The Gnat: Fly on the Wall Reviews

John Tucker Must Die

This teen comedy fails in most ways, it doesn't have the heart that it would claim to have, and it doesn't have the comedy that you would hope for either. It has a little bit of both, but they tend to get quite lost in the cliches that this film throws around.

The story is along the lines of Mean Girls in many ways, getting revenge, or bringing down the popular person, but this time instead of girls against girls, it is girls against guys. That doesn't make the story any better, and in many ways, it allows the film to fall into a whole lot more guy-girl relationship cliches, which it seems to find a lot of. Also, the plots for getting revenge are much, much more absurd then anything that Mean Girls ever dreamt up, and played out to a much more absurd end. That does get a few laughs from time to time, but for the most part, it is just painful. It eventually colminates exactly as expected. They really couldn't have been setting up the ending anymore, and I would say if they had tried, but I'm pretty sure they tried to set up the ending.

The acting in the film was tolarable. There weren't any characters that really drove me up the wall, but by the end of the film, there was only one character that I liked at all, and it wasn't the main one that they were setting up for people to like. This hurt the film in some ways, but the actual portrayal of the actors to the characters was generally above the standards for a teen comedy like this one.

Basically everything about this film was a cliche, the three people who wanted to get revenge on John Tucker were extremely cliche. There was the cheerleader, there was the nerdy but hot gal, and there was the slutty animal activest. They were all played out completely with the nerd being extremely detailed oriented, the cheerleader only caring about beauty, and the animal activest, well, she was the sluttiest. It would have been notably better without a lot of the cliches that they threw in, or at least they could have reduced them instead of making every person, literally, a walking cliche.

Overall this was a well below average film. It was aided by the fact that the girls were hot, so that raises it up a little in my book, as even though it was cliche, it was just fine to watch. Still, it could have been a little better then it was, but then again, it was a teen movie, and I wasn't expecting it to be good.

Grade: D
Story: D-
Acting: D
Audio/Visual: C

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

Re-Animator

This eighties film is easily one of the better cult classics that has shown up from that time. It has everything in it, an absurd plot, fairly poor acting, gore, zombies, etc, everything you really could want from a cult classic film (maybe minus transexual transvestites from Transelvania). It combines them all wonderfully into the absurdly odd story about re-animating corpses.

The story is pretty typical in its absurd way, it centers around a college student (grad. student) who wants to become a docter, and is therefore working with corpses. A new odd student shows up, and things quickly go downhill into a zombie gore fest as the new student starts re-animating the corpses. There are side stories that go along with this, but basically it is a lot of corpses coming back from the dead with some very absurd humor to go along with it.

The acting in this film is like most cult classic films, fairly subpar. It isn't terrible, so one doesn't ever laugh directly at the acting, but it definitely isn't all that good. The two lead characters are just fine, and the main villain, I guess (it sort of runs with two villains), is creepy enough.

Visually there is a fair amount of gore. A lot of it in the form of blood splatter, but also some of it with the corpses who re-animate. They definitely are in various states of decay, which is part of the humor in this film just because the corpses are decent (basically always nude as well which is a little disturbing), and it is interesting to see what state of decay they will be in. There is also a scene where a guys head gets cut off, but that ends up being a better part of the humor, and it really isn't that gory, mainly just bloody gory, not body parts gory.

Overall this is a great film, as I've been writing this I keep in thinking back to great absurd parts. There are a lot of them, and they are hilarious. This definitely is in line with the film series "Return of the Living Dead" (with possibly the exception of number two) where it is an absurd story and all about how absurd they can make it.

Overall Grade: B
Story: B
Acting: C
Audio/Visual: B+

The Bride of Re-Animator

This film is a great second part to the cult classic trilogy (even though the third was about 13 years after the second). It keeps up with the story line of the first one including more odd gags then the original did while not taking away anything else from the original.

This one is more absurd in the story in that the main characters aren't just re-animating dead corpses, they are building a corpse from body parts, such as the heart of one of the main characters girlfriend in the first film. When the other main character describes the body parts as well, it is great, the thighs of a whore, or the hand of a lawyer, and his reason for picking them are just great. They set up the third one nicely, even though the third one does end up diverging from where it is supposed to be set up to.

The gags in this film are also odder. The combining of various body parts are animating them leads to some interesting combinations, such as a dog with a hand, or a creature that is purely five fingers and an eye, the visual gags are good, and the fact that they bring back the same characters as in the original means that they are able to build up a larger story around it and play off of some of the jokes from the original. The same villain being the main villain also adds nicely to some laughs, especially after his "surgery" gives him somewhat inhanced abilities.

The acting is only average in the film,as in the first one, but what makes the film are the visuals. The odd way with the re-animated corpses look, the look of the bride made out of the various body parts, and all the other odd creatures really make this film. They belong to a lot of the gags in the film as well as being part of the story with how grotesque everything can look.

Overall this second part is actually better then the first part, even though both are extremely enjoyable, as this one has some better gags then the original. The story is odd, the characters are odd, and it all comes together nicely in an odd little package.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: B+
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B+

Iron Man

This film falls neatly between films like Spiderman and Batman Begins. It balances the cheese of a movie like Spiderman with the darker, grittier side of Batman Begins.

The whole storyline at the beginning really strikes hard as it is something that is a concern with the situation over there, and concern for the safety of the troops. Granted, I doubt that any of them are going to build a suit like Tony Stark doe sin a cave, but it touches on a slightly touchy issue for some, but it doesn't get preachy (one way or the other) which is a nice thing. The rest of the storyline works out solidly as well. It does a fine job of balancing the life style and attitude change of Tony Stark along with the typical superhero flash and fighting. The fact that Stark seems more human then most superheros is also nice, I think that he seems just as human as Batman, if not a little more.

The acting in this film is also very solid. Robert Downey Jr. is cast brilliantly in his role. He has some experience being that character, and comes off nicely as that brash, playboy, millionare character. I was also very impressed with Pepper Potts, I thought that the scenes between that character and Tony Stark worked out quiet nicely. Paltrow does a very good job in that role. Jeff Bridges was also a pleasant surprise. I wasn't sure how I would like him in an antagonist role, as I always think of him as "The Dude", but he pulled it off very nicely. Was definitely strong in his role and believable as the bad guy. I think the only star name in that film that I thought was only average was Terrance Howard, and some of that was because he had a fairly lesser role. He just didn't stand out a ton in his role. It wasn't bad by any means, but he was over shadowed by all of the other characters in his scenes.

Visually this was also a very solid film. I liked the fact that they used as little CGI as possible because that just gave it a bit more realistic feel. They could have gone with a Fantastic Four type of feel to it, but they didn't (thankfully). All of the scenes were quite impressive, and were visually solid. There were a few early scenes where I felt like they tried to be too tricky with the camera work as they shook it around during the first attack and then the escape, but it didn't detract too much from the film.

Overall this is a very good superhero film. It definitely is a step up after the last two superhoer films with X-Men: The Last Stand and Spiderman 3, even though I didn't find either of them terrible. It was a good combination of the light hearted and the more serious. Very well done superhero film.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: A
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

Beyond Re-Animator

This third film in the re-animator series was made 13 years after the second one, but it stays in the tradition. The film itself is smart enough to keep one of the main characters (the antagonistic protaganist), and it sets its story 14 years after the previous films (or so) so that makes it stronger in that they can account for the aging.

Storywise this one isn't as strong as the original two. It is entertaining, but it generally isn't quite as off the wall as the original two. They do one thing that I like, and that is that they continue to progress the technology of the re-animation. It progress film by film from being able to simply animate fairly recent corpses (most effectively), to being able to peice together a new body, to being able to create almost human corpses because of an addition to the science that it has been preaching. It doesn't, unlike some film series, make the changes without explaining them, which is why the changes work so effectively.

This film is also smart in that it doesn't change a ton visually. The corpses still look basically the same, and they are still as odd an erratic in their behavior when they are the regular corpses. The corpses that act more human are possible more eratic then the general zombie corpses. There is one solid scene where there are a bunch of hung prisoners (most of the film takes place in a prison) who have been re-animated, and it is quite effective in that it is pretty disturbing.

Overall not quite as good as the first two, but because it stays in the same mindset and doesn't try to re-invent the series, it was better then most sequals that are so delayed. Very good trilogy overall, and if you like the 80's B horredy films, these three are worth checking out.

Overall Grade: B
Story: B-
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B

Planet of the Apes

This film (the original one) is a very deep and complex film, and I was happy to see that it was very little like the remake was. While I thought the remake had some entertaining points, this some does so much more with its story.

The start off with, while the story can simply be looked at on the level of apes taking over for humans, there is a ton more depth going on behind it. The ideas of racism that run through this film are brilliantly done as well as the questions that are asked about the direction that humanity is going. The whole story is full of these themes are is done very well because of them. It also touches on other things as well, such as the place of religion with science.

Heston is strong in his role as Taylor, and the apes are quite well done as well. Roddy McDowell is good in his role, as is Kim Hunter. Being that the apes weren't extremely realistic looking, it still packs a punch even now with them. They have to develop the characters to make them good, and both McDowell and Hunter do that developing their apes into someone that you are either for or against. Probably not mentioned as often when looking at the actors and actresses for this film is Linda Harrison, but her role of Nova, showing the limited emotion and not talking or making noises like she had to, it was a very good job which I don't think should be overlooked.

Visually, as I mentioned, they ape outfits are fairly obviously fake and in the newer one they have the advantage of looking more realistic. With that said, the ape costumes don't detract from the film. Even though it looks dated at parts, it still packs a punch, and the primative humans also are good in how they look. They keep it simply at the general caveman look, which is something that was very smart to do, they didn't try and take it down further then that to make them look simpler or stupider, and they didn't need to do that for the film.

Overall this is a great film. I love the story and the messages that it tries to portray, and does portray successfully. The acting in this film is also very good, and while I don't think that the sequels are likely to have the same impact as the original, I am looking forward to watching them.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: A
Acting: A
Audio/Visual: B

Beneath the Planet of the Apes

This was a very odd film that didn't live up to the first one in the series. It got away from the social commentary on race and racism and tried to move in other directions with its commentary, unfortunately, for the most part, it missed no its commentary.

This story isn't nearly as strong as the first. It touches a little bit on race and racism as well as class desparity, which they do well, but it isn't as strong in this story and it also tries to touch on other issues without nearly as much success. It tries to deal with peace, war potesting, and religion, but it is cliche in some and just misses badly on others. The war protesting is really reminicent of Vietnam conflict and the protests that went along with that, and they are a little cliche as they are done by apes, but they directly mirror what would be expected from humans, there should at least have been a little disparity between the two, but there wasn't. The religious part is definitely the worst of the messages that they try and get across. They parody the Catholic church a lot in the religious ceremony which they show, and it doesn't really make any point other then to insult the Catholic church and all religions in general. It makes one slightly interesting point, and that is that while churchs/religions generally claim to be about peace, they often will just get others to do their killing for them.

They also delve into telepathy which doesn't fit into the film as well. The humans up to that point had be primative, and while the telepathic ones are more "advanced" it doesn't make good sense to have it in there. It seems like they were trying to make it more sciency, but they really didn't need to keep the story strong. In fact, the telepathy detracts a lot from the film just because it becomes absurd. This part of the film is basically a joke for the audience as it doesn't match up with everything else in the film. The rest of the film generally thought provoking, but the religious nut telepaths are just out there and they seem to instead of hinting at the messages be beating the viewer over the head with the message that they are trying to get across.

The acting is again strong in this film, Linda Harrison, Kim Hunter, and Charlton Heston are back in their roles, and are as strong as in the original film. James Franciscus takes the lead in this film doing a servicable job, but it didn't seem to be a strong as in the original film.

Overall this is still a decent film, but it misses a whole lot more then the original. It tries to get too many issues into the film, and ends up becoming cliche or just insulting with how it tries to ge them across. It should have been better then it was.

Overall Grade: C+
Story: C
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: B

Thanks for your reviews Gnu, I have been busy lately so just caught up

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Escape from the Planet of the Apes

This was another step down from the original. The first was good, the second was decent, and this one was just average. It became very predictable in its story telling, and it was a story that they had already told (for the most part), they just flipped the roles. It definitely sets up the fourth and fifth with potential, but with the fact that they films are going downhill, I don't trust it to live up to the potential.

Storywise this film felt like it was a rehash of the original. It dealt with the idea of racism and prejudice, but not nearly as well as the original did. This one simply layed it out there and copied most of what the first one had done. It also wasn't really a systemic racism as in the first one, but just the racism/mistrust of one character, and that mistrust really didn't appear to be completely unfounded. How things were handled was obviously poor, but this film lacked any of the punch of the first one as it tried to show a message.

The acting in this film also drops off. There are a couple of characters that remained from the originals, but their characters were really cheapened in this film as they seemed to be stupider (as the apes) and also their roles seemed to be more cliche. What they go through is exactly what is expected in the film where they are accepted, rejected, etc. and they really couldn't have strong performances because of that. Also, the antagonist is a very cliche character as well. He comes off much like the gorillas do in the second one, and while that doesn't make it bad, it is just that as a character is extremely predictable in all of his actions.

Overall this is definitely the worst of the three I've seen so far. The story is too predictable, and even though it isn't that much worse of a story then the second one, at least the second one tried to be unique and make a point. This one brushes up against an idea once or twice, but doesn't commit and just comes off as below average.

Overall Grade: C-
Story: D
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: C+

I do own the three but I am only a fan of the first, my mother bought them for me

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

This one gets back to the root of the films a little bit better then the third in that it tries to deal with an idea or theme. It doesn't do it nearly as effectively as the original one does, but it is on par with the second. Overall a step up from the third one, but doesn't come close to touching the first.

This one deals with the idea that has been present through all of them, the idea of race and racism with it being shown how everything started on the "Planet of the Apes". It is interesting as it deals with slavery and the oppression on that level, but I think the best point that it makes is about how power can and generally will corrupt. The humans who are enslaving the apes have been corrupted by their power, but when the apes take power, the level of corruption by the power isn't really all that much different. There is a slight difference, but not an exceedingly big one, and there is a difference in how long the power has been had. After a few hours of having power, the corruption of the power is clearly starting to take place.

Acting wise I feel like this film continues the downward trend of the acting in these films. The main ape isn't bad, but all of the roles are just generally pretty pedestrian in how they are done. Everyone acts as you'd expect them to, but no one really gives a performance that goes beyond and above just a basic level of solid acting. Roddy McDowell is one of the very few holdovers from the original film, and he is playing a new ape in this one, which is probably why that apes performance was the strongest of all of the performances in the film.

Visually the budget for this one also appears to be lower. The production values really don't drop much in that area, but there isn't as much. The first two had some quite impressive, beautiful shots of a lot of different landscapes and areas, this one feels much more constricted in some ways with how it was shot. It works decently well for the film, but compared to the original, it isn't nearly as good.

Overall this is a solid installment, it doesn't come close to the first one, but I don't know that any of the sequels would be able to as the first one was extremely good. This one does pick it up a bit more from the third one, putting it nearly on par with the second.

Overall Grade: C+
Story: B-
Acting: C
Audio/Visual: C

Battle for the Planet of the Apes

This is a fitting conclusion to the series. It is a definite step up as it ups the tension from the previous films and gets back to the roots in many ways with what it is saying. This film is more idea driven, like the original, the the middle films.

It comes full circle by adding a great ending to the saga. The battle for earth about 20 years after the apes take over and humanity basically wipes itself in a nuclear attack. The apes and a few humans are living together, basically in opposite conditions as compared to the previous film. What is interesting and the idea that is interesting is the idea of humanity. This film shows off both the good and bad of humanity, and it shows that humanity is really doomed in many ways, but there isn't much of anything that can be done about it. The human nature will dictate what humans do, and even though we try and change the nature, it is basically (if not completely) impossible to make this change.

Roddy McDowall does a great job again in this film. He makes a very good ape and both of his ape roles are have been amongst the best in the film. The rest of the cast are simply average. The main human is fine, but his lines often seemed forced and cliche and that keeps him from being a stronger character. But for this film there isn't the need for extremely strong acting, as it does get back more to the roots of the series and allows the film to be shown more visually then through the words that are said. And that is something that I appreciated about the first and then this last one.

Visually you can tell it is a cheaper budget again. There are a few impressive simpler looking shots, but for the most part it isn't that impressive. But they make the film simpler in what they show. The grand shots might be gone, but the clutter of the middle films are gone and the simpler shots have a greater impact in bringing across the idea that they want to show.

Overall this is a very good ending to the film. They really don't explain what time travel theory that they subscribe to in this film though, and that does bug me a little, most likely a multi-verse theory just for everything to work out correctly. But the end fits the series and it is a pity that they tried to remake any of the films.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B+
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B

I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman)

As the title suggests this film has some very strong women empowerment themes running through out it. However, these themes get lost in the degredation of the beginning of the film and the stupidity of the characters at the end of the film. Along with sometimes getting overlooked by the visual and audio aspects of the film.

The basic premise of the film revolves around a young author who rents a cabin along a river for the summer in order to give herself a more secluded, distraction free place to write. Things go quickly sour for her as she is gang raped by a group of young, local men and brutaly beat. She then goes on a revenge trip showing "cunning" over the male counterparts in exacting her revenge. The issue with this story and the idea that it tries to bring across comes with the male figures in the story. After brutalizing her and raping her two of the men are stupid enough to think that she would quickly forgive and forget about what they did to her and that she would be very willing to get into bed with them. Also with this idea of female empowerment, I don't know if it comes across extremely well again as it is so degrading to the female character as well. It could be some comment by the film maker on how society has degraded the female as compared to the masculine counterpart, but it doesn't always come off as having that feel.

Visually this film is a bit off at times, but it also can be very good. The shots are generally done in such a way that they try and feel more natural with their look, and while this works sometimes, there are also extranisous shots that don't need to be shown and some rather akward shots from the camera angle. It has a rough feel to it, that works well for this film, but sometimes ends up being to raw in the footage so it appears to be more of a poorly made home movie then a rough, raw shot that is used to portray a more realistic emotion.

Auditory as well is quite interesting. It follows, for the most part, the more natural audio pattern. While in some films there might be a slight drop in the volume of a character if they are far away from the camera, in this film, if the characters are far enough away, it is almost in-audible. This gives it a more realistic feel again, but they do mess it up at some points in time probrably where the natural audio was too low so that they had to go in and record the voice in studio (or something along that lines) so it jumps around. And that can get to be somewhat frustrating in the film. Much like the video, it is rough audio, but sometimes can become to raw.

The acting in this film was pretty average. Most of the male leads were quite poor. Richard Pace was the best of them and he wasn't extremely good. Camille Keaton did a very good job in the film though. Her role was definitely a challenging on in how many different emotions she has to show. She does a very good job of pulling her character into a shell after the rape occurs in the film.

Overall this film was to rough for it to be as effective as it should be. It still comes across strong as a female empowerment story, but the degredation to the female character doesn't have the effect that I believe it is supposed to have.

Overall Grade: C
Story: C
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: D+

Hellboy

This was an entertaining comic book adaptation without the depth of some of the them (Batman Begins and Iron Man), but it does a good job being entertaining fluff. Guillermo Del Toro ends up making a solid, well shot film, but the story doesn't live up to some of Del Toro's more recent work.

The story in this film is fine, it doesn't try to be too serious or take itself two seriously, which is very important for this film. The story and the "superhero" aren't exactly run of the mill, and when you have a giant walking demon who is fighting for good, it has to be a bit odd. It isn't a bad story by any means, but it falls into line with a lot of typical comic book films.

Where it is strong is with Del Toro's direction. He has some very impressive, well done shots in the film, like all of his films. He makes beautiful scenes and creates a world in which the viewer can get drawn into. This doesn't completely redeem the film from a standard story, but having direction like this is better then a lot of the comic book films. Not that any of the comic book film directors, recently, haven't done a good job of theirs, but few of them live up to Del Toro's standards as a director.

The acting in this film is decent as well. Nothing spectacular from Perlman as Hellboy, but it isn't bad on his behalf either. I can't watched Jeffrey Tambor without thinking of "Arrested Development", so his role ends up being a little worse for me because of that. He doesn't do a bad job, but I just equate him to another role, which is something that can unfortunately happen when looking at actors, if they ahve one role that really sticks out.

Overall this is a pretty standard superhero film. It doesn't go outside the box too much, but it does a solid job of using the cheese to make a solid comedy/action film out of itself. I am looking forward to seeing the sequel that comes out this year.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: C+
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B

The Golden Compass

This film was a visual treat for the most part, but there were a few rough patches that didn't lend itself to good viewing. It had solid acting and they managed not to ruin the story too much, so it wasn't all that bad. It was more mindless fun then anything else.

For the life of me, I'll never know why the had the director they go direct the film, as he isn't a director who is going to be strong in the fantasy style. Chris Weitz is known for directing odd comedy films, most notably American Pie (1-3), and the fantasy film, or all that serious a film, isn't something that Weitz has delved into before. So having him tackle this project wasn't the best thing. It was done decently well, but it lacked the depth that the books have, and it had some poorly done extranious scenes that were a drag to watch.

It was a film that was done visually well. The few large scale shots were impressive, and the detail of the animals was done extremely well. The only animal (daemon) that was a little off in how it looked as the monkey of Coulter, but then again, the monkey is somewhat off already just because of its personality. But there were some extranious scenes that I felt were borrowed from a film like Marie Antoinette where there was a montage of imagery, but it really didn't progress the story at all. It is used to define the character a little bit, and to show the passing of time, but I feel like it is the easy way of doing it, and doesn't pack the punch which the director would hope that it would have.

I was quite impressed with the acting though. Dakota Blue Richards does a very impressive job in her role as Lyra. She is an entertaining character, and feels like she fits into the role nicely. Sam Elliot also does a good job in his role as Scoresby, and is quite entertaining in. The rest of this very strong cast do well in their roles, even though Daniel Craig's role is very limited and a lot of the other notable characters aren't a ton more expansive on the screen. I was disappointed that Freddie Highmore only does a voice in this film, as he is a very good young actor, and if given actual screen time would have done a very good job.

The contreversy surrounding this film seems to be to have been overblown. Yes, it does take a shot at the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but in the first book (and the first film) the anti-church/anti-religious vent isn't nearly as strong. And the first film even downplays it from the book. The one religious sounding line was a line about freewill that I really don't have an issue with. I think that the reaction against this film was off and completely blown out of proportion. Now for the second and third ones, if they occur, it could be valid, but that remains to be seen.

Overall this is an entertaining film that doesn't have as much substance as the books. It would have been nice to see the films in the hands (and pen) of a more compitent director (for the genre) and writer (Weitz did both). I do hope that they make a second and a third one, because, if nothing else they will still be entertaining.

Overall Grade: C+
Story: C
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: C+

I just watch this a few days ago, it was enjoyable as far as acting goes thought Nicole was

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

This fun romp following up the first one, National Treasure does a good job of not changing the formula for the film. While it isn't as effective as the original, it keeps up a quick pace with some fun cheesy dialog and a fair number of interesting puzzles and riddles.

The story is really similar to the first one. Instead of trying to make the family name good in the first one, he is trying to do basically the same thing as it was slandered by someone. The bad guy then is chasing him around trying to find the treasure first and trying to steal the clues as Ben Gates finds them. Riley sort of steals the show again, as his character is still odd, and interesting, but his role doesn't seem quite as fresh and possibly not quite as large in this film.

The acting in this film is decent. This is a role that Cage is suited very well for, and it shows as he does a better then normal job. His plodding sounding voice works out just fine as he tries to figure out the various clues hidden on and in the historic monuments. The rest of the cast does a good job. Ed Harris does a solid job playing a generally creepy enough bad guy, and Mirren and Voight do a good job in their tiffs. Diane Kruger and Justin Bartha do a fine job in their already well defined characters.

Visually this story is impressive as well. The various "locations" on which they shoot look nice and the whole thing is done to a large scale. The treasure in this one is an impressive as ever, as well. It would have been nice if they'd cut down a little bit on the car chases, as the first one especially seemed to drag on a little bit and didn't fit the rest of the film as well. But that is about the largest complaint I have.

Overall this is the second story in this (at least) trilogy. It isn't all that different from the first one, just possibly a little more absurd. It didn't need to change much to still be fun and entertaining, but it isn't as good as the first as it is basically a rehash of the plot from the first.

Overall Grade: C+
Story: C+
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B-

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

This book, second of seven, transforms for the screen as a better film then the first. In the first one, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe comes off as a childrens story and is made to pander to that, and while the series is a series of children stories, Prince Caspian doesn't shy away from a little bit darker part of the story, like the first one did.

The story of the film does a solid job of staying quite true to the story of the book. I know that they took a few liberties here and there, and I don't remember exactly how the last battle runs, but it stayed generally true tot he story and I feel like it got the main ideas across. The one addition that I didn't like was the forced romance between Prince Caspian and Susan. They did a good job of not taking it too far, and poking fun at it with snide comments from Lucy, but it did feel pretty forced and out of place at times. And I don't think the film needed it, as it is generally a kids film and kids story.

The acting in this film I felt was better. It seemed like the actors and actresses who play, Peter, Susan, Edmond, and Lucy have matured and that their acting is better now. I thought that Prince Caspian was decent, but I enjoyed the performance of the general and the uncle in the film. And I think that my favorite performance was the voice acting by Eddie Izzard for Reepicheep, which was a perfect casting.

Visually this was again impressive. The amount of work that needs to be done because of all the CGI creatures is impressive, but they manage to do a very good job with them, and I don't think that there were any slip ups that I saw. One of the most impressive shots, I thought, was looking through the eyes of a water creature, I forget what they are called, and it is looking at someone on a bridge. There is water running down what appears to be across the lense of the camera giving a very nice distorted image.

Overall this is a solid film, even if you don't agree with the message of the books it is an entertaining film that is worth seeing. It definitely steps up from the first one, even though the first one wasn't all that bad.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: B-
Story: A-
Audio/Visual: A-

Timeline

This adaptation of a Michael Crichton novel comes out as a solid film. It isn't one of Chrichton's better novels, but it is entertaining to watch and it is a pretty faithful adaptation so that gives it a few extra points.

The story is pretty interesting as it deals with time travel, but it doesn't get too far into how the time travel works and what happens because of the time travel (basically what time travely theory do you use). I don't remember the book delving too much more into the time travel though. They did touch a little bit more on the implications of time travel to the traveler then the movie did, but even the movie mentioned it.

The acting in this film is pretty average. Paul Walker is sub par in the lead role, and none of the rest of the cast really step up. Gerard Butler and Anna Friel probably as the strongest characters, but both have less screen time devoted to their characters then some of the other leads. The rest of the secondary characters are very, very average and pedestrian in their roles.

There isn't much that stands out in this film. It has a few points where it is entertaining, and is watchable because it is entertaining, but don't expect to end up with much more from this film, as it isn't there. There might be a little more in the book, but not a ton more.

Overall Grade: C+
Story: B-
Acting: C-
Audio/Visual: C-

The Beastmaster

This '70's film is purely an entertaining romp. It starts out with an odd premise and an odd story, and it really doesn't ever leave that realm. There isn't much that sets this film apart, but it is a decent cult classic sort of film.

The story in this film is quite predictable. The bad guys do as expected and the good guys do more as expected. They do make it fun in some ways because of the main characters ability to talk/commune with animals though. Especially with the two ferrets which are just great characters and extremely friendly and funny. The ferrets do serve some practical purpose, but generally less of a purpose then the other animals that the Beastmaster communicates with. I feel like with this films story, that it was trying to be a little bit less B then a lot of the better cult classic films.

The acting in this film is obviously going to be sub-par. The main characters are all interesting, but the actors never really fit into their roles. The Beastmaster is a poor actor and it shows in the film. But then again, this is a B film and the acting isn't expected to be good. The one bad thing about the acting is that it isn't either good and worth watching or worth watching because it is bad. It is simply below average acting, and doesn't draw the viewer in one way or the other at all.

Overall this is a below average cult classic film. It has some elements of a cult classic film that it works quite nicely, the odd story and the ferrets are both very cult classic like, but there are a lot of misses as well that can't raise it up to a higher standard.

Overall Grade: C
Story: C-
Acting: D+
Audio/Visual: C