Review of "Beowulf (2007)"

Beowulf (2007)

Helloh IMAX !

Beowulf (if you have ever studied the English language you have probably been aware of the epic poem of the 8th Century and most likely already have read it) is the story of a 6th Century King (Hroðgar), who built a great hall (Heorot) that is attacked by Grendel. A young warrior from Geatland (Beowulf) hears of the incident and goes there to help. The second act is about Grendel's mother and the third act takes place many years later and involves a dragon.

This movie is rendered in 3 dimensional animation and looks incredibly amazing. Stupendously something something. You have to see it to believe it. True, it is not quite indistinguishable from "real" people on film, but animals and panoramic landscapes look just right. I think it is something in the eyes of the people, even with digital scans of the real actors, that gives them away. There is a sort of melancholic, sacrificial cow look to them as if there is no one home. There were several scenes where I was unsure if I was looking at photograph of the actor. I think that had to do more with the pose and that the eyes were not facing forward. The voice acting is very good and the confrontation scene between Beowulf and Grendel gave me goose pimples and I felt a shiver on the back of my neck.

Maybe it was the IMAX talking but I don't think I liked the movie as much visually if it wasn't in 3D. However, I actually found myself focused more on the story and my appreciation of it as a film increased when I saw it again on DVD. The IMAX version distracted with the 3D gimmickry, which at times is appealing and by the end quite tangible. On DVD, the magician's "trick" is revealed and now we have to focus on something else; the story.

This is a "Wicked" version of Beowulf as it differs from the poem and suggests that the characters existed and their life becomes the poem (the poem though fictional is based on actual historically known people). Many themes are touched upon: adultery, deception, the nature of a monster, bravery, a hero, sacrifice, death, life, guilt, temptation, glory, legacy, determination, lust, greed, envy, and legends. I think it works quite well and can be described as logical or at the very least plausible (for a universe where dragons, magic and monsters exist).

Some have compared this film to 300 and in some instances even surpassed it, however, I do not feel the same. Beowulf is by far the better movie. It takes artistic license with the original text only, where as 300 is based on Snyder's over the top interpretation of Frank Miller's sandal Dark Horse mini series based on the historical documents of the Battle of Thermopylae. You can see the derivation is diminishing the mixture. 300's ambiguous political message, CG blood-stain-proof bloodletting and hypocritical motivational speeches have been already over done in the last 20 years (Braveheart, Glory, and just about every football movie ever seen). 300 is a good movie (slightly better upon second viewing) but Beowulf is more original and captivating.

Perhaps it was something else entirely. Most theater experiences these days consists of frustration at the immaturity and gold fish attention spans that think going to the movies is synonymous with walking on the street. Also the products released these days are severely underwhelming and homogeneous. With the rise of home theaters, high resolution and large displays, more and more people are just staying home and watching DVDs (this also explains why DVDs come out a mere few months after the theatrical release, some going straight to DVD and others limited day-only-screenings on HDTV channels like Mojo or InHD). Perhaps this unusually energetic and participatory audience stirred some emotional connection, however small. Much like the world in 2000 AD (the comic) ours has become an automated gray limbo where all you care about is your next vice to make you feel something, anything.

Both versions appealed to me and I would put them on equal footing if not for the above recollection of my initial viewing. The IMAX version wins out slightly simple because of the spark that still exists in humanity. Even if it lasted for 1 second or the story ended in disappointment, it would have be sufficient for the price of admission. Don't skip this one.

Review of "Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)"

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)

Do motorcycles come with a gun rack or is it optional? Oh yeah, what about the Great Schism?


2:14 AM, August 29th,1997. The day the world ended, sort of.

This is where the series ended for me. Much in the same split as the great Christian Schism (in 1054) or the fundamental difference between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, this film is the fulcrum upon which the "Terminator" universe is divided. The first and second films being the canon of this universe and all the follows as filler, but not all together relevant in any way (anyone remember the Dark Horse series of the 90's?).

About the only thing that doesn't work in this film (believe it or not) and the thing that keeps it from being perfect is Edward Furlong. Robert Patrick, the Austrian Oak (Schwarzenegger) and Linda Hamilton (the one and only Sarah Connor, beefed and bad ass) are excellent at anchoring a convoluted, yet somehow plausible situation/plot for Cameron's dystopian future. It is hard to believe this film is less than 20 years old, yet has become a part of science-fiction canon.

While there is more of everything in this film (by comparison with the first), including a larger story arc with psychological tension, which is supported by the state of the art (at the time, which still hold up pretty well) special effects cache, lots & lots of action and explosions, you would think this would put it ahead in every category. Unfortunately the "edge" still goes to the first film. It does break the sophomoric jinx (a.k.a - sequel syndrome), sacrificing some of the "edge" for a broader arcing and more complicated story arc and becoming a much better film in the process. There is something to be said for the simplicity, darkness and fog of war of the original.

So this time around, after Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) returned from the stormy desert of Mexico (at the end of the first film), many years have passed. John (Furlong), her son, is now a whiny and "troubled" foster teenager and Sarah herself is committed and certifiably nuts (not to mention beefed up and ready to kick ass of any kind). A new, upgrade model of the Terminator (Robert Patrick) is sent by Skynet back to the 90's to kill John. The John of the future (2029 or so) trumps this gambit by sending a reprogrammed version of the T800 model (Schwarzenegger) to protect himself in the past. Add some bonding, Sarah's plausible paranoia, 2 Terminators, 1 Austrian Oak, many explosions, lots of guns and fighting, a tongue-in-cheek humor system and a rather satisfying ending and you have a recipe for a great movie.

The "Extreme" DVD viewing is not required, but it will expand certain aspects of the story arc more thoroughly. I do prefer it over the theatrical version, but that's just me.

This is an archetype of the possibilities of a good summer blockbuster. Everybody loves the Terry Brooks endings. Happy endings can occur, they just require a sacrifice. Also, time travel is a tricky thing. Gray is gray, and the future is not yet written.

Review of "Halloween (1978)"

Halloween (1978)

30th Anniversary and counting.

As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.

It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.

Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.

Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit).

Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career.

Review of "Grindhouse (2007)"

Grindhouse (2007)

Missing reel?? I think not. The Porkchop Express rides again.

Much like a Rocky movie or a Jackie Chan classic gung-fu movie, an elaborate montage of training scenes is required here. Please include the jogging, mastering of elaborate martial arts techniques seemingly overnight, chasing chickens and fighting slabs of meat (and I don't mean Stallone). My preparation was mental, spiritual and even physical. I primarily prepared myself by going to the cliff notes of grindhouse (42nd St. Forever Vol 1,2,3). This was not my sole preparation. I also skimmed the classics and even managed time for things I had not seen. I was ready. (For more on grindhouse, see my review of 42nd St Forever, Vol 2).

Initially I was to see this movie on opening weekend (Easter weekend) at AMC 42nd Street at the midnight showing (it would have been perfect). It was not to be as my body decided it had other plans. It wasn't a total loss as I did get to see it at AMC 42, with a smaller, but excited audience. At the box office, it has done terribly and I think this is in part mostly due to the its marketing, release date and subject matter. This is not a mainstream movie. It is a niche homage and perfect movie for the fans, but not for the masses. This is more than a movie, as it is a time capsule of a movie experience.

Theatrical breakdown (in order):

1) "Machete" trailer - directed by Robert Rodriguez

2) "Planet Terror", the first feature - also directed by Robert Rodriguez ("Grindhouse" titles instead)

3) "Werewolf Women of the SS" trailer - directed by Rob Zombie

4) Tex Mex food ad

5) "Don't" trailer - directed by Edgar Wright

6) "Thanksgiving" trailer - directed by Eli Roth

7) "Death Proof" (a.k.a - Thunderbolt), the second feature - directed by Quentin Tarantino

Planet Terror starts out with a heart pumping pole dance by the salacious Rose McGowan. The rest of the movie is an adrenaline ride based on the Return on the Living Dead and Assault on Precinct 13, complete with grape jelly CG blood and lots of zombies. The action is over the top (machine gun leg, helicopter, firepower, etc) but felt more like 80's "R"-rated action movie than grindhouse. I felt like Rodriguez didn't really get grindhouse. The humor works for the movie, but the feeling throughout is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. It should be serious, but is too much tongue-in-cheek. While visually nice and heart-pounding, it lacked passion. This is the part of the movie most people enjoyed. I would give it 7/10.

Death Proof is Tarantino's answer to I Spit on Your Grave (a.k.a. Day of the Woman), with cars and a pinch of Rutger the Hitcher and Duel. And not just any cars, but heavily modified muscle cars. Most people felt bored by this feature, since it involved a lot of talking. First of all this is a double-feature and I usually don't expect the same movie type twice (would also make it a bit repetitive and boring). I think the segue, though rough on some with caffeine/sugar addiction, is a nice way to tuck you in for the remainder of the movie. It is classic grindhouse and the dialog is done in classic Tarantino style. It sounds really cool but not much is said. I would call it "elevated wasted dialog". It contains the best death scenes of either feature. I was clapping and cheering by the end of it. I give it 10/10.

The trailers (and the features as well) are pure homage; From the missing reels, to the static, to the skips, pops, burns, movie posters and even Jack Burton's T-Shirt. As with most things Tarantino, the soundtrack is eclectic. It works for his feature, but outside of the movie it falls a little flat. I guess Kill Bill set the bar a little high. Rodriguez, on the other hand, uses a more traditional soundtrack. As with other Tarantino movies there is a revival of talent with Michael Biehn, Josh Brolin and Kurt Russel. They are not alone and makes for a great cast; from Cheech to Nicholas Cage.

Grindhouse is a part of America that is now gone. A back alley America with dirt on its hands and it didn't care. A blue collar attitude that has instead given way to a white shirt and tie and nothing but veiled political correctness. Some of us got to experience the former. This preserves that experience, albeit it in more antiseptic environment. If you like movies, film and/or the visual arts (and you don't just think of movies as only entertainment), then you should see this movie. It is not for everybody. But for those (like me), who thought this was coconut cream pie with whip creme, then here's to hoping for an unrated-missing reels included version on DVD.

Review of "The Work of Michel Gondry (2003)"

The Work of Michel Gondry (2003)

Do I offend ??

So far this is one of seven in the director series compilations (the others being Chris Cunningham, Anton Corbijn, Jonathan Glazer, Mark Romanek, Stephane Sednaoui, and Spike Jonez). These would definitely be considered the new wave, MTV generation type directors. These directors are fully integrated into a visual medium. I would love to see who the series go to next.

You might remember Michel Gondry from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Chappelle's Bloc Party. Prior to these movies he became famous for doing stunning music videos for artists like the White Stripes and Bjork.

This is mostly a collection of the various music videos that he has done from about 1986 to 2003. Out of the all the music video's I have to pick 5 as my favorite.

1) Daft Punk - around the world. Trippy and surreal dance number consisting of aliens, skeletons, mummies, and a few women.

2) Kylie Minogue - come into my world. Kylie's Mobius trip from her dry cleaner + 1.

3) White Stripes - fell in love with a girl. Lego land video is simply amazing.

4) White Stripes - the hardest button to button. Recurring Michel theme of duplication.

5) Cibo Matto - sugar water. Split screen asynchronous story that has a focal point in the middle.

This is basically a compilation of the work of the director. It includes his music videos, commercials, and other projects. This is their portfolio. The Director's Series is the great thing as you see the influences and evolution of the director. I also enjoyed the Levi's commercial, with the truck driver. I highly recommend this and the other DVDs in this series.

Review of "Star Trek (1973)"

Star Trek (1973)

Emmy Award Winning, "Star Trek in Animation", with continuity!!!

Everything these days seems to relate to my childhood and early adulthood. Perhaps since I am advancing in years, I am also dwelling much more on the past. I remember seeing this show in a limited capacity back in the late 80's and early 90's. Technically, I saw 3 episodes on Nickelodeon and taped them. What I saw was quite impressive.

The animated series immediately follows the cancellation of the original series and can be considered the completion of the original 5 year mission.

Pros : All the voices of the original cast are present except for Walter Koenig : William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Majel Barrett and even Roger C. Carmel (Harcourt Fenton Mudd) and Stanley Adams (Cyrano Jones) are there. Walter Koenig does make up for it by providing a script that allows us to experience a 60 foot tall Spock. We get episodes with more Harry Mudd, more tribbles, more fun on the shore leave planet, Uhura in command, Jihad and even a meeting with Lucifer himself. Also included is an Enterprise holodeck, pre-Pike, a laughing Enterprise, a reverse-timed alternate universe, Gukumatz (a.k.a, Kukulcan, Quetzalcoatl), Mr. Scott crawling on the ceiling, a cat on the bridge, "Blue" Kirk, more solo with Sulu and a nice smear of Shatnerian cleverness and ingenuity (don't forget about Shatnerian logic). There is also a furthering of the Star Trek universe. There are things (encountering lifeforms, aliens, other members of Starfleet along with the adoption of technical schematics, other ship designs and engineering and scientific principles) that seem to be pulled straight out of the technical manuals. All this did was add color, history and background to a somewhat plastic looking universe (up to this point). Books coming to life, imagine that. The animation freed the Star Trek universe from the shackles and limitations of live action. The exotic was limited only by the imagination and the animator's skills. It's as if all the fan energy and fervor to keep the show going at NBC was transmuted into this series. The show as a whole has a "chip on its shoulder" attitude. There are more than a handful of episodes, in the animated series, that could have easily replaced the not-so-good episodes of the original series (in terms of story, acting and pure science fiction fun).

Cons: Walter Koenig does not provide his voice. He ruins what could have been an even more unique event and show. How many times do you see actors reproducing themselves in animation and in this high of a percentage? Maybe this a positive thing to consider. Chekov is instead replaced by an Edosian (a 3 legged and 3 armed alien - one arm comes out straight from his chest) weapons officer named Arex. The animation is also quite typical of "kids-style" and other animated shows of its day. Anyone who has seen animated US shows from the 60's, 70's and 80's knows exactly what I mean. The animation can best be described as minimalistic. Often the illustrators saved money and time by repeating certain scenes. These are usually repeated in various capacities throughout the life of the show. In this case we get continuity errors like : Sulu talking from a planet while at the same time being on the bridge, Mr. Scott growing a wavy mustache instantaneously, Sulu looks much like McCoy in some scenes and much, much more. It will look similar in execution to the Planet of the Apes animated show (except that show had a strange "artistic" mural quality). The length of the episodes is quite a detriment. We were used to 45 minute episodes and now we are left with approximately half that. The voice work, which is the entire cast, lacks the passion of seeing the actors in person. The voices of the extras are also voiced by the Enterprise crew, but sound fake and contrived (often with laughable results). This is not the Simpsons, Futurama or Family Guy. Even Shatner and his Shatnerisms seem to be delivered with a heavy dose of Valium.

I do not want to be misleading. For fans of the show this is an absolutely must own. If you are a weekend Trek fan (a.k.a. - the long lasting debate of Trekkie vs Trekker), you can skip it entirely without missing a beat of the original show. You may want to check out 1 or 2 episodes to see if you would enjoy it. This could also be viewed as a nostalgic romp through the world of 70's animation.

For whatever reason, I still love this show and the original group of characters. There was a chemistry between them that was hard to miss. Though the lackluster voice work and average animation blemishes this version of the show, it still extends these interactions. Even from a science fiction perspective, the animated series does not hold much of a candle to the original. If anything, I would have called this Star Trek Lite - The Animated Series or Star Trek : For Kids. Well, its time to re-watch the Infinite Vulcan. Nothing gets to me more than when they steal Spock's brain from some mixed up alien plan.

Live Long and Thrive !!

In light of today, it wouldn't be appropriate to finish this review without proclaiming the most happiest of days for William Shatner. It's his birthday. Keep it coming Willie!!

Review of "42nd Street Forever, Vol 1 (2005)"

42nd Street Forever, Volume 1 (2005)

Cliff Notes for Grindhouse

I still remember 42nd street back in the day, before former Mayor Rudi Giuliani transformed the area into a Vegas-like tourist death trap. It used to be a different kind of tourist death trap. I remember the area's twilight years in the 80's and early 90's. During this time the area was still predominately full of pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, XXX theaters and the grind houses. For an idea of what it was like during the transition, you can reference Schwarzenegger's Last Action Hero (when it goes "real") as a representation of the change. This is because by the late '80s this wasn't quite the one you remember from Midnight Cowboy. I have been living in the area for the last couple of years and there is very little remnant of what the area was. At the changeover from dawn to day, in the area west of 9th Avenue, you can still see the world's oldest professionals quiting for the night. They have become sparse enough in this area, that the professionals are almost there for the tourists and as historical re-creationists, rather than as a professionals performing a civic duty. The legitimate places of business have moved out to the outer boroughs, Hunts Point, Green Point, Queens Bridge, etc.

This first volume in the series was a stroll down memory lane for me. It reminds me of the area, the theaters and as a child, things I was not allowed to see. The area and its movies represented a taboo to me. For those that don't know, Grind House is the genre representative of the movies shown in some of the theaters on the small strip from 7th and Broadway to 10th Avenue on 42nd Street (and the surrounding side streets). They were not necessarily porn but contained graphic sex and gratuitous violence. The stories were usually geared around that graphic sex and violence. One cannot deny the silliness and camp of a majority of the movies in this genre. Some of them were homegrown, others were quite foreign. They were your non-typical kind of movies. They were not the type of movie you would bring home to show mom and dad, yet you still found a way to sneak it in.

The series collects the trailers, usually shown before and during a double feature, into a continuous reel. If you want to know and learn about grind-house movies, then this is a good place to start. Just like in modern trailers, these trailers tend to give away critical information about the movie. Having seen the full version of some of these movies in this collection, it is sometimes sufficient to have seen the trailer to get the best aspects of that movie. It was also a good vehicle for me to get into movies I had never seen or vaguely remember.

There are more movies than you can imaging, that fall within this category. For example, you can expect trailers such as : Sylvester Stallone's Italian Stallion, Matango, The Green Slime, Destroy All Monsters, The Crippled Master, They Call Her One Eye, Maid In Sweden, Shocking Asia, Chappaqua, Death Drive, The Raiders Of Atlantis, Star Crash, Superfuzz, Ironmaster and many, many more. I found volume 1 to contain a great cross-section of the genre and a good representation of the trailers for the most well known movies in the genre. I definitely enjoyed it much more than volume 2. That makes me even more excited about the prospects of volume 3. Till Rodriguez and Tarantino's homage to the genre, I will await volume 3 while secretly shooting up on volume 1 in the Papaya Dog bathroom.

Review of "Idiocracy" (2006)

Idiocracy (2006)


Not Sure. And the Extinction of Intelligence in the Species – a satirical anthropological "what if".

After just seeing H6, I needed something to "clean my palate" of the gnawing thoughts in the back of my skull. Mike "Bolton" Judge; writer, producer and director of Bevis and Butthead and Office Space, provides a movie that is parodic at times (elements of Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, the Last Man on Earth and the Omega Man permeates the story, while overtly sanctioning the "consumerist zombie" theory of George Romero). It is satirical and yet still funny the rest of the time. The difference is that previous views of the future of humankind are a bit more dignified than in this movie. The future was always a bright, gleaming beacon for the elevation of mankind (in some cases the humans themselves had not changed, yet technologically we were more advanced). This movie takes is the opposite way - a.k.a. the toilet. Humanity has degraded to stupidity and apathy on all possible levels. The movie functions on the level of the viewer, while at the same time functioning on all its levels as a whole. This is the multi-tiered mound of garbage. Hidden treasures are abound for those that dig deep enough and yet there's stuff at the top for the not-so-motivated.

During the year 2005, the United States military conducted a secret project ("The Human Hibernation Experiment" for short). This project consisted of hibernating a male and female for a period of one year. This was to be developed for the purpose of "freezing" our best troops so they can be freshly deployed where they would be needed. Obviously they would not use this on their best until it was tested. As the guinea pigs, they used the most average man in army, Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) and a "private sector" female, Rita (SNL alumni Maya Rudolph). One intravenous injection of Yoo-Hoo later, while being packed into an army, green-fatigue, metal-looking coffin, they go to sleep expecting only a year to pass. In less than a year, the project is lost and forgotten, only to be accidentally discovered the same year as the Great Garbage Avalance of 2505.

This is pure Philip J. Fry brought to live action. It is the same social criticism mixed with humor, character development and identification as you found from each and every episode of Futurama. It is a fish-out of water story where the fish looks more normal then the water (by contrast). Owen Wilson isn't quite Billy West, but he does a very good job a selling the likability of an average joe like Joe. There are some nice cameos in the movie including, the Apple guy (Justin Long), David Herman (from Office Space, Mad TV, and several voices on Futurama - Mayor C. Randall Poopenmayer, Professor Ogden Wernstrom, Turanga Morris, Larry , and Dwayne), Greg Pitts (the Oooohhh !! guy from Office Space), Scarface from Geto Boys (a pimp named Upgrayedd), Thomas Haden Church, and the pimped out and presidential Terry Crews (The President of the United States - Camacho).

The movie is relatively fast paced and doesn't dwell too much on one theme. It is not an exhaustive study, if you choose to read it as such. At the same time there is enough detail to warrant a serious critique. Its ending is light hearted and positive and I think is the major detriment to the movie. The premise is at the same time ridiculously ludicrous and at the same time eerily possible. Another noteworthy instances would be the inclusion of President One tough-mother !! SHUT YOUR MOUTH !!! Its about damn time we had a black president. Sho'Nuff !! The genius of the Fat Museum is not lost on me either. OW ! My balls !! the TV show is pure genius. It makes American Idol seem like Tarkovsky, while reminiscent of the "I'd Buy That for A Dollar" TV show from Robocop.

A highly recommendable and enjoyable, multi-teared romp through one oddly, possible future. It's nuculear, ass face !! (the finger salute of the future)

Review of "Crank" (2006)

Crank (2006)


The Transporter on the Beijing Cocktail, with an ephedrine and cocaine chaser.

Having first become acquainted with Jason Statham from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, I can safely say he has become the epitome of the tough guy. Most of the movies he has made since (with the exception of Snatch) are your run-of-the-mill action movie. I did like Transporter, with the exception of the second half of the movie which completely ran out of gas. There was definite potential there. The Transporter 2 completely obliterated any chance, by completely going off the deep end and not in a good way either.

Thankfully someone learned from all these movies and came up with Crank. Crank has a very simplistic plot. Chev Chelios (Statham) is well-known contract assassin, who wakes up to discover he has been poisoned with a concoction called the Beijing cocktail. It will stop his heart unless he keeps it going, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!! The rest of the movie is figuring out what he's gonna do next and how he's going to tell his clueless, but very attractive girl friend (Amy Smart). This is the fun part of the entire movie. It is basically a live-action mash-up of Narc (the video game from the 80's), GTA (any of them) and some heart-bounding music videos. The formula is simple enough, but can be difficult in the execution (see some of Jason's other movies for reference). The rookie directorial duo of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor do an exceptional job a portraying stylized, non-stop action.

This is an archetypal action movie, not that the movie does anything overly original. What it does it does well and keeps it going pretty much throughout the entire movie. There are few breaks. I had a hard time not breaking a sweat or commenting out loud. I had been disappointed by more recent action movies. This one actually delivers. It delivers everything : car chases, helicopters, mêlée, gun play, explosions, sex, lots and lots of drugs, blood, profanity galore, more stimulants, a mall, a hospital, a drug lord, the amusing Dwight Yoakam and even Pedro (running for class president from Napolean Dynamite). The video game theme permeates every pore of this movie (from the opening heartbeat to the post credit side-scroller). For anyone who has had the sandbox experience of GTA will certainly recognize and appreciate this movie. I highly recommend this for fans of action. I'm feeling a little woozy. I guess its time for me to down some Red Bull and kick some cabbies.

Review of "Why We Fight" (2005)

Why We Fight (2005)



Also the name of a series of military funded WWII propaganda movies done by Frank Capra

This is an appropriately titled documentary (ironic also) that delves into what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", in his farewell address. While George Washington's farewell address involved warnings about political polarization of the country, the avoidance of entanglements with foreign nations and the idea that morality in government is required; Eisenhower warned about the ever increasing of power of the complex relationship between the military, the Congress and the military private sector, and the problems associated with having and supporting a standing army. He warned about the ever increasing resource allocation in the face of no visible or clearly defined enemy. A self perpetuation cycle that takes all other expenditures with it.

This process seems to have started with WWII and even with Eisenhower's warning, has continued unabated for the past 50+ years, culminating in the current situation we are in (Iraq). During this time the expenditure was justified by the giant, looming Soviet threat (which collapsed of its own bloated weight). Since 1991, the military-industrial complex has been searching for a new "nemesis". They tried Panama, Iraq I, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq II. The current war is proof enough of the intentions of the this complex : to get more money appropriated by the Congress (for more expensive, newer, and "better" weapons), by "proving" to their constituents (through fear and misinformation) that they is a phantom danger which requires more money for defense. It is nearly impossible to tell the head from the tail of this unit. All the elements have almost fused into a giant entity.

It is funny to think that WWII signaled the start of this entity, while also going against Washington's warnings (US first becomes entangled in NATO in 1949) and leading towards our current polarized and unmoral political situation. The problem with this complex is that is does not what is best for the country, but what is best for itself. This is not moral. Senator Byrd made that point when the Congress voted to give the executive branch the right to invade a foreign nation without provocation; that there was no debate, no look at the consequences of their actions. There was only silence. It's interest leads the country into situations that allocated many, many resources that could be used internally (Eisenhower had a cost list of what he could do locally with funds allocated for bombers, tanks, missiles, etc). Senator Robert Byrd also made the point that the US military budget from a few years ago was larger than the other 18 members of NATO combined and China.

This movie tries very hard not to be a one-sided story. It gets some of the constituents of this entity to speak in their own words. The movie does not point fingers at political parties but rather at institutions and individuals. I don't know how people cannot acknowledge the truth in this movie. Whether or not what this movie's message appeals to your political thought or not, you cannot deny the truth no matter how much it doesn't benefit one's situation. You can ignore it, pin it on a patsy, or try to deny it, but you cannot hide from it. It would seem the movie would end on an pessimistic tone, but this is not true at all. It is very encouraging. This complex should be responsible to us. They are working with public (tax) money and Congress is full of our elected representatives, responsible to the people who elected them. We don't like what is going on, then we must do something about it. Freedom is not sitting at home watching your ass get fatter while eating fast food and drinking a beer. We need to get off our asses and make them listen to us. If they are not satisfying us, we get ones who can. Oh, where is the next George Washington ?? That is exactly what we need right now. It is funny how much his name is used to justify things he wouldn't have supported (also see God). Oh well. History will record this time as the end of the Republic and the rise of the American Empire. Sic semper tyrannis.

Review of "Tom Yum Goong" (2005)

Tom Yum Goong (2005)
a.k.a. The Protector; Warrior King; Ong Bak 2
Prachya Pinkaew's Sophomoric Tony Jaa movie. Who cares if the story is any good?? Its got Tony Jaa. 'Nuff said.

After seeing Ong-Bak I didn't think the action and terrible story vehicle could be pushed much further. I was happily mistaken for one and sorely underrated the other. The action has now risen to "WHAT" status and the story has dropped to "WHAT" status.

Kham (Tony Jaa) and his dad are Jaturungkabart, the protectors of the royal elephants. This seems to include doing everything with the elephants : bathing with the elephants, riding the elephants, hugging the elephants, trimming the shrubbery, and martial arts training. For Kham, his dad and the elephants, this is paradise. It is the intrusion of other, malicious humans that causes a disturbance. This happen twice : first when the elephant mom dies accidentally at the hands of kidnappers (really, elephant kidnappers). The director cleverly uses various scenes to mirror the relationship of the remaining dad and son elephant to their human protectors (lone tear. wipe with tissue. jazz hands. juggling plates. - Joel). The second incident sees both elephants get kidnapped and Kham's dad get shot, at a local wealthy man's sponsored parade and festival. From there we go to Australia. Thats the first 18 minutes. You can cut most of that. I think I can reduce that to about 3 minutes of just titles and simple introductions with white overlays.

Minute 18:00. Scene : Kham party crashes. Jaa flies across the powder blue wall and knocks down the perfectly centered, water buffalo head. The kicking of ass thus begins. And thus I learned how many guys one can take out with one knee ? 5. That is also the number of minutes of action we get in the first 40 minutes of the movie. The rest of the movie is : boat chase, foot chases, chest-crushing knees, roller-blade-rs and bmx'ers attacking, fluorescent lights, transvestite Chinese mob boss, cramp-like kicks, elephant throwing and pulverizing elbows.

The best and longest action sequence is when Kham arrives at the restaurant (this is probably because I was parched for some kind of action). It goes from being a small restaurant front, to opening up into a multi-teared pagoda-like structure with a spiral staircase, a casino, brothel and rare-species dinning facility. The capoeira fighter scene in the burning church is also very good. The final fight at the press conference is also mind blowing. It is incredible brutal and so so hilariously ridiculous (elephant skeleton, Tony Jaa's emotional release, Nathan Jones and 3 other huge guys fight, a transvestite with a whip, elephant bones as weapons, tendons and a helicopter). Also the sheer number of extras hurt during this scene was incredible. Can you imagine the hospital bill ?

The end is predictable, though strange because it was hard to discern much of a storyline. So the need for a conclusion, complete with politically laced stop elephant poaching, protect the elephant, Thailland for Thai messages seem a bit tacked on. Prachya Pinkaew just needs to put Tony Jaa in a room, reading Shakespeare in English. So long as Tony kicks someone's ass during the first paragraph, it will all fall into place. Tony Jaa makes Parkour (pseudo martial art, see my Banlieue 13 review) seem like Tai Chi. Jet and Jackie seem like your grandfather after Thanksgiving diner, by comparison. For fans of martial arts and action movies, this is a definite MUST own.

Review of "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" (2006)

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

Jagshemash...

He is Borat and he is in town. If you have not heard of Borat by now, you are probably one of the people living under rocks in Uzbekistan. Borat Sagdiyev is just one of the multiple personalities that is Sacha B. Cohen. This should all be familiar from Sacha's HBO show, Da G Ali Show. If you aren't familiar and happen to be one of the rock-burdened people from Uzbekistan with access to a computer and the internet, then by all means please read on.

Borat, heir of Boltok the Rapist, is a reporter from Khazikstan, sent to the US, along with his producer - Azamat Bagatov, to document American culture (under penalty of death). For those who don't know Borat (and as a way to show the before, before the after.) we first are taken to his home town of Kuczek. As a funny sidebar, this was actually filmed in a Gypsy shanty town north of Bucharest, Romania and not in Khazakstan. As a second sidebar, the things said in the town are even funnier than the subtitles. After a long, long and circumnavigating Indiana Jones-like plane ride, we arrive at JFK.

The premise of Borat is simple. A caricature simple foreigner (anti-femanist, anti-semitic, anti-gay, sexual deviant,etc) travels to another land, with all the faux pas as comedy and critique. For the magic to work certain criteria must be present. For one, the people Borat meets must not be familiar with Borat or his country. Next, the illusion of foreign documentary must be maintained. Thirdly is the air of spontaneity. For example, Borat singing the national anthem at the rodeo could have cost Sacha his life if it had lasted a few minutes longer. The actor was evacuated from the building for fear of his safety and/or a riot. At times the humor is quite physical and quite graphic. I personally could not stop laughing while others in the theater were wincing or just plain looking away.

You know you have made something meaningful when you upset people. If no one is upset, it means that it is universally acceptable or not important enough to justify a meaningful contradiction. This movie has upset a lot of people and with good reason. Borat instigates and often the second party fills in all the graphic and quite colorful, unscripted, personal nuances. It isn't that Borat is critiquing Khazakstan or the third world (which of course he is to an extent). He is criticizing our culture through our biased perceptions of "foreigners" and through our own instigation.

The movie reminds me of John Wilmot's Sodom, in terms of open critique, except without the monarch. Sic semper tyrannis, or something. The only problem I had was with all the previews and show appearances. A lot of the jokes could be seen there prior to ever setting foot within a theater. Even with all this "hype" I highly enjoyed this movie and I recommend it to others. Now to dust off those G Ali DVDs until the next movie or until the DVD of this comes out.

Jenkui...

Review of "Logan's Run" (1976)

Logan's Run (1976)


29.999 year old male seeks pre-30 year old. Purpose : A ride on the Carousel.

It is sometime in the 23rd century. The survivors of the global holocaust live in an Utopian-like structure (controlled and regulated by computer system) where mankind lives only for pleasure (plastic surgery, sex, drugs, orgy clubs, swinging, etc) separate from the world outside their domed structures.

This movie has a significance much apart from many other movies. It was made in the same year as my birth and this day being my year of renewal, marks this as a special occasion. Is it coincidence that a movie about pre-30 year old, was made at the same time? I shall answer that with a resounding NO. It is not coincidence.

Logan 5 (Michael York) is a "Sandman". He is essentially the enforcer of the new world. A Sandman takes out "runners"; 30 years old who attempt to flee the festival of Carousel (white robed and hockey-masked 30 year olds with flashing red crystals in their palms, wearing flaming tights underneath their robes, floating towards a white crystal and are eventually vaporized but they call it Renewal). His world changes when Logan meets Jessica 6 (the lovely and scantily clad Jenny Agutter) and her Ankh necklace. The computer informs Logan that Ankh is synonymous with Sanctuary (the place of refuge for the runners, most likely outside the domes). The computer expires Logan's life clock (flashing red palm crystal) to help him to infiltrate the underground and take it out. His mission becomes increasingly difficult because :

1) People are wary of others and are hateful of the Sandmen (only members of this society dressed in all black)

2) Francis 7 (Logan's best friend and also a Sandman) discovers Logan's run and pursues to terminate

The future world looks much like a mall. Everyone is young, scantily dressed in bright colors, plastic surgery is quite common, everyone likes to work out and exercise and the people have as much depth as cardboard cut outs. Farrah Fawcett's character (Holly 13) is a perfect indicator of the depth of people of this world. She actually has to be told her lines mid-movie.

The movie is quite dated in terms of special effects (even for the time). Future world is a model of domed structures connected by a toy monorail system. The interiors are mall-like and have a 70's perspective of the future (lots of glass, mirrors, and the heavy use primary colors). The clothing is also very 70's like. The movie proceeds in typical fashion of that era's "catastrophic future" genre (Planet of the Apes series, Omega Man, etc). With all this dated material this movie still manages to maintain integrity through the story (are you reading this George L ?). It is the same reason why 2001 continues to be an important and relevant piece of science fiction almost 40 years after it was made. The movie has the underbelly element of Big Brother, the foolishness and folly of youth, dogma and doctrine, and the exaggeration of the degradation of human behavior through lack of want. The movie is not bogged down by the social questioning nor does it dwell in the action. It is a perfect amalgam of science fiction, social commentary, action and adventure. This is a must see for science fictions fans. Growing old is nothing to fear, especially when you have Sanctuary. See you in Washington, D.C. when I'm 31.