My Favorite Movies

To say this is the original slasher film, would do a disservice to those who came before. 1960's "Psycho" set the trend for slasher films in a more subdued way. Much in the same way, 1974's "Black Christmas" took the idea of a murderer and used stylish camera shots and sense of dread only realized by the audience to root for the safety or the slaughter of those caught in the killer's path.

While Psycho has become a classic in it's own right, John Carpenter's now classic 1978 film "Halloween" catapulted the genre into mainstream success. Audiences were now being turned onto real stories of terror, gone were the magical and mythical creatures of past horror hits.

Halloween's impact can be summed up with the fact that it turned slasher films in that era "mainstream". While we'd had films of this nature before yes, but until Halloween came out, big studios were not putting up money to produce their own "Halloween". That's a true testament to the film's legacy and to John Carpenter's career.

About the film itself it is my favourite horror film of all time. The mood and set up for the film is amazing, Michael lurks and stalks his victims ever so carefully, skillfully that even today the movie still WORKS. Michael could be anywhere, and in that tone Carpenter nick named him "The Shape" which gave reference to the fact that Michael in himself was the night, that shadow that lurks. It does not need to be gratuitous, like it's 2007 remake.

Also at the center of it all is Donald Pleasence, as Dr. Loomis, hunting down his patient of 15 years in what could be considered an over the top but effective performance. The then youngsters Curtis, Keyes and Soles are adequate and enjoyable as the desire of the murderous Michael Myers.

What's also important on a final note is the powerful storytelling of this film, in that it's very restrained. What makes this work much like what makes Black Christmas work is that we don't know what's going on, why this man is doing what he's doing, what his motives are and what his compulsion is towards murder and death. He is just simply the Boogeyman, Pure....EVIL.

I gotta say, I love Time Bandits. One of those films I saw as a youngster. It actually came out the year I was born and before I even realized it, I was a fan of Terry Gilliam.

What sold me on this film was just the larger than life imagery of what was being presented. The scene that stuck out to me was the giant, with the boat on his head as he rose from the sea.

Terry Gilliam is such a great visual director and his ability to make his adventures larger than life and to leave his unique stamp on his films is what makes him a great director in my eyes.

He is very effective with children's stories such as this. This is a children's story by the way, about a child who travels through time with these little people who were working for "The Almighty Creator" but stole a map, which told them about time portals. Now these people are traveling through time stealing valuables (hence the title "Time Bandits").

David Warner plays "Evil" who tries to steal the time map from the little guys and the protagonist of the story. While traveling through time we meet a few notable names like Napolean (Ian Holm), Agamemnon (Sean Connery in a really strange cameo) Robin Hood (John Cleese) among others.

I'd be hard to do this film justice in a review, because it's a mighty great adventure through time and space, which deals with such themes as consumerism (the protagonists parents are always trying to keep up with the Jones' when it comes to the latest technology) and dealing with Good and Evil, and it's funny! I'd say though if you are British you would more than likely enjoy the humour of the film more.

While I wouldn't say this is Gilliam's best work, it definitely has to be a favourite of mine just for the nostalgia it brought upon viewing it again. I can't also claim to know how popular Time Bandit's is, but if you want your children to watch a thoroughly crafted and memorable children's film with funny characters and a great adventure, you can't beat Time Bandits!

What to say about The Ghostbusters that hasn't been said already. Nothing really, but I'll throw in m two cents while I'm at the height of my own personal Ghostbuster-O-Mania (I'm listening to the theme by Ray Parker Jr. on repeat as I type this out).

The idea of the Ghostbusters was so ingeniously brilliant when it came out that it stands as one of those unique ideas that with the cast it had, the story it featured hit on all cylinders, in what was hailed as the "supernatural comedy of the year". The thing is, it turns the supernatural as it were into more like rodent control. No doubt the Orkin Man took a few notes from the style of the Ghostbusters.

So here we have with the basic element of the Ghostbusters, 3 scientists...well 2 of them anyways, come up with a way to actually capture ghosts. It's essentially like the cowboy's or policeman's tools of the trade. The idea being that they have these Proton Packs that capture the Ghost in question and then they have these Traps that hold the Ghost indefinitely until they are stored in the Containment Unit indefinitely.

Why it works though is that it's definitely that blend of the scientific and the supernatural with a light-hearted and fun approach. Unless you were like me and very young at the age Ghostbusters became popular, more than likely you wouldn't find yourselves extremely frightened by the Ghosts featured in the film. Though I do recall that library ghost making me poop myself upon seeing the film (something I'd do later for Ghostbusters II but for different reasons).

The 3 scientist in question are Dr. Peter Venkman (played to perfection by Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis). Stantz and Spengler act more like a foil for Venkman who if you for some reason haven't seen the film, is the least interested in the actual science behind capturing ghosts but does infact see the potential of a ghost capturing business. Venkman you see is the sleaze type who seems more like a T.V. host than a scientist (something he'd do in the second film) who uses his position to meet women. Regardless of this Murray carries the film as the comedic actor giving the film it's legitimacy. Much like Meatballs, Murray carries Ghostbusters but really it's the effort of all that involved that makes it work. Egon Spengler is probably the most tightly strung of the bunch, concentrating more on the task at hand and the seriousness of the events around him. Ray Stantz is actually more of a mix of Spengler and Venkman in that he's highly scientific, but can wisecrack when needed. Ray's light-hearted good nature towards most things is what brings "The Destructor". Rounding out the team as the eventual 4th member is Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson). Hudson does alright, but his inclusion is mainly for us the audience, as he's the common man of the group. Rounding out the cast are the Women....Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) and the Ghostbusters first customer Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver).

So as far as the rest of the plot is concerned, it mainly centers around the "ghost" inside of Mrs. Barrett's refridgerator, the Terror Dogs called Zuul and Vinze Clothar who are under the command of Gozer. Gozer is the main villain of the film but you for the most part wouldn't tell other than the fact that "it" only gets mentioned for most of the film. However, the high activity of Ghosts in the New York area is being caused by Gozer and it will be the Ghostbusters investigation into the case that leads to that. In the mean while Venkman tries to get with Dana Barrett....yeah they attempt a love story.

So the basic format of the film goes like this. Small disturbance happens at the beginning. The Ghostbusters get into business, investigate Dana's problem. Have their first case in which the weapons are used (where they meet Slimer who was dubbed on set as "Onionhead") and then there's a montage where we see the Ghostbusters going after Ghosts (usually without seeing the Ghosts but you see some during the montage in the second film) then for the most part it's slowly figuring out the problem. As stated Murray carries the film mostly with his interactions with Dana.

Obviously there are two iconic scenes from Ghostbusters that if you've never seen the film, you've had to atleast heard about. First is the introduction of Slimer who slimes Venkman. Funnily enough when they got a cartoon series called "The Real Ghostbusters" Slimer came aboard as the Ghostbusters ghost mascot.

The second scene involves the creation of the "traveller". When Gozer returns, he allows the people to choose what shape the traveller will take as he destroys the world. In one classic line Venkman states "if we think about J. Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover will come to destroy us". Of course that crazy Ray thinks of his past at camp and how he roasted Stay Puft Marshmallows....and thus brings to life a giant Stay Puft Marshmallow man to destroy New York!

Ghostbusters was such an ingenious idea that became such an iconic piece of 80's movie history, one that I grew up with during the time it was popular and will forever love. Who didn't want to be a Ghostbuster? Even if Aykroyd and Ramis didn't have marketing on their mind when they wrote the script, the huge campaign launched after the movie became a hit was an indication of how smartly put together it was. Do you know anyone in their right mind who wouldn't have shilled out money for a piece of plastic in the shape of a life sized Proton Pack....and THEN have to go and get both a P.K. meter AND a Ghost Trap to go along with it. Brilliant stuff. Either way...Ghostbuster deserves it's rating.

FLASH! AH HAAAA! SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE! FLASH AH HAAAA!

It wasn't Star Wars that got me interested in the space opera. It was infact this film. I of course was helped along by my parents who claim to be the biggest Queen fans in Canada anyways. At that young age, I was listening to the Flash Gordon soundtrack constantly on the old record player with those old school huge stereo headphones, heck I even scratched it up due to how much I listened to it, so perhaps if you want to call me biased, I was sort of conditioned to love this movie from any early age, but looking back, unless you're just a fuss pot who can't enjoy ANYTHING devoid of a serious tone or superb acting, I don't see how anyone could overlook 1980's Flash Gordon!

Flash Gordon's core comprises of three essentials. The Music is the big one. Queen fashioned an otherworldly at times, yet rock oriented at others, epic score for Flash Gordon. Infact I'd say that this film is dependant on it's score and Freddie Mercury's soulful voice, that adds to some of the scenes (Alora's resurrection of Flash comes to mind).

The second element is the locations/characters/creatures which flourish in all their brilliance and colour here. The style of the film is definitely throw back, and almost the opposite of Star Wars which had the "used" space environment, Flash Gordon has everything new, shiny and extravagant. It definitely is over the top and honours the original series in that respect well.

The third vital for this film was the adventure itself. Flash Gordon doesn't tend to let up all that much. From the football fight, to the creature in the tree stump (which frightened me as a child!) to the final battle with the Hawkmen and Flash invading Mingo City (to the throng of a huge rock medley) Flash has captured the essence of what Star Wars had successfully made popular again.

Okay, so now you're thinking...5 stars? Come on. My 5 star rating is a biased one. Only one other film that I've given 5 stars to has also been biased (Revenge Of The Sith) but it's because Flash Gordon just captures what made me fall in love with watching pictures in the first place. It's got a very special place in my heart and childhood. If were to be a hard as nails bitter critic about this film I'd still give it a solid 3 stars for it's ability to entertain and the fact that it does bring a total package and doesn't try to be something it's not. I'd definitely recommend this film if you like Star Wars and films of that type.

Just as influential and probably more highly regarded, Dawn Of The Dead takes the basics of "Night Of The Living Dead" and expands upon it. I think half of the reason people love this film as much as they do is because it's just got that bigger scale. The other half would be the fact that when it comes to zombie action/gore, it delivers....in spades. There are plenty of zombie pictures, more notably Italian zombie films that don't quite deliver as much as hoped. People wonder why I liked "Hell Of The Living Dead" but the reason is that movie also delivers in great quantity and quality on the zombie action, but lacks any overall message or any good characterization. Dawn Of The Dead has both and works wonders with it.

The story revolves around a group of four people who, after planning on flying to safety when they come upon an abandoned mall. They get inside the mall through a storage area and proceed to clear out the mall of "those things". Consumerism plays a big part of the moral lesson of Dawn Of The Dead. Human beings are greedy. It's funny to note that this small group, takes an entire mall and then proceeds to lay claim to it, when later it comes under attack. That attack also serves as a reminder of human greed, as the biker gang in the film who loots the mall, is out for making themselves richer but even more notable is the idea that "The Mall" was an "important place in their lives" which is a interesting idea put out by Stephen, which kind of reflects how important it is for us human beings at times to try and live up to the old adage "he who has the most toys, wins". It's a great look at the idea that even after death, we're still drawn to shop!

As far as our human characters are concerned, they actually can play nice and co-operate. Internal debate plays very little in how well they react to each other, which is a strong issue in both Night and Day. It's carelessness that ends lives in this film.

This movie has some of the most interesting gory and bloody scenes which seem quite dated now, but were one of the films biggest selling points when it first came out. It's funny to notice that while this film has also become the the "favourite" of the series and is lauded over, but has the most technical errors and goofs (as far as I know) out of all of Romero's films.

What's great about this film in summation is that idea with any great story, you can take from it what you will and still come away entertained. Dawn Of The Dead can do that, and anyone who his a fan of the zombie genre should not skip this important flick.

I will freely admit that my 5 star rating of this film is a personal choice. This movie is far from perfect, but fore me it really has become one of my favourite films.

The Star Wars Saga has been one of mine and millions of people's favourite film series for a long long time. So how fitting is it that the third chapter (and final film to be made of the series) that we wrap up a journey that's been (at the time) 28 years in the making.

People's biggest complaint from what I've seen, well if it's not the biggest it's one of them is the acting in the Star Wars films. To be fair none of the Star Wars films have had really superb acting, they've had great story telling which is what draws us in, not the "superb" acting.

The story of Darth Vader is a sad one, displayed here by the allowance of fear to consume him thanks to past expierences set up in Episode II: Attack Of The Clones. Anakin's fear of loss leads him to the Dark Side of the Force, an action credited to his own actions. The conflict within could be avoided if Anakin were to heed the wise words of master Yoda.

Let's not forget the two back to back lightsaber duels of Anakin and Obi-Wan as two brothers and long time friends finally have to come to terms in battle, juxtaposed with the fight for the Republic between The Emperor and Yoda.

What makes it interesting to me is that we are given an inside look at the creation of "The Empire" and it's evil Emperor who is finally revealed in the third film, in all his glory. Ian McDiarmid is probably in my honest opinion the best part of Revenge Of The Sith. He's charismatic as he is looney tunes.

Overall there are a few things wrong with Episode III, most notably some of the glaring details like Vader's "Nooooo!" and the childbirth death of Padme. Smaller complaints are made with the acting of love birds Anakin and Padme and the kiddie voices of the droids. However I say you may have a problem with some of these, only real die hard Star Wars Purists I've found really have trouble with this and the rest of the Star Wars Prequels. They aren't perfect films, but I would go on to say this despite it's downfalls is one fun ride with a greater meaning for those fans who have waiting to see the downfall and rise of Darth Vader.

Night Of The Living Dead is the grand-daddy of all Zombie movies that have come and gone ever since. Sure Zombies "existed" before Night, but they were never used as effectively and creatively as they were in this film.

Night Of The Living Dead simply tells the story of a new society eating up the old one. It's also illustrates the frightening possibility that our friends, our neighbours, our loved ones could be used to turn against us. A frightening thought that your mother, brother, sister, father could be the one crawling towards you in a hungry frenzy for flesh.

So as these few survivors band together in a small rural farmhouse, we see tensions run high and the frantic abandon of man to act desperately under such pressures. It highlights the flaws in human beings when you look at our reactions to crisis and our will to recklessly look out for ourselves before others. It reflected a chaotic time in American history.

What a great testament to the horror genre is Night Of The Living Dead, blending in that message within the constraints of a horror film. Like alot of classics Night has even spawned catch phrases that have become culturally known I think the most obvious being "They're coming to get you Barbara!" It also gave Romero his start and saw the beginnings of his "Dead Saga" which would follow with the much heralded "Dawn Of The Dead" and would be followed by "Day" and "Land" later.
I obviously can't say enough good things about this movie.

The Child's Play series is one of the few horror series I can honestly say I was there watching from the beginning. Oh sure I caught up on most the horror greats over the years, but first it was Chucky, as I had only dabbled with Freddy and many obscure horror classics before this and then Halloween completely hooked me on horror films. Don't quote me though, as my memory seems fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that Child's Play was my first real horror experience that I loved but didn't quite realize what the picture was supposed to be.

The box for Child's Play was one of those that both kind of frightened me but intrigued me at the same time. Of course at that young age, I couldn't actually rent this flick, but when it finally came on television, I made a point to actually sit down and watch it, a forbidden fruit that I was finally going to be able to gobble down.

Even if you've only heard of this series, you atleast know the truncated version of the story. Killer transfers his soul into a doll, a mother buys the same doll for her son, the doll comes to life and tries to possess the young boy.

I'm sure there are plenty of films that have done the 'possessed' toy story before (see Stuart Gordon for example who released Dolls just one year earlier) and definitely many afterwards (Dolly Dearest anyone?) but none really had the flair that Child's Play did.

What? Are you talking up Child's Play of all things? Absolutely but don't think I'm trying to make this movie seem more than it is which isn't my intent, but I will say this for the film, it was very cleverly made. Much like alot of the slasher films that came before it, Child's Play builds on suspense. The first death scene with Aunt Maggie is really well done, even if it's nothing new, it's definitely stylish. I personally will ALWAYS remember the moment when Maggie removes the plant to find....nothing....and then to turn around and....wham!

Like again with more slasher films, we see this kid carrying around this innocent looking doll (which in my opinion looks the best in this flick) and our imaginations begin running about how will this doll look when it comes to life, how will this doll be effectively portrayed to make it believable.

A big thing about Child's Play that helps that is it's actors and their reactions. It's great in my opinion that a killer doll is not only a possibility but taken and treated completely serious. In this world, voodoo isn't just a possibility, it's real. So as Karen (Catherine Hicks) who is Andy's (Alex Vincent) mom and Mike (Chris Sarandon) go looking for Chucky, they go prepared.

Of course anything as strange as the story of a killer doll, could only be wound up with that of a big send off, as we see Chucky get his....again....and again. It is simply said, depending on how you view Chucky on the horror genre scale, Child's Play is definitely a must-see series of films for any horror fan.

What can I say? This movie was pretty sweet. It was one of those forbidden fruits I heard about as a youngster from one of the more veteran movie goers. I actually remember this older person who was talking about Evil Dead with another person about how he (director Sam Raimi) created this cult classic that had to be seen to be truely appreciated. He was right.

Forgive me if some of my information on the shooting of this film is inaccurate but I've heard that they spent from 2 to 4 years on this film. It really does show that this is meant to be ultra low budget fun, as hair styles change and some of the effects are somewhat hokey by the standards of a bigger budgeted film, but some of it's exaggerated gore was what made this a stand-out for it's time.

The story is pretty basic, these kids travel up to a cabin in the woods for some R & R and instead open the gates to hell...or atleast they let out an evil, trapped by the infamous "necronomicon". Now each of their friends are turning one by one into demons and they have to figure out a way to send the evil back. You'll find this plot recycled in the sequel to this film (Evild Dead 2) which some consider more of a remake than a sequel.

For a student effort though it is quite the stand out piece, even if it is one of Raimi's first nights out. The effects shot at the end with the claymation deterioration of the demons is one of my personal favourites, as we see a huge hand burst out of the demons and kill them while puss floods from their bodies.

What's even more fun about this film is some of the over-the-top acting which sort of turns this into somewhat of a comedy later in the film, mixed in still with a serious tone. It was pretty shocking for it's time, a low-budgeter that had that word of mouth factor, besides where else are we going to see a tree rape a woman. I'm sure it's been done, but it was popularized here, which in itself makes this movie atleast worth a look see.

This movie is an amazing (and probably the most accurate/non-biased you are ever to find) account of the final days of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime. I must admit ever since my renewed interest in World War II, I've had a huge interest in learning about Adolf Hitler and the inner workings of the Nazis more on a curiosity of how their power was achieved when they are decried as the most brutal military regime in history. It was with this lingering curiosity that brought me to this film when I heard it was a different view, an unbiased and unapologetic take on Adolf Hitler's last ten days.

And while it does go into greater detail of those final days of Hitler and those who surround him in his bunker, it also details the disrepair of both Berlin and the German people, who are suffering greatly as the Russian Army closes in.

The depth and detail to this film is amazing as it shows the slow decay of the moral obligation to The Fuhrer as their situation becomes more and more hopeless and while those who had been loyal to him begin to drop off the radar.

The movie is supposed to be an account of Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary who we see get the job in 1942 in a bit of a prologue if you will. Junge is played by Alexandra Maria Lara who does a quite fine job expressing her concerns and fighting with her loyalty to The Fuhrer himself whom she has grown to look up to like the many people, soldiers and civilians alike who are drawn to the withered old man.

Bruno Ganz of course is the star of the show playing Hitler with something we've never seen from him....humanity. One of the brave things this movie does is actually show Hitler as a human being. We see him in moments of pure madness as when other Nazi's express their concern for civilian casualties, Hitler calmly responds with "this is the fate the German people have chosen for themselves" basically saying that civilians are a non-factor and not worth concerning themselves over. Then you see Ganz' Hitler warm up to those around him, actually showing some empathy towards their concern for his well being.

The film has been however highly criticized for it's inaccurate portrayal of some of the more reprehensible characters, such an example Dr. Schenke who is seen showing concern for civilians and trying his best to help those wounded and injured civilians, whereas in real life he participated in experimenting on prisoners in concentration camps. How truthful his portrayal in this film is but they are apparently taking some of their information from Schenke's personal memoirs which of course leads that person to paint their own version of history.

And there lies the quandary. This film leaves it up to the viewers to almost decide how badly we condemn Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Regime, which for alot of us the answer is unwavering. Let's not kid ourselves, the man caused great death and destruction and while the film doesn't deny it either, it barely makes mention of it and for those who might be easily influenced or watching this film with limited knowledge might be deadend to these facts that Hitler like his contemporaries was not someone to be admired but feared.

A final highlight and sadness of the film is the internal destruction of Germany itself. There is one thing that Hitler is actually right about in this film, the German people are to blame for their fate, reason being that they allowed Hitler's Nazi Regime rule Germany. It caused the destruction of their homes and their lives, much like it did with many other countries during World War II, and through the madness we see in the end a desire by Trauld Junge to carry on in the world without National Socialism and the little boy who in the beginning of the film we see recieve a medal from Hitler for his bravery, struggle to live despite the tragedies in his life and it leaves you with a beautiful message of life beyond war and new beginnings.

"Two in the box, ready to go, we be fast and they be slow!"

Always loved that line from Ghostbusters II probably one of my favourite sequels of all time.

Granted this movie doesn't have the icon status of the first but when you look at the film it's basically structured the same as it's predecessor and yet alot of people don't like it. Hmmm. Either way that winning formula is back again for Ghostbusters II.

Since last saving the city from Gozer, the Ghostbusters have gone out of business, infact we see Ray and Winston doing kids parties as the Ghostbusters to make some cash now that New York seems to be ghost free. Since everyone's moved on, Egon is now doing studies on negative emotions and Peter is now a Television Show Host (see I told you).

Either way, this starts off the same as the first, except that instead of a general disturbance, it involves Dana Barrett and her child (yes Sigourney returns, of course!) where her babies carriage goes for a ride on it's own after going into some slime. Dana gets the boys to investigate and BAM! We're back to bustin' ghosts! What they discover is a river of slime, one of the coolest things about the movie that I liked when I went to the theaters to see it.

Long story short, in digging a tunnel in the area where Dana's baby's carriage went berserk, they broke the law pretending to work for Con Ed (phone lines repair) and so they are taken to court. We get through most of the court scene and it seems like our heroes are going to be going to jail....however the Slime reacts negatively to bad vibes....so as the Judge, who doesn't believe in any of this "ghost business" gets angrier and angrier and then it happens.....the ooze causes two ghosts, to former fellons the Scoleri Brothers, who were put to the chair by the skeptic judge. About to go to jail, the Judge begs for them to get rid of the Ghosts and they protest by saying they couldn't possibly "expose" themselves by using their equipment. The judge recinds the order and the case is dismissed.

Next up is just that an orgasmic explosion of Proton Packing and Ghost Trapping as the Ghostbusters but two bad ass Ghosts which leads to my aformentioned line that begins the film (yes I realize I used the terms "orgasmic" and "package" in the same sentence to explain this scene, but I tells ya, this was the money shot for Ghostbusters II for me....even though I had to go to the bathroom real bad, I refused to leave during this scene and had to rush out real fast once it and the montage ended, keep in mind I was 8 and I couldn't miss The Ghostbusters in action).

So with the comedy, cast and director intact, how is that this movie doesn't get the same praise the first one does? It's basically the same movie repackaged slightly to make it different enough, but it still does everything right. Murray as Venkman is spot on as usually except maybe a little bit more subdued due to the fact that Dana's character has a son and he's trying not to come off less sleazy and more caring now that she has a child...which makes you wonder how he lost her in the first place.

There's also plenty of Ghost action, if not more in Ghostbusters II than the first. Stantz, Spengler & Zeddemore are fine as usual, this time all three provide that foil to the comic edge of Venkman. Plus I love the tunnel scene....."Wwwwwwiiiinnnnnnnssssstooonnnnnnn"

You see, what I love about these movies really is what I love about stuff from the 80's. The movies may not be so great by themselves but I know for a fact that atleast with Ghostbusters it reminds me of a time that was more innocent because of how old I was, how amazed I was that such a weird movie like this could exist and amazed by the effects, the laughs and the fun the movie brought. I couldn't blow anymore smoke up this movie's ass if I wanted to really...and while I realize again it's not as iconic, I'm of the opinion that it's just as good as the first and for a long time I liked it better but now I think they're about equal.

The second adaption of Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend" seems like it's the most camp version released. I still have to see The Last Man On Earth starring Vincent Price, but I tell you this movie is pure 1970's. That's both part of it's charm and probably for a lot of people a hinderence.

Made in 1971 The Omega Man looks very very dated in terms of it's action and acting. Some of the dialogue is badly dubbed in parts and even some of the acting is kind of funny. However with that said The Omega Man probably remains the most imitated and referred to out of all the adaptions of Matheson's book (this movie was even referenced on a Simpsons Halloween Episode).

In this version instead of vampires, those on the streets are the "infected". Men and Women affected by a viral plague that kills some of it's victims and turns the others into scarred nightwalkers who must be in total dark during the day. Pretty close to Vampires don't you think? Heck even those who change later tend to turn on their friends as if the plague somehow affects their rationale.

Heston plays it up as Neville, literally the last man in Los Angeles, fighting for his sanity with witty one liners to inanimate objects like a bust of Napoleon and himself to maintain his frayed sanity, answering the call of the damned plagued as they howl outside his home every night for 3 years, baying for his blood.

Neville was a military scientist before the plague and thusly created a vaccine for it. Sent personally to deliver the vaccine to the masses, the pilot carrying Neville becomes infected himself and they crash. After crashing, in an attempt to save his life Neville injects himself with the vaccine thus setting up years down the road where his blood becomes the antidote to the virus, as he is now immune to it.

If you're not a fan of a movie that plays up a 70's sense of style, music and action this movie really won't be for you. As stated it's a product of it's time and definitely an interesting watch for those who have become enamored with the story of "I Am Legend".

Resident Evil: Apocalypse much like the Resident Evil games, takes the idea of a zombie infested horror survival movie and expands upon it in terms of it's location. Now instead of an inclosed facility where the dead roam and T-Virus created creatures lurk, Raccoon City itself has broken out into one big quarantine zone. It follows the games nicely in that the next evolution for them was to go to the streets and that expanse was a natural next step.

I won't necessarily say that this helps make a better movie, maybe a more interesting one and definitely covering a bigger scope of action and a plethora of characters, the second installment of the Resident Evil series follows the same formula as the first, in some areas successful and in others not quite so much.

While I do admit to having a crush on Milla I can also say that thankfully the Resident Evil movies haven't turned into another "Ultraviolet" which was horrible. Granted alot of the movie does revolve around Alice and her coming to terms with being injected with the T-Virus however atleast with a big city comes more people and the cast expands to include Oded Fehr as Carlos Oliveria, Sienna Guillory as Jill Valentine, L.J. played surprisingly not that annoyingly by Mike Epps and the film even uses Nemesis, which as the story goes, was Matt Addison from the first movie, injected with the T-Virus and experimented on to create the Nemesis. For those who aren't in the know, Carlos, Jill and Nemesis are all from the game Resident Evil 3, so it was a step up in terms of trying to tie in the game to the movie, although in some respects it was done clumsily.

While the movie doesn't overstay it's welcome, it does tend to drag and plays on what the first had, suspense and horror/gore moments and high paced action. Everyone does okay in their roles but I guess we shouldn't expect anything shakespearian, that would probably ruin the move rather than help it.

So Raccoon City becomes quarantined with the Umbrella corporation doing the cornering in and Dr. Ashford who works for Umbrella is saved, his daughter who is beckoned out of Racoon City gets in an accident, so the doctor sets it up so that the few survivors left roaming the streets can band together and save his daughter. Friendships are formed, people die and we get a huge battle between Nemesis and Alice at the end. It's quite a solid film, nothing above average but hey if you enjoy action mixed with zombies and biological mutants, you'll be satisfied.

Wow, was 1993 the year for underrated movies or what? First Last Action Hero and then this! Though as a tip of the hat to this picture, people have seemed to warmed more to this movie than the former.

Initially hated because it didn't necessarily translate the game to the screen well and seemed foreign in alot of the concepts and ideas used to surround the movies, The Super Mario Bros. movie was the first major video game to get a movie adaption based on said game. In a way it set a trend as most video game movies, in which most aren't suitable substitutes for their game counter parts, but luckily there have been video game to movie adaptions that have worked and looking back on The Super Mario Bros. movie, in a lot of ways it does work and is harshly over-criticized.

It's biggest detractor is that it isn't a great visual representation of the game. I'll grant you that it isn't, but to be fair do you think they could faithfully pull off a live action film of a video game where the main characters side scroll across a screen jumping on mushroom and turtle type creatures? There are things I think they could have done for sure, like the use of different types of bricks (like the put put fire guy brick and the metal bricks) plus the fact that those in the other dimension are a different kind of human being, evolved from dinosaurs which was a cost effective way of having King Koopa not appear as a lizard until the end of the film and in disappointing fashion.

The plot and acting does suffer alot from the idiot pilot, in which everything is explained to it's viewer as not to confuse them and to keep them involved. I could see why this might be a little helpful but there is alot of stuff that just jumps from scene to scene without much dwelling or sense, though I could name tons of movies that do similar things but are still more loved. One more complaint would be that they don't wear the same garb as Mario and Luigi did in the game until much later in the film, which may seem like a minor quibble but you'd be surprised how important it is that your characters look the part to attain more enjoyment.

What this movie does have in buckets and one of the main components for it being one of my favs is that it has charm and is quite funny. Leguizamo for me is usually slight annoying but still funny but he seems more charming and likable in this film for some reason. The way he speaks is even unintentionally funny in this picture. He and Hoskins share some great lines in this film and it really is a fun "buddy" picture if you want to call it that, thrown in with some adventure.

The Super Mario Bros. has some great set designs and action thrown in there as Mario and Luigi traverse the city in search of Daisy and a way back home, and while as admitted the film does has it problems, you can't help but get behind these guys and their crazy adventure which doesn't let down at a brisk pace of an hour and 44 minutes. Unless you just don't like the story or it just hasn't appealed to you during your viewing, you'd find it hard to be bored with this picture a fun little jem that has been somewhat unfairly ostracized.

I accidentally wrote something in the text field for this movie.

This is probably the best Harry Potter movie out right now, which isn't saying much as each and every one of these films follows the exact same formula.

Harry goes to school, gets into trouble, discovers something and confronts Voldemort. Pretty through the numbers as far as story goes.

What makes this the best out of the Harry Potter films though is the fact that Voldemort is seen and portrayed (finally) as a malevolent creature that we've been lead to believe (the other films really didn't do Voldemort justice). We see the strong conflict and feelings brought out by Voldemort and the consequences brought out in facing him as someone perishes in this film, atleast making the threat of Harry's future somewhat more meaningful. A smart move to take this series from kiddie fluff to a more grown up serious adventure.....but only just slightly.

They did an alright job changing the series focus in the 5th Harry Potter film, but it was in full force here.

this is an absolutely beautiful film about the cycle of life and death, intertwined between two lovers (played by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz) set behind three different time periods.

What I enjoyed about this film was the fact that while some themes are clear, it's a very imaginative film which leaves it's viewer plenty of room to interpret the not so clear cut moments of the film.

I will admit though that I am only a so-so fan of Darren Aronofsky . I really didn't enjoy his first film PIE, and while I really liked Requim For A Dream and loved the way he shot the film, I for whatever reason could only watch the film once....and I own it.

The true connection between lovers and their multi-leveled relationship, giving for one another, reciprocating as one fades into death and inturn helps create and spur on life is a beautiful message. Some of the dome images around the "tree" are definitely some of the most beautiful stuff put to film, which with the storylines of the now and the past work wonderfully to follow the journey of our central characters.

If you're wondering why it seems like I'm stretching, it's has all to do with how big in scope and hard to put into words how beautiful a film it really is. It's one of the few I'd say you'd have to see for yourself to understand and appreciate.

Having just recently (this year) watched all of the Rocky pictures I have to wonder if there is anyone on this planet who couldn't get behind Rocky Balboa.

This story of a virtual unknown, who moonlights as a hustler for a loan shark, who gets his big break when then World Heavyweight Champion, Apollo Creed (played by Carl Weathers) picks him out of a book of local fighters because of his monicker "The Itallian Stallion". Rocky at first refuses, but he's too curious to find out of he has what it takes. Apollo believes that this will be nothing more than hyped exhibition match, but when Rocky gives Apollo that run, shouldn't be surprising to people who have heard of this film, he proves he has what it takes.

What's great about this film and in alot of ways the whole series, is the enduring characters. I don't know alot of people who could hate the character of Rocky Balboa, as he is in essence that "everyman" that the story portrays but Rocky actually cares. Rocky has a big heart. Heart is what takes Rocky through his journey, his desire to fight comes from that, but it's his connection to the people is what sets Rocky above, in my opinion as a character.

Plus this movie doesn't just rely on the boxing aspect to tell it's story, it plays upon the budding relationship of Rocky and Adrian, a girl Rocky fancies, but Adrian being too shy, somewhat shuns Rocky at first, until that is Rocky can get Adrian to trust him and be with him. Then as Rocky goes to fight the big fight, she's there for him and gives Rocky all the more reason to fight.

I myself am not a big fan of boxing or even boxing movies, another great one would be Ron Howard's "Cinderella Man" but I would honestly and truly say that Rocky is the "king" of the ring, in the movie business.

Finally FINALLY....I have this movie on DVD. From Beyond the 1986 classic from Stuart Gordon and featuring much of the same cast from Gordon's first Lovecraft flick "Re-Animator" re team for another Lovecraft story of death and sex by way of stimulation of the pineal gland.

Lovecraft's 7 page short story "From Beyond" is actually covered in the beginning of the film, where Dr. Pretorius is killed when turning on the Resonator. The Resonator stimulates the pineal gland which stimulates sexual desire but in this twist opens a door to another plain of pleasure and pain through the pineal. When Pretorius refuses to turn off the Resonator Crawford Tillinghast (played by Jeffrey Combs) has to escape the disaster as Pretorius is "taken" back with the creatures "From Beyond"!

Barbara Crampton's character who believes Tillinghast wants to go and see the Resonator and if it works. The bring along genre favourite "Ken Foree" as Bubba Brown, a police officer sent to escort Crampton and Comb's character back to the house.

This film is a wonderful treat in the horror genre in that it has a great mix of science (provided heavily by Lovecraft himself) and horror, which combines into a really smart but horrifying thrill ride. The effects on the Pretorius monster look great even by today's standards and the other creatures brought out by the Resonator look fantastic too. The gory effects are highlighted by our characters who desire to learn and expand their feelings beyond that of their ordinary pineal gland, which leads them to keep sending themselves into danger. When the resonator is turned on the lighting is great too, the pinkish lighting almost seems like a character in and of itself.

Another highlight from the film is Crampton's character in the bondage/fetish clothing. She looks really really sexy in the outfit and Gordon comments on the DVD that it's the most popular image from the film. Crampton actually tells a story on the DVD commentary about bringing home some people she'd been drinking (alot) with and them requesting to see that scene. It definitely is a highlight of the film...for us guys anyways :)

Anyways, can't say enough good things about Stuart Gordon's "From Beyond" his follow up to Re-Animator which would itself be followed up by the "okay-good" movie Dolls, which used alot of the same sets.

Watching "The Mask" again for the first time in what seems like a long time, now in a time where I find myself more "aware" of the nature of film, I can see how simplistic the story of this picture is but how absolutely it works.

The Mask couldn't be anything else but a CGI-abusing larger than life story which at times is pretty loose in the logic/story dept. However to be fair we aren't supposed to be swept away by it's acting or it's story. What this movie thrives on is using the extremely talented Jim Carrey and his "Rubberface" to bring the exuberant character to life.

This movie simply wouldn't work without the advent of special effects. When you think about what they did with it in 1994, when CGI was still very much in it's infancy in terms of how effectively it could be used, the larger than life Mask was a perfect test pilot to show how far we could exactly go with this new technology and not have to keep it within any real bounds of reality.

As a quick recap of the story, Stanley Ipkiss a down on his luck, hopeless romantic having the worst night of his life discovers a mask with which he learns later is that of the norse god of "mischief" Loki. When Stanley puts the mask on he becomes the wild and wacky out of this world "Mask" capable of feats no normal people could do. The Mask turns Stanley into what his heart desires, a Super-Confident Romantic Wildman! Of course Stanley runs into trouble with both the police and the mob with which a battle for the mask ensues.

While I would say the acting in this film is pretty basic, you wouldn't really expect anything stand out. Cameron Diaz (in her film debut) does well as the eye candy to loner Stanley. Carrey of course carries the picture both as the mild mannered Stanley and he really shines and is let loose as the Mask.

It's a real shame that Carrey doesn't like repeating roles. The one role he did choose to repeat actually turned out to be a great movie even though it was panned upon it's release, however the role I feel that let Carrey be his super funny man self was The Mask, a role he has unfortunately declined to play again, and thusly we were thrust upon us a really lackluster sequel starring Jamie Kennedy who isn't anywhere near the level of Carrey. It's a real shame and Carrey needs to step up to the plate and come back for another film. I'd hope "The Mask" but it's doubtful he'll ever return to any of his big three hits from '94 (this, Ace Ventura & Dumb and Dumber)

If you are a fan of films that adapt the works their based off with very little variation to the point that when you read the book the images in your minds eye suddenly remind you of the film, or when you see it for the first time, they capture the surroundings so perfectly that you from then on imagine what you saw in the film as the way the author describes things. This adaption of Stephen King's short story "The Mist" is such a film.

While sure, that doesn't necessarily make a movie a "work of art" it does show great care is taken to honor the book and it's story. However in the case of The Mist, you can't deny how well the theme of "the monsters outside vs. the monsters inside" is played out.

Not one viewer of this film, after such extended a time period could say they didn't want to see Mrs. Carmody die and while as we watch the film we can say that, those people inside do have in some ways, justifiable reasons to listen to Mrs. Carmody in so that The Mist itself does seem like some prophetic doom from God above himself, like characters caught in The Mist were being tested.

People will always disagree with one another about religion and when put in a situation like The Mist puts it's characters in, debates spring up about where The Mist even came from or even if it is infact as deadly as described. While what we are seeing in the film is the break down of the human characters in the film, The Mist itself becomes secondary.

That is to say it doesn't have it's fair share of story action. The creatures who come forth from The Mist are present but probably not as much as some would have hoped for. Also a small highlight for fans would be the work Nicotero and Berger did for the Special Effects of the film, again another wonderful blend of practical and the modern age of CGI helping to tell a grander story that definitely couldn't have been told to any justification on the big screen 27 years ago when The Mist first appeared as a short story in Stephen King's "Skeleton Crew" shorts collection.

The acting itself is fine, no breakout performances but definitely good enough for there not to feel like any overracting or disengenuos performances going on. Plus I'll warn you now, the ending of this movie is absolutely heartbreaking. Seriously, few movies have ever had me feel so disappointed, not with the film itself but left a lingering bitterness that you had to really feel for it's main character. It infact wasn't the ending that happened in the book, but King loved it so much he wished he'd actually written it in his book, and while I guess I disagree I can maybe understand it being a better ending than a non-ending.

Anyways, I really enjoyed this flick and if you were considering watching this, hopefully this review convinced you.