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 "Johnny at the Fair (1947)"

Johnny at the Fair (1947)

Boring.... Let this be a warning to you.

This is a short that generally precedes the MST3k "Rebel Set" main feature. It revolves around a young boy, Johnny, who gets separated from his parents at the Canadian National Exhibition held at Exhibition Place in Toronto, Canada back in 1947.

This separation, while mildly traumatic for the parents, was exhilarating and exciting for Johnny. In his "walk-about", he encounters all kinds of wonderful things and celebrities : Joe Louis (heavyweight boxing champion) , chemical balls, circus performers, speed boat racing, a "hela-copter airplane", McKenzie King (prime minister of Canada at the time), Barbra Ann Scott (Canadian ice skating champion), some Vaudevillians and children's jail.

40's newsreel masquerading as a heart warming story or "real"? You decide, but don't skip to the main course if you're in the MST3k stew. Savor the flavor of a comical stew shared with the robots and Joel. A nice bourbon or single malt whiskey couldn't hurt while you're at it.

Review of "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)"

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

Mockumentary of a "Halloween" archetypal killer using the Scream equation.

Have you seen Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc? Even if you haven't seen these movies, you have at the very least heard the names somewhere. This film begins as a documentary about a fictional killer, Leslie Vernon. Leslie is very much in the vein of Michael Meyers or Jason Vorhees. He also follows a series of "guidelines" by which he operates (Scream made fun of these "rules").

The first 1/2 of the film is presented as footage from a documentary crew as they follow Leslie around and are given a first row seat and are even asked to participant in his "craft" and its planning. This is the part of the movie that is fresh and quite entertaining. Leslie does not come across as a psychopath but is presented as more of an artisan or artist. He even has a mentor, who was a serial killer in the 70's/80's. Most of the flavor of this part is humorous .

The second half of the movie (a visible switch from documentary crew perspective to phantom camera) turns basically into a slasher movie. It is a slasher movie with a twist, which I didn't realize until one of the characters points it out. Its cute, but I generally found this second half of the movie to be derivative, albeit with a twist. The sudden seriousness of the situation is meant to confuse us into shock. This is all but nullified by the character's knowledge of the upcoming events. Even though the plan changes nonetheless, their awareness of the situation diffuses most of the impact. The first kills in these type of movies occur in the fog of war. When the threat is revealed, this usually signals the demise of the killer (sheer overwhelming numbers and physical trauma from those numbers attacking add up).

Nathan Baesel does a great job as the killer, Leslie Vernon. The camera men are mostly invisible (until the second half), except for the fact that their snark remarks seems ever present. The reporter (Angela Goethals, related to the bridge of the same name in NYC) is the 2nd most present character, after Leslie, and unfortunately is quite annoying. I'm not sure its the acting. Also a nice cameo by Robert Englund as the good guy for a change. He isn't more than a Vincent Price cameo, however.

The movie flows very much like Rob Zombie's Halloween remake (first half good, second bad), except better. This is not a great movie, but not a dud either. If you need a hand in guessing if you should see this movie, ask yourself a question. How did you feel after you saw Haute Tension (High Tension)? If you liked that feeling, watch this movie.

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 "Halloween (2007)"

Halloween (2007)

Can Zombie do more than redneck chic?

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). To prepare for this re-interpretation I decided to watch the original, for a competent comparison. Too bad there is very little to compare. After seeing Rob Zombie's previous films (which were heavily stylized and derivative, but enjoyably distracting), I could see sparks of potential. This movie makes me question those sparks of creativity. An aftertaste of redneck dis-functionality and a mild burning & itching sensation is all that remains.

The first half of this movie is an origin story. The origin of Michael Meyers prior to and after the killing of his sister. Zombie attempts to fill in the gaps of the original; Michael's turning into the killer and the years in the institute before he escapes and how he escapes. Where John Carpenter used Michael Meyers as a metaphor of the dysfunction that can occur in middle class America and the suburbs (places that are considered safe), Zombie almost justifies the creation of Michael Meyers as probable and even sympathetic. His first kill isn't a sudden urge to kill his sister on Halloween night, but rather a progressive transition from animals, to classmates, to his sister and then his father. It is this first 20 minutes that although not in the spirit of Carpenter's "Shape" is actually quite graphic and made me quite uneasy(not since I saw Jesus Camp). This 20 minutes is the only good segment of the movie.

Zombie's Meyers isn't a faceless, person-less killing "Shape", but rather is an abused prototypical serial killer. His parents and sibling are "suburb rednecks" who do nothing but pick on him (obnoxious and despicable members of his family, unemployed, working as a stripper and whoring). Is this really what a typical American middle class, suburban family looks like to Zombie or is he deriving from his own experiences? He doesn't kill for no reason, he very clearly snaps. By showing us his face in the early minutes of the movie, Zombie shows us that there is a human being behind the mask. A goofy looking child. In and of itself this is not necessarily bad. When taken in the context of the second half of the movie is where the problem develops. If Zombie continued on his initial re-imaging, this would have been a graphic and watch-ably average movie. It wouldn't be great but infinitely better than this reject.

Unfortunately, Zombie feels the need to re-shoot (almost scene for scene) the 2nd half of the movie exactly as Carpenter's "Shape". It just doesn't work. Meyers cannot be a "Shape" when you spent the first half of the moving turning him into a textbook serial killer. You spend the first half of the movie almost sympathizing with Meyers. The second half just ruins everything. It's almost as if Zombie didn't know what to do or how to finish what he had started, so he just defers to Carpenter. The second half just becomes a series of forgettable massacres. Where the original had little gore and worked the inclusion of a bloodbath desensitizes any thrill. Thankfully I cannot remember any of it.

This movie is a series of contrasts. I did like all the masks Michael creates to hide behind, almost as a different mask for every emotion he is burying. At the same time his killer mask is a worn, gray and cracked mask. It just looks dirty. It doesn't emote as well as a bleached white and faceless Shatner mask (original). I also felt the inclusion of the other-sister angle (brought up in the lesser sequel Halloween 2, which never really worked for me nor was directed by Carpenter) seemed even more rushed and random in this movie. His mother (Zombie's wife Sheri Moon) further cements just how bad of a mother she is and how mediocre an actress Sheri is. The bard of Carpenter's original, Dr. Loomis, is played by a hippie Malcolm McDowell (very reminiscent of his over-the-top Caligula performance, very hammy). Adult Michael is also no longer average but a brutishly gargantuan (played by X-Men's Sabertooth, Tyler Mane). He's become a caricature and not the kid-next-door turned faceless monster for no reason. Also not helping the movie is when you are sympathetic to the psychopath because the protagonists are so annoying.

The movie should just start with a montage of people's faces, of various shapes, colors and sex, whom all say "I am Michael Meyers". Zombie shows us how the right circumstances of genes and environment can turn one into a serial killer. Hard to be terrified by the explainable. The Unrated DVD does nothing more than add gore to an already dysfunctional and bad movie. If you must watch this, just watch the first half. A better solution is just to go back to the original.

Review of "The Sentinel (2006)"

The Sentinel (2006)

Clint Eastwood was better.

Michael Douglas is a Secret Service agent, who took a bullet for Bonzo, uh, I mean Reagan. That was then, this is now. Think Clint Eastwood in the Line of Fire, except instead of John Malkovich as the antagonist, we have a Secret Service mole and instead of Renee Russo as the love interest, Michael Douglas is having an affair with a former first lady (a.k.a. whatever happened to Kim Basinger).

The director, Clark Johnson, derives most of his experience from the television series Homicide : Life on the Street (in which he starred and even directed a few episodes) and S.W.A.T. If I wanted a realistic portrayal of tactical situations and procedures, Clark Johnson would be my choice. So if I wanted to make the movie version of Rogue Spear, Splinter Cell, Full Spectrum Warrior or a remake of Navy Seals, I would call him, knowing full well the story/plot would take the last seat at the back of the bus.

The movie has a very interesting initial premise that is then beaten, rapped, spat on, urinated on and set on fire. Michael Douglas is a decorated and respected agent who suspects a mole and then becomes the suspect. This was the part that hooked me and got me to keep watching. Unfortunately, this suspense lasts approximately 10 minutes and then dives head first into the deep, shallow end of clichéd predictability. What we are left with resembles direct to video or made for TV (a.k.a. Sci-Fi Channel original minus the laughter).

Kiefer Sutherland seems to be reprising his Jack Bauer role from 24 and Eva Longoria continues her meteoric rise to mediocrity, with her non-existent (or if it exists, untapped) talent (and by talent I mean actual acting ability and not just how she looks). Martin Donovan is also in the movie, but seems to have been typecast as either a doctor or some sort of law enforcement. I loved him in Weeds, but here he (and the rest of the cast as well) is as flat as 2 day old opened soda. It is nice to see Kim Basinger in a movie, but it seemed like they got her Bowfinger style. Maybe they told her they were filming a training video??

Unless you are an insomniac, have a strange attraction to whips, chains and beatings, are wasted to the point that you can't stand or walk or are a die-hard, lifetime member of the Michael Douglas fan club, I recommend you skip this one. According to my "shot scale" this is definitely a 5 drink minimum.

Review of "Ultraviolet (2006)"

Ultraviolet (2006)

Bloodrayne Aeon Flux '84

The above summary actually sounds better, as an idea in and of itself, than the resulting movie. After Kurt Wimmer's surprisingly entertaining and under looked Equilibrium (starring pre-Batman Christan Bale), I had high expectations for his third movie. I had seen this movie in it's theatrical debut. I remember leaving the theater, however, confused and bewildered. I figured the second time around would yield a better indicator of the actual worth of the movie.

Kurt Wimmer made a movie based on a non-existing comic book. The convoluted story is about a pathophobic authoritarian dystopia, where a super soldier virus evolves into a plague and leads to forced relocations and ultimately genocide. Two factions are born; the healthy (medial totalitarian state) and the infected (terrorist rebel underground - a.k.a. hemophages, a.k.a. "blood-eaters", a.k.a. vampires). Symptoms of the infection include stronger bones, better hearing and eyesight, faster healing and hyper-fast reflexes. The only drawback is the dozen year life span.

In all honesty, I like the first half of this movie. The first 5 minutes is an action movie delight, complete with an air bomb/bowling ball ninja death squad. The narrative voice-over, that follows, is when the dread begins. This is mostly due to the realization that this is a puree of preexisting ideas. Equilibrium (also a puree) worked because it didn't try too hard. It didn't fall into the computer graphics trap. It presented a world that was slightly askew, yet eerily possible. All those things that worked in Equilibrium have been tweaked here to the nth degree and subsequently combines into a Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, it just looks, feels and acts too much like an Aeon Flux clone. Do we really need two?

The movie is a hell of a nonsensical but visually stimulating ride, until about 1/2 way through. This is about the time when our infected and meta-skilled heroine, Violet (Milla Jovovich), ends up on the fence between her people and the organization she is sworn to defend because her maternal instincts kick in. A highly skilled assassin turns into a highly skilled assassin-soccer mom. Milla Jovovich has a certain knack for picking outrages roles and generally excels in things requiring little acting ability. She does look exceptional in a tight body suit. Some of the technology has a nice wow-factor (gravity leveler and transportable space, to name a couple), but is simply there for show.

The second half of the movie is her trying to act in the middle of a nonsensical, non-stop action scenario. It becomes a case of "are we done yet?". It is just too much and too repetitious to deal with. Nothing new is added to the mix after this point, so it becomes a case of rinse & repeat. As in his previous movie, colors are primary and important. I guess Wimmer forgot to add the visual context, because all the color changes just seem to be part of the cool factor and have little to do with the plot. There is a lot of wire work and continuation of gun-kata (from Equilibrium). The problem is we are made to believe that a nurse and wife became an uber, meta-human assassin through a metabolic change and not training. Is Wimmer choosing nature over nurture or is he just so intoxicated off the smell of his own genius that he didn't even consider what he was creating?

For Wimmer this is his Modern Prometheus. It is the monster he created with his own hands, that is currently proving to be his outdoing. On my "shot scale" this is a 5 drink minimum. The top half is good, with the bottom half being synonymous to diving head-first into an empty swimming pool. Save the last 3 shots for the second half of the movie, as you will be bored to tears otherwise. Here's a toast to Wimmer. May his next movie not suck! Zum Wohl!