practiced_bravado Reviews

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Not too impressed with my first viewing. 2 1/2 stars out of 4.

[17 February 2008]

After reading so much about this cult classic, I was rather underwhelmed after watching the pic for the first time. I bought the Unrated Special Ed and viewed it last night. During my screening, I quickly thought of Gary Fleder's "Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead" which starred Andy Garcia, Chris Walken and Steve Buscemi. Both films are quirky, tongue-in-cheek gangster flicks and yet the former did not gain the cult following like Troy Duffy's violent, profane thriller did. I even found Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" to be a more enjoyable and accomplished film.

Yes, "Saints" does have style and a pulpy premise (twin brothers who want to rid the world of evil), but I was expecting a lot more in terms of execution. One of the disappointments for me came from the lack of watching the brothers go to work. Their murders are shown as flashbacks and I believe a wiser choice would've been to depict them in "real time". More suspense and visceral thrills would've been the result, at least I think.

In the end, I believe it lacks freshness. Not bad for a first time director, but Duffy is an ego-maniac that seriously killed his own career. So sadly, we won't see a second film from him that probably would've been even better. ** 1/2 stars out of ****.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004 Video Game)

A departure from the previous PS2 GTA games in terms of story and tone...

[12 September 2005]

is not the only the biggest GTA game ever, but it's also the best. It took me awhile to truly appreciate it. Whereas GTA III was a spoof of tough guy mob archetypes and GTA Vice City was a hilarious parody of 1985, San Andreas is a dark satiric view of California's ghetto lifestyle. Instead of capturing the feel of the decade like the way "Vice City" did so well, it tries to capture the diverse feel of the state of California. The story is much more serious and the missions you embark in "Los Santos" is all about living it up as a South Central gangsta. You go on drive-bys, house invasions, beat up drug pushers with bats, "tag" walls and recruit members to help take over other rival gang territories. Some of the missions in L.S. are classic GTA missions, but most involve gangsta/hood activity. However, once you hit the "Badlands", the countryside outside of Los Santos, things to start to lighten up a bit. "Badlands" missions are unique in which you're living up the criminal life in a rural environment, something the GTA series had never done. Once you're done with the country part of SA, you open up the chapter to "San Fierro", Rockstar's version of San Francisco. It's then when the game starts to feel like "Grand Theft Auto III" with its hills and Triad storyline which are similar to the Yakuza missions from GTA III. The "San Fierro" missions are part of the coolest chapter of the game. When you leave it, you're off to the desert. The desert is filled with abunch of unique missions, but then you're introduced to Ken Rosenberg from "Vice City" in "Las Venturas", Rockstar's name for Las Vegas. Now, it's not part of California, but what the hell, it's close enough. The replica of Las Vegas gives the sweetest sights "San Andreas" has to offer with all the mockery of Vegas'popular casinos and hotels all across the board. Mob characters from GTA III show up in this chapter with even a surprise visit to "Liberty City". After you're done establishing your empire, you go back to "Los Santos" to tie up loose ends and save your family and your friends. But this time, you're a much different character from when you first visited "Los Santos". You've gained businesses, territories, flashy clothes, pimped up cars, muscles, girlfriends, tattoos and skilled in the art of dual wielding firearms and fist fighting. You're also an expert driver, pilot and rider of bikes, bicycles and choppers. Respect and sex appeal are results of all your achievements. I liked VC's 80's epic soundtrack more than SA's, but overall, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the most involving of all the GTA games. I cannot see how Rockstar top this, but then again, I couldn't see how they could've topped "Vice City" and yet, they did!!

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

It has expertly crafted action sequences and grand digital design, but is overlong and lacks a soul. Grade: C Plus or B. Depends on your perspective.

[6/10 · 2 June 2005]

"Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" is one of those movies that disappoints you. It's not a bad movie, but not quite a good one either. It's just sort of in between. George Lucas' middle chapter of his prequel trilogy of the "Star Wars" saga is perhaps the least of the six movies. Oh, most people will say it's a much better film than "The Phantom Meance" and in away, it is. There is no annoying Jar Jar Binks or Jake Lloyd. The endless dialog scenes of "Phantom" are no longer evident and the movie is much more action-packed. However, I felt there was no tension or real excitement in the picture. The imagination and wonder of "Phantom" was seeing bizarre new worlds and strange new aliens, villains and heroes.

Midichlorians were introduced in "Phantom" and Darth Sidious and Darth Maul were intriguing baddies. The classic racepod sequence was truly exhilarating and for the first time ever we saw how badass Jedis really were in their prime existence. There was even a human element in it with the way Anakin is torn away from his home in order to be a great hero. Like Alec Guiness before him, Liam Neeson brought some needed class to the picture. And it was obviously a kick to hear Ewan McGregor speak in the exact same vocal tone of Guiness. Say what you want about the Gungans and the silly race announcers, but Lucas seemed inspired to bring a whole new "Star Wars" to life with fully computer generated characters. The quadruple simultaneous climactic battle was pure tension-filled brilliance at the end of the picture.

"Clones" is obviously better directed than "Phantom". What it lacks is the excitement and awe from the first film of the "new" trilogy. With the exception of McGregor, the acting is actually worse than what was seen in "The Phantom Menace". Peter Travers said "Clones" has cool gadgets and cooler villains and this is correct. I loved the chase sequence that starts the movie. I loved the sequence on Kamino when Jango Fett tangles with Obi-Wan Kenobi and the cat-and-mouse chase that ensues. The visuals are awesome, but lack the freshness of what had come before. I do appreciate the "Film Noir"-esquire approach Lucas gives to Obi-Wan's part of the story (which is a mystery clouded in rain and darkness), but the romance between Anakin and Padme is horrible with bad writing all across the board.

The sequence in which Anakin discovers his mother's fate and then turns bad feels a bit rushed. And although the action sequence in the droid-processing factory on Geonosis is technically competent, it's a little to video game-ish, in my opinion at least. George's need to do a "Gladiator"-type scene is worth watching. But, when the Jedis do come to the rescue of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan, the battle is abit underwhelming, I was expecting much more. The great Christopher Lee (best known as Sauron to all you LOTR fans) brings a classy screen presence as the villainous Count Dooku (a.k.a. Darth Tyrannus). When the movie seemed to come to a close, all hell breaks loose and it starts all over again as Yoda and the Clone Army come to shut down Dooku and his Seperatist Movement.

At this point, it seemed that the picture goes into overkill. Sure, it's a great visual scenario. Aircraft and ground troops and tanks fire missiles and laser blasts trying to annihilate one another as the Clone War begins(which was talked about first in "A New Hope). But something quite isn't there, which is a sense of urgency or tension. We sense that we're going through the motions of watching computer generated images wreak havoc (though it's done very well). The climax of "Clones" does conclude with a great lightsaber sequence between Dooku, Obi-Wan and Anakin (Dooku: "Master Kenobi, you disappoint me. Yoda holds you in such high-esteem. Surely you can do better!!") But, why, oh, why George!! Yoda!! Why??!!! John Williams' score is great, epic and sweeping. I love the movie, but I don't. It's very well made, yet lackluster when you consider that it is a "Star Wars" movie.

Overall, it's a great ride for those not expecting much, but disappointing for those expecting more. Die-hard "Star Wars" fans will love it, those who aren't will have mixed reactions. It's worth watching more than once.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Finally!! It took three tries, but Lucas finally gets it right with "Sith". This is a grand entertainment and the best film of the prequel trilogy. Grade: A Minus.

[9/10 · 19 May 2005]

"Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" IS the "Star Wars" movie every fan has been clamoring for since the original trilogy ended. With one swift stroke (sorry General Tarkin), Lucas redeems the "Star Wars" legacy by concluding the series on a very high and special note. This is a glorious swan song for the "Star Wars" saga and I applaud Mr. Lucas for finally being able to come through with an installment which will most likely be adored by all fans. In a way, I feel the movie is really a "rebirth" for the series since it will probably reinvigorate longtime fans. Demands for more of these films to be made will not come unheard of. In fact, wouldn't it be a great if "Star Wars" reclaimed it's crown of popularity by surpassing "The Matrix Reloaded"'s current record-breaking gross over the same weekend from two years ago?

George's new movie fires on all cylinders this time around. The picture is a non-stop imaginative action space opera spectacular. From the first frame to the last, it has a brooding dark intensity not seen since "The Empire Strikes Back". Peter Travers called Lucas a "dark fantasist" and it shows in "Sith". Anakin is no longer a whiny teenager, he's hardened a lot. There's no more long dialogue speeches and best of all, no more Jar Jar (did you read that? No more Jar Jar!!). Instead, Lucas concentrates all his efforts into depicting the downward spiral of Anakin's confused state-of-mind. His descent into darkness. In this episode, Senator Palpatine gets more screen time and actor Ian Mcdiarmad gets to chews up the scenery big time. He plays the Devil, the Father of Lies, who seduces Anakin into the Dark Side of the Force.

While epic space dogfights and lightsaber battles may not have the kind of excitement they used to. It doesn't detract from the experience of watching this latest chapter at all. In fact, I would have to say the action sequences in "Sith" are perhaps the best ever in the series. Darth Maul added some needed fire to the climactic lightsaber fight in the climax of "The Phantom Menace", but the saber sequences here far surpass it. John Williams' score is also a triumphant. Seeing Chewbacca for the first time since "Return of the Jedi" is a treat. I also loved the homages to cinema history (the nod to "Frankenstein" is obvious, but loving). Steven Spielberg said the picture contains the "payoff of payoffs" and for initiated faithful "Star Wars" fans, this means we finally get to see the saga come full circle.

We see the birth of Darth Vader as well as his twins Luke and Leia. I love how Lucas intercuts these scenes. We see both Life and Death being born simultaneously. We also get to witness the birth of the Galactic Republic and the death of the Jedi. The concluding shot is a love letter to the classic scene from the original "Star Wars" in which Luke looks out his home in Tatooine and watches the two suns set. Overall, "Sith" hits all the right notes in the hearts all of its fans. I was no more than 1/2 a year old when the first "Star Wars" was released. As a kid I grew up with watching the original trilogy and admiring it more than any adult could ever. Now, as an adult (28 and 1/2), I can see that "Sith" will be the first great "Star Wars" movie that kids of this generation will never forget. Thank you George for sending off this spectacular legacy with such a dynamic ending.

P.S. Like the James Bond series, "Star Wars" has always excelled in great, popular larger-than-life villains. With General Grevious, Lucas has created a fully computer generated masterpiece of a character. I expect the General to get his own following from fans, novelists and comic book writers alike.

Elektra (2005)

A special-effects extravaganza. It lacks story and character development, but is visually stunning with a surreal atmosphere and terrific action sequences. Thumbs up!

[14 January 2005]

I just saw the movie earlier today and liked it for what it was, a special-effects extravaganza. Directed by Rob Bowman of "The X-Files", "Elektra" is a movie not concerned with any kind of story or character development. It just places us in a comic-book world filled with ninjas, a group of super-powered freaks and a bad-ass heroine. She's the typical hit-man (or in this case, hitwoman), the kind with a conscience. Her targets are a widowed father and his young daughter. Of course, she can't bring herself to kill them and instead, decides to help them. What follows is essentially a long "cat-and-mouse" chase which the remainder of the movie consists of.

The action scenes are well-choreographed and surrealistic. When members of "The Hand" appear, they briefly tangle with Elektra before meeting their makers. As for the actors, Garner is sexy in her red leather garb and Terrence Stamp (General Zod in "Superman II") has a commanding presence as her blind old martial-arts mentor. "Elektra" is a slick, entertaining action film up there with 20th Century Fox's other Marvel Comic movies "Daredevil" and "X2: X-Men United". It may not be a masterpiece of film-making, but it is well-made and much better than the disaster that was "Blade: Trinity". I enjoyed it and anybody who is a fan of martial-arts, video games or comic books should enjoy it too. Thumbs up. (B Minus)

Strangeland (1998)

A sick low-budget horror film well worth seeing. I liked it.

[4/10 · 19 December 2004]

I first rented this movie on the infamous day of September 11, 2001. Since then I've seen it a number of times. My only complaint is that it's too short. "Strangeland" would've be a complete piece of horror art at two hours. As it stands, the running time is only an hour and a half.

Ex-Twisted Sister member Dee Snider wrote, produced and stars in this 1998 shockfest set in a small Colorado town. He plays Carleton Hendricks, a crazed sadist who has psychotic ideologies on human evolution and a love for near-death experiences. Hendricks is no pushover, he's a pumped up six-foot "modern primitive". Someone who has tattooed and pierced their body to the very extreme. When he makes his first full appearance in the film, it is a truly terrifying sight.

Hendricks' main hobby in life is to share his "spiritual awakenings" with his kidnapped victims. He visits Internet chatrooms under the name "Capt. Howdy" and then invites people over to his house. They believe they're going to a party. Instead, they find themselves in a house of pain and suffering. Hendricks sows their eyes and mouths shut and tortures them by sticking blades and hooks in numerous parts of their body. If it sounds sick, it's because it is.

One of Hendrick's victims is Genevieve, the teenaged daughter of detective Michael Gage. Gage not only manages to save her, but arrests Hendricks as well. Four years later, Hendricks is released from a mental institution completely rehabilitated to the disapproval of the community. A group of rednecks led by Freddy Krueger himself, actor Robert Englund, decide to kill him. They fail and Hendricks reverts back to his old self.

The rest of the film I'll leave to you, only to say the conclusion is satisfying and will leave you in shivers. With the exception of Snider, the acting isn't too good, but it's serviceable. The direction is okay, too. There are some humorous parts in "Strangeland" and they are very funny. I also loved the soundtrack, it's awesome and worth buying if you love rock. Overall, this is a movie worth watching. If you love low-budget horror films with a sense of humor, check it out. You'll probably like it.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

The darkest of the trilogy. "Temple of Doom" is a great action-adventure film unsuitable for younger children or the weak of heart. **** out of ****

[8 October 2004]

This prequel to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" may be a bit excessive in terms of gore and gross-out scenes, but it still is a great cinematic rollar-coaster ride. In fact, fans of the horror or supernatural genre would probably prefer this to "Raiders" because of its darkness. Critics found it too dark without an ounce of fun, but they are wrong. "Temple of Doom", while lacking the class of its predecessor, matches it when it comes to pure visceral thrills. Like "Raiders", not only does its inspiration come from the serials of the 30's and 40's, but from the James Bond films as well.

The opening pays homage to old Hollywood musicals and to Bond when Indy enters the scene in tux and all. He speaks to Chinese gangsters in their native tongue and then a masterful overextended action scene ensues. When all is said and done, Indy, his sidekick and love interest find themselves in India. A village has been destroyed by a centuries-old cult who want to rule the world. They ask Indy to rescue their children and a special stone that contains superpowers.

Of course, he goes along with the plan and finds himself in some scary places. The cult, lead by an evil priest named Mola Ram, offers human sacrifices to their demonic god, Kali-Ma. In the following intense scenes, Ram removes the heart of a victim, who then perishes in a lake of fire, all set to some creepy chanting. Indy is taken prisoner, tortured and then drinks the blood of the Kali. He becomes a "Thugee", a zombie-like member of the cult, for a short while. Miraculously, he is saved from the "black sleep" and decides to save the day.

The mine cart sequence is the most breathtaking set piece of the film. It is followed by our heroes outrunning gallons of overspilled water only to have to walk a long rope bridge. The climax finds Indy in a showdown with Mola Ram and his cult members on it. Overall, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is exhilarating entertainment. It may not be for everyone and may not be the great film that "Raiders" was, but it is a great action film on its own merits. Watch it and you'll see for yourself.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

This cornball sci-fi "B-movie" has a good look to it, but little else. * 1/2 out of ****.

[16 August 2004]

I went into "Alien Vs. Predator" knowing it would be a cheesy flick, but I was hoping it would be a good one, it's not. Helmed by "Resident Evil" director Paul W.S. Anderson, the picture starts out promising. When a satellite owned by robotics developer Charles Bishop Heyman detects heat beneath the ice of Antartica, people of various profession are recruited to inspect the mysterious findings.

Heyman (Lance Henriksen) meets the group and explains to them an ancient temple is the location of their expedition. He joins the group and together they search for fortune and glory. Unfortuantely for them, what they walk into is a centuries-old war between two alien species. It takes about 30 minutes before the action takes off in this 90 minute movie.

Unlike previous franchise efforts, "AVP" is lacking in blood and gore and is rated PG-13. That's kind of pointless since the hard-core fans are those who love that kind of thing. I went with this movie until the point when Heyman signs his own death warrant by yelling to a Predator, "Hey! Don't you turn your back on me!". It's silly and it only gets sillier as the movie goes on. As for the ending, don't get me started.

I guess the franchises are both truly done for. Congrads to director Anderson who continues to show how much of a hack he really is. I have know idea why Fox chose him to direct. I'm sure there's dozen of other first-timers that would've done much better jobs. Oh well. Grade: D Plus.

BloodRayne (2002 Video Game)

Move over Max Payne! "BloodRayne" has arrived! A bloody good time!

[16 August 2004]

It's been out for quite sometime, but I just played it and was impressed. It's a highly-kinetic action/horror game where you take the role of Agent Rayne, a female version of Marvel Comics' Blade. In fact, she's also part Indiana Jones and part Trinity of "The Matrix" fame. As a member of a secret organization known as Brimstone, your job is rid the world of supernatural threats. In this installment, Rayne fights off the Nazis aquire power from ancient artifacts and slimy infectious creatures.

Like "Dead to Rights", "BloodRayne" gives the player a number of ways to dispatch their enemies with. You can use a number of firearms in Slo-Mo or go into "rage" mode with the arm-attatched blades. Either way, you'll cause a bloody mess with enemy limbs getting severed. Rayne also has a spear reminiscent of Scorpion's from "Mortal Kombat". She can make huge leaps and jump on her foes to suck the blood from them until they die.

The story is nothing to write home about, but it's fine for this type of game. I also like the boss fights and the way a screen appears everytime you kill a high-ranking Nazi officer. "BloodRayne" is a lengthy action title with very few shortcomings. I'm sure the sequel will address them and improve on everything this game has to offer. If you're an action/horror fan, you must try "BloodRayne", it's a very solid title indeed. Grade: B

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001 Video Game)

"The Matrix" of video games.

[10 August 2004]

"Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty" is the best action game ever made. It's also one of the best video games of all time. Creator Hideo Kojima and his team have made the impossible possible. They have created a sequel that outdoes the original in almost every way imaginable. It is a masterpiece that redefines what a video game can be and will be the standard of this industry for years to come.

If there's one thing all players can agree on, it's that "Metal Gear Solid 2" excels in its cinematic presentation. Not only in the cutscenes, but in the gameplay itself. The graphics are an awesome sight to behold. It's been almost three years since the game first debuted in the U.S. and yet few other game releases have surpassed its visuals. They are detailed, lifelike and stunning.

Interaction with the game's enviroment is encouraged and so is the open-ended gameplay. The sky's the limit when it comes to your imagination and curiosity. You can move around in stealth and collect dogtags off soldiers or be a "Rambo"-type badass and just kill everybody in sight. Your choices determine what the game's experience will be. Be inventive and you'll realize how deep this title actually is.

The game is divided into two parts. A "prologue" takes place aboard an oil tanker just off of the coast of the New York Harbor and the "main story" is set on a cleanup plant. If "The Matrix" stunned with you the surprise twist, then "Metal Gear Solid 2" will have your head spinning way before the end. It's talky, but if you stick with it you'll feel like you survived the ultimate mind bender.

There are two action sequences that "Matrix" creators the Wachowski brothers would probably envy. One is an awesome gunfight involving high-tech ninjas and the other is the climactic fight you engage in with samurai swords. Not only does MGS 2 mess with your brain, it is also the very definition of cool action. "Metal Gear Solid 2" is definitely a 10 out of 10. An A Plus. It's gonna take alot to top this installment of Solid Snake's adventures.

I'm sure Hideo Kojima will be up to the task. His "Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater" will be released this November. Until then, if you have haven't played "Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty". Then what are you waiting for? Go and buy it now! **** out of ****.

The Order (2003)

What was Brian Helgeland thinking? Was he thinking at all? An awful, awful film.

[5 August 2004]

There are bad movies and then there are BAD movies. "The Order" is one of the latter. It's like a low-budget, straight-to-video release that makes you wonder how an Academy Award winning screenwriter could make such a film that thrives on its own badness. Released last September in the U.S., this genre outing by Brian Helgeland ("L.A. Confedential", "Mystic River") is about a so-called "sin eater", a centuries-old man cursed with the supernatural ability to devour a person's sins at their death bed.

The whole thing is like a horrible "X-Files" episode. Peter Weller plays a cardinal who goes to New York and enlists the help of a young priest to investigate the death of an old friend. Heath Ledger is the priest who eventually confronts the "sin eater" in Rome. He's joined by his best buddy (Mark Addy) and a love interest played by the beautiful Shannyn Sossamon. Together they try to find and stop the "sin eater" of his unholy ways.

The movie itself doesn't make alot of sense and is more of a thriller than a chiller. Like a B-movie, it claims to be a horror movie with its spooky overtones and yet ends up being a ridiculous, talky show with cheesy special-effects. This is the second "horror" movie I've seen this week that could've been an intriguing film in the "Exorcist"/"Omen" vein, but ended being an excercise in silliness (the first one was "Godsend").

Oh, by the way, there's also just a smudge of 1986's "Highlander" in all this mess. Maybe Helgeland should just stick to adapting great novels into great movies.

I, Robot (2004)

This big-budget film-noir/video game is a poor man's "Minority Report". It's alright, but far from the best. ** out of ****.

[24 July 2004]

"I, Robot", directed by Alex Proyas ("The Crow"), is a movie based on a classic novel by Issac Asimov. If it had been a literal translation, it could've been a fascinating story in the tradition of Steven Spielberg's "A.I. Artifical Intelligence" and the great Anime movie "Metropolis". Instead, the adaptation by screenwriter/producer Akiva Goldsmith (1997's "Lost in Space") mostly plays out like the typical action film.

Devoid of inventive ideas, this mystery thriller's most interesting aspect is the character of Sonny (voiced by Alan Tudyk). The only robot on earth accused of murder. Set in Chicago 2035, the movie stars Will Smith as a robot hating cop investigating the crime. He's joined by Bridget Monyahan, channeling Sandra Bullock from "Demolition Man". Smith's clothing and car seem to belong to the Tom Cruise's character from "Minority Report". In fact, the movie's whole look seems to derive from that classic Spielberg film.

"Minority Report" was the best sci-fi picture since "Dark City". It's ironic that Proyas, director of "Dark City", now seems to have been inspired by "Report". One of the problems I had with this picture are the robots themselves. They're tall and metallic, yet they defy gravity. They fly and jump around as they were as light as a feather. Why? Because the movie wants them to, no logical reason. The action scenes are the usual "Matrix"-like stuff. No suspense or excitement, just actors and special-effects going through the motions.

I suspect Smith felt envious of wife Jade for landing a job in the "Matrix" sequels and wanted to something similar. I think he's miscast in this role, yet he does manage to do something more than his usual "save the world" schtick. That was a bit of a surprise. Veteran actor James Cromwell ("L.A. Confedential") is the murdered creator of Sonny and Bruce Greenwood is the C.E.O. of a giant robot-creating company. Both actors are given limited screen time and do the best with what they have.

This is a movie that had potential to be a lot more than it is. It's not bad, yet it is. Watch it without expectation and you'll get a bearable, quasi-entertaining movie. Two stars out of four. "Minority Report" and "The Matrix Reloaded" are two better examples of this genre. I hope Proyas goes back to darker storytelling soon.

Van Helsing (2004)

This hokum is a fun-filled, action-packed, video game of a movie with spectacular special-effects and a lavish production design. Thumbs up. Grade: B

[19 July 2004]

"Van Helsing" is one of those movies that you either love or hate. Director Stephen Sommers' ("The Mummy") take on some of the classic Universal monsters works on the level of pure video game-driven hokum. The title character played by "X-Men" star Hugh Jackman, cloaked in black leather, is a youthful version of Dracula's arch-nemesis. His first name is no longer Abraham, it's Gabriel and he's more James Bond than exorcist.

Armed with a high-tech arsenal of weapons and gadgets, Van Helsing is a formidable foe for the most of the freaks he hunts. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Creature and Dracula all figure into a thin story that gets the job done. Hottie Kate Beckinsale plays the love interest of Van Helsing's and Richard Roxburgh is the Count himself. Unlike the "Mummy" movies, "Van Helsing" rarely takes time to develop character. It's pretty much a hyper-kinetic, non-stop action ride.

Music composer Jerry Goldsmith's score is bombastic and over-the-top, much like the picture itself. The film's opening scene, a virtuoso segment shot in b & w, pays homage to the classic Universal Monster movies. The climatic fight between Van Helsing and Dracula is pretty silly, but it's probably the only weak aspect of a film I mostly enjoyed. "Van Helsing" was mostly ravaged my critics, but if you're looking for a slick, state-of-the-art, yet dopey action movie. This film will most likely satisfy your thirst. It's great fun. *** out of ****

Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (2003 Video Game)

Beautiful graphics, a phenomenal musical score and amazing game play make this a worthy addition to the "Castlevania" series. Grade: B+

[14 July 2004]

In the fall of 2002, Konami revitalized the sagging "Contra" franchise with the superb PS2 game "Contra: Shattered Soldier". It has now done the same with the "Castlevania" series, which previous forays into the 3D realm were duds. Credit should really be given to the game's developer Koji Igarashi and composer Michiru Yamane; the duo responsible for the great PS1 "Castlvania" title "Symphony of the Night".

Those expecting a "Symphony" sequel will be a little disappointed. "Lament of Innocence" does not contain any of the heavy RPG elements found in that game. It's more of a sequel to the original NES title, although it's presumably a prequel to the entire series. The biggest triumph of the game is its presentation. This is an artistic achievement of sight and sound. Beautiful graphics, an amazing score and fantastic special effects fill this "Castlevania" adventure to the brim.

You the play the game as Leon Belmont, the first member of the Belmont family who picks up a whip to fight off their life-long nemesis, Dracula. The cut scenes which tell the story are of top-notch quality and perfectly dispersed throughout the game. "Lament" mainly consists of the same game play that is found in all "Castlevania" titles. It's just the most refined. As you progress, you gain attack moves, magical orbs and relics.

The orbs enhance your sub weapons and the relics gives you special powers. Some of the orbs are hidden and the others are acquired by defeating bosses. There are five main bosses before the final showdown. If you look hard enough, you can even face three others called Elementals, representing fire, ice and lightning. If you defeat them, you are given new whips. Some of the relics are hidden as well and to get them you need to find keys, which are scattered around the castle's rooms.

The castle itself is huge and takes a bit of time to master 100 percent. On your first play through, it should take about 8 or 9 hours to beat. To get through it all, should take about 12. One of the game's weaknesses is that your huge arsenal isn't really necessary for the average length. There are no multiple endings or anything that really encourages a second play through for a 100 percent completion. But if you are a die-hard fan of action and exploration, you'll want to savor every minute this game has to offer.

I'd give "Castlevania: Lament of Innocence" *** out of **** or grade it with a B+. It's an extremely enjoyable adventure title that is a must play. Thumbs up.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

The best superhero movie ever made. "Spider-Man 2" truly joins the ranks of "Star Wars", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Superman" as being one of the great action fant

[11 July 2004]

I haven't been enthralled by a movie this much since the original "Star Wars". "Spider-Man 2" is such an improvement over the first one, you'd be surprised to learn that it was directed by the same man. That man, Sam Raimi, helmer of the cult films "Darkman" and the "Evil Dead" trilogy, has done a tremendous job with this sequel. It's as if he looked over the first film and then said to himself, "I know I can do a much, much better job".

The first "Spider-Man" was colorful, cartoony and campy. It worked by being a fun film, but it wasn't a great movie. I gave it a B minus, I enjoyed it, but felt it could've been better. "Spider-Man 2" is the movie I wanted the original to be. It's a great picture and is up there with 1978's "Superman" as being the best comic book movie ever made. I'd go so far as to say it's an even better film. Why? Because it has a great villain and the love story isn't so romantically mushy.

When I first saw the trailer to "Spider-Man 2", I wasn't so thrilled. I figured it was going to be more of the same. After all, the original made over 400 million dollars and there was no way Raimi was going to change the formula. Boy, am I glad I was wrong. Sam the man got rid of the camp, the cartoony-looking CGI and the bad Green Goblin costume. The sequel is more serious-minded, the computer effects are convincing and the bad guy looks like he jumped out the comic book. Everything that was weak about the first movie, Raimi threw out the window and improved upon. He definitely did his homework.

I felt the first film payed too much homage to Richard Donner's tale of The Man of Steel. It even had a scene which hearkened back to Neo's last confrontation with Agent Smith at the end of the first "Matrix" picture. Tim Burton's "Batman" also sprang to mind. "Spider-Man 2" is a complete original, it's very much its own movie. I won't delve into the picture's plot, but will say the actors are pitch-perfect in their roles. The movie perfectly balances top-notch action sequences with scenes of story and heart.

So far, it's one of the year's best movies. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert voted it the best movie of 2004. I know I probably will. It joins Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" and "Vanilla Sky" as being one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a great picture, I'd give it a very big thumbs up. See it! Grade: A

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A slick, intriguing and slightly trashy sci-fi spectacle that is really incomparable to the first. While not as fresh or innovative, on its own merits, "Reloaded" is the best of its kind since &quo

[10 July 2004]

This is my second review of the picture. On my first one I was very critical, but here I'll give it praise.

First of all, is this follow-up as good as the original? In a way, yes. I'll say this, it's a very different movie. "The Matrix" was a self-contained story about the discovery of a superhero. "The Matrix Reloaded" is the first half of a two-part story, the salvation of humanity. It's a setup for the trilogy's conclusion, "The Matrix Revolutions", and isn't a watershed movie like the first one was.

Like "The Phantom Meance", "Reloaded" is a very talky film and takes awhile before it seems to move. But when it does, it gets really good. Most of the original cast is back, but their roles have changed a bit. Neo, so confident at the of the first film, is lost at the beginning of this one. He's not sure of himself, although his powers have begun to grow immensely.

Morpheus is no longer a mentor, he's more of a prophet this time around. Trinity's role has been reduced from kick-ass warrior woman to the more traditional love interest. Agent Smith is no longer an agent of the system, but he still holds a grudge against Neo and can clone himself at will. Interesting new characters are introduced, but aren't given much screen time.

"Bullet-Time" and the kung-fu, although not as cool as they once were, are an improvement over the original's. Action is not in short supply in this movie, there are a number of scenes that dazzle. The extended highway chase scene is the highlight of the film, but there's also two great martial-art scenes displaying Neo kick major behind. The dialogue may be head scratching, but for the truly devoted, at least it'll prove to be thought-provoking.

The climax is actually anti-climactic, a cliffhanger done in the style of a two-part TV episode. It's sudden, but if you've allowed yourself to be taken by the movie, you'll be dying to see the next part. There's some tacky sex stuff, but it shouldn't distract your attention that badly. Overall, this a state-of-the-art, Anime-inspired, sci-fi mix of pseudo-philosophy, kung-fu, video games and comic books.

Initially, I was very disappointed by this movie. I wanted it to be another groundbreaking film with fluid storytelling. "Reloaded" doesn't have a mind-blowing revelation like the original. It does, however, have a nice twist toward the end. Overall, it's mainly good stuff that towers over crap like "Charlie Angels: Full Throttle" and "Bulletproof Monk".

It's not a great picture, but it is pretty good. I'd give it an enthusiastic thumbs up. *** 1/2 out of ****.

Daredevil (2003)

It's like a darker, more violent version of "Spider-Man". Grade: B

[7 July 2004]

That's why I think most critics hated this thing. It's not lighthearted fun like "Spider-Man" was, it's more adult-themed. I actually found it a bit more effective than Sam Raimi's superhero epic. Why? Because it wasn't campy and it didn't have cartoony special effects. The CGI in "Daredevil" is more photorealistic. I also loved the "Matrix"-like martial-arts incorporated throughout the film.

In fact, as far as darker-themed comic book movies go, I think "Daredevil" is a much better film than either of the first two "Batman" pictures were. I recently watched "Spider-Man" again on DVD and I've always had mixed reactions of it. I do think it works on the level of campy fun and for that I gave it a B Minus. But I think "Daredevil" is a more solid picture and I'd grade it with a B.

I like the look of the film, the washed-out colors make the movie look very 70's in certain scenes. Like "The Crow", the movie has an MTV mentality with rock and rap songs, but also has a love story as well. The sound design is awesome, if you have a good theatre sound system, "Daredevil" will take full advantage of it. I don't think Ben Affleck got credit when it was deserved. Along with Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan, Affleck was perfect cast.

Anyhow, as much as I believe "Daredevil" is a much better film than "Spider-Man" was. I actually think "Spider-Man 2" is better than "Daredevil". The best comic book movie ever placed on film. It shows that a director can really improve on his work. I highly recommend that film to anyone. Well, the bottom line is: "Spider-Man" (B-), "Daredevil" (B) and "Spider-Man 2" (A). I hope you enjoyed my review.

Spider-Man (2002)

Cartoony, colorful and campy. Entertaining? Sure. Original? Not especially. ** 1/2 out of ****

[6 July 2004]

"Spider-Man" is a movie that comes so close to working, it saddens me I cannot recommend it to die-hard fans of the comic book. Movie fans will enjoy it, but true fans of the character will probably be a little disappointed.

Why you ask? Because it borrows heavily from two other previous superhero movies. "Spider-Man" is like a cross between 1978's "Superman" and 1989's "Batman". Therefore, it's partly devoid of a personality of its own. The identity it does manage to muster out consists of a campy feel and cartoony special effects.

Sometimes Spiderman and the Green Goblin seem more like computer generated cartoons than the actors who play them. It also doesn't help that the Goblin's costume looks like something of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers TV show. However, Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe are very good as Peter Parker and Norman Osborn. And so is James Franco as Harry and Kirsten Dunst as his girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson.

The movie is well done and it's entertaining to be sure, but it's lacking a serious edge and feel. Something I think a comic book movie should have. This is a fun movie in that Saturday Matinee erial kind of way, but it could've been better. Thank goodness director Sam Raimi learned the error of his ways and had taken it's sequel in a totally differnt (a.k.a. more serious) direction.

"Spider-Man 2" is a massive improvement over the original and is the best superhero movie ever made. It takes everything wrong about the first film and places it on top of its own head. Like "X-Men 2", the sequel to "Spider-Man" is what I really wanted the first film to be. A great picture. I will, however, shower it in acclaim in its own review.

The original "Spider-Man" works in a goofy sort of way. I somewhat liked it, but not as much as I love it's sequel. Regardless, this is a movie that most will like. Thumbs up, sort of.

Spider-Man (2002)

Cartoony, colorful and campy. Entertaining? Sure. Original? Not especially. ** 1/2 out of ****

[6 July 2004]

"Spider-Man" is a movie that comes so close to working, it saddens me I cannot recommend it to die-hard fans of the comic book. Movie fans will enjoy it, but true fans of the character will probably be a little disappointed.

Why you ask? Because it borrows heavily from two other previous superhero movies. "Spider-Man" is like a cross between 1978's "Superman" and 1989's "Batman". Therefore, it's partly devoid of a personality of its own. The identity it does manage to muster out consists of a campy feel and cartoony special effects.

Sometimes Spiderman and the Green Goblin seem more like computer generated cartoons than the actors who play them. It also doesn't help that the Goblin's costume looks like something of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers TV show. However, Tobey Magiure and Willem Dafoe are very good as Peter Parker and Norman Osborn. And so is James Franco as Harry and Kirsten Dunst as his girlfriend Mary Jane Watson.

The movie is well done and it's entertaining to be sure, but it's lacking a serious edge and feel. Something I think a comic book movie should have. This is a fun movie in that Saturday Matinee Serial kind of way, but it could've been better. Thank goodness director Sam Raimi learned the error of his ways and had taken it's sequel in a totally differnt (a.k.a. more serious) direction.

"Spider-Man 2" is a massive improvement over the original and is the best superhero movie ever made. It takes everything wrong about the first film and places it on top of its own head. Like "X-Men 2", the sequel to "Spider-Man" is what I really wanted the first film to be. A great picture. I'll will, however, shower it in acclaim in its own review.

The original "Spider-Man" works in a goofy sort of way. I somewhat liked it, but not as much as I love it's sequel. Regardless, this is a movie that most will like. Thumbs up, sort of.

Starsky & Hutch (2004)

"Starsky & Hutch" is a lot of fun, a good time at the movies. Grade: B

[25 June 2004]

I was born in 1976, just a year after the original "Starsky and Hutch" television series debuted. As a child of the 80's, I have some distant memories of watching old re-runs of the show. Obviously, it was the supercharged red-and-white Ford Gran Torino that drew me in and countless of other fans.

Well, we finally have "Starsky & Hutch", a comedy based on that old show. And it's a good one. It's not a perfect one, mind you, and it's not even a great one. The jokes are more hit-and-miss than anything else. But, if you put yourself in the right mood, it will put more than a smile on your face. It'll make you laugh.

Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson are perfectly cast as Dave Starsky and Ken 'Hutch' Hutchinson, two Bay City cops who are the outcasts of their own police department. Their investigation of a murder leads to Reese Feldman (Vince Vaughn), a drug dealer who has a form of cocaine that cannot be picked up by police dogs.

The movie is set in the seventies and has a great time spoofing the era. Snoop Dogg plays Huggy Bear, an informant of Hutch, a character who seems to pay homage to "Superfly". In fact, Fred Williamson, star of those old exploitation films is cast as Starsky and Hutch's boss, Captain Dobey. There are also funny references to the classic movies "Easy Rider" and "Saturday Night Fever".

Juliette Lewis, Carmen Electra, Amy Smart and Will Ferrell all cameo and add to the fun. I loved the soundtrack, a terrific sound of 70's rock. Director Todd Phillips has done an admirable job of adapting the serious TV show into a funny comedy. Fans of "There's Something About Mary" and Wilson's "Shanghai" films should enjoy it.

*** out of **** (Good)

Harsh Realm: Pilot (1999) Season 1, Episode 1

From the creator of "The X-Files". One of the silliest television shows ever made.

[25 June 2004]

In the fall of 1999, Chris Carter's "Harsh Realm" debuted on the Fox Network to some of the lowest ratings ever for a premiere. Taking over the slot vacated by the cancelled "Millennium", it was an adaption of an obscure sci-fi comic book. The comic had dealt with "pocket universes", but Carter's show dumped its characters and used the concept of virtual reality to tell stories.

Unfortunately, "The Matrix" had been released earlier in the year and this show probably looked like some kind of bad rip-off to the public. It played out like a cross between that landmark film and Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now". As you would guess, the mix just didn't work. It was pretty cheesy.

In fact, during it's short three episode run, "Harsh Realm" dealt with the idea of fate and it had, believe it or not, a "savior" for those stuck inside the VR. Actress Samantha Morton had the misfortune of saying the line "You're The One!" near the end of the pilot episode. It was funny, something I don't think the show wanted to be.

After "The Matrix", Carter's new show was too little, too late and was doomed from the start. Even if "The Matrix" hadn't come out, this show still probably wouldn't have succeeded. It was just plain bad. It needed to be a movie because the limited budget of TV was not enough to bring out the vision this concept really needed.

Oh, well. We all make mistakes. Mr. Carter, I forgive you.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Remakes of great movies are unnecessary, but this is a solid one.

[16 June 2004]

The original "Dawn of the Dead" was a masterpiece, one of the greatest horror movies of all time. This remake of "Dawn" is not as good, but how could it ever be? I'm not familiar with director Zack Snyder, but no doubt he did his homework on 70's horror films and studied the Romero picture countless of times.

The saturated colors, camera speeds and bloody violence pay homage to those movies. There's also a rather inspired use of Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" during the opening title sequence. Like the original film, a number of survivors find a safe haven in a huge shopping mall. They have their fun in it, but soon it becomes clear to leave the party behind.

There's a nasty sequence involving a pregnant zombie woman. The scene in which a survivor uses a sniper rifle to blow the heads off the undead is demented. And the climax in which the living attempt to escape in armored buses works well. In fact, the picture is a good exercise in style, visceral thrills, horror and pacing. Zombies don't just drag their feet and groan in this remake, they run in record speed.

As mentioned before, it's not a masterpiece, but this is a good horror movie for the MTV audience. Once the action gets going, it's fast-paced and intense. Grade: B

P.S. Why Universal Studios would release this film and yet axe the equally bloody "House of 1000 Corpses" from their lineup is far beyond me.

Millennium (I) (1996–1999)

My favorite televison series. Season 1 was great, Season 2 was very good and Season 3 was, well, alright. Still, this is one of best television shows ever made.

[16 June 2004]

"Millennium", the second TV series from "X-Files" creator Chris Carter, was one of the best. A bit darker, more intense, violent and adult in content than "X", "Millennium" garnered great reviews and a huge premiere in late October of 1996. Similar to David Fincher's "Seven" and Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs" in terms of look, tone and feel. It was apparent Chris Carter's new show, although cinematic and stylish, was too gloomy for the average TV viewer.

The show did have a little in common with "The X-Files". It had a great great visual atmosphere, the police procedural way of storytelling and scary stories. But the monsters of this show were serial killers. And while "Seven" had been the number one movie for about a month in the U.S. This is a subject that TV audiences did not want to watch week after week in the comfort of their own living room.

The main charcter, Frank Black, played by genre veteran Lance Henrikensen, seemed too dour, he never cracked a smile and the show seemed to take itself too seriously. Sure, it had more character and felt more real than "The X-Files", but Mulder and Scully's adventures were more enjoyable and more elastic. You never felt like were watching the same episode over and over again. Plus, it had a story arc.

Every TV show needs a story or character arc in order to draw the audience in. "Millennium" did have one, it just wasn't apparent, when it eventually did seem to come out, the season was close to ending. The basic premise is this: Ex-FBI profiler Frank Black has just moved into Seattle with his family to start a new life. He's been hired as consultant to the Millennium Group, a shadowy organization made up of ex-law enforcement types committed to stop heinous killers.

The Millennium Group believe we are living in the end times and there is some kind of connection to all these random crimes, EVIL is manifesting on earth. What their intentions are, besides to try to put a containment on it, is unknown to Frank. He bonds with Peter Watts, played by Terry O' Quinn, a member of the Group and the two became partners "Mulder and Scully"-style for most of the show.

Season 1 did seem to go nowhere for awhile, but the introduction of angels, devils and the Anti-Christ made it intriguing late in the game. In Season 2, new producers made the Millennium Group the bad guys and the show more lighter, elastic and fantasy-like. Season 3 mixed Season 1 with Season 2 and the result was interesting, but unbalanced. Regardless, I will be gettting all on DVD. Thanks Fox, you finally came through.

Now scratch out the idea of making a second "X-Files" feature film and do a "Millennium" movie.

The Street Fighter (1974)

One of the worst movies of all time. It certainly is the worst kung-fu film ever made. I absolutely hated it.

[12 June 2004]

As a critic and movie lover, I have sat through some pretty dreadful stuff in my time. I had never walked out of a film before it ended until I saw..."The Street Fighter". This movie is pure 1970's garbage. It stars Sonny Chiba as a kung-fu assassin so ugly that am surprised his looks did not do the killing instead of his tepid martial-arts.

He looks like a monkey as he gathers his "chi" before attacking. In fact, if I was in his way, I wouldn't be so afraid of his kung-fu as much I would be scared of his face. Thankfully, Chiba's looks have gotten better with age. If you saw him in Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill", you'd be surprised to learn that it was the same man who starred in these awful, awful films.

He plays Terry Tsuguri, the "hero" of the picture, whose only loyalty is to himself. We've seen these guys before in endless films, the anti-hero, usually a loner who disgusts every character in the film. Yet we, the audience, still want to see them to succeed regardless of their ways. Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken is the ultimate anti-hero badass and I can even see Vin Diesel's Richard B. Riddick being his successor. But Tsuguri is an "anti-hero" who even disgusted me.

I wanted somebody to put a bullet between his eyes halfway through the movie. When nobody did, I stopped watching it. It's not really a martial-arts flick, it's more of an exploitation "shocker" with gruesome, bloody deaths that was the norm in the 1970's drive-in theatres. Wes Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes" and Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" were some of the more popular of these films.

Those are works that can be appreciated as horror movies, even I enjoyed them. I do not know anybody who's a martial-arts fan that would actually enjoy "The Street Fighter. Any movie where the "hero" forces himself sexually on women should burned to the stake. I mean that with all my heart. This is a work of those who's brains need to be checked into a mental institution. An awful, sick, flick with no redeeming value whatsoever. NO STARS OUT OF FOUR.

Enter the Matrix (2003 Video Game)

A mediocre action game that is a must have for every die-hard "Matrix" fan. 5 out of 10.

[9 June 2004]

"Enter the Matrix" is an interesting exercise, it's the latest attempt to merge video games and movies closer together by linking them to one story. Unfortunately, the video game part takes backseat to the story aspect. This title takes place between the CGI animated short "Final Flight of the Osiris" and "The Matrix Reloaded".

It's basically a back story for the two minor characters who are featured in "Reloaded" played by Jada Pinkett Smith and Anthony Wong. The game, at its heart, is a typical third-person shooter. You basically run around and shoot at anyone with a number of firearms and weapons. You also have the ability to "focus" and manipulate the Matrix like Neo, Trinity and Morpheus do in the films.

The levels are mindless entertainment, they do not require much from the player other than to press a few buttons to fight and move. You can either play as Niobe (Pinkett-Smith) or Ghost (Wong), but the stages are the mostly the same with a different perspective. I did like the element of "hacking" into the Matrix, which is based on the old DOS system.

With this, you can unlock a number of features, cheats and mini-games. In fact, I enjoyed this more than I did the game itself, which also includes some tepid "rail" sequences which brought back memories of some appalling Sega CD FMV games. The Wachowski brothers, the brains behind "The Matrix", are avid gamers and big time "Halo" fans.

It's disappointing their first venture into interactive entertainment is such a mediocre affair. Some "Matrix" fans would say the same thing about the two highly anticipated 2003 sequels. Maybe juggling the production of the movies, comic books, video game and animated shorts were just too much to tell one huge story with.

Perhaps the brothers should've just concentrated on the sequels and forgotten the back stories and mythologies. Oh well, there's always "The Matrix Online".

** out of ****