Reviews Written By: A1FMJJKSVQDDQprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | Pearl Harbor | |
 | "You actually call THIS a "war film?"" | 2009-11-19 |
| You know, I can think of other film directors besides Michael Bay who could have done a much better job of filming Pearl Harbor, a film that had lots of potential before it was turned into an overproduced train wreck. Let's see, there's Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, Terrance Malick, heck, even Stephen Spielberg! But what did Touchstone do? Accept a horrible script and hire Michael Bay (of all people!) to direct a romantic film that just happens to be set before, during, and after the notorious attack of Pearl Harbor. To be honest, I don't completely hate Bay. He has created two great action films: The Rock and Bad Boys II (the former being slightly more realistic than the latter). But to have him do a historical film like this? Something toxic must have been in the producers' coffee, because what we get is something that's uneven and unconvincing. This is basically a love story that's mixed with a major historical event, and we've seen that sort of film before, haven't we? *cough* Titanic *cough*
The only good things about this film are the special effects, the action, and the drama during the actual attack on the harbor. The rest of the film is nothing but an embarrassment. The actors' talents have been wasted because of a script that's filled with silly dialogue and cliched scenarios. The film itself is too darn long: even if it is supposed to be a war epic, it certainly doesn't feel like a war film at all. But I think the worst thing about this movie is the fact that they just happened to insert a romantic plot, a love triangle that has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor itself. The film would have worked better if it was a coming-of-age story, or a political thriller. But no, we have uninteresting characters falling in love with each other, and all of it is just painful to sit through. It's more of a soap opera, at least to me. Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, Josh Hartnett, Alex Baldwin, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, and Cuba Gooding Jr. are all very good actors. It's too bad, however, that they had to appear in this wasted opportunity of a war epic. I don't know about you, but all of the men and women who have lost their lives on December 7th, 1941, deserve a more provocative film about that dreadful day. The brilliant special effects and the intense action sequences really cannot make up for the inappropriate romance, the dull characters, the unbelievably bad script, and the obvious cliches that take control of this movie. I think I should check out Tora! Tora! Tora! very soon. Grade: D- | ||
 | Pearl Harbor | |
| "You actually call THIS a "war film?"" | 2009-11-19 |
| You know, I can think of other film directors besides Michael Bay who could have done a much better job of filming Pearl Harbor, a film that had lots of potential before it was turned into an overproduced train wreck. Let's see, there's Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, Terrance Malick, heck, even Stephen Spielberg! But what did Touchstone do? Accept a horrible script and hire Michael Bay (of all people!) to direct a romantic film that just happens to be set before, during, and after the notorious attack of Pearl Harbor. To be honest, I don't completely hate Bay. He has created two great action films: The Rock and Bad Boys II (the former being slightly more realistic than the latter). But to have him do a historical film like this? Something toxic must have been in the producers' coffee, because what we get is something that's uneven and unconvincing. This is basically a love story that's mixed with a major historical event, and we've seen that sort of film before, haven't we? *cough* Titanic *cough*
The only good things about this film are the special effects, the action, and the drama during the actual attack on the harbor. The rest of the film is nothing but an embarrassment. The actors' talents have been wasted because of a script that's filled with silly dialogue and cliched scenarios. The film itself is too darn long: even if it is supposed to be a war epic, it certainly doesn't feel like a war film at all. But I think the worst thing about this movie is the fact that they just happened to insert a romantic plot, a love triangle that has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor itself. The film would have worked better if it was a coming-of-age story, or a political thriller. But no, we have uninteresting characters falling in love with each other, and all of it is just painful to sit through. It's more of a soap opera, at least to me. Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, Josh Hartnett, Alex Baldwin, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, and Cuba Gooding Jr. are all very good actors. It's too bad, however, that they had to appear in this wasted opportunity of a war epic. I don't know about you, but all of the men and women who have lost their lives on December 7th, 1941, deserve a more provocative film about that dreadful day. The brilliant special effects and the intense action sequences really cannot make up for the inappropriate romance, the dull characters, the unbelievably bad script, and the obvious cliches that take control of this movie. I think I should check out Tora! Tora! Tora! very soon. Grade: D- | ||
 | Mulan (Special Edition) | |
 | "Was all that humor necessary?" | 2009-11-14 |
| Disney could have done a great job with this adaptation of a Chinese folk tale. But unfortunately, they just had to ruin it with some comedy. Now, I'm not saying that this automatically makes the film a complete failure. The animation is top-notch, with some beautiful scenery and a powerful action sequence. The drama really adds to the tension in some scenes. The music from Jerry Goldsmith is also a treat. But what really makes this a mediocre Disney film is the unnecessary comedy. Disney could have made this one of its more outstanding animated films, if it weren't for all that humor. Instead of it being a serious epic like Princess Mononoke, Mulan is more of an uneven display of drama and slapstick. All of this funny stuff is very out of place for such a powerful folk tale. Couldn't they have taken Mushu more seriously? Plus, the songs are very forgettable. "A Girl Worth Fighting For" and "I'll Make a Man Out of You" aren't in the same level as "Be Our Guest" and "I Just Can't Wait to be King." There are no memorable melodies and no decent lyrics, though "Reflection" is a slightly up there.
So Mulan is basically a mixed bag. The stunning animation and the apparent drama are what's good about it. The unnecessary comedy and underwhelming songs are what's bad about it. It's too bad, really. This project had some big potential, but they just had to turn it into an adequate animated film. Grade: C | ||
 | The Excorcist: 25th Anniversary edition | |
 | "Try sleeping at night after watching this . . ." | 2009-10-31 |
| It's really hard to name every single horror film that's ever been made. Many deal with zombies, ghosts, serial killers, classic monsters like Frankenstein, and mutated species. Some are classic, others are mediocre, and several are ridiculous and dull. Out of all of them, only a few have been recognized as the greatest in the genre. The Exorcist, Psycho, and The Shining have been rightfully praised for the terrors that they have conveyed. Dozens of others have never topped them ever since they were released. While my favorite horror film of all time is actually The Shining, I can perfectly understand why The Exorcist is considered the best. First of all, is has an unusual storyline (back in the 70's, at least). Instead of ghosts or zombies or werewolves, it's demon possession. The body of a young girl is being controlled by a spirit from Hell. With every medical analysis being inconclusive, the mother has one last chance of bringing her daughter back. She brings in Father Karras, who has a crisis of faith, and Father Merrin, who has seen this sort of prediction when he visited Iraq.
So why is it that this is considered the scariest movie of all time. Well, the shock effects may be outdated to some, but it's the eerie atmosphere and the thought of being possessed that makes it truly horrifying. The silent, quick shots of the infamous "Captain Howdy" are also an addition to this ghoulish nightmare. You don't need loud and abrupt music or hardcore gore, all you need here is a creepy environment, a slow pace, and some fiendish dialogue from Regan/the demon. Mind you, there are some great modern horror films (such as Rec, The Evil Dead series, and the original Thai version of Shutter), but The Exorcist, The Shining, and Psycho are in top form when it comes to scaring the s*** out of you. The Exorcist, especially, is one that is truly scary because of its controversial subject matter. The finest, no doubt. Grade: A+ | ||
 | The Exorcist (25th Anniversary Special Edition) | |
| "Try sleeping at night after watching this . . ." | 2009-10-31 |
| It's really hard to name every single horror film that's ever been made. Many deal with zombies, ghosts, serial killers, classic monsters like Frankenstein, and mutated species. Some are classic, others are mediocre, and several are ridiculous and dull. Out of all of them, only a few have been recognized as the greatest in the genre. The Exorcist, Psycho, and The Shining have been rightfully praised for the terrors that they have conveyed. Dozens of others have never topped them ever since they were released. While my favorite horror film of all time is actually The Shining, I can perfectly understand why The Exorcist is considered the best. First of all, is has an unusual storyline (back in the 70's, at least). Instead of ghosts or zombies or werewolves, it's demon possession. The body of a young girl is being controlled by a spirit from Hell. With every medical analysis being inconclusive, the mother has one last chance of bringing her daughter back. She brings in Father Karras, who has a crisis of faith, and Father Merrin, who has seen this sort of prediction when he visited Iraq.
So why is it that this is considered the scariest movie of all time. Well, the shock effects may be outdated to some, but it's the eerie atmosphere and the thought of being possessed that makes it truly horrifying. The silent, quick shots of the infamous "Captain Howdy" are also an addition to this ghoulish nightmare. You don't need loud and abrupt music or hardcore gore, all you need here is a creepy environment, a slow pace, and some fiendish dialogue from Regan/the demon. Mind you, there are some great modern horror films (such as Rec, The Evil Dead series, and the original Thai version of Shutter), but The Exorcist, The Shining, and Psycho are in top form when it comes to scaring the s*** out of you. The Exorcist, especially, is one that is truly scary because of its controversial subject matter. The finest, no doubt. Grade: A+ | ||
 | The Exorcist: 25th Anniversary Special Edition | |
| "Try sleeping at night after watching this . . ." | 2009-10-31 |
| It's really hard to name every single horror film that's ever been made. Many deal with zombies, ghosts, serial killers, classic monsters like Frankenstein, and mutated species. Some are classic, others are mediocre, and several are ridiculous and dull. Out of all of them, only a few have been recognized as the greatest in the genre. The Exorcist, Psycho, and The Shining have been rightfully praised for the terrors that they have conveyed. Dozens of others have never topped them ever since they were released. While my favorite horror film of all time is actually The Shining, I can perfectly understand why The Exorcist is considered the best. First of all, is has an unusual storyline (back in the 70's, at least). Instead of ghosts or zombies or werewolves, it's demon possession. The body of a young girl is being controlled by a spirit from Hell. With every medical analysis being inconclusive, the mother has one last chance of bringing her daughter back. She brings in Father Karras, who has a crisis of faith, and Father Merrin, who has seen this sort of prediction when he visited Iraq.
So why is it that this is considered the scariest movie of all time. Well, the shock effects may be outdated to some, but it's the eerie atmosphere and the thought of being possessed that makes it truly horrifying. The silent, quick shots of the infamous "Captain Howdy" are also an addition to this ghoulish nightmare. You don't need loud and abrupt music or hardcore gore, all you need here is a creepy environment, a slow pace, and some fiendish dialogue from Regan/the demon. Mind you, there are some great modern horror films (such as Rec, The Evil Dead series, and the original Thai version of Shutter), but The Exorcist, The Shining, and Psycho are in top form when it comes to scaring the s*** out of you. The Exorcist, especially, is one that is truly scary because of its controversial subject matter. The finest, no doubt. Grade: A+ | ||
 | The Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen) | |
| "Try sleeping at night after watching this . . ." | 2009-10-31 |
| It's really hard to name every single horror film that's ever been made. Many deal with zombies, ghosts, serial killers, classic monsters like Frankenstein, and mutated species. Some are classic, others are mediocre, and several are ridiculous and dull. Out of all of them, only a few have been recognized as the greatest in the genre. The Exorcist, Psycho, and The Shining have been rightfully praised for the terrors that they have conveyed. Dozens of others have never topped them ever since they were released. While my favorite horror film of all time is actually The Shining, I can perfectly understand why The Exorcist is considered the best. First of all, is has an unusual storyline (back in the 70's, at least). Instead of ghosts or zombies or werewolves, it's demon possession. The body of a young girl is being controlled by a spirit from Hell. With every medical analysis being inconclusive, the mother has one last chance of bringing her daughter back. She brings in Father Karras, who has a crisis of faith, and Father Merrin, who has seen this sort of prediction when he visited Iraq.
So why is it that this is considered the scariest movie of all time. Well, the shock effects may be outdated to some, but it's the eerie atmosphere and the thought of being possessed that makes it truly horrifying. The silent, quick shots of the infamous "Captain Howdy" are also an addition to this ghoulish nightmare. You don't need loud and abrupt music or hardcore gore, all you need here is a creepy environment, a slow pace, and some fiendish dialogue from Regan/the demon. Mind you, there are some great modern horror films (such as Rec, The Evil Dead series, and the original Thai version of Shutter), but The Exorcist, The Shining, and Psycho are in top form when it comes to scaring the s*** out of you. The Exorcist, especially, is one that is truly scary because of its controversial subject matter. The finest, no doubt. Grade: A+ | ||
![Army of Darkness [HD DVD]](product_images/4932000/4932404_thumb.jpg) | Army of Darkness [HD DVD] | |
| "Be sure to take your BOOMSTICK with ya!" | 2009-10-27 |
| In this third (and probably final) installment of the Evil Dead series, not only do we see a drastic change in scenery (Medieval England instead of American woods), we also see much less graphic content. You don't have internal organs bursting out of human bodies, but living skeletons on fire and breaking apart. There is only a minimal amount of gore, and the black and slapstick humor takes over. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course, not. Even though the film has an overall different style, it still has that same sort of wicked charm that the first two film brought out. Plus, you still have Bruce Campbell as the main character, so it's bound to be bad@** throughout. Again, this isn't as violent and daring as the first two Evil Dead films, but it's still very entertaining to watch. I'd give this an A-. | ||
 | Army of Darkness | |
| "Be sure to take your BOOMSTICK with ya!" | 2009-10-27 |
| In this third (and probably final) installment of the Evil Dead series, not only do we see a drastic change in scenery (Medieval England instead of American woods), we also see much less graphic content. You don't have internal organs bursting out of human bodies, but living skeletons on fire and breaking apart. There is only a minimal amount of gore, and the black and slapstick humor takes over. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course, not. Even though the film has an overall different style, it still has that same sort of wicked charm that the first two film brought out. Plus, you still have Bruce Campbell as the main character, so it's bound to be bad@** throughout. Again, this isn't as violent and daring as the first two Evil Dead films, but it's still very entertaining to watch. I'd give this an A-. | ||
 | Evil Dead II (Special Edition) | |
| ""That's right. Who's laughing now?!"" | 2009-10-26 |
| Whether it's a sequel or a remake, it doesn't matter once the film starts. This is the second installment in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series, and it's one of the few sequels (or "remake" if you want to call that) that is equal to the original. It's just as diabolical, with some twisted moments that will no doubt be implanted in the brains of those who watch them. I think the only difference here is that the black humor is more constant than in the original. There is one scene in which Ash (Bruce Campbell) discovers that his hand is possessed by an evil spirit, and from then on, some diabolical hilarity ensues. The entire film is basically a perfect mix of horror, blood, slapstick, gore, and over-the-top edginess. It's actually one of the better horror films in recent decades. Sure, it may not be like The Exorcist, The Shining, or George A. Romero's zombie films, but the entire Evil Dead series stands on its own as a scary & darkly hilarious bloodfest. Kudos to Raimi and Campbell. | ||
 | Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn | |
| ""That's right. Who's laughing now?!"" | 2009-10-26 |
| Whether it's a sequel or a remake, it doesn't matter once the film starts. This is the second installment in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series, and it's one of the few sequels (or "remake" if you want to call that) that is equal to the original. It's just as diabolical, with some twisted moments that will no doubt be implanted in the brains of those who watch them. I think the only difference here is that the black humor is more constant than in the original. There is one scene in which Ash (Bruce Campbell) discovers that his hand is possessed by an evil spirit, and from then on, some diabolical hilarity ensues. The entire film is basically a perfect mix of horror, blood, slapstick, gore, and over-the-top edginess. It's actually one of the better horror films in recent decades. Sure, it may not be like The Exorcist, The Shining, or George A. Romero's zombie films, but the entire Evil Dead series stands on its own as a scary & darkly hilarious bloodfest. Kudos to Raimi and Campbell. | ||
 | The Evil Dead (Book Of The Dead Limited Edition) | |
| "The woods are alive . . . with the sound of horror!" | 2009-10-24 |
| Believe it, ladies and gentlemen. The Evil Dead is a bloody, gory, explicit, and sometimes darkly humorous low-budget horror movie. There's no doubt about it. If you have a weak stomach, you'll probably find yourself puking in the toilet halfway through the film. Good thing I don't have one (no offense). This is a gore-filled masterpiece. It really is. If you think Saw and House of 1000 Corpses (both of which are great horror films, by the way) are bloody and gory, wait until you see this one. Like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead is a prime example of how hands should be bitten off, and how bodies should be dismembered with an axe. And it's all done in such a low budget; it's unbelievable. I have to say that this is an excellent movie to watch on Halloween, and an excellent movie to watch any day or night. It's scary, funny, bloody, gory, intense . . . . and that's basically how it is.
P.S. Bruce Campbell is ****ing awesome. At least in the second half of the movie, anyway. | ||
 | Evil Dead | |
| "The woods are alive . . . with the sound of horror!" | 2009-10-24 |
| Believe it, ladies and gentlemen. The Evil Dead is a bloody, gory, explicit, and sometimes darkly humorous low-budget horror movie. There's no doubt about it. If you have a weak stomach, you'll probably find yourself puking in the toilet halfway through the film. Good thing I don't have one (no offense). This is a gore-filled masterpiece. It really is. If you think Saw and House of 1000 Corpses (both of which are great horror films, by the way) are bloody and gory, wait until you see this one. Like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead is a prime example of how hands should be bitten off, and how bodies should be dismembered with an axe. And it's all done in such a low budget; it's unbelievable. I have to say that this is an excellent movie to watch on Halloween, and an excellent movie to watch any day or night. It's scary, funny, bloody, gory, intense . . . . and that's basically how it is.
P.S. Bruce Campbell is ****ing awesome. At least in the second half of the movie, anyway. | ||
 | The Evil Dead | |
| "The woods are alive . . . with the sound of horror!" | 2009-10-24 |
| Believe it, ladies and gentlemen. The Evil Dead is a bloody, gory, explicit, and sometimes darkly humorous low-budget horror movie. There's no doubt about it. If you have a weak stomach, you'll probably find yourself puking in the toilet halfway through the film. Good thing I don't have one (no offense). This is a gore-filled masterpiece. It really is. If you think Saw and House of 1000 Corpses (both of which are great horror films, by the way) are bloody and gory, wait until you see this one. Like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead is a prime example of how hands should be bitten off, and how bodies should be dismembered with an axe. And it's all done in such a low budget; it's unbelievable. I have to say that this is an excellent movie to watch on Halloween, and an excellent movie to watch any day or night. It's scary, funny, bloody, gory, intense . . . . and that's basically how it is.
P.S. Bruce Campbell is ****ing awesome. At least in the second half of the movie, anyway. | ||
 | The Evil Dead | |
| "The woods are alive . . . with the sound of horror!" | 2009-10-24 |
| Believe it, ladies and gentlemen. The Evil Dead is a bloody, gory, explicit, and sometimes darkly humorous low-budget horror movie. There's no doubt about it. If you have a weak stomach, you'll probably find yourself puking in the toilet halfway through the film. Good thing I don't have one (no offense). This is a gore-filled masterpiece. It really is. If you think Saw and House of 1000 Corpses (both of which are great horror films, by the way) are bloody and gory, wait until you see this one. Like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead is a prime example of how hands should be bitten off, and how bodies should be dismembered with an axe. And it's all done in such a low budget; it's unbelievable. I have to say that this is an excellent movie to watch on Halloween, and an excellent movie to watch any day or night. It's scary, funny, bloody, gory, intense . . . . and that's basically how it is.
P.S. Bruce Campbell is ****ing awesome. At least in the second half of the movie, anyway. | ||
 | Who Am I This Time? | |
| "You can't beat Walken and Sarandon!" | 2009-10-23 |
| Who would have thought that a movie that runs just under sixty minutes can be so riveting? Sure, it's not the best film that Walken and Sarandon have starred in, but it comes very close. With a condensed length, it features a fascinating chemistry between the duo's characters, and I truly think it's one of the more realistic ones in all of cinema. Walken plays Harry Nash, a methodical stage actor who happens to be awkwardly shy. He takes part in a local theatrical production community, and he happens to be the big star. Enter Sarandon as Helene Shaw, a lonely employee who decides to audition for the female lead in the next small-town production, A Streetcar Named Desire. When these two meet for the first time, a relationship ensues. What you basically get in this film are heartwarming performances from our two leads. There's also the impressive script and the unbeatable supporting cast. I have seen only a few theatrical plays, but this film makes me want to see more. | ||
 | Dr. Strangelove (40th Anniversary Two-Disc Special Edition) | |
| "The Trouble with Cold Wars" | 2009-10-22 |
| Stanley Kubrick was a director of many faces. His films always had that distinctive look. His films dealt with the consequences of war (Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory), human evolution & alien intelligence (2001: A Space Odyssey), a descent into madness (The Shining), and an analysis on humanity & free will (A Clockwork Orange). While most of his films are based off of novels from Stephen King, Anthony Burgess, and others, Kubrick mostly moved away from the primary sources and put his own artistic qualities into them. Out of all the novels, I have read only "A Clockwork Orange" (which is ironic since I've never seen the film just yet, but I hope to see it as soon as possible), and judging from author's reactions (the most obvious being Stephen King), it's quite clear that Kubrick had a different vision with each of the novels that he adapted onto the big screen. With Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, it's yet another loose adaptation, but I'm not here to complain about the director's calculated and eccentric process.
Inspired by the novel "Red Alert" by Peter George, this black comedy was created in 1964, and was seen as a daring attempt to bring humor into the thought of a nuclear war. Knowing that this film was made in the middle of the Cold War, it's even funnier forty-five years later. This is not toilet humor. This is dark political humor that's incredibly ironic and satirical. There are so many classic scenes ("Be careful, Mr. President. I think he's drunk."), that it's simply hard to describe all of them in just one review. Straight to the point, this is one of Stanley Kubrick's greatest films, and one of the greatest comedies of all time. It has a great ensemble of actors (Sellers, Scott, and Pickens steal the show), a bold script, amazing black-and-white cinematography, and, as I've mentioned earlier, numerous memorable scenes. Now granted, this film isn't for everybody. Those who are not into politics may not be interested, but those who are willing to see a 60's black comedy that's fantastically modern would do doubt find this one entertaining. Grade: A | ||
 | Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Special Edition) | |
| "The Trouble with Cold Wars" | 2009-10-22 |
| Stanley Kubrick was a director of many faces. His films always had that distinctive look. His films dealt with the consequences of war (Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory), human evolution & alien intelligence (2001: A Space Odyssey), a descent into madness (The Shining), and an analysis on humanity & free will (A Clockwork Orange). While most of his films are based off of novels from Stephen King, Anthony Burgess, and others, Kubrick mostly moved away from the primary sources and put his own artistic qualities into them. Out of all the novels, I have read only "A Clockwork Orange" (which is ironic since I've never seen the film just yet, but I hope to see it as soon as possible), and judging from author's reactions (the most obvious being Stephen King), it's quite clear that Kubrick had a different vision with each of the novels that he adapted onto the big screen. With Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, it's yet another loose adaptation, but I'm not here to complain about the director's calculated and eccentric process.
Inspired by the novel "Red Alert" by Peter George, this black comedy was created in 1964, and was seen as a daring attempt to bring humor into the thought of a nuclear war. Knowing that this film was made in the middle of the Cold War, it's even funnier forty-five years later. This is not toilet humor. This is dark political humor that's incredibly ironic and satirical. There are so many classic scenes ("Be careful, Mr. President. I think he's drunk."), that it's simply hard to describe all of them in just one review. Straight to the point, this is one of Stanley Kubrick's greatest films, and one of the greatest comedies of all time. It has a great ensemble of actors (Sellers, Scott, and Pickens steal the show), a bold script, amazing black-and-white cinematography, and, as I've mentioned earlier, numerous memorable scenes. Now granted, this film isn't for everybody. Those who are not into politics may not be interested, but those who are willing to see a 60's black comedy that's fantastically modern would do doubt find this one entertaining. Grade: A | ||
 | Dick Tracy | |
| ""Calling Dick Tracy! Calling Dick Tracy!"" | 2009-10-20 |
| Who would have thought that they could take the original Dick Tracy comics and faithfully turn it into a full-length movie? It's a fun movie, with some outstanding performances from an all-star cast. Warren Beatty, Madonna, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Paul Sorvino, James Caan, William Forsythe, and more. Many of them have excessive make-up in order for them to look exactly like the characters in the comics. Pacino is probably the only one that does not look like the original character ("Big Boy" Caprice), since he created the design himself! But the actors and the characters that they portray aren't the only good things in this movie. We also have some stunning set designs, provocative cinematography, a near-perfect score from Danny Elfman, and some pretty dark humor. Although it's not as epic as the original Batman by Tim Burton, it still is a fun and beautiful film. Kudos to Beatty and everyone else involved in the film. | ||
 | Rhapsody : Child of Blood | |
 | "Flawed, but still had me satisfied" | 2009-10-17 |
| As the first book in the series (more like a trio of trilogies) called The Symphony of Ages, Rhapsody: Child of Blood tell the story of a woman named Rhapsody, a courtesan who has a special gift with music. Just as she tries to escape her seemingly cold-hearted lover, she finds herself a captive among two males of a mixed race, Achmed and Grunthor. The kidnapping, however, eventually turns into a quest as the three of them form a bond, and this leads to a destiny that cannot be stopped.
I was really hoping I would love Rhapsody: Child of Blood. But when I finished the novel just last night, I ended up only liking parts of it. Not to say that the entire book was incredibly bad; it was really good. There were some great moments, but there were some bad moments as well. I'll start with the bad. First, the chemistry between our four protagonists (Rhapsody, Achmed, Grunthor, and later, Jo) seemed very simple. When I say 'simple,' I mean the conflicts that they have with each other (whether big or small) aren't very intimidating, and they sometimes end very quickly. That really kills some of the suspense in the story. A larger grudge against each other would have been more intriguing. That way we would have a slightly better reason for reading the next chapter. Second, located in the middle of the book, there are historical information about the world in which these characters live in. This would have been fascinating if it was actually handled correctly. What you get here are a couple of supporting characters who give our heroes extended narrations about what happened centuries ago, and they go on for about fifty pages. This really slows the story down. I found myself wanting to skip a few pages because of it. The history is interesting enough, but maybe some appendices would have helped, or maybe some brief discussions about history that are scattered throughout the story instead of it crammed together in the middle of the second act. Third, the religious overtones in this novel are blatantly obvious: the All-God, priests, etc. I don't condemn religion or anything, but this is horribly uninteresting, and adds nothing to the actual plot. Speaking of uninteresting, the character Grunthor has become the fourth reason why I didn't like this book very much. Here is a protagonist that is tall, round, has a kind heart, has a dwarfish dialect, and has a fairly wicked sense of humor. So why is he so dull? It's because we've seen this sort of character before. Whether its his personality or his appearance, we've seen fragments and complete bodies of him in other books in fantasy fiction. There is nothing about him that makes him unique; a failed opportunity indeed. The fifth reason is another protagonist named Jo. She is annoying! She's a teenager, but she's like one of those modern teenagers from High School. She complains, whines, gets pissed off, makes silly jokes, gets excited whenever there's action, and that's pretty much it about her. She hardly ever develops here, and I'd be a bit surprised if she changed in the next two novels in this series. There are some miscellaneous things about Rhapsody: Child of Blood that I also didn't find enjoyable, such as the Firbolg also being dull and cliched. But one that should be mentioned is something that starts on the bottom half of Page 449, where a character named Ashe is awed by the appearance of Rhapsody and forms some dirty thoughts in his mind. And these descriptions last for four-and-a-half pages! Why is it so long?! It could have been done in just a few paragraphs. I mean, I know that Rhapsody would look very attractive, but four-and-a-half pages would have been more useful than this like, say, an action sequence. With all of these flaws, does that necessarily mean this is Grade C material? By all means, no. I would give this a B-, mainly because there are still some wonderful things about Child of Blood. For instance, the storyline is pretty unique. Even though there are a few elements in the story that have obviously been borrowed from other sources, this is Elizabeth Haydon's own work. It's fascinating, and it grabs the attention once it starts. Same goes for the writing. I can see why Haydon is being compared to Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind. She has developed a compelling writing style to which can be equal to Jordan's own writing style. The way she handles the dialogue, and the way she describes the different environments is pretty much at the top of the highest level. Then, we have the characters Rhapsody and Achmed. Rhapsody is not your typical damsel in distress: she's tough in spirit and kind in heart. She's smarter than most female characters in fantasy fiction, and she has a personality of her own. Achmed is more of an anti-hero rather than a typical hero. His appearance is fairly ghastly, but that doesn't make him a villain. He is one of the more realistic protagonists that I have seen since The Wheel of Time and The Farseer Trilogy. One thing I should note: Rhapsody and Achmed form a complex relationship, and there was one point in which I thought this would somehow turn into a romance. I guess it was the writing that made me believe that this would happen. And finally, to top it all off, you have some fascinating politics throughout the story and a mesmerizing sequence in which Rhapsody, Achmed, and Grunthor find themselves in the center of the earth (it's really worth reading). In the end, I still enjoyed Rhapsody: Child of Blood despite its flaws, and it left me wanting to know what's going to happen next in the second installment. I hope it's even better than the original. Grade: B- | ||
 | Bram Stoker's Dracula | |
| ""The blood is life . . . and it shall be mine."" | 2009-10-17 |
| The original novel by Bram Stoker is definitely the ultimate vampire story. And this film is the definite adaptation. Dracula is everything that you can ever find in a tale about vampires. The gothic settings, the excellent performances (even Keanu does a good job here!), the blood, the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the dark humor, I mean everything about it is done right. Don't get me wrong about the legendary original 1931 film; it's a classic and still stands on its own. But I'm more for the remake. It has big-time actors such as Gary Oldman playing Dracula himself, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Winona Ryder as Mina. Francis Ford Coppola has created another masterpiece, even though it isn't even in the same league as The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Avoid Twilight as much as possible: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that must be watched (and read). | ||
![Bram Stoker's Dracula [Blu-ray]](product_images/4934000/4934284_thumb.jpg) | Bram Stoker's Dracula [Blu-ray] | |
| ""The blood is life . . . and it shall be mine."" | 2009-10-17 |
| The original novel by Bram Stoker is definitely the ultimate vampire story. And this film is the definite adaptation. Dracula is everything that you can ever find in a tale about vampires. The gothic settings, the excellent performances (even Keanu does a good job here!), the blood, the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the dark humor, I mean everything about it is done right. Don't get me wrong about the legendary original 1931 film; it's a classic and still stands on its own. But I'm more for the remake. It has big-time actors such as Gary Oldman playing Dracula himself, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Winona Ryder as Mina. Francis Ford Coppola has created another masterpiece, even though it isn't even in the same league as The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Avoid Twilight as much as possible: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that must be watched (and read). | ||
 | Bram Stoker's Dracula | |
| ""The blood is life . . . and it shall be mine."" | 2009-10-17 |
| The original novel by Bram Stoker is definitely the ultimate vampire story. And this film is the definite adaptation. Dracula is everything that you can ever find in a tale about vampires. The gothic settings, the excellent performances (even Keanu does a good job here!), the blood, the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the dark humor, I mean everything about it is done right. Don't get me wrong about the legendary original 1931 film; it's a classic and still stands on its own. But I'm more for the remake. It has big-time actors such as Gary Oldman playing Dracula himself, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Winona Ryder as Mina. Francis Ford Coppola has created another masterpiece, even though it isn't even in the same league as The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Avoid Twilight as much as possible: Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one that must be watched (and read). | ||
 | Executive Decision | |
| "Terrifyingly intense!" | 2009-10-16 |
| This is one of those action thrillers that goes perfect with popcorn or chips or whatever. It's really intense. As a growing fan of political thrillers, this gets even better after repeated viewings. With action, drama, humor, and of course, thrills, this should be watched by those who are into these sorts of movies. And for those who want to see Steven Segal killed off in the film, then this is your first, and probably only, chance. | ||
 | Executive Decision | |
| "Terrifyingly intense!" | 2009-10-16 |
| This is one of those action thrillers that goes perfect with popcorn or chips or whatever. It's really intense. As a growing fan of political thrillers, this gets even better after repeated viewings. With action, drama, humor, and of course, thrills, this should be watched by those who are into these sorts of movies. And for those who want to see Steven Segal killed off in the film, then this is your first, and probably only, chance. | ||
 | The Prince of Egypt | |
| ""Let my people go!"" | 2009-10-15 |
| I simply can't stand the CGI-animated films that have become a mainstream phenomenon for this new millennium. Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Ice Age were done extraordinarily well, but now CGI is everywhere and I think I'm going insane for even staring at one of their DVD covers! Much of them are just plain horrible (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Barnyard, Hoodwinked, Over the Hedge, Cars, Surf's Up, etc.), but most traditionally-animated films haven't fared well either (Home on the Range, Curious George, etc.). Are we going to have to sit through more of these in the future? I have a feeling that we most certainly will.
Fortunately, we still have tons of 2D-animated classics that we can enjoy watching (in both DVD and Blu-Ray). The Lion King, Peter Pan, Fantasia, The Secret of NIMH, Treasure Planet, and many others still look beautiful and modern. These were made with great care, and most of them had solid scripts and memorable characters. One classic that really stands out is The Prince of Egypt. Created by Dreamworks, it tells the well-known story of Moses and his quest from God to free the Hebrews. Almost everything that you have read from the Bible are here: the burning bush, the ten plagues, the parting of the sea, and so forth. What really makes The Prince of Egypt so distinctive is that it's one of the few animated movies that actually takes its audience seriously. It has a slightly darker and much more serious tone, with images that would no doubt frighten little kids. There are still two comedic sidekicks that will certainly entertain the kids, but as a whole, the entire movie is just as mature as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. There hasn't been anything like this since it's been released back in 1998. What I love most about this movie is the animation. The 2D graphics are so beautiful and so detailed, that I literally couldn't help but sit there and stare at the awe-inspiring visuals. The water, the sand, the fires, the Ancient Egyptian architecture, everything is seen as top quality. There is one particular dream scene that's done in hieroglyphic form that looks pretty silly, but everything else is first-rate animation. The songs are very average (some of the weak links to this film). With the exception of the masterful "When You Believe," they aren't very unforgettable. But the orchestral music by Hans Zimmer is quite spectacular. It amazes me every time I hear those North African motifs, and those echoing solos that are done by a soprano. I can't help but admire The Prince of Egypt. It's just as epic as The Lion King. It's a shame that we never get to see animated films like these today; all we get now are 3D-animated films that have flat characters, weak plots, and endless pop culture references. I can only hope that either Disney or Dreamworks (or whoever) can make a film that's provocative as this one. | ||
 | Prince of Egypt | |
| ""Let my people go!"" | 2009-10-15 |
| I simply can't stand the CGI-animated films that have become a mainstream phenomenon for this new millennium. Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Ice Age were done extraordinarily well, but now CGI is everywhere and I think I'm going insane for even staring at one of their DVD covers! Much of them are just plain horrible (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Barnyard, Hoodwinked, Over the Hedge, Cars, Surf's Up, etc.), but most traditionally-animated films haven't fared well either (Home on the Range, Curious George, etc.). Are we going to have to sit through more of these in the future? I have a feeling that we most certainly will.
Fortunately, we still have tons of 2D-animated classics that we can enjoy watching (in both DVD and Blu-Ray). The Lion King, Peter Pan, Fantasia, The Secret of NIMH, Treasure Planet, and many others still look beautiful and modern. These were made with great care, and most of them had solid scripts and memorable characters. One classic that really stands out is The Prince of Egypt. Created by Dreamworks, it tells the well-known story of Moses and his quest from God to free the Hebrews. Almost everything that you have read from the Bible are here: the burning bush, the ten plagues, the parting of the sea, and so forth. What really makes The Prince of Egypt so distinctive is that it's one of the few animated movies that actually takes its audience seriously. It has a slightly darker and much more serious tone, with images that would no doubt frighten little kids. There are still two comedic sidekicks that will certainly entertain the kids, but as a whole, the entire movie is just as mature as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. There hasn't been anything like this since it's been released back in 1998. What I love most about this movie is the animation. The 2D graphics are so beautiful and so detailed, that I literally couldn't help but sit there and stare at the awe-inspiring visuals. The water, the sand, the fires, the Ancient Egyptian architecture, everything is seen as top quality. There is one particular dream scene that's done in hieroglyphic form that looks pretty silly, but everything else is first-rate animation. The songs are very average (some of the weak links to this film). With the exception of the masterful "When You Believe," they aren't very unforgettable. But the orchestral music by Hans Zimmer is quite spectacular. It amazes me every time I hear those North African motifs, and those echoing solos that are done by a soprano. I can't help but admire The Prince of Egypt. It's just as epic as The Lion King. It's a shame that we never get to see animated films like these today; all we get now are 3D-animated films that have flat characters, weak plots, and endless pop culture references. I can only hope that either Disney or Dreamworks (or whoever) can make a film that's provocative as this one. | ||
 | Bedazzled | |
| "Desperation that leads to hilarity" | 2009-10-14 |
| This remake was made back in 2000, and I should have watched it in the theaters because it's very VERY hilarious! Brendan Fraser plays Elliot Richards, a man who doesn't have the nerve to ask a woman out but is desperate in doing so. That's when the Devil comes in. Played by Elizabeth Hurley, the Devil gives him seven wishes, but only if Elliot trades his soul in return. And as Elliot makes his wishes, hilarity ensues. There are tons of sight gags and some wordplay going around, and they made me laugh numerous times. Hurley was a surprise as Satan himself: she acts with charisma and wit, and her English accent adds to the much sophisticated appearance. Fraser always does well in comedies, and here he gives his usual great performance. I haven't seen the original 1967 version yet, but when I get the chance, I hope it's as funny and heartwarming as the remake. | ||
 | From Dusk Till Dawn (Collector's Series) | |
| ""All right . . . let's go kill some f***ing vampires!"" | 2009-10-14 |
| If you're sick of all this Twilight phenomenon that's still occurring as of today, and are looking for different and far more bad@** vampires, then you've made the right decision by finding the movie From Dusk Till Dawn here on Amazon. In this film, we not only see vampires and blood, but also some awesome action and some very dark humor. The first half of the film is basically an action adventure with George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino. The second half is where the bigger mayhem is found: vampires, guns, gore, explosions, etc. And it all happens in a strip club: can it get any stranger than that? Everyone does an extraordinary job here: Clooney and Tarantino as the main protagonist; Keitel, Lewis, and Liu as supporting characters; Hayek as the sexy Satanico Pandemonium; Marin as comic relief; the direction, the music, the editing, the cinematography, everything is done with flair and verve. So forget Twilight and its "sparkly" vampires that only teenage girls will love; From Dusk Till Dawn is a real treat if you're into REAL awesome vampires. | ||
 | Bedazzled | |
| "Desperation that leads to hilarity" | 2009-10-14 |
| This remake was made back in 2000, and I should have watched it in the theaters because it's very VERY hilarious! Brendan Fraser plays Elliot Richards, a man who doesn't have the nerve to ask a woman out but is desperate in doing so. That's when the Devil comes in. Played by Elizabeth Hurley, the Devil gives him seven wishes, but only if Elliot trades his soul in return. And as Elliot makes his wishes, hilarity ensues. There are tons of sight gags and some wordplay going around, and they made me laugh numerous times. Hurley was a surprise as Satan himself: she acts with charisma and wit, and her English accent adds to the much sophisticated appearance. Fraser always does well in comedies, and here he gives his usual great performance. I haven't seen the original 1967 version yet, but when I get the chance, I hope it's as funny and heartwarming as the remake. | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S1) |