very drawn back into reality too, they’re not superduper, megapowerful machines like, say, Sonny in I, Robot.

It makes for an extremely enjoyable and yet also haunting movie that makes you look at mankind and technology in a philosophical way.
For anyone who wants guns out action, it has that too. Which is something missing from modern movies of this genre.

The acting is another marvel of creation.
Harrison Ford is brilliant as Deckard. As I said before, he’s very grounded and real, dirty, grimy and human. Yet has a tough side to him that gives an impression of learned skills rather than just being a tough guy who is written as just simply being a tough guy.
Rutger Hauer as the Replicant ‘leader’ called Roy Batty, is another mark of genius from the filmmakers. Hauer is wonderfully enigmatic and has a fantastic other world quality to him. His character’s programming, acted by Hauer, gives the character a completely different ‘human’ level, not found in many movie characters since, if ever.

Some of the special effects are a little old by today’s standard but they add to the film it their own way and the action scenes are brilliantly choreographed.
Again they’re based in a ‘reality’ rather than just being an all-out-jumping-100-feet-in-the-air-robots-vs-humans-actioner-with-battle-armour.

All in all, it’s another movie that has shaped the future of movies since it’s creation and is certainly a must-own on home cinema.
My rating is an easily given 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

Tmnt source material being exactly that: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

It's such an odd idea and so far out there, that to make a film that is as good as it is, that is by far one of the best films of its genre, time and well, time, is absolute genius.


I see. I thought you may have been talking about the 80s cartoon/Archie comics in particular as the source. And I was going to point out that it actually started with a fairly dark and gritty black and white indie comic series.


Oh and I actually really like I, Robot. One of those films that is on TV a lot and that I frequently end up watching when I stumble across it.

[The Rodent]

Ah, I've miswritten what I actually meant. Yes I meant the original comics as the source material, but I meant mainly the actual premise of the thing: Mutated turtles who are trained in martial arts.

To make a full motion picture that is that good on that premise is the genius.

[The Rodent]

Review #56: Armageddon.

A massive asteroid is heading for earth, it’s big enough and ugly enough to cause the death of every living thing on earth, including bacteria.
Bruce Willis, an oilrig millionaire and his team of employees are called into action by NASA to prep a drill team so they can land on the asteroid and drill a hole, then drop a nuclear bomb into the hole and save the world.
Cue lots of fish-out-of-water humorous training montages and full on explosive CGI action.

It’s a typical Michael Bay film, loud, brash, and explosive with elements of boyish humour and contains very little in the way of real life and has very outlandish plotpoints.
It’s well written in terms of dialogue and storytelling and expands the characters and their lives relatively well.

The CGI is also extremely well rendered, the practical effects are seamlessly mixed in and it’s exciting in the action stakes, but really, at its core, it’s a brainless actioner smothered in special effects.
Some of the scenes are quite disturbing too, one scene in particular shows the New York Twin Towers being hammered by meteors. Most TV stations remove said scene when airing the movie.

The main fault is the actual premise: NASA sending oilrig workers into space as astronauts after a week of training, because genuine astronauts can’t be trained to use a drill properly. Even Ben Affleck has been quoted putting the film down.

The other problem, is Michael Bay’s timing. It’s very similar to Transformers, daytime one minute and night-time the next, then suddenly it’s two days later. It loses the audience, you never know what’s happening or why.

The acting is probably the best thing next to the CGI. The all play their parts as good as they could and are very engaging.
Oilrig boss, Bruce Willis, is decidedly grumpy and take-charge, occasionally showing a softer side toward the end.
Ben Affleck is probably at his best, most of the time his acting is wooden and nauseous but he’s actually very likeable as Willis’ rebellious soon-to-be-son-in-law.
Billy-Bob Thornton steals the show as the NASA big-knob who calls Willis and his men into action. He encapsulates the character brilliantly and really draws the audience into his scenes.

All in all it’s an action movie that will appeal more to teenagers and has the occasional hit of teary tragedy and touches of loud humour.
It’s a very enjoyable film but if you’re after a meteor/disaster movie that has a bit more storyline, better characters and depth (ahem), watch Armageddon’s release-date-rival called Deep Impact.
My rating 70%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[honeykid]

Yeah, I prefered Deep Impact, too. That's a proper disaster movie.

[JayDee]

Yeah, I prefered Deep Impact, too. That's a proper disaster movie.

Up until recently I'd have gone with Armageddon (and I think I actually voted for that in one of the movie fight threads), but after seeing that again a year or two ago and Deep Impact a few months back I would now definitely go with Deep Impact. :yup:

[honeykid]

For me, Armageddon isn't a disaster movie, despite having a title that'd make you think that. Deep Impact, on the other hand, most definately is.

[The Rodent]

Review #57: Signs.

An ex-priest who is now a farmer and his family, awake one morning to find that their cornfield has a crop circle.
As more and more unusual things happen around the local town and county, animals acting strangely and shadowy, fast moving and unseen figures sneaking around people’s properties, the family begins to realise that something isn’t right in the neighbourhood.
When odd lights appear in the night sky above major cities around the world, their worst nightmare and unbelievable truth dawns on them.

Shyamalan, using his usual techniques, magnificently pieces the simplistic story together using humour, shadows, bump-in-the-night-noises and slowly unveiled mystery.

It’s certainly one of his best works in terms of storytelling too, though, as I said, it’s simplistic, but the cast chosen for the film make it even more of a joy to watch and discover the strange goings on throughout.

Another good point of the film is the title: Signs. There are many subtle levels to the meaning of the word that are used throughout the film, the audience has to watch out for them all too which gives you a sense of participation.

As for the acting, Mel Gibson is extremely likeable as the ex-preacher. His backstory is pieced together in an ABC-123 set of flashbacks but they play a key part in the future of the movie.
Joaquin Phoenix as Gibson’s younger brother and live-in-home-help is another good casting. He’s believable as a brother to Mel in the way he looks and, personally I think it’s Phoenix’s best acting outside of Gladiator.

Abigail Breslin steals the show though as the daughter of Gibson. At such a young age she really holds the role and the screen. She’s by far the best actor in the film.

The bad point of the movie is the ending, not the story part of it though, it’s the reveal of the creatures that lets it down. The CGI is by far some of the worst of modern day film. The small glimpses you get throughout the running time are extremely well conceived and there are many jumpy and mysterious moments too, but bad computerised effects shoot them down.
It’s sad really after such a fantastic build up.

All in all, though it’s a marmite film for movie goers, it’s still a relatively deep movie and has its fair share of jumps, sci-fi, mystery, comedy and tragedy and is Shayamalan’s best written work next to Unbreakable.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[akatemple]

^ I really liked Signs, it is my favorite Shayamalan movie, a lot of my friends did not like it but like I believe i've said before, I need to get new friends.

[Deadite]

Yeah, Signs is a wonderful movie, I think.

[The Rodent]

I prefer Signs to all his others. Unbreakable comes in second.

Don't really rate his others except Lady In The Water, that was interesting.

[Deadite]

I liked Lady in the Water but it was a bit silly at times.

[JayDee]

I also really enjoy Signs, coming second only to Unbreakable as my favourite of Shayamalan.

[gandalf26]

Must say that the % ratings you are giving out are fairly spot on.

With the exception of Leon, I would rate much higher, Rocky Balboa much lower, Terminator Salvation much lower (only watched once though so perhaps another viewing is required).

[akatemple]

When I saw the trailer for The Happening I was so excited to see his latest movie and the trailer made it look crazy and creepy, all that good stuff, then you watch the movie and are just thinking what the hell through the whole movie.

[The Rodent]

Cheers guys. I try to be fair. I have a simple system for percentages.

For basic dramas or quieter films I use:

1: Plotlines/storylines (feasibility, believability, originality). Marks out of 25.

2: Writing (plotlone/storyline writing [script], dialogue). Marks out of 25.

3: Overall actors's's performance (delivery of lines, intensity, believability, wooden-ness). Marks out of 25.

4: Overall casting (choice of actor). Marks out of 25.

---

For louder, action, sci-fi, adventure etc films, I add two more categories and adjust the 'marks out of':

1: Plotlines/storylines (feasibility, believability, originality). Marks out of 20.

2: Writing (plotlone/storyline writing [script], dialogue). Out of 20.

3: Overall actors's's performance (delivery of lines, intensity, believability). Marks out of 20.

4: Overall casting (choice of actor). Marks out of 20.

5: Special effects, CGI and practical (believability, utilisation). Marks out of 10.

6: Action (believability, utilisation, choreography). Marks out of 10.

Add up the marks for the percentage.

[The Rodent]

Review #58: The Quick And The Dead.

A town in the Wild West is run by a self appointed Mayor called John Herod. Herod was once a career criminal and an exceptional gunman and has made himself extremely rich over the years using fear and murder as his weapons.
Herod rules his town with an iron fist and charges a protection tax that is barely payable. Anybody who doesn’t pay up, is dealt with accordingly by Herod and his men.
As a morale booster, Herod holds a Quick-Fire competition to allow residents of the town to compete against one another and against him too, in one-on-one gunfights.
In the mix is Ellen, played by Sharon Stone. She’s entering the competition for the money but has a secret past and hidden agenda for facing almost certain death in the competition.
Cue lots of typical 'high-noon style' gunfights and lots of disparate characters, all fighting for the prize money and, if they survive long enough, a chance to square off against Herod himself.

It’s another simple western story from Hollywood but it has been given a massive amount of style in the way it plays out and looks, and a real depth of substance with the characters involved.
They’re all very comic-book and typical for the feel the movie wants to achieve.

They’re also very well realised as separate characters too. They all have different, subtle levels to their character and most have a past/backstory/agenda.

It’s also extremely well put together with the action choreography and the gunfights, they’re exciting and get more and more brutal and exciting as the movie goes on too.

The acting is also bang on from the main cast.
Sharon Stone is brilliantly moody as the heroine with a past and she wields a six-shooter believably.
Russell Crowe shows his worth as an ex-gunman of Herod’s who has now turned to God as a Preacher. Occasionally his accent slips but it’s barely noticeable.
Gene Hackman as Herod steals the show though. Herod made it into my top 40 villains and Hackman really revels in the sadistic and cold-hearted role. To be honest, it’s one of Hackman’s best.

Leonardo Di Caprio makes a relatively memorable appearance as "The Kid". Another character that has a past and he consistently claims to be something that ultimately, has dire consequences for him.
One thing that lets the movie down is also Di Caprio. Though he is believable and holds the role, he feels out of place in the genre. Occasionally it shows too and his ‘western accent’ really isn’t the best either.

All in all, for a comic-book take on the western genre it really surprised me at how good it is. Full of story and action and very stylish in the look.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[honeykid]

My favourite Rami film. Not that I particularly care for the others. I thought The Gift was quite good. Evil Dead, Evil Dead II and Drag Me To Hell are all ok. A Simple Plan will probably be his best work, but I've never had the inclination to watch it for some reason.

[The Rodent]

Review #59: Ransom.

A multimillionaire businessman and his wife are subjected to the ultimate horror when their young son vanishes from under their nose at a science convention and hasn’t been seen by anyone in the vicinity.
After waiting for hours, they receive the horrific news that their son has been kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding a ransom, or the boy will be mailed to them in pieces.
After by the FBI botch the ransom drop, the kidnappers raise their demands and their threats, forcing the father of the boy to take an incredibly drastic and cold-hearted step in getting his son back unharmed.

Ron Howard’s movie is by far one of the best-made movies I’ve seen in the past 20 years. It’s an absolute masterclass in tension and fear.

It’s incredibly well written and the twists contained in the story are extremely heart wrenching and brave. They’re also extremely shocking at times too. The handling of the twists is also another extremely well put together piece of filmmaking.

The overall film is brilliantly put together in screenplay terms too. By the end you feel yourself really willing Gibson to get his kid back.

The other good thing about the movie is the action when it gets going. It comes in short bursts and is utilised sparingly but is relentless during the time it’s used and really gets you on the edge of your seat. It’s not explosive so to speak, it’s just really well put together and pulse raising.

The acting is also another plus point.
Mel Gibson and Renee Russo as the parents of the boy are absolutely magnificent in their roles. Gibson in particular plays his breakdown over the movie’s running time absolutely perfectly. It’s one of the only times that a movie has made me cry, Gibson and Russo are that good as the distraught parents.
By far their best roles ever.

Gary Sinise is another brilliant piece of acting and casting as the leader of the kidnappers. He’s got a tension about him and a brutality that leaves the viewer never knowing what he’s planning.

Any bad points? Really not a lot, if anything at all.

All in all, it’s a very emotional film and very draining emotionally. It’s got the excitement factor that most action movies lack, even though it isn’t an action movie. Definitely a must see, and even more so it’s a must own on home cinema.
My rating is an easily given 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #60: The Big Lebowski.

For my 60th, I’ve decided to review an all time, one off, absolutely brilliant movie.
　
A man who calls himself The Dude, is embroiled in a mistaken-identity kidnap and embezzlement plot with a millionaire who shares The Dude’s real name of Jeffrey Lebowski.
That’s all I’m saying on the plot, you’ll have to watch to see the complex series of events that make The Dude’s life of laziness a living hell.
　
It’s extremely well written in plot terms. The events are at times very surreal but extremely funny and well realised.
The dialogue writing is another plus point, in particular the conversations between The Dude and his pals Walter and Donnie are extremely well put together and real-life humorous.
There’s also the occasional hit of slapstick style violence and accidents that give the viewer some real laugh out loud moments and some hits of mild mystery in the series of strange events too.
　
It can be a little difficult to get into at the start, on first viewing I didn’t quite get it but on a second viewing I found it extremely funny and engaging.
It may be the fact that it feels very loose in the storytelling, which can throw the audience, there’s no tight holding of the plot and the movie appears to be going of at a tangent, but really it isn’t.
What the movie is actually doing is very cleverly building an actual rolling story rather than just the typical Hollywood ABC-123 set of events.
　
The acting is also absolutely brilliant.
John Goodman as Walter is a brilliantly unhinged Vietnam Vet who tends to draw The Dude into doing things he doesn’t want to do. He’s also brilliantly twitchy at times and, strangely, he’s also the kind of likeable guy you’d like to go bowling with.
Steve Buscemi as Dude’s other pal Donnie, isn’t seen a massive amount in the film but you really get to caring about him. Buscemi plays the role wonderfully drawn back as a follower of Walter and is brilliantly lost in the events that are happening to them. Buscemi was a pleasant surprise for me as I’d never seen him play such a quiet character.
　
Jeff Bridges as stoner and ex-hippie The Dude/Jeffrey Lebowski absolutely steals the movie though.
Bridges actually lived in costume and lived as The Dude in real life so he could really get into the character’s being and give a better portrayal and it really shows. He’s extremely real and natural.
Outside of his role in Starman, it’s Bridges best performance.

All in all, it’s by far one the best written films I’ve ever seen and very funny. Most people like me, had a tough time on first viewing, but give it a go and keep your mind open and it’ll certainly make you laugh, cry and even cringe. A very rare film.
My rating is another easily given 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[nebbit]

:love: the Dude :yup:

[JayDee]

Wow look at you Rodent. You've only been here for like a minute and a half and already you have the honour of being moved up to the premium threads section. :D

While I wouldn't go quite as high it's nice to see Ransom getting some love. :up: Lebowski however fell completely flat for me on first viewing. Just did not get it. Do plan on revisiting it sometime though, perhaps it will click for me.

[The Rodent]

Lebowski is one that needs two viewings at least. I didn't get it on first view either but after a few more watches and some years of growth, I've seen it's a fantastic movie.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Saw Lebowski a long while back and didnt care for it much--its time for that second viewing, ill check it out again soon

[honeykid]

Got it on the first bounce. :p

[JayDee]

Got it on the first bounce. :p

Ah yes but that's because you're special. Not everyone can be as great as you are. :D

[honeykid]

That's true. :) Lots of people have called me 'special'. :yup:

[The Rodent]

Finally back to the world of the living.
Been drifting in and out of conciousness for the past two days with flu and before you ask, yes it's real flu, not man-flu. I've even managed to lose a stone in weight, woohoo! Not over it yet, still feeling rough but felt the need to take my mind off it and write another review.


Review #61: Ghostbusters Movie Franchise (With A Runover Of Review #29: Ghostbusters)

Ghostbusters
The movie initially wasn’t made as a kids movie, it was intended to be an adult tongue in cheek comedy based on a premise of ‘firemen who catch ghosts rather than fight fires’.
It just proved popular with 80s kids, including myself and eventually a dumbed-down-for-kids sequel and entire franchise of cartoons and toys were spawned off the back of the movie.
This review is about the original film.
The movie starts with Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler (Dan Ayckroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis, respectively) slacking off and taking a relatively lax approach to paranormal study at their university. Ray being the most upbeat and normal member of the brainy trio, Egon the brainier scientist and Peter being a brilliant mind also but very down to earth and extremely lazy when it takes his fancy.
Shortly after making what they perceive as a breakthrough in their ‘work’ on the paranormal, they’re kicked out of university for basically being slackers.
They take their research and some money they make from selling (an unwilling) Ray’s house, using their combined intelligence and their companionship, they start up a business in Paranormal Investigations and Eliminations as the Ghostbusters.
Unbeknownst to them, they’re being watched by outside authorities and their research has shown a massive spike in paranormal activity around the city of New York that stems from a particular building near Central Park. After a woman who lives in the building comes to them and explains some of the strange things she’s witnessed there, it’s up to them to investigate and stop whatever lurks in the building.
The whole movie is one long, very well written joke.
It takes itself seriously at times, when it does, it works very well, but most of the time it utilises humour and extremely subtle timing as a catalyst for the comedy.
The dialogue is also extremely funny and very well delivered by the cast.
The action, though quite short and sweet, is well choreographed. Ivan Reitman’s direction is superb. It’s exciting and staged brilliantly.
The actors too are extremely comfortable in their roles.
Murray in particular is at his absolute best, he plays the role with an ease not seen outside of Groundhog Day or even Scrooged.
Ayckroyd is as usual, he’s funny, upbeat, offbeat and very engaging as the ‘heart of the Ghostbusters’.
Ramis does a fantastic job as the fungus loving brainbox, Egon. You really believe this guy is the Einstein of the 80s.
Ernie Hudson is introduced halfway through the film as the ‘everyman’ of the story. His character is used initially as the guy who gets the scientific stuff explained for the audience. He plays the role with a coolness and down to earth. He’s very likeable.
Sigourney Weaver, who at the time was most famous for her role in Alien is perfectly cast as Dana Barrett, (Venkman’s love interest), she has a real connection to the audience and has wonderful chemistry with Murray. Her role becomes a key point of the paranormal plot too.
A special mention should go out to Rick Moranis. His character, Louis Tulley, is very, very funny. Though not seen a massive amount in the film, he too is an important role in the plot. Moranis actually ad-libbed most of his dialogue and movement too, which makes the character even funnier.
　
The one fault with the movie, if you can call it a fault:
The effects of the movie are a Marmite question for a lot of people. When the effects are first seen in the hotel during the Ghostbusters first job, they hit the audience with a delightful shock.
After that, some of the effects can let some people down, they’re very cartoony. The filmmakers have said in the past it was due to a limited budget rather than a style choice.
I say, if the effects were any different, it wouldn’t have worked as well as it did. It adds to the movie’s feel of not taking itself too seriously.
All in all, an absolute classic 80s film. Funny, engaging and brilliantly cast.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

　
Ghostbusters 2

The movie revolves around a haunted painting. The man in the picture, called Vigo, was once a medieval tyrant and sadistic magician who now wants back in the world of the living.
A river of ‘ectoplasmic’ style slime has also started building up underneath New York city
The slime its self is almost a living entity and is able to affect its surroundings by turning usually inanimate objects into living creatures, usually dangerous ones too.
Mixed up in all this is Dana Barrett again, this time though with her 8-month-old son, Oscar. Vigo wants Oscar as the vessel to harbour his soul when he returns to the living world.
It’s up to the Ghostbusters to stop Vigo and found out what exactly is causing the river of slime, and if they can utilise it in their fight to save little Oscar.

This movie is the one that divides the fans.

It’s about as well written as it could have been for a sequel to a low budget adult comedy.
The thing that lets it down is that it’s been dumbed down for a wider audience. The first film was such a big hit with kids, I guess they had to, but it gives the movie a much more held back attitude. There’s no smoking, swearing, very little in the way of spooky atmospheres and, though there are some strange happenings there’s not many scares.
It’s also very comic book, similar in tone to the cartoons that the first movie spawned.
There is one other bad point toward the end with the Statue Of Liberty scenes, it doesn’t feel quite right. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it feels out of place.

However, it’s brilliantly put together in terms of story writing and creation.
The ideas in the film are original and are utilised with style. The comedic elements are much more prominent in this one, the first film was more of an adult comedy but this sequel is much more wacky and zany and certainly more child friendly.

Even though the filmmakers were after a wider audience to capitalise on their success, they actually did a very good job. The movie doesn’t feel like a rushed, cheap, cliché cash in.

The effects are improved to an extent but they still look like the first film. I’d say this is another good point, the first film’s effects looked the way they looked because of low budget, and this film really was a style choice.
There are some changes to how the ghosts are modelled though, they’re more cartoony, kind of like Gizmo in Gremlins 2 being more cutesy than the first Gremlins.

The acting is another good point. Murray, Ramis, Hudson and Ayckroyd are brilliantly comfortable in their roles and Sigourney Weaver is also spot on as single mum Dana.
Peter MacNicol adds a touch of humour as Dr. Janosz Poha, Vigo’s unwitting sidekick.
The late Wilhelm Von Homburg as Vigo is a brilliant villain, he’s very close to stealing the show. He’s voiced by Max Von Sydow. He’s also very threatening and believable as a force to be reckoned with.

All in all, no where near as good as the first film due to the dumbed down tone but is good for keeping the kids quiet for a couple of hours. Adults will enjoy it too but most people over the age of 20 will prefer the first film.
My rating 70%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[nebbit]

Finally back to the world of the living.
Been drifting in and out of conciousness for the past two days with flu and before you ask, yes it's real flu, not man-flu. I've even managed to lose a stone in weight, woohoo!
I want that flu http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/denistephenson/smileys/smiley%20characters/sneezing.gif please sent a dirty tissue to my place :p i nee d to loose weight :laugh: glad you are on the mend :yup:

[nebbit]

Finally back to the world of the living.
Been drifting in and out of conciousness for the past two days with flu and before you ask, yes it's real flu, not man-flu. I've even managed to lose a stone in weight, woohoo!
I want that flu http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/denistephenson/smileys/smiley%20characters/sneezing.gif please sent a dirty tissue to my place :p I need to loose weight :laugh: glad you are on the mend :yup:

[The Rodent]

Like, ew! :eek:

I'm still dying even now.

[nebbit]

Like, ew! :eek:
Yes disgusting :laugh:

I'm still dying even now.
Not Dying But still a poor sick person :kiss: feel better soon :yup:

[The Rodent]

　
Review #62: Pitch Black (aka: The Chronicles Of Riddick: Pitch Black).

A space vessel that is transporting people in hypersleep crash-lands on a strange deserted, desert planet that has 3 suns.
The handful of survivors is faced with the prospect of dying of thirst unless they can find a way off the planet. With them is a bounty hunter and his pay cheque, a convicted murderer called Riddick. Riddick is no normal criminal though, he has strange glowing eyes and an inhuman strength, and he’s also extremely intelligent.
After Riddick manages to escape, certain members of the group begin to vanish and immediately they fear the convict is now hunting them. On later inspection of a nearby cave system they realise that something much worse is at play. With the addition of what appears to be a total eclipse of the planet, the group must rely on Riddick, to protect them from what hides in the caves.

It’s an extremely original piece of writing, especially for a sci-fi. The survival story of crash landing on a planet and having to find a way home is simplistic but that’s where the film leaves conventional storytelling at the door.
The whole relying on the ‘bad guy’ take, is extremely well put together, if a little cliché with why they had to rely on him, but the whole film is based around the premises of certain situations and events happening for a reason, or there could be no story.

The characters too are used nicely, they all have little secrets and hidden pasts that are revealed over the course of the movie and Riddick in particular is kept as a mystery throughout the film. Only the occasion insight into his character is shown but the viewer is never really sure if it’s true or not.

The effects are another plus point, though there are the occasional faults with some of the CGI, it’s still really well rendered and the puppetry work is also top notch.
As for the action, it shows small hits of excitement from time to time but the film is mainly based on running and hiding and the fears of something jumping out of the shadows. When it gets going though, it works and the tensions that the film works on are well conceived.
The film also doesn’t hold back with the gore when it's needed either.

As for the acting, Vin Diesel as Riddick is by far the best in show. He encapsulates the character brilliantly and makes the protagonist/antagonist role completely his. It’s the role that most people associate him with too.
Cole Hauser is a close second as the bullsh*tter bounty hunter William J Johns. Hauser is at his usual and hits his lines professionally.

One thing that lets the film down is the mildly confusing dialogue near the beginning, it seems to have been written without a wider audience in mind. Kind of like a language barrier.
Some of the shooting feels a little naive at times too, but this is an original film, so I guess it's passable.
Another fault is Rhiana Griffith as Jack, it’s extremely hard to believe "Jack’s secret" and Rhiana is wooden to the point of being annoying.

All in all a low-key and almost experimental sci-fi that works in some places but not in others but is still certainly a film worthy of a high rating.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[akatemple]

Pitch Black is in my top 20, I really liked that movie and by far the best thing that Vin Diesel has done, really nice review, thanks.

[The Rodent]

It's a strange one really. There's a few mistakes and the odd show of naivety from the makers but it's a cracking low budget sci-fi. Shame the sequel went all 'Hollywood' though.

[akatemple]

Yeah the sequel was horrible IMO, I am curious to see what the 3rd one will be like.

[The Rodent]

Review #63: The Day After Tomorrow.

An American weather scientist makes the most important discovery of our time when strange storms start happening all over the planet. The usual happens with this sort of thing, nobody listens to him, especially when he says a Superstorm is coming and will kill almost everything in the Northern Hemisphere.
As it happens, his son is trapped in New York as the Superstorm strikes the Northern Hemisphere and he braves the extreme weather by trekking across America on foot to save his son.
Hence a big ‘told you so’ and a thumbs down for the U.S Government.

That’s really about as far as the plot goes and it’s carried out as well as it could have been.
The film is the usual Emmerich disaster film that shows various landmarks of America being smashed and hammered by natural disaster.

The movie borders at times on laugh out loud funny, but it’s unintentional sadly. Some of the ‘science’ used is cod at best and the dialogue is rip-roaringly cheesy.
If the viewer was to watch the film and imagine it as a spoof, it’s actually much more fun than watching it as a seriously made film.
It’s also extremely stereotypical with the portrayal of anything outside of the USA, which is another Emmerich touch that’s seen in Independence Day and 2012.

The effects are top notch though and they’re actually quite thrilling to watch. The action too is pretty well choreographed and exciting, especially when tidal waves hit New York.

The acting sadly is pretty substandard. Jake Gyllenhaal is wooden and unbelievable as Dennis Quaid’s son.
Dennis Quaid is probably the best of the lot, though he has a look on his face that says "Why am I doing this?"
Still though, he hits his mark professionally.

All in all it’s a popcorn brainless CGI adventure that promises lots of flash, tries to have an air of scientific depth to it but simply just delivers, well, flashy CGI adventures and funny dialogue.
My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)

Review #64: Independence Day (ID4).

A huge alien craft takes orbit around Earth and drops hundreds of city sized saucers onto the Earth that take their place hovering above all of our major cities.
Called into action is USAF Pilot Will Smith and scientist Jeff Goldblum to save the day, teaming up with the US President Bill Pullman.
Hence lots of Dogfights between Smith and the alien fighters and a big finale on the alien mothership.

It’s another simplistic alien attack movie and a disaster movie to boot. Emmerich basically made his name with ID4 and he really deserves the credit.

The plot is simple, the dialogue is even more simple and the writing is even more simplistic but, the way the movie is played out on screen, mixed with absolutely top notch effects makes a perfect popcorn no-brainer effects laden disaster epic.

Emmerich’s usual stereotypes of other non-USA cultures is present again and their dialogue also hits unintentionally funny but it’s still lots of fun.
Some of the dialogue reaches cringe-worthy at times, coming close to the olde saucer-film speeches.

The CGI and miniature work is bang on the money though. The good thing with ID4 is that there are practical effects involved, rather than Hollywood’s recent attempts at all out CGI.
The aliens too are a welcome addition. They’re very well designed and really quite spooky at times.

The action is also top notch, the dogfights between alien craft and USAF fighters is really exciting.

Will Smith as USAF Pilot Hiller is at his usual, loud, fun and energetic self. He’s lots of fun and you can tell he had fun during filming.
Jeff Goldblum is another plus point. His ‘cable repairman’ and scientist David Levinson is engaging and funny and he really hits the serious notes when needed.

All in all, another no-brainer CGI laden disaster movie from Emmerich but unlike all of the others of his that I’ve reviewed on here, this one really hits all the right notes. Fun, loud, brash and needs to be watched with sugary drinks and snacks.
My rating 88%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #65: Cat’s Eye.

Based on Stephen King’s novel of short stories, Cat’s Eye combines three short tales of a stray cat travelling around America spurned on by the vision of a little girl who appears to be in peril.

#1: Quitters Inc’ is based on a company who uses hard-fisted tactics in ‘helping’ smokers to quit their habit. The tactics include kidnapping the smoker’s wife and even cutting off various body parts until they quit. The cat in question is used as an example when they torture it to prove their hard-fisted ways are real.
#2: The Ledge is based on a man who is in debt with a mob boss and casino owner. The cat in question has won the mob boss some money by surviving a dangerous road crossing without being run over and as a ‘reward’ has been taken in by the boss and pampered. ‘The Ledge’ gets its name from, quite literally, the Ledge around the top of the building that the mob boss cruelly makes his victims crawl around in high winds, to settle their debts.
#3: The General is the third story, where the cat in question appears to have finally found the little girl who has been appearing in the visions. She names the stray cat ‘The General’ but is chastised by her mother for allowing the stray into her room at night. Eventually, more serious matters arise when it appears that a small Troll creature has made a home in the wall of the little girl’s bedroom. It’s up to General to save the child from the malevolent little creature.

As far as Stephen King novels-to-films go, it definitely one of the best. The screenplay feels very disparate with three completely different stories, but for a strange set of stories, it actually works very well.
The small elements of dark humour are a welcome addition too.

There’s no action so to speak but there are scenes of torture and sadism and the finale with the Troll is brilliantly played out.

There’s also brilliant ‘scene crossing’ where the ‘miniature’ man-in-suit Troll is seen with a full sized child and it plays out flawlessly. The fact that no CGI is used throughout those particular scenes makes for a more real feeling.
The acting is another bonus.

James Woods, Robert Hays and Drew Barrymore are just a few Hollywood names on the list and they all make for great viewing.
Woods in particular steals the entire film for his part in Quitters Inc'.
The one (and only) thing that lets the film down though is the acting at the end from Candy Clarke, who plays the little girl’s mother. She’s extremely wooden.

All in all, one of the best Stephen King based movies. Very different in tone to anything else I’ve ever seen and will certainly live with the viewer for a long time, though it can be a little difficult to get into for some, it’s definitely worth a watch.
My rating 89%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #66: Equilibrium.

Set in a dystopian futuristic city after a Third World War, humanity itself has been suppressed using drugs that obliterate human emotions.
The reasoning is that human emotion is the cause of war, suffering and death, and must be eradicated, along with any form of human emotion including creativity, paintings, music and film.
A special police force has also been created called the Grammaton Clerics, used for dealing with anyone who has ‘ceased the dose’ and has begun ‘feeling’ again. The Clerics are a super-trained elite force at stopping anyone and anything that threatens the tranquillity of the city.
Head of the Clerics is John Preston. He’s the best there is, but hunting down and killing ‘Feelers’ for as long as he has, he himself decides to ‘cease the dose’ and turns his new found feelings, along with his super-skills against his peers and take down the oppressive and fascist ‘government’.

It’s an interesting movie for what it is. Many say it’s a Matrix style action flick but deep down it’s something more. It has an almost political message and a philosophical outlook on humanity.
The style of action is similar to The Matrix with almost superhuman movements and martial arts, but that’s as far as it goes.
The story itself is the thing that makes the movie worth watching, though extremely implausible in the way it has been played out, it borders on brainless cod politics, but it works brilliantly.

The acting is a little dodgy at times though.
Christian Bale is at his usual self, playing it deadly serious throughout but as an emotionless police officer, he still shows signs of emotion. When his character ceases to dose though, Bale really nails the part.
Taye Diggs as Bale’s partner is terrible as an apparently emotionless Cleric. He just smiles smarmily throughout and tends to show a lot of anger for someone who is dosing on emotion suppressing drugs.

The martial arts action is really what the film is about. It’s brilliantly choreographed and exciting. If anything, it’s better than The Matrix and has a more grounded and real feel to it too.

What lets the film down is that there are a number of questions raised about the rest of the world outside the city. Similar in vein to the questions raised by Demolition Man.
It all doesn’t quite make sense. Though, if you can look past all the plot holes…

All in all it’s a relatively low-key effort and it’s hard to see where the massive budget went, but for anyone who’s after a relatively brainless but thought-provoking actioner, it’s worth a watch.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #67, Movie #99
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Rise_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_Poster.jpg


Year Of Release
2011

Director/s
Rupert Wyatt

Producer/s
Peter Chernin, Dylan Clark, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver

Writer/s
Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Pierre Boulle

Cast
James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, David Oyelowo

And Andy Serkis

Notes And Trivia
Short trivia this time… WETA, the guys behind LOTR (and whom created Andy Serkis’ Gollum makeover) are the magicians who created the Apes for the film.

---



Synopsis:


A team of scientists lead by Will Rodman, have been testing genetically engineered viruses on Apes in the quest to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. Will’s Father is also suffering from the disease.
In the process, an infant is born to one of the tested Apes and is found to be incredibly clever, at only a few days old he is feeding himself and using tools.

Raised from birth with Will and his Father, he is named Caesar and becomes disillusioned with his role in the family unit. Is he a pet? Is he just some thing that lives with them? What is his background? Many questions trouble Caesar, and he must come to terms with what Will reveals.


A while later after certain tragedies strike, the now fully grown Caesar is placed in a primate centre where he plots his escape and masters a plan to become the Alpha Male in this new world of Apes in which he now lives.

Review:


I was dubious about the rebooting of the series, especially after the Markymark remake that pretty much killed it off before it began. Man that film was gash!


I’m glad to say though that I was wrong, I was very wrong indeed.


The story is exactly that: A story.
It’s written brilliantly and plays out relatively simply so it’s easy to follow, but the steps that the movie goes through to make the build-up possible is perfectly executed and extremely believable.


There are also homages of the original franchise with occasional glimpses of the Icarus Space Shuttle shown on various news broadcasts and newspapers, some of the Apes’ names seen throughout and a few lines of dialogue too.


The film also successfully builds a sense of philosophy when it comes to Caesar actually being more humane than some of the Humans he comes into contact with.
It’s actually that good you find yourself on the side of the Apes rather than the humans and gives the viewer a completely different depth and outlook to the Apes' Franchise Legacy.


There’s also the side of the Humans laced into it too which allows the viewer to see things from all sides. Good and bad Humans, and also good and bad Apes… it’s very broad in the story telling and emotions of the characters.
There’s also the occasional shock in the plotline too, especially with Caesar’s abilities. At one point I actually said ‘Whoa’ out loud.


One thing missing though is the Female Chimp called Cornelia. There’s a small hint about a connection between her and Caesar, but it’s incredibly glimpsing and I get the impression something was snipped from the final cut of the movie.




The acting is another bang-on-the-money bonus.
James Franco who is mediocre in my book is very likable and engaging. It’s by far his best role outside of 127 Hours. Definitely a worthy leading man.
Tom Felton feels a little typecast as a worker at the primate centre. He does his Draco Malfoy thing from Harry Potter but he’s very slimy and smarmy and really makes for a good ‘baddy’.
John Lithgow makes a welcome appearance as Franco’s ill Father. He’s very loveable and you really make a connection with the character as he flits between normal and confused and frustrates and worries Will at the same time. I loved Lithgow in this film.


By far, of course, the best acting comes from Andy Serkis as Caesar. Imagine King Kong but with more of a personality and man-sized rather than 30 feet tall. Then multiply that performance by 100 and you’re getting relatively close. Serkis is absolutely fantastic.
You can also strangely tell it’s Serkis doing it. The role reeks of him, but in a very, very good way.


Backup comes from Brian Cox as the primate centre owner, Freida Pinto as Will’s new squeeze and David Oyelowo as Will’s Boss. There’s also too-many-to-count mime artists and motion capture people involved, but they all do a magnificent job.




As for the effects, well, where to begin?
You can tell that the Apes are CGI but it’s extremely stylish and works fantastically with the tone of the movie.


The action is another plus point. It’s exciting and very well choreographed. It’s also smile-renderingly paced and contains some imaginative hints by the filmmakers. The end scene on the bridge and how the Apes use their surroundings is also wonderfully original.


The whole lot of action is held together brilliantly though with the acting involved and the fact you care, or hate, the respective characters involved. It’s also all held back in reality and doesn’t go all Hollywood-Michael-Bay-OTT.


The soundtrack is also heart pounding and edgy.


The only downer is that the film is only 90 minutes long. It could really do with another hour, at least.




---


All in all, by far one of the best films of recent years and it certainly a surprised me in a pleasant way.
Great acting, great action, brilliant effects.


I just can’t wait for the sequel.


My Rating: 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)
rating_5

[JayDee]

Could not agree more with your review of Apes. :up: I absolutely loved it. Like you I was dubious when I first heard about it, but what a wonderful surprise it turned out to be. Definitely up there for my favourite film of 2011.

[The Rodent]

Review #68: The Karate Kid.

The original and the best of the Karate Kid Franchise revolves around Daniel LaRusso, a young school boy who finds himself in strange surroundings when his mother gets a new job in a new city.
At school a rich-kid ‘in’ crowd made up of slightly older boys bullies him relentlessly due to Daniel’s smaller stature and smaller bank account and that he has taken a liking to the ex-girlfriend of the leader of the crowd.
This crowd also happens to be martial arts students of a man called John Kreese, a brutal and hard-nosed instructor who teaches the boys to hit first and show no mercy to their enemy.
During one of Daniel’s particular encounters with the crowd, an old Japanese man called Mr Myagi, who works as a maintenance man in Daniel’s apartment block, appears out of nowhere and saves Daniel from quite literally being beaten to death. Mr Myagi agrees to go to visit Kreese with Daniel to put a stop the bullying but ends up challenging Kreese in a martial arts showdown in an upcoming tournament between Daniel and Kreese’s students.

It’s a pretty simple story of beating the odds, and the wimpy kid getting turned into a stronger person, both physically and mentally with the help of a wise old wizard of a character. Being that the movie was put together by pretty much the same team that put Rocky together gives you an idea of what to expect.

What makes Karate Kid special is the writing and screenplay, it’s fantastically put together and you really get on the side of the protagonists and begin to care about them. The other thing with the writing is when Daniel is in peril, you really feel it.

Some of the ‘training techniques’ were written solely for the movie by an actual martial artist and seem a little cheesy at times, but they’re some of the most quoted phrases and movements in movie history. Even with the slight cheesyness, they actually work and give the audience something to relate to.

Another special thing about the movie is the acting.
Martine Kove as John Kreese isn’t seen on screen very much but his impact on the movie is lasting. Kove made it into my top 40 villains list too.
Ralph Macchio as LaRusso is another wise choice by the filmmakers. He’s weedy and puny and has a chip on his shoulder at the start but as the film progresses, Macchio really comes into his own and actually seems to grow with the character.

Noriyuki Pat Morita though as Mr Myagi is an absolute gem of a character and Morita absolutely nails the role and if it weren’t for the brilliant story writing he would almost steal the entire movie. The filmmakers almost didn’t cast Morita due to his comedy background but he really shows his worth as a serious actor and can show the subtle humorous side of Myagi brilliantly.

The soundtrack of the film is also bang on. Some of it is a little dated with the 80s pop tracks but the heavy bass pop-rock heard in the film’s final scenes and the oriental backing track that’s used throughout for Myagi and Daniel’s training, really give the movie some substance.

A big let down for The Karate Kid though is the sequels and the awful remake. The first and original movie should be treated as a stand-alone. To be honest, I don’t even own the sequels.

All in all it’s another 80s classic from me and has influenced the underdog genre since, and simply, it's just a lot of fun to watch.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

As you can see from my current avi that's another real favourite of mine. :yup:

[The Rodent]

For number 69, my favourite number ever, I've decided to do my usual special-review and pull apart an entire franchise in one go.


Review #69: Die Hard Franchise (Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Die Hard: With A Vengeance, Die Hard 4.0)

Die Hard

The movie is based around a New York cop called John McClane who is visiting his estranged wife at her workplace in a Los Angeles skyscraper, called the Nakatomi Plaza. It’s Christmas Eve and the top employees of the company are having a Christmas party when McClane arrives.
However, a terrorist group who is after the contents of the building’s Safe has also arrived just after McClane.
Unknown to the terrorist group though, is that during the hostile party crashing, McClane’s police training has urged him to take action. He manages to disappear, unseen into the building’s air conditioning system and various lift-shafts, and has now become the only hope for the group of hostages that the terrorists have taken. Among the hostages though is McClane’s wife, Holly.

It’s an exceptionally original movie. The storyline is relatively simple: A man with a background trying to save the one he loves from a more powerful force.
But the way the movie has been handled and researched with real life police officers as advisors for Willis make for a real feeling turn of events.

The humour of the film comes from the same police advisors too. It’s very situational and makes for a good chuckle throughout.

What makes this particular action movie special is that it’s relatively small scale and only occasionally goes for the larger bangs and explosions. Most action flicks are simply crash bang and wallop all the way through. Director McTiernan manages to balance every element of the movie brilliantly.

The first and original Die Hard movie made a household name of Bruce Willis across the world.
Originally intended as a sequel to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Commando, and sticking closely to the original source material of Roderick Thorp's novel called Nothing Lasts Forever, Die Hard is an 80s action classic and also manages to be a Christmas favourite too.

The acting is also a bonus. Willis is absolutely brilliant as the cop who’s out of his comfort zone who digs deep into his psyche to save his wife.
Alan Rickman is fantastic too as the terrorist leader. Rickman made it into my top 40 villains list.

All in all it’s one of the best action films ever made and has a delicate balance of over-the-top bangs, small-scale claustrophobia, combined with subtle humour and an actual sense of realism.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder

McClane is once again thrown into the firing line on Christmas Eve while waiting for his wife Holly to arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Another group of terrorists has hacked the airport’s computer systems and is demanding the release of a Val Verde Dictator, or they will give wrong co-ordinates to the circling aeroplanes, which will cause them to crash. Of course, with Holly being on one of the circling aeroplanes, John has to do anything he can to bring down the terrorists, as the airport police are inadequate at best.

For a sequel, it’s about as good as it could have been. The writing is pretty cliché, it’s more of a rerun of the first movie in terms of plot but the action is certainly louder and more explosive.
Typical of the Hollywood sequel, forget about that delicate balancing act that made the first action movie so special, instead just go for all out guns and explosions.

The main thing missing is McTiernan as director, this time round it’s Renny Harlin at the helm. His repertoire contains films like The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea (the shark film) so that should give you an idea of what brainless action to expect.

The acting is pretty bang on though. Willis is comfortable in the role.
William Saddler is ok as the terrorist leader but he’s very cliché like the script and doesn’t really feel much of a threat.

All in all it’s a good post pub film if nothing else is on, but feels more of a cashed in affair compared to the first film.
My rating 40%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)

Die Hard With A Vengeance

McClane is once again pulled into action when a terrorist group decides to start setting off bombs around New York.
This time round, the terrorist group is targeting McClane directly. It appears that at some point in McClane’s past, he has upset some pretty powerful and dangerous people who are after a double whammy of revenge against McClane and the theft of something valuable.
A ‘Good Samaritan’ shopkeeper called Zeus Carver unwittingly gets pulled into the explosive action after he saves McClane from a sure-fire beating, which gives an odd-couple-buddy-movie feel to the mix.

Die Hard makes a welcome return to the screen with this attempt. McTiernan is back at the helm thankfully and the story and plot have both been written with a little more thought than the second film had.

Ok, there are certain plots that are a little contrived and are used solely for franchise continuity, but they do work to an extent.

The action this time round is even more explosive than both predecessors combined and is much more furiously paced.
As too is the humour. It’s much louder but not wacky. A lot of the giggles that the audience gets are mixed into the furious pacing of the action.

Willis is on form again. He’s looking even more comfortable in the role and carries the action brilliantly.
Samuel L Jackson as McClane’s reluctant partner adds a brilliant touch of comedy to the mix and really knows how to play it cool and tough when needed.
Jeremy Irons as the terrorist leader is a little dodgy on the accent front, but he’s delightfully camp and theatrical.

All in all a vast improvement on the second movie and almost tops the original on an overall basis. It certainly tops the original in the action stakes though. What lets it down is the slightly cashed-in feel of the franchise continuity plotlines.
My rating 85%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)



Die Hard 4.0 (aka: Live Free Or Die Hard)

After FBI and Government computers are hacked by an unknown source, John McClane is called in by his Captain to bring in a known computer hacker for questioning.
As soon as McClane gets the young lad in his sights, assassins also appear on the scene, forcing McClane to have to defend the kid.
It’s now up to McClane and the hacker to find out exactly what’s going on with the FBI computers, why professional assassins have targeted the kid and other hackers around the city, and what exactly a group of cyber-terrorists is after.
Thrown into the mix is McClane’s grown up daughter Lucy, who is being held by the terrorists as a bargaining chip to keep McClane under control.

Another welcome return for the Die Hard Franchise, the story is a product of its time (albeit modern time) with cyber-terrorism and computer hacking but it’s extremely well handled and believable.

The fourth outing is definitely about explosive action though. It’s brilliantly staged and exciting and hardly lets up for more than a couple of minutes at a time. Unlike other action movies, it doesn’t start off small and get bigger as the movie progresses, it starts of big and blows the bloody doors off the usual Hollywood smash-em-ups.

A big fault with the movie, sadly, is the CGI work on a lot of the action scenes. Particularly at the end of the movie with the fighter-jet, it’s just too far, and too much.
It feels almost like the filmmakers are trying to turn McClane into a superhuman-actionman, rather than the everyman who knows how to kick @rse when needed. It destroys the feel of character-realism that the other movies tried so hard to build.

With Len Wiseman, director of the Underworld franchise at the helm, you’ll have an idea of the OTT action involved in the third act.

A lot of the humour of the Die Hard series has been dropped for a more rougher, edgier feel, only occasional giggles are put into the mix, usually through Justin Long being out of his depth in all the action.

Willis is back on form as the out-of-his-comfort-zone cop again. This time round he’s become old and grouchy and is way out of his depth with the cyber-terrorism that’s happening around him.
Justin Long is a welcome character as the young hacker, Matt Farrell. He’s basically the brains for McClane’s brawn and baby walks McClane through all the cyber-stuff while McClane shows the computer nerd how to be tough while away from a keyboard.
Timothy Olyphant as Thomas Gabriel is a good leading-villain though. He’s realistic and doesn’t try to copy the theatrical feel of previous Die Hard villains. Though not a physical threat to McClane, he’s certainly a dangerous opponent when at his computer.

All in all it’s a welcome return after a 12-year absence. Sadly the OTT CGI spoils the third act slightly but it’s certainly an improvement for the franchise.
My rating 87%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

Why would 69 be your favourite number ever, I wonder.

;)

[Deadite]

I like all the Die Hards but the first and third are by far the best, I think.

[The Rodent]

I'm the same, I love the Die Hard movies but from my criticalising point of view, the first is by far the best overall.
The fourth comes in second due to being really well choreographed and the shooting style is brilliant.
The third is definitely more exciting in the action stakes than all of them put together but I found it dropping to third place after the fourth movie came out.
The second movie comes in last sadly, it's a bit of a cash in, but worth a watch if you want a brainless smash 'em up after you've been out drinking.

Hopefully they won't go all silly-CGI for the fifth installment if it ever gets underway. I've heard it's billed for a Christmas 2014 release.

[The Rodent]

Finally got this one written. Strangely, my computer kept resetting itself while I was writing this review but here it is...

Review #70: Poltergeist.

The Freeling family find their home invaded by what appears to be a Spirit. Small occurrences around the home, chairs moving and strange noises coming from the television are fun at first but eventually the parents realise that their youngest daughter, Carol Anne, is actually being targeted by the Spirit.
One night, during a particularly horrific ‘occurrence’ that distracts the family, Carol Anne vanishes into thin air. The only proof that she is still alive is the sound of her voice coming from the television set.

The original and most memorable Poltergeist movie is an absolute gem in the horror genre. Directed by Tobe Hooper, a man who knows his way around tension, the movie excels at keeping the audience on the backfoot.
The writing too is absolutely fantastic. The screenplay really works with the tension and horror that the audience is experiencing and the dialogue writing adds more realism to the mix too.

The effects of the film are largely practical and feel extremely grounded in reality, which gives the film a more believable feel.
There are the occasional rotoscoped images and some animation too but the effects start small and get bigger as the film progresses.

What really makes the movie stand out though is the acting.
Craig T Nelson and JoBeth Williams as Steven and Diane Freeling (the parents) are wonderfully real and carry the horror brilliantly. Nelson in particular physically changes over the film as he becomes more and more worn down by the occurrences.
The kids in the film aren’t seen a great deal but when on screen, they really get into the roles. Dominique Dunne and Oliver Robins play the elder children with Heather O’Rourke as Carol-Anne.

A fault with the film is that there are an unusually large amount of mistakes throughout including cameramen and crew seen in shots and various continuity errors from scene to scene. It’s not an 'eagle eyed' fan that can spot the mistakes either, a lot of it is blatantly obvious.

All in all it’s a top shelf horror and wrote the rulebook on supernatural horrors. If it weren’t for the mistakes, it would be the perfect movie.
My rating is still 90% though
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

Huge fan of the Die Hard series. :yup: The first is terrific, pretty much the perfect action film. The third is really close behind as it's wonderfully good fun, and a great team-up with Willis and Jackson. The second and fourth are both very entertaining as well but I'd certainly have them on a level below those former two.

[Deadite]

I'm probably one of the few people who likes Poltergeist 2 better. The original is good, though.

[The Rodent]

It's certainly on a par with the first one, but like most sequels, it doesn't top the original.
It's certainly a universe expander though. Kane is a spooky character.

[mark f]

Sorry in advance:

Poltergeist - 4
Poltergeist II - 2.5

[Deadite]

I'm probably one of the few people who still likes Poltergeist 2 better, even after those last two posts.

[The Rodent]

Review #71: The Passion Of The Christ.

Showing the last days of Christ's life, we see his fears and doubts and eventually his enlightenment while enduring a brutal and savage crucifixion at the hands of Roman Soldiers.

That's really all there is to say on the plot.
However, what the film really revels in is showing what the Bible and other Christian documents says happened.
The movie has turned away from the usual 'Christ film' where everything is lovely and he's put on his cross and everything is lovely with Technicolour Dreamcoats etc etc. In a nut-shell: The movie is loyal.

The film is brutal and hard and the second act is is extremely gory.

Watching a man stripped of his clothing and having bare skin whipped with razor-wire may not sound like the best way to spend a night in with a DVD but what makes the movie watchable is the way the movie is put together.
The shooting and screenplay are fantastic.

There are a few flashback scenes that show a lead up to the current torture Christ is undergoing and show the other side to Christ, the side most people are familiar with, in which he is teaching his Disciples and eating with them.
The connection between Jesus and Mary is also very prominent. A few flashbacks show him as a child and Mary being exceptionally protective of him, which shows through in the third act while he is carrying his cross.

The acting is what lifts the movie though. Amongst the tough-to-watch scenes is some of the most wonderful acting you'll see in this type of movie.
Maia Morgenstern as Jesus' Mother Mary and Monica Bellucci as the Disciple Mary Magdalene are wonderfully horrified by the scenes they are witnessing and at times actually can't believe Jesus' sheer will to carry his own cross. Their acting is also extremely realistic.

Jim Caviezel as Jesus Christ himself though, is brilliantly real and very believable. He portrays Christ fantasically during the peaceful flashbacks with a confidence I've yet to see from any actor in this role and when the more horrific scenes take place, he's able to show an other worldly strength that again, hasn't been seen before in this type of film.

There are the occassional CG shots involved, especially with Judas Iscariot being tormented by Demons but they're very well rendered and quite spooky too.

All in all, Mel Gibson caused controversy at the time of releasing this film, many Christians calling it blasphemous and against the pretty and lovely vision of Christ's crucifixion.
I call it an exception piece of filmmaking and extremely brave with what it has done with the vision of Christianity's beginnings. A very heart-wrenching film and though it's hard to watch at times, it's still worth watching, even if you're like me and not a Christian.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[Deadite]

Couldn't agree more. Excellent film.

[honeykid]

All in all, Mel Gibson caused controversy at the time of releasing this film, many Christians calling it blasphemous and against the pretty and lovely vision of Christ's crucifixion.

Really? I remember churches making block bookings and organising trips for their entire congregations to attend the film. I remember this being the film which Christians boasted about how many times they'd seen it.

Strange, as this is (possibly) the biggest exploitation flick of all time. :D

[mastermetal777]

If you don't have it up already, I'd like to hear your opinion of Pulp Fiction, Rodent.

[donniedarko]

I'm probably one of the few people who still likes Poltergeist 2 better, even after those last two posts.

I liked it more to. No it wasn't as well made, but hell it was scary.

[The Rodent]

If you don't have it up already, I'd like to hear your opinion of Pulp Fiction, Rodent.


Haven't done it yet matey. Will ping a review up soon for you.

[The Rodent]

Reviews 72 and 73 now, I haven't seen the third film to this franchise yet, but rest assured, I'll get it done and do a rerun of these two when I do.


Review #72: Paranormal Activity.

The premise is about a young middle-America couple who decide to start filming their bedroom at night with a camera after strange things start going bumb in the night.
The woman is extremely upset by the things they're watching on the recordings but the guy is rather playful with the whole thing and thinks it's a bit of a laugh.
Eventually, it spirals out of control and has terrible consequences for the couple when they refuse to leave things alone and prefer to provoke the spirit.

It's an interesting concept to use Blair Witch style filming in a haunted house story but sadly, the bad writing and screenplay, mixed with even worse acting make for a very mediocre horror film.

At one point, a psychic is brought into the mix, but the dialogue that was written for the character was obviously written by someone who knows very little about Spiritualists and Mediums. The acting from the psychic is another wooden point.

The film relies mainly on shock tactics and not very good ones either as the scares are predictable.
For what is supposed to be 'found footage' of the haunting, I can't understand why the filmmakers decided to put a low tone rumbly sound before every single scare. It makes the scare predictable and, basically, non-scary.
There is the odd scare that works, but not many, in all I think there's maybe one that works.
Honestly though, I can't remember as the movie is that forgettable.

The acting is obviously scripted. For a home-video-footage style film, I haven't seen acting as bad as this since Troll Hunter.

All in all, after all the hype and media coverage saying it's the best horror in decades, I have to say it's by far the most predictable and worst made horror I've seen, even worse than the Elm Street remake.
My rating 5%, solely for the one jumpy bit that the movie contains
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)


Review #73: Paranormal Activity 2.

A young family this time are subjected to a haunting in their house. Mum, Dad, teenage Daughter and newborn baby boy (who grows up to about a year old during the film).
They return home one day to find their home has been broken into and everything has been trashed yet nothing has been stolen so they decide to fit CCTV cameras as piece of mind. After that, the disturbances begin and get bigger as the movie goes on.

This time round the movie mixes CCTV and hand held camera. The shooting style is certainly much better than the first movie. It's clearer and makes more sense in reality.
The movie is more of a lead up to the first film as it's based before and contains a few plot continuity points that make the first film seem a little more coherant.
Sadly though, it doesn't make the first film any better.

Another bad point is that the 'found footage' is still draped in the low tone grumbly noise that happens just before a scary bit happens.
What almost saves the scary bits though, is that this film revels in doing something you weren't expecting. You know it's going to go 'Boo!', you just don't expect the 'Boo!' that happens.

The good points?:

The added plot expansions make the film feel a little deeper than its predecessor and makes for a more entertaining movie.

The acting is also better than the first film with exception to the Father of the family.

All in all it's far better than the first but still nowhere as good as all the media hype reckoned it was.
My rating 15%, mainly for plot expansion and having slightly better scares
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Just for mastermetal777

Review #74: Pulp Fiction.

The plot revolves around a large group of disparate characters, a gangster and his wife, a boxer and two hitmen, and many more supporting roles, all going through their respective journeys over the period of a day or so.
All have seperate stories that intertwine with one another at some point, eventually leading up to a full circle, among what appears to be a chaotic series of strange, surreal and yet believably real circumstances.

The movie plays out almost like Tarantino's other masterpiece, Reservoir Dogs, it starts out bluntly, in the thick of the action, and moves onto the next scene without so much as a blink of the eye. Like with Reservoir Dogs there's no real coherant timing with the scenes, one minute it's the morning, the next it's the afternoon, then suddenly it's morning again.
It can seem a little lost at first to a first time viewer, but when the audience realises where the series of events is going, it makes brilliant and perfect sense.

Think of it as a flashback movie, that's piecing together a complex series of strange situations.

As for the overall screenplay, the movie is an absolute gem. It's shot fantastically and is extremely funny at times.
There are some quite brutal scenes of drug taking, violence and sex involved too but each situation no matter how hard and harsh, still has the subtle undertone of real life humour that Tarantino is a master of encapsulating.

The dialogue for the characters is also brilliantly real and very well realised. The acting in the film is what makes all the difference though, they all hit their marks and seem to just know where and what they're characters are supposed to be.
You can tell the actors had a lot of fun while filming too.
By far, out of all the top-drawer acting involved, Harvey Keitel steals the show for his part as Mr Wolf. Only on screen for about 10 minutes, his character is memorable beyond belief.

There's no action as such, only the occassional pacey scenes containing small chases and smaller gunplay but it's still well put together.

The one and only thing that lets the movie down is that first time viewers can feel a little lost for the first 15-20 minutes, but stick with it if you want a brilliantly executed circle of storytelling.

All in all, it's one of the most original movies of the past 20 years and has some of the most memorable characters too. Tarantino really hits the nail on the head with this one.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[mastermetal777]

Thanks for the opinion of Pulp, Rodent. I think you just captured why I consider this my all-time favorite film.

[The Rodent]

Review #75: Critters Franchise (with a re-run of my earlier Review# 31: Critters).


Critters

Low budget horror flick that was part of the 1980s Puppet Creature Feature market. Other favourites include Troll, Ghoulies, Gremlins and Munchies.

A handful of tennis ball sized aliens known as ‘Crites’, who have escaped from their space prison, crash land on earth just outside a small town called Grover’s Bend.
They then make their way to the nearest farm (owned by the ‘Brown’ family) and cause them a whole night of havoc and terror. Hot on their trail though are two Intergalactic Bounty Hunters.
Upon eating various farm animals and the occasional person too, the Critters start growing in size and become a more formidable foe.

It’s a brilliantly made movie that uses the ‘people trapped in house’ plot as it’s basis.
The movie also heads out into the town too when the Bounty Hunters arrive and the ‘fish out of water’ premise is utilised when they can’t seem to find the Crites and the town’s folk don’t take them seriously.

There are elements of all sorts of genres too. Many regard the movie as either sci-fi or horror.
It’s actually a modge of all sorts: Tongue in cheek comedy, gory horror, shocker, claustrophobic haunted house style and sci-fi.
It mixes all the elements really well too.

I wouldn’t say the shooting style is any better than any other movie of it’s type but it’s very well put together in terms of action, shocks and acting.

Scream-Queen Dee Wallace Stone and Billy Green Bush as the wife and husband Heads of the Brown family are very well played by both. They have an on-screen chemistry and a homely comfortableness about them.
Nadine Van Der Velde as the daughter is spot on as the teenage daughter and beautiful Damsel in distress (sort of).
Billy Zane makes his second ever movie appearance as Nadine Van Der Velde’s new squeeze. Being that he’s on screen for a short time, he’s actually a memorable character.
Scott Grimes plays the main part of the cast as the youngest of the family. Even at such a young age Grimes really shines in the role as the mischievous scamp who’s got an old soul about him. You knew even back then that Grimes has a long career ahead of him.

The effects of the movie are a touch dated by today’s standard but they work with the low budget shooting style of the film really well.

The characters too are well realised, especially the Crites (who are also ''puppeted' brilliantly too) and the Bounty Hunters are brilliantly original.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the pretty weak writing for the ending, but for budget constraints and the feel of the movie, it does kind of work.

All in all it’s a funny, shocking, mildly gory but relatively standard sci-fi-comedy-horror and is a very close runner up to Gremlins in the Creature Feature genre.
My rating 89%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Critters 2: The Main Course

Once again Grover's Bend is attacked by the vicious, hungry little creatures. This time, some eggs left behind from the first movie have hatched just as Brad Brown returns to his home town, 2 years after the events of the first movie.
This time round, the Bounty Hunters have also returned and have brought Charlie back with them too.

The movie is definitely a product of bad writing and production.
It tries to be bigger than the first film in the action stakes and expands the overall event to the entire town, rather than the 'trapped in house' horror that the first film made so well.

You might think it would be a good thing to do this, if it were simply a re-run of the first film's plot it would simply be a cash in sequel.
Sadly though, the wooden acting, childlike writing and the dropping of the horror genre for a more comedy orientated basis make for a very poor night in with a DVD.

Many of the original ideas from the first film have also been dropped. There's no continuity in the sequel.
There are also massive plot holes in regard to the town's folk when they refer to the events of the original movie.

The puppetry is one good point. They're brilliantly modelled yet feel different to the first movie in the way they 'act'.
The overall effects though aren't improved from the first. If anything, they're worse.

All in all, a terrible sequel to a cracking little build up.
My rating 15%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)


Critters 3

After hitching a ride on the underside of a family's truck, the malicious little monsters find themselves inside the family's crummy apartment block in the city, surrounded by various disparate residents of the apartments.
It's up to the residents to find a way to hide and fight and find a way to save themselves.
Charlie once again shows up to aid the hapless victims.

It's a better film than the second movie. The writing feels as though more time has been taken and the plot is a little closer to the first film with the claustrophobic 'haunted house' genre.
The acting is another plus point. Though cheesy at times and wooden on occasion, it's far better than the second film.

There is a nice subplot with the main family though. It's a broken home storyline with Dad, Daughter and Son having to reconcile their differences.

Bit part actress Frances Bay makes a nice appearance as an elderly lady in the block.
Leonardo Di Caprio makes his feature film debut too. He's certainly at his usual. His acting is exactly the same as modern day.

The creatures look has been altered for this film too. They're more cartoony and feel more viewer friendly, almost as if the filmmakers were trying to appeal to a younger audience, though with the plot and writing being the way it is, I'm not sure it's right for kids.
Bit of a miss affair really to do that.

Another bad point though is the constant background music, like the kind you find in a TV movie. It's badly written and even in the quieter scenes, it's still very prominent.

All in all it's a vast improvment on the awful second movie but nowhere near the original.
My rating 55%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)


Critters 4

Charlie has found himself frozen in suspended animation with a bunch of Crite eggs by his side. When he is awakened from his slumber, many years have passed and he finds himself in space, on a salvage ship with a small crew.
The eggs of course have hatched and it's up to Charlie to explain to the crew what's going on and help find a way to survive.

This is the final nail in the Critters coffin. After the third film's improvement over the second film, this one for some reason decided to go for full on comedy mixed with bad humour, cliche plotlines, gimmicky ideas and terrible acting.

The movie as a whole feels very much like Jason X with the hammy/wooden/talentless acting and the plot setting. The writing and effects feel like an extremely low budgetted TV movie too.

What makes the movie almost watchable though is that it knows it's terrible.
The filmmakers excel in utilising the fact that their movie is a complete pile and it actually makes for an entertaining, tongue in cheek, knowingly bad sci-fi.

Brad Douriff is about the best part of it all though. He's cheesy and at his usual self.

All in all, it's knowingly bad but still relatively entertaining because of this. Nowhere near as good as the third or the original, but still better than the second film.
My rating 30%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #76: Unforgiven.

Another western from me.

After a prostitiute is attacked by a bunch of cowboys and slashed with a knife, the fellow prostitutes put out a bounty on the men responsible.
Much to the town's disapproval, various people come calling but are dealt with swiftly by a brutal and unbending Sheriff.
Eventually, word of the $1000 bounty comes to William Munny through a young wannabe assassin called The Schofield Kid. Munny was a brutal and murderous drunkard in his past and The Kid thinks that Munny can help him in killing the cowboys.
Now though, Munny is an aging failing farmer, a failing father of two and a widower. The invite of money catches his attention and he calls upon his past mentality and an old friend from the past too called Ned Logan, to get his hands on some cash to save his farm and make a better life for his children.

The story itself of 'one last job' has been used many a time before but what makes Unforgiven so special is the character writing, the acting, the shooting style and, by far the screenplay.
It's incredibly well made.

There's also mild touches of 'time orientated' humour which gives the film an authenticity as a western.
The dialogue too is extremely real and authentic. Munny is always wrestling with his thoughts and his conversations with Ned over what they're about to do is wonderfully realistic.

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman have collaberated more than once on screen but Unforgiven is by far their best work together. They just feel like old mates, doing something they used to do but have become rusty at it. They're very real and occasionally funny too.
Jaimz Woolvett as The Kid is brilliantly annoying to Munny and Ned and seriously full of sh*t when he starts telling stories about his past. Woolvett really nails the role.
Gene Hackman as the brutal Sheriff is another plus point. Many regard him as an antagonist because he's against Munny and his friends, others say he's the protagonist as he's simply doing his job.

They're a brilliantly executed bunch of characters by the writers, being that you care some much about the assassins, you never really know how to feel about the Sheriff.
You also know what the Sheriff is doing and why, so you never know how to feel about the assassins.

The action is relatively held back, even at the climactic shootout but when it gets going it's exciting and gives the viewer a thrill.

To be honest, there's very little wrong with the film.

All in all, it's by far one of the best westerns, and most importantly one of the best overall films to have ever been made. Top drawer in every respect.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

Easily Clint Eastwood's best work as a director (or at least a tie with A Perfect World) and one of the best films of the Western genre, up there with The Searchers and The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

Nice review.

[The Rodent]

Review #77: Black Hawk Down.

What I described as 'boring' a few weeks back, has eventually made it's mark on me. Like with The Thin Red Line, I think I was too young when I first watched back in 2001.

The movie revolves around The Battle Of Mogadishu and the American attempt at catching Somali Warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
After a successful beginning to the mission, a Black Hawk helicopter is shot down by the enemy and surrounded.
After that, the entire mission becomes one giant cluster-f**k and another Black Hawk helicopter is downed by the enemy forces. The American and allied troops who are stranded deep behind enemy lines are either injured, captured or killed in what is quickly becoming a futile attempt to survive and escape.

It really is one gritty and hard hitting movie. What makes it more gritty is the shooting style, it's incredibly realistic. There's no massive Hollywood silliness with the action scenes.
The effects though are hugely impressive.
Though relatively held back to the eye, they're very real looking and, because of this, they're very effective.

The ensemble cast are another exceptional piece of filmmaking.
Josh Hartnett, Ewen MacGregor, Tom Sizemore, Ewen Bremner, Ioan Gruffudd, Jason Isaacs, Brian Van Holt, Ian Virgo, Tom Hardy, Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Kim Coates, Ron Eldard and Sam Shepard are just a small part of the brilliant acting involved throughout.

The other thing that makes the film stand out, is the movie flits between the warzone and the troops at the base who haven't gone out on the mission.

The reaction of the soldiers at the base when they realise what’s happened to their friends is brilliantly executed and the camaraderie between all of the soldiers is very, very real.

All in all it's up there with the best of the modern war movies and was deservedly nominated for 18 awards, winning 3 of them.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #78: The Fly.

A brilliant but nerdy and eccentric scientist meets a beautiful female journalist at a science convention. Explaining to her that he has an invention that will change the world, she reluctantly agrees to go back to his home/laboratory to see his 'amazing' invention.
Upon discovering that he has built a teleportation device, the pair decide to get into a partnership where she will use her journalistic reporting skills to record his work on his invention to make it more practical and more powerful.
Upon a moment of eureka, he tests his machine on himself, with disastrous results.

This is a rare event of a remake being better than the original. The Fly revels in the mystery, creativeness, atmosphere and horror.
It wonderfully playful with the icky side of life and doesn't hold back with the gore and slime either.

What makes The Fly stand out from other horror sci-fi movies is the extremely small scale of the overall film. It has a feeling of low budget yet the effects are, even after 30 years, still awe inspiring and to a point, 'gross out' too.

The acting is marvellously real too.
Jeff Goldblum made his mark in Hollywood as scientist Seth Brundle. He had been in a few things before but his role in this film really projected him to stardom. He's brilliantly nerdy and really comes out of his shell (ahem) as the movie progresses.
Geena Davis (mmmm) is wonderfully beautiful in the role of journalist Veronica Quaife. She's cheeky, playful and serious all at the same time.

By far the thing that stands out in the film is the special effects and make-up work. After all this time they still feel and look real.
There are the odd seams showing with some of the camera work but it doesn't take a lot away from the film.

All in all, with Cronenberg as director and produced in part by Mel Brooks, The Fly is a modern (ish) sci-fi horror classic and definitely one for the history books.
My rating 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[honeykid]

Nice review, Rodent. :)

[The Rodent]

Review #79: Lake Placid

After a local Sheriff witnesses the gruesome death of a diver in a Maine Lake, a hunt for the killer is launched. According to the Sheriff, an underwater creature is responsible for the attack, but what awaits the team of scientists and Animal Rangers is something much more deadly, and definitely bigger, than they imagined.

Seen as a low percentage scorer at the time of release (39% by Rotton Tomatoes), Lake Placid actually has a very clever script and contains many sub-genres, horror, comedy and romance.
It utilises the humour brilliantly with the mildly horrific scenes of mutilation and the dialogue of the characters is also laugh out loud at times, particularly with Oliver Platt and Brendan Gleeson.

The scares aren't exactly scary as such, but many of them are unexpected, giving the viewer the sense of 'comic book' danger.
Many of the gruesome death scenes that appear (after the initial, first death of the movie) are toned down to a point though.

The acting is about 50/50 though, sadly.
Forgettable actor Bill Pullman as Fish and Game officer Jack Wells, is at his usual forgettable best.
As too is Bridget Fonda as Kelly Scott, an archeologist and Pullman's love interest.

Brendan Gleeson as Sheriff Keough is brilliantly grumpy and moody in the series of events, his on screen chemistry with Oliver Platt is also brilliant.
Oliver Platt as Hector Cyr is also on top form. He's funny and eccentric and plays off Gleeson fantastically.

Niether Fonda nor Pullman do much for the comedy, horror or story for that matter, and to be honest, the whole thing would have worked without them. If anything, the film may actually have been better if Platt and Gleeson were left alone to do their thing.

The effects are about standard though. The puppetry work is good but the CGI is a little cartoony and shows that the budget wasn't massively used on the computers. It works though.

All in all, for a comedy horror it works, in the same vein as Eight Legged Freaks with more of a 'roll your eyes' kind of humour, but not quite as sharp with the overall screenplay, still though it's an enjoyable movie.
My rating 65%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

I liked Lake Placid when I saw it a couple of years back. Haven't seen it since, but it's a film I frequently remind my mum about.

"Hey, remember that giant crocodile movie?"

[Powderfinger]

Lake Placid 2

[Powderfinger]

Black Hawk Down 4 For me, I don't know if you remember the soldier who an epilepsy fit? Now I have to take epilepsy medication. It's minor compared with most epileptics.

[Powderfinger]

The Passion of the Christ 4 I heard there was a up roar with the Jewish Communities...who knows? The only thing I can say...Jesus was Jewish (Meet the Parents) with...I forget with name? 2 brothers, one had a breakdown...his the best actor.

[akatemple]

Black Hawk Down was such a great movie IMO, nice review Rodent.

[The Rodent]

For my 80th, I've decided that another supersized review is on the cards, and being that I slammed time travel movies in a recent thread, I've decided to give you...

Review #80: Back To The Future Trilogy.


Back To The Future

Marty McFly, a 17 year old all American schoolboy, is thrown into a world of chaos when his best friend Doctor Emmett Brown, an eccentric scientist, creates a time machine out of a De Lorian car.
Through circumstances out of his control, Marty is sent back to 1955 and ends up throwing his own existence into peril when his own mother falls in love with him, rather than falling in love with his father.
Marty must track down the younger version of Doc to aid him in saving his family and help to get him...

... Back To The Future.

It's extremely well written in terms of storytelling. It's original right down to it's core and occassionally steps on uncomfortable ground.
Though, even when elements of incest are brought into the screenplay, it's still one romping adventure that makes the audience cringe, laugh and squirm with excitement.

The 80s time travel classic set the benchmark for coolness and made skateboards famous with the iconic imagery of McFly doing what he does best on a plank and the music is fantastically placed brilliantly executed.

The acting is by far the best of the trilogy.
Michael J Fox as Marty McFly became the guy every boy wants to be. He's cool and 'in' and yet has an incredible naivety when he's thrown into the incomfortable circumstances.
Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown is another plus point. Lloyd really makes the role come to life with his wacky behaviour and you can tell he had a lot of fun as the brilliant but slightly mad scientist.
Thomas F Wilson as the antagonist and school bully Biff Tannen is also magnificently dumb and punchy, and at times is highly unstable toward the end with some of his antics. Wilson also made it into my top 40 villains list.

With supporting cast from Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover as Marty's parents, the cast can't go wrong.

The effects though are what really surprised me when I first saw the movie. They're rarely used but when they're brought onto the screen they really take you with a delightful shock. They're wonderful.

All in all, it's not just an 80s classic, it's an originally original movie that has many never-before-seen ideas and touches, and even has Michael J Fox rocking out with a guitar too.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Back To The Future 2

McFly is once again thrown into the circuits of time, this time with 'old' Doc by his side. Marty's family in the year 2015 is in peril and they must stop certain things from happening.
However, an old foe gets his hands on the time machine and manages to change the entire history of both his own, and Mcfly's family.
It's up to Doc and Marty to go back to 1955 and put things back to how they should be. This time though, a happy ending may not be on the cards.

For a sequel, it's an interesting one. It's well written, but it feels as though the filmmakers tried to cram too much into one movie. We see the future, the present, the past and even alternate realities. At times it gets a little too much.
It is handled really well though and the story itself is expanded wonderfully between the antagonists and the protagonists.
There's even a nice twist in the story with going back to the past again, with the problem of bumping into the 'other selves' from the first film.

The effects are improved massively in this one. The future scenes had to be of course with flying vehicals etc and the originality of the first movie is really expanded in this one too, some of the iconography is wonderfully playful.

The acting is about the same as the first. The cast this time round play themselves through 3 different points in time and Fox even plays his own daughter.
No show this time round from Crispin Glover though. The circumstances behind his absence was also a cause for a lawsuit too.

All in all it's far more expansive and broader than the first film and has many original ideas, but, sadly lacks the charm and coolness of the original, except of course for the futuristic take on skateboards.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Back To The Future 3

After the downbeat but exciting cliffhanger ending of the second film, Marty has drawn young Doc into the adventure once again. This time the mission is to save older Doc, who has unfortunately found himself trapped in the wild west of 1885.
So this time it's Marty bringing Doc... Back To The Future.

Sadly, the film feels like a cashed-in 'let's see what else we can do with the time travel thing'.
Though the second movie sets this one up, it still feels rushed and gimmicky.
Even though some of the plot points and iconography are again, quite original, they feels as though the filmmakers were using up their last remaining drops of imagination.
Some of the ideas that were put in toward the end of the movie also feel like they're jumping the shark a little bit too.

Though, all that said, the movie is still very entertaining. The comedy elements and acting are still top drawer and the action is also exciting when it gets going.
The wild west setting does give a different flavour to the movie, kind of the same way the future gave the second movie it's own touch.

The acting is a good point though too.
The cast seem to have had a bit more fun with this one. They're very tongue in cheek and mildly cheesy and even Christopher Lloyd seems to have turned his character more comic like.

There's not a great deal in the film when it comes to special effects due to the 1885 setting, but toward the end there is a big steamtrain sequence that combines 1980s tech, 1880s tech and tech from 2015 too, and by far it's the most exciting action sequence of the trilogy.

The little touch at the end is also a bit of a cliffhanger, leaving the audience to imagine.

All in all, a mildly cashed in affair, a step back from the second and definitely a step back from the first, but it's still exciting and has the best action scene toward the end and actually has a pretty good overall ending to the story, even after it looked as though it was going to fail.
My rating 80%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

I love the entire Back To The Future, even if that third part is a bit weak. My favourite would be Part II, because it's very imaginative and I love that whole sequence in Biff's Casino. But as I said, I love all of them.

[The Rodent]

Wow. I've hit the 80 mark, never thought I'd get this far... so here's a quick runover of the movies I've covered so far, in order from page one, up to this page.
Not sure what to do next to take me up to 100.

1 Young Guns
2 A Nightmare On Elm Street Remake
3 2012
4 Cowboys And Aliens
5 Cloverfield
6 Leon
7 Dreamcatcher
8 Alien 3 Definitive Version Vs Theatrical Release
9 The 'Burbs
10 Starship Troopers
11 Predator
12 Robocop
13 John Carpenter's The Thing
14 Alien Vs Predator and Aliens Vs Predator Requiem
15 Terminator Franchise (1-4)
16 The Fourth Kind
17 Jurassic Park
18 Pirates Of The Caribbean Original Trilogy (1-3)
19 The Dark Crystal
20 Tremors
21 Paul
22 Full Metal Jacket
23 Demolition Man
24 Dumb And Dumber
25 Ridley Scott's Robin Hood
26 Christopher Reeve Superman Franchise (1-4) And Superman Returns
27 Batman Begins
28 The Dark Knight
29 Ghostbusters
30 Star Wars Franchise (1-6)
31 Critters
32 Matrix Franchise (1-3)
33 Arachnophobia
34 Super 8
35 The Shawshank Redemption
36 The Abyss
37 Troll Hunter
38 John Carpenter's The Fog
39 Dog Soldiers
40 The Shining
41 Indiana Jones Franchise (1-4)
42 Robert Rodriguez' Predators
43 Sam Raimi's Spider Man Franchise (1-3)
44 Rocky Franchise (1-5 And Rocky Balboa)
45 The Lost Boys
46 Evolution
47 Alien Franchise (1-4 Including A Rerun Of Review 8)
48 Jurassic Park Franchise (1-3 Including A Rerun Of Review 17)
49 Gremlins Franchise (1 & 2)
50 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Original Movie)
51 30 Days Of Night
52 From Dusk Till Dawn
53 I, Robot
54 Steven Spielberg's War Of The Worlds
55 Bladerunner
56 Armageddon
57 Signs
58 The Quick And The Dead
59 Ransom
60 The Big Lebowski
61 Ghostbusters Franchise (1 & 2 Including A Rerun Of Review 29)
62 Pitch Black
63 The Day After Tomorrow
64 Independence Day
65 Cat's Eye
66 Equilibrium
67 Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
68 The Karate Kid (Original Movie)
69 Die Hard Franchise (1-4)
70 Poltergeist
71 The Passion Of The Christ
72 Paranormal Activity
73 Paranormal Activity 2
74 Pulp Fiction
75 Critters Franchise (1-4 Including A Rerun Of Review 31)
76 Unforgiven
77 Black Hawk Down
78 The Fly (1986)
79 Lake Placid
80 Back To The Future Franchise (1-3)

[The Rodent]

Review #81: Lethal Weapon Franchise.


Lethal Weapon

A weathered and grumpy cop called Roger Murtaugh, who has just celebrated his 50th Birthday is reassigned a new partner, Martin Riggs.
Riggs, like Mutaugh, is a Vietnam Veteran but Riggs has suicidal tendencies due to his wife's recent death in a car crash.
Of course, this puts Murtaugh on the edge of dispair and the pair start out hating each other intensely.
When a crime hits close to home for Murtaugh, the disparate duo reconcile their differences, in the process gaining a mutual respect, and they go all out on a mission to save Murtaugh's young daughter.

The first of the franchise is one awesome film. The action is explosive, the choreography is fantastic, the humour is absolutely bang on and the acting is exactly what makes the film as good as it is.

For a start, the writing is simple, it's the typical buddy movie of the 80s. Two people hating each other, then finding common ground.
What makes Lethal Weapon so great is the screenplay and the chemisrty of the actors.
Danny Glover and Mel Gibson are brilliantly chalk and cheese. There's also no 'finding of feet' with the roles either. They're just there, fleshed out and very well written.

The other thing that really makes the movie work is the action.
Lethal Weapon is a borderline-no-brainer-action-up when the action starts, but with the wonderful writing behind the story and the characters, the action is extremely exciting and gets the audience on the edge of their seats.

The humour is also fantastically played. Some of it is laugh out loud, especially when Murtaugh and Riggs are in the thick of the action and Murtaugh is talking to himself.
A lot of the humour revolves around cheeky too. Riggs in particular has the best wind-ups for Murtaugh's grumpy nature.

The acting, as I said is brilliant I've mentioned Glover and Gibson but there's a few others that need a nod.
Gary Busey as Mr Joshua is brilliantly evil and brutal. He's broderline theatrical and is the perfect antagonist for Gibson's hero.
Mitchell Ryan as The General is another brilliant baddy to play off against Glover's Murtaugh. He's a simple baddy, but has a believable edge to him.
Steve Kahan as Riggs and Murtaugh's Police Captain is the typical shouty boss but he's got a likable side to his personality. His reactions to the main duo's antics is also funny.

As for any bad points, I can't really think of a great deal worth mentioning.

All in all it's another 80s classic from me and really set the tone for buddy-cop movies.
My rating 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Lethal Weapon 2

Riggs and Murtaugh have settled into their partnership and have stumbled upon a South African criminal organisation that is, sadly, protected by the law.
At the same time, the duo must protect Leo Getz, a witness in a money laundering scam while they're investigating the criminal organisation.
When it turns out that the South Africans are part of the money laundering that Leo was part of and Leo is also kidnapped, Riggs and Murtaugh go all out to save Leo and stop the organisation from escaping back to South Africa.

This sequel is a rare event of being better than the first. It's more explosive, the writing is broader and the characters have been given more of a horizon with their characteristics. Riggs in particular is expanded as a character and there's a twist in the history of his life too.

There's also more main characters for the main duo to play off and get grumpy with as well. Leo Getz is brilliantly comic and annoying for the pair, he too eventually becomes a stalwart friend.
The baddies of the film are a little cliche, though they're brilliantly acted and threatening.

The underlying humour of the first film is a little more prominent in this one, but with the louder action, it works fantastically.

The acting is another plus.
Joe Pesci as Leo Getz is by far at his funniest. He's half the size of Glover and Gibson but his charisma on screen really gives the other actors something to work against. Personally, he's my favourite character.
Joss Ackland is great as the South African leader Arjen Rudd. He's unbending in his mission and brutal when needed.
Derrick O'Connor as Ackland's righthand man Pieter Vorstedt is definitely a naturalistic bad guy. He plays off Gibson fantastically.

All in all, it's bigger and louder than the first and has more of a horizon with the characters' lives. Certainly the best of the entire series.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Lethal Weapon 3

Three years after the second film, Riggs and Murtaugh stumble across illegal arms dealers during their interception of an attempted hijack of an armoured car.
It turns out that the arms dealers have developed a new type of bullet that can shoot through most substances, including metal and even bullet proof vests. Riggs and Murtaugh dub this new ammo 'cop killers'.
Of course, this also put all the cops in the area on high alert when it appears that the leader of these dealers is actually an ex-cop.
It's up to Riggs and Murtaugh and a new partner to take on these arms dealers, and stop the sale of 'cop killing bullets' across America.

The third film is a little stale compared to the first two. The story is sound and the writing is top notch, but it's the screenplay that lets it down. It feels just on the border of gimmicky.
It's going toward being a parody of itself and feels a little cliche with the plot.

What lifts the movie though is again, the action scenes. They're choreographed brilliantly and the added extras of being up against arms dealers with super weapons gives the audience some butt-clenching moments too.

The acting, again is top drawer.
Joe Pesci returns as Leo, though he was nearly written out of the script. Gladly he's back and annoying the main duo.
Rene Russo makes a welcome appearance as Lorna Cole, a love interest for Gibson. Her chemistry with Gibson is fantastic and she's tough but also approachable at the same time.
Rent-a-baddy Stuart Wilson as the ex cop Jack Travis a little cliche but he does the job well enough.

The comedy this time is a little more comicbook but the subtle undertones of tongue-in-cheek humour between Gibson, Russo and Murtaugh really works well.

All in all nowhere near as good as the lead up but still worthy of the Lethal Weapon title.
My rating 90%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Lethal Weapon 4

Years after the third outing, Riggs and Murtaugh have now both become grizzled and old. Murtaugh is set to be a grandfather and Riggs and Lorna are also expecting their first child.
During a fishing trip, the duo, along with Leo are shot at from a passing ship. Upon the ship's crashing into the shore, they find the boat is full of illegal immigrants and they unwittingly expose a Chinese slave labour organisation.

The fourth movie is a slightly more welcome return to the serious side of the first two films.
The plot of the characters may feel well used but the overall writing of the screenplay really brings the movie to life.
There's some lovely little similarities between Riggs and Murtaugh's family lives too that give the whole film a nice depth.

The action is definitely the most exciting of the four films. Though it's not as explosive, it utilises overall action brilliantly. This time round it's Chinese Triads that the main cast are up against. Cue lots of brilliantly staged martial arts showdowns.

The humour is again very well used, the characters this time round are so well ingrained that the comedy just comes from the actors knowing where they are from the get go.

The acting is the same as the other films again, bang on the money.
This time we're treated to Jet Li as the main antagonist Wa Sing Ku. He's brilliantly evil and unbending in his quest to make money. When taunted though, he athletically becomes a force that both Riggs and Murtaugh combined, struggle to contain.
Chris Rock, an actor I can't stand, is actually quite entertaining as the father of Murtaugh's grandchild. He's funny, annoying for the main duo and plays off both Danny Glover and Joe Pesci fantastically.

The ending is also a plus point. It wraps up the franchise perfectly.

All in all, it's an improvment over the third outing and definitely worthy of the franchise name.
My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

It's pretty well known around this neck of the woods that I love the Lethal Weapon franchise. They're all consistently entertaining films that, despite not being very original, remain rewatch able after countless viewings.

And we agree on the third one being the weakest. Still a good film, though.

[The Rodent]

I'm suffering with a touch of writers block at the minute. Not sure if I reviewed Lethal Weapon Franchise as well as I'd have liked.

Might be down to the fact I've been up all night.

[akatemple]

Nice review of the Lethal Weapon series, I agree with everything except Lethal Weapon 4, I think they killed the series when they threw Chris Rock in, but that's just my opinion, again thanks for the review.

[The Rodent]

Was going to leave this one for Review #100, but I decided to go where no man has gone before. All 11 Star Trek movies in one big review...

... enjoy

Review #82: The Star Trek Movie Franchise


Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

A massive energy cloud advances toward Earth, leaving destruction in its wake, and the Enterprise must intercept it to determine what lies within, and what its intent might be.

After a long absence from anything new, and audiences having to make do with reruns of the TV series, demand for more Star Trek was yearned by fans.

What we got was a pretty outlandish set of events but something that set the tone for the franchise.
The writing is fantastic, it combines a more serious side to the mildest touch of the campness that was seen in the TV series, and still makes the audience feel excited.
The screenplay is a little touch and go throughout but it works with the tone of the film. The humour is another touch and go subject. Most of it comes from in-house humour between the cast, but you feel included in the little back and forth conversations involved.

What makes the film work though is definitely the chemistry between the actors. Not seen on screen greatly between the series and the movie, they still have a friendly and pally atmosphere about them. It's just like old friends doing what they do best, which makes the performances from all involved shine through wonderfully.

The effects also, still stand out today and gladly, are a billion times better than the series ever gave the fans.

All in all, it's a welcome return to the screen for original fans and has stood the test of time for close to 35 years.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)



Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Khan Noonien Singh, whom Kirk thwarted in his attempt to seize control of the Enterprise fifteen years earlier seeks his revenge and lays a cunning and sinister trap.

Another welcome return to the screen for fans and, so far, the best of the bunch.
The writing is top notch and the creases of the first movie have been ironed completely out.
The filmmakers also had the gumption to bring back a heavy hitting villain from the TV series too, rather than just the seperate adventure that the first movie gave us.

The acting from all parties is ramped up in this one too. Ghosts of the past and certain things going wrong for the main group of characters really give the cast something to get their teeth into dramatically and it makes the movie all the more potent for it.

Kirstie Alley (mmm) makes her big screen debut as a Vucan in this one.
Ricardo Montalban as Khan though is by far the most memorable actor in the film. Not just for the fact it's his character that is in the title though, it's his sheer enthusiasm and charisma in the role that makes the audience both love and hate him. He also brings an element of campness to the role that has been missed so far since the original TV series.

The effects are also improved massively.

All in all a vast improvement from the first movie and an absolute joyride of emotion and humour.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)



Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (1984)

When McCoy begins acting irrationally, Kirk learns that Spock, in his final moments, transfered his katra, his living spirit, to the doctor. In order to save McCoy from emotional ruin, Kirk and crew must steal the Enterprise and violate the quarantine of Genesis to retrieve Spock's body from the rapidly dying planet, in the hopes that body and soul can be rejoined. Bent on obtaining the secret of Genesis for themselves, however, a rogue Klingon and his crew interfere, with deadly consequences.

The third of the franchise makes for extremely downbeat viewing, then extremely mixed emotionally toward the end.

Acting as a 'part 2' to the second movie really makes this one stand out. It also makes the viewer feel all the more connected to the emotional struggle of the characters.
The cast too are on top form with the script and really show their worth in the series of events.

The movie itself has many levels of emotion for Kirk too. Shatner really stands out in the film because of the events happening around him.

What gets me though, is that the strange and unbelievable set of events surrounding the Genesis Planet and Spock are also, strangely, very believable due to the way the screenplay is put together. Thumbs up for that I say. That couldn't have been an easy task for the filmmakers.

The effects are about the same as the second film.

All in all, what starts out as a relatively sombre and downbeat adventure, it turns to an exciting but quite emotionally driven ending, but definitely worth a watch.
My rating 87%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)



Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home (1986)

While returning to stand court-martial for their actions in rescuing Spock, Kirk and crew learn that Earth is under the siege of a giant probe transmitting a destructive signal, intended for the long-extinct species of humpback whales. To save the planet, the crew must time-travel back to the 20th century to obtain a mating pair of these whales, along with a biologist to care for them.

Continuing Spock's story arc that started in The Wrath Of Khan, the cast being sidetracked from their return to Earth should have been an exciting and worthwhile adventure through space.
Sadly, The Voyage Home is laden with fish-out-of-water jokes and way too much comedy replacing the mild humour of the first three movies.
It's also very cliche and cheesy to the point that it's beginning to tilt back toward the original TV series again.

Though in saying that, the movie as it is, is still entertaining enough for any Star Trek fan and anyone who has enjoyed the lead up will experiance a relatively welcome breath of fresh air after the downbeat third movie.

The acting is good enough for the tone of the film and to be honest, I think the cast are in the same situation as the audience and seem to be enjoying the over-used humour.

The effects of the movie are somewhat improved again in this one. The miniature work and animation work involved is top notch for the time (1986) and still works today.

All in all, more humour orientated but makes for a nice upbeat change from the sombre predecessor.
My rating 83%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)



Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier (1989)

A man called Sybok believes he is summoned by God, and hijacks the brand-new (and problem-ridden) Enterprise-A to take it through the Great Barrier, at the center of the Milky Way, beyond which he believes his maker waits for him. Meanwhile, an ambitious young Klingon captain, seeking vengeance for the deaths of the Klingon crewmen at Genesis, sets his sights on Kirk.

This time eround, the audience is treated to a more action and peril orientated movie.
There's a great villain and a ghost from the past for the Enterprise's crew to deal with, and there are certain elements of expansion for certain characters too.

It makes for a more rounded storyline throughout and the acting involved, especially between Spock and Kirk, is all the more realistic and at times funny too.

The film does go towrd the feeling of the original movie though with the ending plotline. It's definitely leaning toward the outlandish feel of The Motion Picture.

The acting involved throughout though is at it's best. Lawrence Luckinbill deserves special mention for his role as Sybok. He's not a baddy as such, it's just that his demented and doughy-eyed persona putting everyone else at risk, makes him stand out from the crowd.

The effects in this one are used with a little more panache than the predecessors, especially toward the end.

All in all, not the perfect Trek movie, but certainly an improvment on the last one.
My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)



Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

After their homeworld is wracked by an environmental disaster, the Klingons attempt to make peace with the Federation. When the Klingon Chancellor is assassinated, the crew of the Enterprise must race against time to uncover a massive conspiracy against the peace process, with plotters from both sides, led by Klingon General Chang, working with each other.

This is the Marmite movie for fans of the original movies series.
Looking at it the way it is, it's actually a very entertaining adventure.
The writing of the plotline and the screenplay are also good.
If anything, it's much better written than The Final Frontier and far outweighs The Voyage Home.

The welcome twist with this one is the murder mystery that the crew are having to figure out while Kirk and Bones are under arrest.
The other thing that works brilliantly is the way the film's plot is unravelled by the characters and the way it plays out for the audience.

The humour involved is also the kind that works, friendly, tongue in cheek and occasionally cheeky.

What lets the film down though is the slight cheesiness of the 'everyone should love one another' message that is layed on thick at the end.

The effects are massively improved in this outing too, though they're used sparingly they work brilliantly.

All in all, a fitting end to the adventures of Kirk's crew. Upbeat and entertaining.
My rating 89%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)



Star Trek Generations (1994)

Picard enlists the services of Kirk, who is presumed long dead but flourishes in an extradimensional realm, to prevent a madman from destroying a star and its planetary system in an attempt to enter that realm.

Ouch. What started as an anticipated movie comes an odd turn of events that leaves the audience wondering why.
It's more of a novelty act really. After audiences had gotten used to The Next Generation on their TV sets, the filmmakers decided that a handover between Kirk and Picard was needed for the stake in the movie franchise.
Ok the movie as a whole works, but it feels more of a 'written for the sake of writing it' film.

The action and choreography is top notch though and you can't help but get excited when Kirk and Picard are fighting alongside each other, but it's the circumstances leading up to the pact and the circumstances surrounding Kirk's actual presence that let the movie down.
It works to an extent, in the relms of Star Trek's Universe the audience has seen much more unbelievable things and have accepted them as they happened.

The effects are absolutely top drawer though and the acting from all parties is beyond awesome. It's good to see TNG's cast on the big screen for the first time too.

All in all, more of a passing of the torch kind of movie, sadly though, it almost didn't work.
My rating 78%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)



Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

The Borg attempt to enslave humanity in the past, before First Contact between Terrans and Vulcans; Picard must fight his demons from his assimilation into the Collective as he leads the Enterprise-E back in time to ensure that Zephram Cochrane's first warp test and subsequent meeting of the extraterrestrials take place.

This is another mediocre movie sadly. The plotline could have been exciting, especially involving the Borg going back into the past and changing things around but sadly all the audience got was a small scale actioner that's laden with badly written humour. The added extra of Picard and his past dealings with the Borg could have been worth while too, but, it wasn't really utilised very well.

The effects are also low in budget, or at least they seem to be. Most of the film is based in a forest somewhere on Earth, so there's no real area for a budget to be spent and some of the sets are as wobbly as the original 1960s TV series.

The acting though, I will say is top drawer. To be honest, it had to be for the sake of the poor script.

All in all, by far the worst of the entire series, really only watching if you're a Trek fan.
My rating 32%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRejectedStampNew_zpsad11e9b5.png.html)



Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

The crew of the Enterprise launch a rebellion on the Baku homeworld against Picard’s superior officer, Admiral Dougherty, and his Son'a cohort, Ru'afo who want to relocate the Baku to gain possession of the medicinal cosmic radiation that floods their planet.

This is more like it. The filmmakers gladly learned from their mistakes and actually wrote a proper story this time round.
It's pretty simplistic but certainly imaginative and has many new and unseen ideas, and original characters involved throughout.

The other plus point is the expanded relationships between the crew members and Picard finding a love interest.

The action is a touch more toned down for a Star Trek movie, it's more about small skirmishes and running and hiding but it's the story, and especially the acting involved that make the movie watchable.

All in all an improvment, still not perfect but they're getting there.
My rating 80%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)


Star Trek Nemesis (2002)

Picard and company must thwart a seemingly familiar enemy, who has become leader of Romulus and is bent on obtaining DNA from Picard, at the cost of the captain's life, as well as the Federation's destruction.

Once again, another Marmite movie for fans. Nemesis is certainly more action orientated but contains a nice little twist in both Picard's past, and his fate.

The main plot of the film revolves around haunted histories, bettering yourself and has oodles of sentimental value. It's written perfectly though, it doesn't go into the 'cheesy' territory that The Undiscovered Country went into.

What really stands out in the film though is a young Tom Hardy as the antagonist and his right hand man played by Ron Perlman.
They're absolutely brilliant throughout and very good as villains.

The effects are absolutely top notch too. Some of the action scenes are very exciting and you can finally, at last, see where the budgets were spent too.

The overall acting from all parties is another plus point. They succesfull encapsulate their characters in the strange set of cicumstances and show the humour, and especially the tragedy, absolutely brilliantly.

All in all a rather downbeat but almost inspiring end to The Next Generation's legend. Still not perfect but definitely, personally, the best of TNG's films.
My rating 84%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)


Star Trek (2009)

When Vulcan is destroyed by Romulan thugs from the future, led by Nero, young Kirk and Spock must set aside their differences to prevent Earth from suffering the same fate.

Upon hearing about this movie I was extremely dubious. Before seeing the film I had the impression of it being a big middle finger to all the stalwart fans of Trek's history.

What the audience has been given though is a massively impressive rewrite of Star Trek lore and a brilliantly pieced together movie.

What makes the biggest impression is the cast involved. Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Zoe Saldana as Uhura are extremely natural in the well known roles and certainly don't let the viewer down.

The story though is relatively simple. It's the typical Trek Time Travel plot but it's extremely well written and effective.
It also adds more depth to the viewing when you realise the effect that the time travewlling has had on the main character's lives.

The effects are absolutely bang on the money too. It's almost entirely CGI backgrounds and green-screen but it's handled with such style and substance, it gives the movie it's own aura.
The action too, though pitched at regular intervals isn't too over the top and certainly not boring either. It's balanced just right.

The nostalgic elements are another plus on the writing front. The film is very loyal to the Trek everyone knows and loves.

By far the stand out piece of the film is Eric Bana as Nero. He's brilliantly evil and really threatening as a baddy.

All in all a massive surprise, but definitely in a good way, very nostalgic and loyal, and an exciting movie when the action kicks in.
My rating, the highest of them all, 98%

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)





I've kept them relatively short due to having 11 films in one. Hope you enjoyed reading though!!
Actually, I really do, it's taken me 2 and a half hours and a sore neck to write this up just now :D

[mark f]

The main thing I find weird is that First Contact is obviously the best of the "Second Generation" flicks, but no biggie.

[The Rodent]

In the words of Luke Skywalker: Noooo!

[cinemaafficionado]

Review #81: Lethal Weapon Franchise.


Lethal Weapon

A weathered and grumpy cop called Roger Murtaugh, who has just celebrated his 50th Birthday is reassigned a new partner, Martin Riggs.
Riggs, like Mutaugh, is a Vietnam Veteran but Riggs has suicidal tendencies due to his wife's recent death in a car crash.
Of course, this puts Murtaugh on the edge of dispair and the pair start out hating each other intensely.
When a crime hits close to home for Murtaugh, the disparate duo reconcile their differences, in the process gaining a mutual respect, and they go all out on a mission to save Murtaugh's young daughter.

The first of the franchise is one awesome film. The action is explosive, the choreography is fantastic, the humour is absolutely bang on and the acting is exactly what makes the film as good as it is.

For a start, the writing is simple, it's the typical buddy movie of the 80s. Two people hating each other, then finding common ground.
What makes Lethal Weapon so great is the screenplay and the chemisrty of the actors.
Danny Glover and Mel Gibson are brilliantly chalk and cheese. There's also no 'finding of feet' with the roles either. They're just there, fleshed out and very well written.

The other thing that really makes the movie work is the action.
Lethal Weapon is a borderline-no-brainer-action-up when the action starts, but with the wonderful writing behind the story and the characters, the action is extremely exciting and gets the audience on the edge of their seats.

The humour is also fantastically played. Some of it is laugh out loud, especially when Murtaugh and Riggs are in the thick of the action and Murtaugh is talking to himself.
A lot of the humour revolves around cheeky too. Riggs in particular has the best wind-ups for Murtaugh's grumpy nature.

The acting, as I said is brilliant I've mentioned Glover and Gibson but there's a few others that need a nod.
Gary Busey as Mr Joshua is brilliantly evil and brutal. He's broderline theatrical and is the perfect antagonist for Gibson's hero.
Mitchell Ryan as The General is another brilliant baddy to play off against Glover's Murtaugh. He's a simple baddy, but has a believable edge to him.
Steve Kahan as Riggs and Murtaugh's Police Captain is the typical shouty boss but he's got a likable side to his personality. His reactions to the main duo's antics is also funny.

As for any bad points, I can't really think of a great deal worth mentioning.

All in all it's another 80s classic from me and really set the tone for buddy-cop movies. My rating 97%.



Lethal Weapon 2

Riggs and Murtaugh have settled into their partnership and have stumbled upon a South African criminal organisation that is, sadly, protected by the law.
At the same time, the duo must protect Leo Getz, a witness in a money laundering scam while they're investigating the criminal organisation.
When it turns out that the South Africans are part of the money laundering that Leo was part of and Leo is also kidnapped, Riggs and Murtaugh go all out to save Leo and stop the organisation from escaping back to South Africa.

This sequel is a rare event of being better than the first. It's more explosive, the writing is broader and the characters have been given more of a horizon with their characteristics. Riggs in particular is expanded as a character and there's a twist in the history of his life too.

There's also more main characters for the main duo to play off and get grumpy with as well. Leo Getz is brilliantly comic and annoying for the pair, he too eventually becomes a stalwart friend.
The baddies of the film are a little cliche, though they're brilliantly acted and threatening.

The underlying humour of the first film is a little more prominent in this one, but with the louder action, it works fantastically.

The acting is another plus.
Joe Pesci as Leo Getz is by far at his funniest. He's half the size of Glover and Gibson but his charisma on screen really gives the other actors something to work against. Personally, he's my favourite character.
Joss Ackland is great as the South African leader Arjen Rudd. He's unbending in his mission and brutal when needed.
Derrick O'Connor as Ackland's righthand man Pieter Vorstedt is definitely a naturalistic bad guy. He plays off Gibson fantastically.

All in all, it's bigger and louder than the first and has more of a horizon with the characters' lives. Certainly the best of the entire series. My rating 98%.



Lethal Weapon 3

Three years after the second film, Riggs and Murtaugh stumble across illegal arms dealers during their interception of an attempted hijack of an armoured car.
It turns out that the arms dealers have developed a new type of bullet that can shoot through most substances, including metal and even bullet proof vests. Riggs and Murtaugh dub this new ammo 'cop killers'.
Of course, this also put all the cops in the area on high alert when it appears that the leader of these dealers is actually an ex-cop.
It's up to Riggs and Murtaugh and a new partner to take on these arms dealers, and stop the sale of 'cop killing bullets' across America.

The third film is a little stale compared to the first two. The story is sound and the writing is top notch, but it's the screenplay that lets it down. It feels just on the border of gimmicky.
It's going toward being a parody of itself and feels a little cliche with the plot.

What lifts the movie though is again, the action scenes. They're choreographed brilliantly and the added extras of being up against arms dealers with super weapons gives the audience some butt-clenching moments too.

The acting, again is top drawer.
Joe Pesci returns as Leo, though he was nearly written out of the script. Gladly he's back and annoying the main duo.
Rene Russo makes a welcome appearance as Lorna Cole, a love interest for Gibson. Her chemistry with Gibson is fantastic and she's tough but also approachable at the same time.
Rent-a-baddy Stuart Wilson as the ex cop Jack Travis a little cliche but he does the job well enough.

The comedy this time is a little more comicbook but the subtle undertones of tongue-in-cheek humour between Gibson, Russo and Murtaugh really works well.

All in all nowhere near as good as the lead up but still worthy of the Lethal Weapon title. My rating 90%.



Lethal Weapon 4

Years after the third outing, Riggs and Murtaugh have now both become grizzled and old. Murtaugh is set to be a grandfather and Riggs and Lorna are also expecting their first child.
During a fishing trip, the duo, along with Leo are shot at from a passing ship. Upon the ship's crashing into the shore, they find the boat is full of illegal immigrants and they unwittingly expose a Chinese slave labour organisation.

The fourth movie is a slightly more welcome return to the serious side of the first two films.
The plot of the characters may feel well used but the overall writing of the screenplay really brings the movie to life.
There's some lovely little similarities between Riggs and Murtaugh's family lives too that give the whole film a nice depth.

The action is definitely the most exciting of the four films. Though it's not as explosive, it utilises overall action brilliantly. This time round it's Chinese Triads that the main cast are up against. Cue lots of brilliantly staged martial arts showdowns.

The humour is again very well used, the characters this time round are so well ingrained that the comedy just comes from the actors knowing where they are from the get go.

The acting is the same as the other films again, bang on the money.
This time we're treated to Jet Li as the main antagonist Wa Sing Ku. He's brilliantly evil and unbending in his quest to make money. When taunted though, he athletically becomes a force that both Riggs and Murtaugh combined, struggle to contain.
Chris Rock, an actor I can't stand, is actually quite entertaining as the father of Murtaugh's grandchild. He's funny, annoying for the main duo and plays off both Danny Glover and Joe Pesci fantastically.

The ending is also a plus point. It wraps up the franchise perfectly.

All in all, it's an improvment over the third outing and definitely worthy of the franchise name. My rating 93%.

Very nice and thorough reviews. For me the first two in the series were the ones I really liked. Never liked Chris Rock and even though his acting wasn't bad, his presence spoiled the fourth movie for me.
On another side, I like Spike Lee as a director but can't stand him as a human being.

[JayDee]

Just catching up on some of your reviews Rodent. I absolutely love the Lethal Weapon franchise and especially love the Back to the Future trilogy (would rate all of them higher than you did).

While it's perhaps the weakest of the lot I've always really enjoyed the fourth Lethal Weapon, Jet Li being a good deal of the reason. And while he's nothing much on his own I enjoyed Chris Rock's interaction with Pesci.

Out of interest following Lethal Weapon, Back to the Future, Die Hard etc do you have any plans for another of my favourite 80s franchises - Beverly Hills Cop?

[The Rodent]

Up next I'm doing Of Mice And Men of Cinemaafficionado.

Bev Hills never popped into my head, will add to my list and get it done soon.

[The Rodent]

Review #83: Of Mice And Men

George and Lenny, two soulmates who work from place to place, farm to farm in 1930s America, end up on the run when Lenny is accused of attempted rape.
Lenny is not a violent man though, he's mentally handicapped, and has a love of things that are soft.
Basically Lenny doesn't know his own strength and tends to get into trouble, George on the other hand sees to it that Lenny is looked after and that nothing happens to his simple friend.
When the duo find themselves more work, Lenny goes one step farther and ends up actually killing a young woman without even realising, it's up to George again to fix the problem, whether he wants to or not.

Based on John Steinbeck's novel of the same name, the movie really captures the difficult relationship between George and Lenny.
What makes it all the more poignant is that the pair aren't even related, yet they act like brothers.
Near the start, you feel bad for Lenny and feel that George is too hard on him, if anything, George is almost bordering a protagonist but as the film progresses, you find an understanding between the characters and a connection with the audience.
Toward the end of the film you do feel more for George though, Gary Sinise's acting as George really hits the mark when things start going bad for the pair once again due to Lenny lack of understanding and you even feel George's frustration too.

The plot and screenplay, though loosely told at the top of this review, is another plus point. It delves into all of the characters and their relationships brilliantly and makes for a really good, well written drama.

Casey Siemaszko as Curly, the husband of the killed woman, is perfect as the real protagonist of the story, immediately taking a dislike to George and Lenny, at one point even having a rumble with Lenny.

The actor that really stands out though is John Malkovich as Lenny. Malkovich doesn't look like a brutal killing machine that he's accused of being and certainly doesn't have the stature as an immensly strong simpleton, but it's Malkovich's acting that makes the character believable. It's also when the going gets tough that you really believe the character's strength, Malkovich is that good.

With support from Sinise, Joe Morton, John Terry and Mark Boone Jr and also directed by Sinise himself, the movie almost can't go wrong.

All in all, a drama classic based on a classic novel and acted by some of the finest but underrated actors of modern time, Of Mice And Men is a low tone but occasionally funny and certainly heartbreaking story and is certainly a film to be seen.
My rating 96%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[cinemaafficionado]

Review #83: Of Mice And Men

George and Lenny, two soulmates who work from place to place, farm to farm in 1930s America, end up on the run when Lenny is accused of attempted rape.
Lenny is not a violent man though, he's mentally handicapped, and has a love of things that are soft.
Basically Lenny doesn't know his own strength and tends to get into trouble, George on the other hand sees to it that Lenny is looked after and that nothing happens to his simple friend.
When the duo find themselves more work, Lenny goes one step farther and ends up actually killing a young woman without even realising, it's up to George again to fix the problem, whether he wants to or not.

Based on John Steinbeck's novel of the same name, the movie really captures the difficult relationship between George and Lenny.
What makes it all the more poignant is that the pair aren't even related, yet they act like brothers.
Near the start, you feel bad for Lenny and feel that George is too hard on him, if anything, George is almost bordering a protagonist but as the film progresses, you find an understanding between the characters and a connection with the audience.
Toward the end of the film you do feel more for George though, Gary Sinise's acting as George really hits the mark when things start going bad for the pair once again due to Lenny lack of understanding and you even feel George's frustration too.

The plot and screenplay, though loosely told at the top of this review, is another plus point. It delves into all of the characters and their relationships brilliantly and makes for a really good, well written drama.

Casey Siemaszko as Curly, the husband of the killed woman, is perfect as the real protagonist of the story, immediately taking a dislike to George and Lenny, at one point even having a rumble with Lenny.

The actor that really stands out though is John Malkovich as Lenny. Malkovich doesn't look like a brutal killing machine that he's accused of being and certainly doesn't have the stature as an immensly strong simpleton, but it's Malkovich's acting that makes the character believable. It's also when the going gets tough that you really believe the character's strength, Malkovich is that good.

With support from Sinise, Joe Morton, John Terry and Mark Boone Jr and also directed by Sinise himself, the movie almost can't go wrong.

All in all, a drama classic based on a classic novel and acted by some of the finest but underrated actors of modern time, Of Mice And Men is a low tone but occasionally funny and certainly heartbreaking story and is certainly a film to be seen. My rating 96%.

That's the Mouse I like. Very nice review, buddy and a man of his word. Props.

[The Rodent]

Review #84: An American Werewolf In London

Two American tourists, David and Jack, find themselves in the middle of nowhere in the English Countryside.
Happening upon a rather gothic looking pub called The Slaughtered Lamb, they meet a bunch of dark soulled locals who warn them to stay off the Moors at night.
The pair laugh it off as some sort of local paranoia and head off across the foggy wasteland on foot, giggling and laughing between them about the strange people they've just met.
Sadly though, they meet something unearthly and incredibly violent. Jack is killed and David is almost mortally wounded.
Upon waking in a London hospital, David realises a horrible truth about the thing that attacked him and his friend, and has to rely on a kindly nurse to help him.

The movie is an absolute classic in the Werewolf genre and wrote many of the current lores used in modern Werewolf movies.
What makes the movie work more than anything else is that it's incredible small in scope and relies mainly on using basic plot devices in very small amounts, love, fear, horror, urban legends etc.

It's when the small scale feel of the movie is mixed with the seriously impressive special effects that the movie really makes it's mark.
The transformation scene set the benchmark not just for Werewolf movies, but for all puppetry movies since, and is always the thing about the movie that people talk about.
The effects used for the wolf itself are also absolutely top notch.
By modern standard, I've yet to see a movie that makes such a statement in regard to puppetry and effects.
There are other effects utilised in the movie too when it comes to the undead. Especially the makeup used when Jack appears to David in visions.

As far as the actual storyline goes, it's very simplistic but really well put together. The movie itself is more about David's confusion and fear about what's happening to him and the horror factor of the Werewolf, though there is a small love story thrown in for good measure.

The acting is a little touch and go though.
David Naughton as the American Werewolf is a little wooden but strangely, it feels right. His naivety in the circumstances works brilliantly.
Jenny Agutter as the Nurse, Alex Price is at her usual. She's professional and is believable.
Some of the supporting actors are a little wooden too with the exception of the locals in the Slaughtered Lamb.
Brian Glover (Alien 3, Dixon Of Dock Green), David Schofield (Pirates Of The Caribbean, Gladiator, From Hell) and Rik Mayall (Bottom, Drop Dead Fred) are just a handful of future stars that make small appearances in the film.

With the obligatory sex scene with Agutter, the movie is definitely a must see :yup:

All in all, a genuinely scary-in-places horror and definitely a benchmark for special effects and makeup.
A simple story and low tone movie, but utilised brilliantly and is the Grandaddy of modern Werewolf Lore.
My rating 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

American Werewolf... is great fun. :yup: Funny, sexy, scary and like you said very impressive on some technical levels (makeup, special effects etc)

[The Rodent]

Review#85: Predator 2 (With a rerun of Review #11: Predator and Review #42: Predators)

Set in 1997, 10 years after the original movie, one of the alien species has found itself in the urban jungle of Los Angeles.
What surrounds him is a target rich environment and an ultra violent society on the streets.
Trying desperately to police these streets is a tough, violent but exceptional cop called Lieutenant Mike Harrigan. The Predator, being a sporting hunter, has taken a fancy to Harrigan as he is one of the toughest humans in the city and is seen as almost an 'ultimate prey' to the alien.
In the meantime, the alien has also decided to pick off the various gangs that fill the city streets, the very same gangs that Harrigan and his team of cops is trying to stop and has even decided to kill a few of Harrigan's team of police officers.

It's up to Harrigan to find out what is ritually killing these gang members and his friends, and discover why some secretive Government agents are interested in this shadowy killer.

At first, I wasn't a fan of Predator 2. It lacks some of the style of the original movie.
After waiting a few years to view it again with a more adult point of view, I actually think it's on a par with McTiernan's original masterpiece.

It's a very different movie in feel, it borders on OTT violence and completely crosses the boundaries of ultraviolent that was set up by Verhoeven's movie Robocop.
It's hard, harsh, gory, violent and at times genuinely has a few scares too.

What makes the film work though, is the fantastic direction and the raw grittiness of the screenplay.
The film plays out in an extremely in-your-face-violence kind of way, but the screenplay is brilliantly put together and there's more of a look into the Predator's way of life.

Predator 2 is also the film that expanded the Predator Legend for the viewer by building on the honour and the dignity of the sporting warrior hunter and has many subtle levels of how the Predator species likes to pick out it's prey, including two or three scenes of actually teasing his intended targets.
There's also that trophy cabinet at the end of the film which sparked a few whispers.

The acting is also another plus. Danny Glover, Ruben Blades, Bill Paxton and Gary Busey all add massive amounts of authenticity to the superviolent city streets.
Calvin Lockhart makes a brillianty memorable, but small appearance, as a Jamaican drug-lord too.

With Kevin Peter Hall reprising his role as the main alien and playing another, smaller role at the end in the original Predator suit too, the movie has incredible authenticty as a sequel and carries a lot of weight in continuity.

The effects are certainly on a par with the first movie too.
Though the film shows the odd breakup in the effects due to being a 'film' movie (digital film hadn't been utilised fully at the time of production), they're still very real and extremely believable and work with the continuity of the franchise.

All in all, I'm glad I waited a few years before rewatching.
Though it's a completely different film to the lead up, it's certainly better than being just a cash-in rerun of the first film and has masses of expansion in legend, species, history and future.
Certainly a top-class sequel.
My rating is on a par with Predator at 99%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Review #11: Predator.

Ok, another alien sci-fi, but hey, it's my forte.
A heavy hitting cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers and Sonny Landham.
Based in a Central American Jungle, a Special Forces Group go in search of what they think is a Cabinet Minister and his company, whom found themselves lost across a National Border and end up captured by an enemy force.
Their mission is to go into the danger zone, find the V.I.Ps and bring them home.
They hit their targets with ease, these guys are the best of the best of the best…

… yet find themselves picked off one by one from a strange and upsetting outside force.

One of the men in the Special Forces group is seriously spooked from the deaths of his team-mates and says of what’s killing them off: "It ain’t no man".
Extremely guerrilla film making, relatively low budget with most of the cash spared for the special effects, this movie is an absolute must see for any sci-fi fan.

A well written yet extremely simple storyline make for even more entertainment.
The very well and simply written characters and their personas are even more of a bonus to the film.

Arnie is at his best, as too are the other actors for what they’re worth, the director John McTiernan has eeked the most and the best from the cast. Keeping in mind Arnie’s English was almost non-existent at the time of filming, both Arnie and McTiernan did an exceptional job.

One thing that makes the movie great, is the fact that even after only a short amount of screen-time, you still give a sh*t about the characters. Awesome.

If sci-fi isn’t your thing, still watch. Horror, intrigue and fear are the order of the day for any first time watchers.

The special effects, even for the mid-80s, are spectacular and have even set the benchmark for every Predator film that has followed since, yet has never been bettered.
A sense of claustrophobia is felt throughout the entire movie, the jungle setting adds to that and the sci-fi feel never lets up as you always feel as though you’re being watched by something other-worldly. Again, awesome.

By far the best, and probably ever will be the best Predator movie and very close to being the best movie in my Library.

The perfect horror for first time watchers with a chunk of action thrown in and, yet, also the perfect 'horror action' for 'vets' of the movie.
For me, just near the perfect movie.

My rating (my highest out of all my reviews so far) 99%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


Review #42: Predators.

4 soldiers, all from different armies, a Yakuza hitman, a Colombian gangster, a criminal and a doctor, all strangers, find themselves waking up in mid-airdrop and land in a jungle.
Quickly they learn that an unseen force is hunting them and have to team up with one another and find a way out of their predicament and out of the jungle before they’re killed off one by one.

It’s a happy return to a more serious Predator movie. AvP had almost killed off the franchise with the universe crossover that it failed to construct.

Rodriguez has taken all the things that were great with the Predator franchise and utilised it in the best way that he could have and has added new takes and expansion to the mix as well.

The writing is simplistic, but there are a few touches of originality in the storyline and the filmmakers have gladly kept to the original Legends as much as possible. They’ve also expanded only just enough to make it watchable for those who have never seen the original movies and make it an acceptable movie for the already existing Preds fans.

The action too is very Predator-esk. It’s loud, fast and exciting to watch and often appears out of nowhere.

The effects of the film are another welcome return. The CGI is utilised brilliantly and the ‘dogs’ seen in the film are certainly a threat and look the part too.

The acting is pretty standard for the type of movie. I was dubious about Adrien Brody in the lead role but he really encapsulates the no nonsense soldier role brilliantly.
A sexy Alice Braga with a gun, is also good to watch. Her @ss is awesome.
Walton Goggins is probably the best of the lot as the convict. He’s rather strange and plays the role with a memorable, ‘bull-sh*tter’ style.

The main fault with the movie is that the snot and gore has, to an extent, been toned down in place of more stylish violence.
There are scenes of blood and guts, just not as graphic as the original movie and certainly less than Predator 2, though I guess that’s Rodriguez’ way of making a movie.
The thing is though, it works and makes the movie memorable.

Many say that Predators is a re-run of the first movie and I’d agree, it feels very samey, almost being the Superman Returns of the Predator franchise, but Rodriguez’ and director Nimrod’s collaboration really does work very well.

All in all it’s a surprisingly good, if less gory re-run of Predator and expands the legend in all the right places and at just the right amount.
My rating is a well deserved 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #86: Jaws

Amity Island, a tourist trap and fishing hotspot is thrown into the depths (ahem) of terror and paranoia when a young female swimmer goes missing on a late night dip with a friend.
When her body washes up on shore, her mutilated remains are quickly passed off as a boating accident by the chief medical examiner of the island, who is under the instruction of a 'money and tourist' oriented Mayor.
Chief of Police Martin Brody goes along with the decision under protest.

When another child is killed, this time in front of most of the island's inhabitants, Chief Brody is blamed for keeping the possibility of a shark secret from the populous.
Brody calls upon the help of shark expert Matt Hooper, and a local shark-hunter and fisherman called Quint to help track down the animal and bring its reign of terror to an end.
What they discover while out in the deep ocean and in the middle of nowhere, is something much more ferocious than they expected and the trio are thrown into a battle of wits and a fight for survival.

This is by far one the most special films in my reviews section.
Spielberg manages to capture and encapsulate everything about a horror genre and still manages to give the movie his own family-esk touches.
The mix of fantasy, tension, mystery, horror, paranoia, gore, comedy and sheer action is an absolute masterclass in movie making and set the benchmark for movies of its type. It also catapulted Spielberg's name into the history books around the world.

Alongside the brilliant writing from Peter Benchley (though with a few changes from the filmmakers) and Spielberg's awesome direction comes another of John Williams' fantastic musical scores. Not just the two-tone violin though, which is what most people remember, but the entire soundtrack of the film. Williams' really makes his mark on the film and made an icon of the movie, using nothing but sound.

What really makes the movie fall into place perfectly is the acting.
Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and Hollywood heavy hitter Robert Shaw as the main trio of heroes (and almost an anti-hero in respect to Shaw) are brilliantly disparate when the going gets tough.
The chemistry on screen apparently carried over in real life too in regard to Robert Shaw, who was said to be incredibly competitive and came to loggerheads a few times with Dreyfuss while off set.
It gives the whole third act of the movie such an authenticity in the strange set of circumstances.
Supporting roles from Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton add more authentic, real feeling characters.

The effects are a little dated by today's standard but they're used in the correct way. The creature is kept hidden till the end and even then is shown in relatively short cuts.
Even so, they don't take away from the movie.
The main technical part of the filming makes the movie stand out brilliantly when the film goes out into the deep ocean. Spielberg really captures the isolated feel of a boat at drift.

All in all, one of the best. A benchmark in technical ability and screenplay and an all time classic. Anyone who says they're a movie fan, movie buff, movie critic, etc, has to see this one.
My rating 100%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[JayDee]

Well that review will make Mark and Honeykid happy. One of the rare films that brings them together! :D

[honeykid]

That should be the tagline for the film; "A film so good that even mark and honeykid agree it's the best!"

[mark f]

F**kin' A, Bubba!

[Devils Angel]

Jaws is one of the only films that actually scares me stupid still to this day haha. I wont go in the ocean anymore and the one time I did, I got stung by a Jellyfish. I took that as a sign to stay afraid :)

True Story right there.

[The Rodent]

Aww...

Although, I once slipped in the shower and landed on a rubber ducky.

[Devils Angel]

I think my jellyfish sting is worse than a rubber ducky :) Though I am one of the clumsiest people ever, I sliced my knee open in the bath and near passed out and drowned cause i dont like blood. And ive near knocked myself out in the shower falling and hitting my head. Maybe I should just avoid water in general.

[mark f]

But Rodent's ducky ended up in an embarrassing place.

[Devils Angel]

You dont know where the Jelly Fish stung me though, so I still think mine is worse, and lets face it, he probably enjoyed where the ducky ended up. Poor Rubber Ducky :(

[The Rodent]

He had years of counselling after that incident.
He'd sit in the shower singing 'The Crying Game' for hours on end, scrubbing himself with bleach.

Eventually had to put him down though after he turned to alcohol.

[The Rodent]

With the fourth movie coming out in cinemas in Britain soon (yes, the fourth, I don't count the other half million cash-in abominations that were made), I thought a runover of the originals was in order:


Review #87: American Pie Original Trilogy

American Pie

The premise is based around 5 American High School Seniors, Jim, Finch, Oz, Kevin and Stifler and their respective love lives.
Stifler is the most outlandish and open of the group and has had many conquests in his love life but the other four of the group are virgins, and they make a pact, to lose their virginities before Senior Prom Night and do everything they can to help each other out in their quest to get laid.

Once labelled as a grossout Porky's wannabe, American Pie has revitalised the teen comedy and broke the mould in many places.
For a start, the simple premise has been used before but the film bathes itself in extremely likable and disparate characters and really well timed slapstick and grossout visual comedy.
The writing and joke placement also gives the movie an almost nostalgic feel, even though it's the first of the series.
American Pie is also the film that made famous the phrase MILF.

Some of the comedy is touch and go for some viewers, some of the scenes contain mild crude humour, others are completely grossout, including Stifler drinking something he shouldn't.
That said though, the film is aimed at people who find those things funny.

The acting is absolutely spot on too.
Jason Biggs as Jim, Eddie Kaye Thomas as Finch, Chris Klein as Oz, Thomas Ian Nicholas as Kevin and Seann William Scott as Stifler make the most of their roles and you can tell they had a massive amount of fun making the film.

With supporting acting from Alison Hannigan, Mena Suvari, Tara Reid, Shannon Elizabeth, Natasha Lyonne, Jennifer Coolidge and Comedy Heavyweight Eugene Levy, the entire cast make their marks and live with the audience well after the film stops rolling.

There's also cameos from Blink 182, Christina Milian and Casey Affleck.

Mix to all that a brilliant soundtrack, you've got a sure fire winner.
The first and original movie also won 6 of the 11 Awards it was nominated for.

All in all, a modern day comedy classic and has cemented itself in the minds of the populous since its release and is a feel good movie from start to finish.
My rating 95%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)


American Pie 2

More antics from the main 5 guys. This time they're in college and are getting on with the love lives they found at the end of the first film.
Apart from Jim, who is still stirring after his encounters with Nadia.
For a change of scenery during their Summer Break, they hire a beach-front house by the lake, and make their dreams of partying all night come true, while Jim tries his best to be the perfect lover for anyone who will have him.

The second of the series is louder, prouder, bigger and goes further with some of the crude slapstick and visuals.
It still works though, the writing is bang on the money and the cast know their places perfectly too.
The whole thing gives the on-screen chemistry more of a depth and makes for a really familiar feel with the cast.

The change of setting is another plus, it gives the film more scope and allows for more comedy placement.
What works with the writing is also that, as the the actors have aged, the characters have too. It makes the film feel more real.

The acting as I said is spot on again. The original cast are back and there's a few expansions with some of the love lives. One or two characters are dropped back to being cameos more than anything else but it doesn't take away from the movie.

What lets the film down is that some of the comedy is a little too outlandish, especially Jim's superglue scenes. Still, the film won 5 out of the 7 Awards it was nominated for.

All in all, a good comedy and has oodles of feel good moments, but not as sharp as the original.
My rating 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)


American Pie: The Wedding

This time round, Jim and Michelle have found their place together and have decided to tie the knot.
With Kevin, Finch and Stifler by his side, Jim makes his perfect plans for the wedding come true.
Or at least, he tries to.
Cue more slapstick and visual comedy and some grossout moments for fans to giggle at.

Once again, the filmmakers have come up trumps for fans of the series.
There's more expansion in the writing and again, as the cast have aged, so too have the characters.
This time they've managed to combine some real touching moments within the comedy and add just enough schmaltz to keep the audience interested.

The acting again is bang on, from the cast who weren't actually written out.
Sadly, a lot of the original cast are no-shows in this one. You'd think they'd show with it being Jim's wedding, but sadly not.
Chris Klein (Oz), Mena Suvari (Heather), Shannon Elizabeth (Nadia) and Tara Reid (Vicky) are just a handful of missing characters. It really lets the film down.

Though saying that, there are a few extra characters thrown into the mix. We meet Michelle's parents (Fred Willard and Deborah Rush) and the boys find some new friends when Stifler ends up in a 'Dance-Off' in a gaybar (one of the highlights).

All in all, the missing cast members almost spoiled the film, but the surviving (and new) characters are brilliantly played and make up for the losses. The overall comedy and sentimental writing is also what makes the film likeable.
My rating is the same as the second at 85%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[mark f]

You obviously enjoy American Pie more than this American does, but I will be having a slice of apple pie tonight from world-famous Julian, California. It appears to be a virgin pie.

[honeykid]

American Pie
Once labelled as a grossout Porky's wannabe,
For "once", read "still."

[The Rodent]

Review #88: Godzilla

Matthew Broderick, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Biologist, currently studying nuclear effects on earthworms, is assigned a a new task in finding out why a giant lizard has appeared and how it has found its way to New York.
With the help of Maria Pitillo, Hank Azaria and Jean Reno, they must find a way to stop the creature and bring its destructive wave to an end. What awaits them in the underground lair the creature has built is something they didn't count on.

Another Emmerich disaster movie from me, this time round, I'll brave the backlash and say it's probably one of his best to date.

The screenplay, though it completely tears apart the original Japanese storylines, is actually pretty well written in terms of storytelling. Its realistic in terms of sequence and feels fun to watch.
There's also elements of mystery and discovery in the mix too and a nice little twist with the creature toward the end, which adds more of a depth to the Godzilla legend.
Some of the science, as usual with Emmerich science is cod at best, but the screenplay and overall story make it work.
The elements of tongue in cheek humour make the movie stand out well too.

What makes Godzilla stand out from all other Emmerich epics, is that the stereotyping of other non-USA cultures is knowing this time round and utilises humour with the the way they've been portrayed. Most of his other stereotyping in other movies is arrogant and ignorant and almost borders racism.
Thumbs up for this time round.

The soundtrack from Jamiroquai was another good move.

The acting is about the best of all Emmerich films.
Matthew Broderick, Jean Reno, Maria Pitillo and some of the cast from the Simpsons (Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Nancy Cartwright) plus a few more famous faces that make small cameos, make for enjoying viewing.
Jean Reno is by far the standout role in the film. He's funny and serious and you can see he had a lot of laughs making fun of the Americans.

The CGI, as with all Emmerich movies, is absolutely perfect. It's extremely hard to find a fault. The creature effects and the various things that the creature gets its teeth into are all extremely well rendered.
Godzilla has also been revamped to a more realistic looking creature rather than the usual 'man-in-suit shape' that we're all used to.

What lets the film down, (though I said it's a kind of a good point), is that it stamps all over the existing Godzilla Legend.
The other thing is that most of the movie is at night and constantly raining. It gives the whole thing a very depressed feel.

All in all, still not a prefect movie from disaster specialist Emmerich, but definitely up there with his best work (well, compared to his others anyway, see my reviews #3 on page 1, and reviews #63 & #64 on page 8).
Funny, exciting action, toned down in the racism and cod-science, it has it all. Definitley a popcorn no-brainer.
My rating falls just short of Independence Day (which scored 88%) at 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[Deadite]

Yeah, I think Godzilla got knocked a bit too much. It's pretty decent.

[mastermetal777]

I'll be honest and say that I enjoyed Emmerich's Godzilla film as a kid. Looking at it today, I can still find things I like about it even though it's not that great a film.

[The Rodent]

Review #89: The Negotiator

A Cop, Lieutenant Danny Roman, is accused of being involved with an embezzlement plot and has his badge taken by his Captain and is put on watch.
What makes things all the more tense, is that the cops who accused Danny of this crime, have themselves been pointed out as being involved with the embezzlement by another cop, who ends up killed by a gun that was involved in one of Roman's past cases.
He goes all out to prove his innocence, by actually taking hostages in the Internal Affairs Offices and demanding to speak to a Negotiator called Lieutenant Chris Sabian. Another tense factor in the actions of Lieutenant Roman, is that Roman himself is also a police Negotiator.
Cue a big face off and lots of paranoia from everyone involved.

What a gem of a movie. There has been tense corrupt-police movies in the past but The Negotiator is one the best.
The screenplay and overall script are something that is rarely seen in a Hollywood flick: It's complex but easy to follow and still manages to get the action mixed into the tense build ups that all lead to a satisfactory ending, without getting all stupid too.

The other thing that makes the movie special is the feeling of paranoia that comes from Roman's side of the story. When the movie flits to the cops outside the building, the viewer is really on a knife edge of skeptisism on who can be trusted. A lot of this is also down to the dialogue writing, which gives the film a massively different depth to the tension.

One down point is that some of the scene placement and writing involved does occasionally feel as though it's written for the particular actors involved. Kind of like a face off for the various talents, let's see who can act better than the other one.
Though it doesn't remove from the fact that they all still make a massive impression on the audience.

Samuel L Jackson as Roman and Kevin Spacey as Sabian are the stars of the film. They play off one another perfectly and never let up their hostility to one another till the exciting climax.
Supporting roles from an almost ensemble cast, David Morse, Paul Giamatti, Ron Rifkin, John Spencer and Paul Guilfoyle give the film some extremely well played and heavy hitting roles.

The effects and action are relatively held back, it's more of a tense drama with the odd hit of gunplay thrown in from time to time.
The action when used though is exciting and gets bigger as the film progresses but still, it's based in reality, there's no massive Hollywood hokum going on.
Thumbs up!

All in all, a wonderfully written story and brilliantly tense when it needs to be. Certainly one of the best cop-drama-actioners around.
My rating 92%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[Deadite]

I didn't care much for it, from what I remember. It's been a long time since I saw it but from what I recall, it was pretty mediocre and superficial.

[The Rodent]

Review #90: The Green Mile

John Coffey, a giant of a man, is found with the bodies of two dead sisters. Coffey and the girls respectively, are covered in blood and Coffey himself is distraught and screaming that he "Tried to take it back, but it was too late".
What makes things worse for the giant that is John Coffey, is that this is the year 1935 and is the deep south of the USA, Coffey is African American and the dead girls are white.
Coffey is immediately arested, charged and imprisoned on death row for the double rape and murder of the children.
While on death row, the prison guards and other inmates begin to realise that Coffey isn't quite what he has been accused of being, and a great doubt is cast over the circumstances of his arrest.
Delving deeper into the mystery, the guards discover something incredible about the apparent rapist/murderer that will change the course of not just their lives, but the lives of those they love too.

Another Stephen King novel brought to the screen, once again by the brilliant director Frank Darabont, The Green Mile is seconded only by the Shawshank Redemption in terms of King adaptions.
Darabont just seems to know how King's novels work, and this outing for the director doesn't disappoint.

The writing, screeplay, dialogue, effects and the acting are absolutely top drawer and the overall feel of the movie is inspiring beyond belief. Anyone who has seen the film can't deny its longevity, even after the film has stopped rolling.

The other special thing with the movie is that even in the quieter scenes, the film is always doing something. Whether it's a little humour, a small insight into character behaviour, or something going on in the background, there's always something happening somewhere that keeps your eyes on the screen.

The way the characters are built upon by Darabont is absolutely perfect.
The entire film is a flashback, told by the character Paul Edgecomb, but the director uses more flashbacks and uses them sparingly, and in doing so, they add a massive depth to the storytelling and opens the plot brilliantly for future reference.

The character-audience relationship is also top notch, it's one of the very, very few films that I have actually cried at on my first viewing.

The acting is another plus as I said.
Tom Hanks as Guard Paul Edgecomb (played also by Dabbs Greer as an old man) makes his mark as the joint lead role. He's beleivable, likable and very engaging. Hanks also portrays masses of intelligence with his acting too. He exceptionally good.

Michael Clarke Duncan as John Coffey though really steals the show in the other joint lead.
Clark Duncan is by far the best actor on show and it's by far his best acting to date. He's mysterious, brooding, powerful, yet childlike and even delicate almost, he's also extremely likable and loveable and can be very funny when needed. All of this and he's barely on screen compared to the other actors.
Clarke Duncan makes this movie.

Supporting roles come from one of the finest casts I've seen in any film:
David Morse, Barry Pepper, Doug Hutchison, Jeffrey DeMunn, Bonnie Hunt, Michael Jeter, James Cromwell, Patricia Clarkson, Harry Dean Stanton, Gary Sinise and the brilliant Sam Rockwell.

The effects are relatively small, only slight glimpses into what Coffey is doing are actually shown but their impact is extremely believable and live with the audience for a long time. They're also very well put together.

All in all, this is one the best movies I've ever seen, in fact the best, even better than Shawshank. Problem is, Shawshank is one of a few films in my reviews section to have been given 100%, so, I'm breaking my own rule and giving The Green Mile a well deserved 101% Perfect Rating

http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

Review #91: The Mist

One night, a massive storm hits a small town and creates havok among the inhabitants.
Family man David Drayton and his son Billy go to the local grocery store to get food supplies and some tools to fix the damage that was done to their house from the storm. In toe is their neighbour Brent Norton.
While at the store, a man with a bloodied face runs in, panicking and acting deranged, at the same time a convoy of Army trucks and police cars whizz past and the town's airraid/fire alarms sound.
Almost immediately a supernatural Mist envelopes the area, and anyone who ventures out into it, vanishes, leaving nothing behind but a scream and some blood.
The town's folk trapped in the grocery store must figure out what is happening, and how they can survive not only these unearthly events, but also each other.

Wow, what a film.
The Mist, written by Stephen King and directed by Frank Darabont (yes another King/Darabont collaberation), makes extremely good use of screenplay and script to tell a story, rather than flash and bang effects to give a simple thrill.

The entire premise of the film, though based around the Mist outside (and loosely told in the first paragraph of this review), is more of a psychological thriller with gory horror and mystery thrown into the background.
It delves into the deep psyche of human nature and at times is extremely uncomfortable to watch when the group of store customers segregate themselves into disparate groups.

The film can also make the viewer feel extremely philosophical about the messages it's very successfully delivering, especially about mob rule and the raw nature of Human Beings.

What really works with the film is the essence of mystery that it portrays. Near the beginning, there is a death scene that completely throws the audience with what is seen on screen, then the entire film works the viewer's nerves with mystery, discovery, atmosphere, paranoia and sheer fright when the various groups start forming.

Then there's the creatures and creature effects. Similar in tone to the 2010 movie called Monsters but made with more of a fantasy panache, similar to, maybe Silent Hill with the weird and wonderful creations that are barely seen.
The CGI as a whole though is absolutely flawless. The creatures are kept inside the mist as much as possible but occassionally they venture into the clear and still don't disappoint.
The CGI Mist is also wonderfully spooky and realistic.

Some of the acting is a touch wooden at times, particularly from Andre Braugher (the neighbour) and a couple of other smaller parts, but thankfully they're only in the film for a short time.

The main cast though are absolutely bang on the money.
Thomas Jane, Nathan Gamble, Laurie Holden Toby Jones, William Sadler and Marcia Gay Harden are all fantastic in the various roles.
Marcia Gay Harden in particular is brilliantly religious and gets more edgy and twitchy as the film progresses. She's extremely unsettling and pretty much steals the second and third acts.

The ending of the film is another uneasy point. It's extremely downbeat and will take the viewer with a massive shock.
The viewer will, however, still have to rewatch this film nonetheless.

All in all, a lovely surprise of a movie, I expected it to be a complete pile but it really knocked me back a peg. Even to the point where I actually sat and watched the entire credits, just trying to take in what I'd just witnessed.
My rating 98%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[TylerDurden99]

I like Godzilla, one of the three good Emmerich films.

[The Rodent]

What were your other two for Emmerich?

EDIT: My Top 3 Emmerich movies are Universal Soldier, Independence Day, Godzilla
Eight Legged Freaks is a good one but he only produced it.

[TylerDurden99]

The Patriot and Independence Day. The Patriot is most definitely the "best" of his work, but Independence Day is his most entertaining.

[The Rodent]

Review #92: Silent Hill

Rose and Christopher, the adoptive parents of Sharon, are at their wits end when Sharon has recurring bad dreams and sleepwalks. Sharon even shouts the name of a ghost town, 'Silent Hill', while she's sleeping.
In a desperate attempt to find out what is happening to Sharon, Rose takes Sharon to Silent Hill, in the process she throws herself and her adopted daughter into extreme peril and they find out that this ghost town is not what it appears to be on the surface.

Based on the video game series of the same name, the movie takes elements of all the games and combines them into a relatively confusing, but visually thrilling mystery/horror/shocker combination.
It's more of a visual shocker with a run-of-the-mill (yet still quite disturbing) storyline behind it.

The storytelling is a bit lost sadly. It confusingly builds itself within a midge-modge of visual shocks and horrifically tortured/tormented and sadistic creatures, then quickly throws away all the confusing build ups with a very quick and simple explanatory scene that is shown in flashback.
Then, it goes into full on fantasy gore and then, leaves the audience at the end in another state of confusion over the fates of the main cast.

What makes the film watchable though, is the creature effects and design of the world that the cast are thrown into.
It's very disturbing and keeps the viewer on the backfoot with the various odd and imaginative creatures that are seen.

Most of the creature effects are practical, with CGI only used to touch up the outer shells of the creatures. What this gives the film is a very original look in the design.
The world that surrounds the characters is highly CGI though with a few sets thrown in, but the CGI/set collaberation is wonderfully put together.

The acting is touch and go throughout. Most of the main cast, Alice Krige, Deborah Kara Unger, Laurie Holden, Kim Coates and the little actress playing Sharon (Jodelle Ferland) are all massively impressive in their roles. Alice Krige is wonderful as the power hungry religious nut.

Radha Mitchell as Rose is competent enough but occasionally feels out of place in the film. It feels as though she's well out of her depth acting wise.
Sean Bean as Christopher, who has his own little side story when Radha disappears with Jodelle, feels very wooden and scripted. His American accent is also the worst I've ever seen in a film.

All in all, there are more bad points than good points. However, the good points (being the effects, imagination and atmosphere) are very very good and almost save the film. Worth a watch, but won't get watched too often by anyone who buys it.
Still though, for a horror game conversion, it beats Resident Evil hands down.
My rating 58%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[Justin]

Godzilla was hilarious. Nice reviews, Rodent.

[The Rodent]

Cheers mate, liking your new Avatar.

Walter rocks!

[honeykid]

I think Silent Hill works for about 45 minutes. It builds an atmosphere, which I what I like most in a horror film, then pisses it all away, as you say. On the plus side, I've had a thing for Rahda Mitchell since her Neighbours days, so that kept me going through the rest of the film.

[JayDee]

Just catching up on some of your review Rodent. As usual really nice work! :up:

I also really enjoy Godzilla. And while I'd never put up much of an arguement for being 'great' films there are quite a few of his other films as well I really like. Just looking and the four that I like all came back to back, his own personal golden period - Independence Day, Godzilla, The Patriot, Day After Tomorrow. Independence Day would come out as my favourite, just ahead of Day After Tomorrow.

I've only seen The Negotiator once a long while back but remember really liking/loving it. Will need to give it another shot sometime soon.

And still need to watch Green Mile in its entirety someday.

[The Rodent]

Review #93: Highlander

A young man called Connor MacLeod, living in the Highlands of Scotland during the 1500s, is part of a clan war, during which he is killed in battle by a man known as The Kurgan.
Before the Kurgan is able to decapitate Connor, he is overthrown by Connor's Kinsmen and after a number of hours, Connor rises from the grave, seemingly unharmed.
He is banished by his people as they believe him to be a Devil and destined to live as an outcast, until a friendly old man named Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez appears and tells Connor that he is part of another ongoing battle between Immortal Warriors.
Sanchez vows to train MacLeod in swordsmanship, to allow him at least a chance to defeat The Kurgan, for if the Kurgan is able to become the last Immortal, the world will be thrown into darkness forever.

An incredibly original idea is brought to the screen with a very specific style and panache and made itself a cult classic, particularly among Scottish movie goers.
Highlander is by far one of the most memorable movies of the 1980s and set a benchmark for story creativity.

The storytelling could have been incredibly confusing and complex, instead even though it is relatively complex, it's easy to follow and doesn't make the viewer feel like they've been left behind in the series of events.

The screenplay is what really makes the film worth watching. It flits between Connor's past and the present day, giving the viewer an insight into his immortal life and some of the painful memories of love and loss he has to carry with him forever.
It adds a massive depth to the storyline and to the character of Connor.

Some of the little details are a bit unbelievable though, for instance the way Connor has kept his identity secret for over 500 years, but still, it doesn't take away from the brilliantly written screenplay.

What makes Highlander stand out, beyond any of the imaginative plotlines is the acting.
Christophe Lambert as MacLeod/Russell Nash is brilliantly dark and brooding, ocassionally showing a gentler side.
Sean Connery as Ramirez is another mark of genius from the filmmakers. He's wise, athletic, funny and deadly serious when needed. Connery really makes a memorable character.
Roxanne Hart as Lambert's new love interest is a bit squeely and screamy, but she plays the role well.
Clancy Brown is the standout role though as The Kurgan. His sadistic humour and physical presence when he's brandishing a sword really gives the viewer a thrill and really makes the movie come alive.

The effects and action, particularly the swordplay, are a bit dated by today's standard, but they work wonderfully with the overall low-budget shooting style of the movie.

With a soundtrack by the wonderfully enigmatic Queen, the movie really stands out.

All in all, not a perfect film, but definitely a cult favourite and a thrill to watch.
It not only spawned a massive amount of publicity for Lambert, but also a pile of terrible sequels and an even worse TV series.
Even though it's designed as a stand alone film.
It also created one of the most famous phrases in movie history: There Can Be Only One.
Sadly the filmmakers/studios didn't take heed of their own phrase, so I beg the reader to treat it as a stand alone.
My rating 86%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[nebbit]

I :love: this movie :yup:

[TylerDurden99]

True, Highlander is a bloody fantastic movie.

[JayDee]

I'll need to give Highlander another shot one day. After lots of build up I finally watched it 2/3 years ago and thought it was actually pretty garbage! :D


An incredibly original idea is brought to the screen with a very specific style and panache and made itself a cult classic, particularly among Scottish movie goers.


Clearly not all Scottish movie goers! :p

[Deadite]

I think it's kind of flawed and goofy but I really do get a kick out of Highlander every time! It's just a really fun movie.

[TylerDurden99]

As you have said in the past, Deadite, it won the Academy Award. For Best Movie Ever Made.

[akatemple]

The Mist, Highlander, and Silent Hill are all great movies IMO, most people did not really care for Silent Hill but I am guessing those are the people who did not play the game, that's why I really liked it, it stuck to the game not 100% but close enough to keep me interested, can't wait for the sequel.

[akatemple]

Had to go back one page, I completely agree about The Green Mile, never read the book so I probably should do that. Top 2 or 3 Tom Hanks performances and Michael Clarke Duncan is so great in it, really nice review.

[The Rodent]

Highlander is a Marmite question really. Some love it, those that don't, hate it.

I was living in Scotland when it came out and during all my years up there, it was the only film people talked about until Jurassic Park came out.
Even after that, it was still a big film.

Cheers for the replies guys :)

[The Rodent]

Review #94: The Goonies

A group of kids who call themselves 'Goonies' find their neighbourhood on the Goon Docks under threat when one of the pompous rich locals decides to rip down the area to build a Country Club.
Upon stumbling around in the attic of Mikey and Brand's (Astin and Brolin) house, the group find treasure maps and an old doubloon artifact that seems to point the way to an olde local Urban Myth called One Eyed Willie's Treasure.
In a last ditch effort to have 'One Last Great Goonie Adventure' before their homes are torn down, the group set off in search of the treasure, but find themselves embroiled in an adventure far grander than any of them imagined and unwittingly put their own lives at risk.

Yet another 80s favourite from me, this time round with Richard Donner at the helm and Spielberg in the production chair.

The Goonies captures everything that a schoolkid would want from an adventure in their local town. There's mystery, horror, lashings of comedy and laughs, a great soundtrack and masses of adventure and discovery.
There's also the odd hit of humour oriented fantasy too.

The main thing that makes the movie work are the little actors and actresses involved.
Future Stars include Corey Feldman, Ke Huy Quan, Kerry Green, Martha Plimpton and modern-day Hollywood heavyweights Josh Brolin and Sean Astin.

Even though at such a young age, they all hit their roles brilliantly and you can tell that they had masses of fun while making the movie.

Mixing into that three of the most memorable villains in the Fratelli family and a character called Sloth, the movie is a huge joy to watch.

The thing that maybe lets the film down is the screenplay, it feels a little naive, even with Donner at the helm.
But the overall script and the sheer character driven story is what makes the movie so special.
The legend of One Eyed Willie is something that, even though it's completely made up, the script writing is still so good that it feels like something centuries old.

The effects are another plus point. It's either practical or matt-paintings, there's no computer generated nonsense (though, it was made in 1985) and it makes the movie feel more real.
It's also wonderfully put together.

The movie is also another in my reviews section that spawned a number of well known quotes.

All in all another near perfect film for my thread and definitely one of the most favourite movies among movie fans. If you haven't seen it, go out right now and unquestionably buy a copy.
My rating 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[The Rodent]

I've reviewed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in my earlier reviews, so thought it wise to review Tim Burton's takes on The Bat and the original movie franchise.
I won't however, be reviewing Batman Forever or Batman And Robin which both (though they're part of the original franchise) are beyond 0%

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-07-17-batman1989.jpg

Review #95: Batman

Bruce Wayne is crime fighter and Caped Crusader Batman. Starting out as an urban legend among the criminal underworld of Gotham City, he shows himself to be more of a foe to the scum of the city than anyone could imagine.
Even the cops are at edns as to what they should do about this flying creature of the night, until he finally shows his worth as a tool for the cops to use.
When a ghost from Bruce's past shows his ugly face again, he dons the black suit and heads out for a double whammy of saving the city and gaining closure on his haunted past.

Burton's original masterpiece is a massive joy to watch.
The writing, though controversial among fans of the comics with some of the un-needed plot changes, is still brilliantly put together and adds a lovely depth of character to Bruce Wayne and his fight with The Joker.

One thing that really threw this film in the history books though is that this is the film that set the tone for Batman since its creation.
As usual with Burton, there are gothic and dark set pieces, haunting music and even darker subject matters involved and they all make the film stand out from the comicbook and campy style that everyone was used to at the time.

The screenplay is also a great piece of filmmaking and the humour involved ranges from in-jokes to dark to the occasional full on slapstick.

The casting is another massive mark of genius from the filmmakers.
Jack Nicholson as The Joker is hugely impressive. He carries over the camp side of Cesar Romero's Joker from the original 1960s TV series and still gives the character his own sadistic twist. He's also masses of fun when he gets into the giggling, whacky side of the character.
By far the best of the cast is Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Though he feels a little old for the part, he's brilliantly dart and brooding and shows the occasional naive side to socialising as Bruce Wayne and stuck in a pulbic setting.
What gets me though is that the film is called Batman and Keaton is in the lead role, yet Nicholson is billed in the credits above him.

Supporting cast from Michael Gough as Alfred and Kim Basinger as Bruce's new squeeze add some great characters for the script to play with.

The effects are absolutely top notch, even by today's standard. Some of them are even painted/cartoon effects but they're really well put together.
The miniature work at the end with certain flying machines is also another plus point.

All in all, it was hard for me to imagine any reboot/retake being better than this outing, it's that good and Batman Begins (which scored 90% in this thread) doesn't quite outweigh Burton's work, though there's not a lot in it.
My rating 93%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)


http://imgs.abduzeedo.com/files/misc/paulo/batman/02.jpg

Review #96: Batman Returns

By now Bruce has become accustomed to his double life as Bruce/Batman.
This time round there's an urban legend of a deformed creature seen stalking the sewers of Gotham and finally, this creature shows himself to the world as a hero, when he saves the Mayor's baby.
Dubbed The Penguin due to his deformity, he sets about turning himself into an important person within the city's rich and famous circles, and eventually runs for Mayor.
Bruce is less than convinced and delves into The Penguin's apparent 'abandoned baby' claim and discovers The Penguin's real intentions are far more disturbing than just wanting to be Mayor.

The follow up from Burton is another masterclass in how to stage not just a sequel, but how to stage a gothic superhero movie.

This time, Burton has gone full on comicbook and has added much more of a relaxed style with the screenplay and it makes the film much easier to watch.
The screenplay is also extremely well concieved and put together. The sequence of events, from Batman, to Penguin, to Catwoman are all very well placed.

It still has the style of the original, it's just more of a fun atmosphere this time round throughout.
That said, some of the subject matters involved are still quite dark in tone and the overall look of the sets and backgrounds are just as dark as the first too.

The cast this time round are, again, a mark of genius from Burton.
We're treated to Danny DeVito as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin. DeVito was absolutely born to play this role, he's funny, threatening, whacky and highly unstable as Pengy. He's awesome.
Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman is another plus point. Starting out as a homely but insecure secretary of Max Shreck, she transforms brilliantly into every schoolboy's rubber based fantasy... and... she plays the role purrfectly (sorry, couldn't resist).
Christopher Walken makes a memorable appearance as Max Shreck, Pfeiffer's boss and cohort of The Penguin.
Keaton is brilliantly back as Batman.

The effects this time round are a touch held back. They're still used with the same panache of the first, there's just less of them, sadly. Though, the film is more about The Penguin and his rise to fame more than simply just being a flash and bang movie.

All in all an improvement on the original, which is a rare thing in Hollywood. As far as sequels go in the Batman world, it comes in just below The Dark Knight (which scored 95% in this thread).
My rating 94%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[honeykid]

I love Batman Returns. For me, easily the best and most entertaining of the Batman films. Glad you liked it, Rodent. :)

I can think of a few reasons for watching the other two films, though.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Poison_Ivy2.jpg
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=11646212
http://www.iphotoscrap.com/Image/080/1221929347-m.jpg

[nebbit]

Great reviews :yup: I :love: The Goonies :yup:

[The Rodent]

Review #97: I Am Legend

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/403922.1020.A.jpg

After a cure for cancer is revealed, a strange side effect takes over the entire population of the world, and a virus that turns humans and most other animals into vampiric creatures takes hold.
In the middle of all this is Dr Robert Neville, who is immune to the virus, and his dog Sam who also appears to be completely immune to airborn strain of the virus but not to being bitten.
It's up to Dr Neville, the last man on Earth to discover a 'cure' or 'reversal' to this virus and save the planet from this awful fate.

Based on Richard Matheson's novel of the same name, I Am Legend is a closer take on the book than any of the other previous outings on the big screen (The Last Man On Earth in 1964, and The Omega Man in 1971).

What director Francis Lawrence has given the audience is a wonderfully put together screenplay and a brilliantly executed story told, in part, in flashbacks.
Though, like the big screen predecessors, there are one or two plot changes when converted to screen, this film makes well with the modern tech and virus paranoia of modern times to make the movie work in terms of storyline.
In the book it's a war that caused the virus, in this film it's a cancer cure.
Even so, the whole thing works.

One thing missing from the film is the sense of vampire lore that was used in the book ie; 'True Vampires' being the reanimated dead, and 'The Infected' are living people who simply succumbed to the virus.
It makes the film feel a little empty in terms of actual Legend.

The whole lonliness of Dr Neville and his relationship with his only surviving friend and cohort, Sam, is also wonderfully captured. Mainly in part by great canine training and Will Smith's on screen chemistry with the dog.

Which brings me to the acting.
Will Smith is basically the only thing on screen to start with. He's fantastically lonely and is extremely believable when he starts going nuts from the isolation.
Abby and Kona who, respectively, play Sam the dog are also fantastically trained and really loveable.
Alice Braga and Charlie Tahan as Anna and Ethan are also good in their roles, but being that these roles were rewritten by the filmmakers, they feel a little out of place, but not by much.

Sadly, the big fault with the film is the creatures that stalk the night.
Ok, they're based exactly on the novel which is something that the other movies didn't do, but it's the way they've been completely CG'd.
The animation is sketchy and cartoony at best and they're not at all as threatening as they should be.
If anything, they're scarier at the beginning of the film, when the audience is only able to hear them.
It's a real shame, especially after the CG work on the city landscape is so good and the acting and screenplay are so wonderful.

All in all, the best of all of the big screen outings for I Am Legend. Sadly it could have had a bit more to it, especially with the budget that was thrown at it.
It's still a film worth watching though as the screenplay, overall story and the acting are tip top.
My rating 83%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleR5050StampNew_zps36b9d868.png.html)

[mastermetal777]

Have you reviewed Avatar yet, Rodent? Cuz I wanna hear your opinion on it. I personally love it, but I know a lot of people hate it. I wanna hear your stand on the highest-grossing movie of all-time.

[The Rodent]

I'll get one written up mate. Might make it my 100th.

[The Rodent]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/Titanic_poster.jpg/220px-Titanic_poster.jpg


Review #98: Titanic

Based on the ship of the same name, the movie revolves around two people, Rose and Jack, and a difficult relationship that sparks between them while on board the ship.
Jack is a down to earth guy and an incredible artist, he also won his ticket on Titanic in a game of poker. Rose however is a spoilt rich girl with everything money can buy. She's also stuck in a soon to be arranged marriage with a rich man she hardly knows but can't stand to be around.

During their meeting on the ship, Jack and Rose find a mutual ground and a lateral thinking between them and they plan to run away together when the ship lands in New York.

But all is not as it seems.

Cameron's movie is by far one of the most thrilling visual movies of all time. The love story/triangle is a pretty well used plot device, but with the backdrop of the Titanic as the grounds of the story was a mark of genius filmmaking from all involved.

It's a touch cheesie at times and very girlie when the love connection gets itself going, and the backdrop of Titanic will give the audience a clear sense of where the film is going, both in plot, and in storyline, but it still doesn't fail to thrill whoever is watching.

The screenmplay is another fantastic piece of filmmaking and writing. Cameron's direction adds so much more to the depth of the screenplay too, it's very well pieced together. Especially when little secrets about Rose's family are revealed in the second act.

The acting is bang on throughout though.
Just today, I slammed Leanoardo Di Caprio for being a talentless pretty boy, but his role in Titanic as Jack is by far his most likable character out of all.
He's charming, hard working, pretty yes, almost to the point of not being believeable as a homeless man but still, his natural on screen chemistry with anyone who's on screen, is brilliant.
Kate Winslet is also at her best as Rose. She's wonderfully stiff as the prim and proper rich girl but she brilliantly comes out of her shell as the film progresses.
Billy Zane is another plus as Rose's smarmy and pompous hubby-to-be. Zane does a marvelous job at portraying the snobbish squillionaire.

The effects are really what the film revels in though. Highly CG but extremely well done.
Seeing the Titanic, quite literally come alive on screen is an absolute jot to behold. The granduer of this monstrosity is captured fantastically by Cameron's direction and by his knowledge of special effects.
Being totally honest, nobody else could have done it I don't think.

Then there's the action scenes. Short and sweet after the inevitable happens, and the eventual on board panic and fight for survival are all, brilliantly choreographed and extremely edge of the seat stuff.

All in all, a very moving film and full of sentiment for the tragedy that hit 100 years ago this year... and a pretty well written love story thrown in for good measure.
Titanic isn't the sort of movie I could watch more than twice a year, but when I do watch, it gets me excited.
My rating 97%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[mastermetal777]

This is one movie I just don't like watching that much. Why? Cuz of the love story element. I just can't get over the cliche nature of it. The rest of the film is a visual and historical masterpiece, but the love story always puts me off for some reason.

[The Rodent]

http://uk.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/12/A70-6280


Review #99: Saving Private Ryan

Based during World War II, the movie follows Captain John H Miller and his squad of soldiers as they land on Omaha Beach to try to take out the German forces that have taken over the area.
After the beach landing, the Captain is given a new mission, directly from General George Marshall.
It appears that three of four Brothers, who were all fighting in different areas of Europe, have been killed in action. Captain Miller and his group are tasked with finding the soul surviving Brother, named as Private Ryan, and bring him home to his grieving Mother, before she loses all of her sons.

What a movie. Spielberg's direction is absolutely fantastic. Taking inspiration from a story written by Robert Rodat about eight siblings who died during the American Civil War, Spielberg and his team of geniuses have managed to capture almost everything about the war that people wanted to see.
There are a few quieter moments during the running time, but they're very well put together. The screenplay is the main thing that makes this film work. The terms of sequence is brilliantly placed.

The start sequence is what throws the audience on the backfoot. Ranked Number 1 in The 50 Greatest Movie Moments and Empire Magazine's Best Battle Scene Of All Time, too.
The Omaha Landings are extremely disturbing and realistic, and bearing in mind that Spielberg also had different cameras brought in for the sequence to give it a more realistic look.
A lot of the injured in the film are also real injuries. Spielberg used prosthetic arms and legs on people who genuinely have missing limbs to add an authenticity to the dying and injured soldiers.

Historical accuracy is another hard hitting message that the film hits the audience with.
Reading up in various articles, I found that Spielberg's team of researchers have missed out nothing when it comes to accuracy.
Ok there is some artistic license used in the film, but the backdrop of World War II has been picked through with a fine toothed comb.

The movie as a whole, is almost like Full Metal Jacket. It starts out with one style of movie, then drops that act and goes pretty quiet a few times throughout.
Though a lot of the movie's action and battle scenes are quite unexpected too.

When the action gets going though, Spielberg spares no expense when it comes to budget and also realism in the scenes.
The effects, the choreography, the acting throughout and the screenplay of the action is by far the most hard hitting of any film.

The battle hardened 'vets' of the squad vary in character too. Some are more human and wear their hearts on their sleeves, others are extremely hard on the outside and don’t ever bend or break in their quests.
The troops also talk about real things, rather than just the mission. Memories from home etc, and it gives the whole backdrop of the war a very human and sombre feel.
It gives the audience a connection, in a sentimental way yes, but a connection to the brave men that fought all those years ago, rather than just nameless faces and faceless names that our generation has come to know.
The conversations about their mission come into play too. When it does, it makes the audience realise how fruitless it is to have wars on such a massive scale when it comes down to loss of human life.
It's all extremely character driven. Thumbs up.
What makes the character writing work though, is the on screen chemistry between them. They're very real.

The overall acting however, not just the well written characters, but the acting... is by far the most inspiring work I've seen in a war movie.
Tom Hanks as Captain Millar is seriously impressive. I was shocked at how good he is in the film. He's tough yet human and has a fairness about his personal morals.

With support from an ensemble Hollywood cast of heavweights including Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Edward Burns, Adam Goldberg, Ted Danson, Paul Giamatti and...

Matt Damon as the titular Private Ryan. Damon is incredibly naturalistic in the role as the Brother-to-be-saved. His confusion over the circumstance of his rescue and the loss of life that he has just suffered are all portrayed with such realism from Damon. His confusion over why this is all happening is also handled wonderfully.
He's only on screen for maybe 25 minutes, but he really makes an impression.

All in all, the finest action/drama/action drama/war movie that has ever graced the big, and small, screen.
Full of haunting memory and wonderfully non-cheesy-sentiment and a screenplay that will live with the viewer for a long time.
A must see. An absolute must see.
My rating 101%
http://i1163.photobucket.com/albums/q552/The-Rodent/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png (http://s1163.photobucket.com/user/The-Rodent/media/Rodent%20MoFo%20Stuff/RodentRCircleRecommendedStampNew_zpsebffc047.png.html)

[Mardocken]

Ok I am going to start off by saying the only movies That I have seen and actually thought were interesting this list Were Cloverfeild, 2012, Cowboys and aliens. All good and action filled movies with a little drama, those are the types of movies I like, along with movies that mess with your mind. Like Nightmare on elm street, it didn't really catch my interest. But the originals did. They were a lot better in my opinion. All the other movies, I have never seen, I am planning on watching DreamCatcher. BTW nice reviews!:cool: Edit: Sorry, this may clear it up a little, I only read the first page, and I now see that there are 100 reviews I only read the first 10

[The Rodent]

I was going to say. I thought you sat through my entire thread in one sitting. Lol!

There's a wide selection in here, enjoy!


Quick update so you can all see what I've done in the past few months:

Here's the current list of all my reviews before I get my 100th (Special Review) done over the next day or so.

1 Young Guns
2 A Nightmare On Elm Street Remake
3 2012
4 Cowboys And Aliens
5 Cloverfield
6 Leon
7 Dreamcatcher
8 Alien 3 Definitive Version Vs Theatrical Release
9 The 'Burbs
10 Starship Troopers

11 Predator
12 Robocop
13 John Carpenter's The Thing
14 Alien Vs Predator and Aliens Vs Predator Requiem
15 Terminator Franchise (1-4)
16 The Fourth Kind
17 Jurassic Park
18 Pirates Of The Caribbean Original Trilogy (1-3)
19 The Dark Crystal
20 Tremors

21 Paul
22 Full Metal Jacket
23 Demolition Man
24 Dumb And Dumber
25 Ridley Scott's Robin Hood
26 Christopher Reeve Superman Franchise (1-4) And Superman Returns
27 Batman Begins
28 The Dark Knight
29 Ghostbusters
30 Star Wars Franchise (1-6)

31 Critters
32 Matrix Franchise (1-3)
33 Arachnophobia
34 Super 8
35 The Shawshank Redemption
36 The Abyss
37 Troll Hunter
38 John Carpenter's The Fog
39 Dog Soldiers
40 The Shining

41 Indiana Jones Franchise (1-4)
42 Robert Rodriguez' Predators
43 Sam Raimi's Spider Man Franchise (1-3)
44 Rocky Franchise (1-5 And Rocky Balboa)
45 The Lost Boys
46 Evolution
47 Alien Franchise (1-4 Including A Rerun Of Review 8)
48 Jurassic Park Franchise (1-3 Including A Rerun Of Review 17)
49 Gremlins Franchise (1 & 2)
50 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Original Movie)

51 30 Days Of Night
52 From Dusk Till Dawn
53 I, Robot
54 Steven Spielberg's War Of The Worlds
55 Bladerunner
56 Armageddon
57 Signs
58 The Quick And The Dead
59 Ransom
60 The Big Lebowski

61 Ghostbusters Franchise (1 & 2 Including A Rerun Of Review 29)
62 Pitch Black
63 The Day After Tomorrow
64 Independence Day
65 Cat's Eye
66 Equilibrium
67 Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
68 The Karate Kid (Original Movie)
69 Die Hard Franchise (1-4)
70 Poltergeist

71 The Passion Of The Christ
72 Paranormal Activity
73 Paranormal Activity 2
74 Pulp Fiction
75 Critters Franchise (1-4 Including A Rerun Of Review 31)
76 Unforgiven
77 Black Hawk Down
78 The Fly (1986)
79 Lake Placid
80 Back To The Future Franchise (1-3)

81 Lethal Weapon Franchise (1-4)
82 Star Trek Franchise (1-11)
83 Of Mice And Men
84 An American Werewolf In London
85 Predator 2 (Including Reruns of Reviews 11 & 42)
86 Jaws
87 American Pie Original Trilogy
88 Godzilla
89 The Negotiator
90 The Green Mile

91 The Mist
92 Silent Hill
93 Highlander
94 The Goonies
95 Batman
96 Batman Returns
97 I Am Legend
98 Titanic
99 Saving Private Ryan (99th review, 149th movie)

100 ???... 100th Review... 150th Movie