GoSale.com :: Reviews by AGXEPHSFZPUDT

Reviews Written By: AGXEPHSFZPUDT

provided by Amazon.com


	John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars
	"HYBRID SCI FI-HORROR-WESTERN SUITED TO SMALL SCREEN"	2007-09-30
I saw this on the big screen and must say I was not impressed. It seemed very lacklustre and pedestrian by Carpenter standards. Watching this recently on the small screen, I enjoyed it. Not sure whether it says more about the film or myself (or both?) but what Carpenter delivers is a B-Grade (I say that in the best sense of the term; let's face it, Carpenter is a gloriously talented B-movie King, no disrespect intended) movie that allows him to do (yet another) western riff in the shape of a sci fi-horror flick. The titular "GHOSTS" are less aliens or zombies as they are "Injun" savages in the best (politically incorrect) context. Knowing how much Carpenter has wanted to make a Western, looking over his body of work, one sees that influence on his films. Snake Plissken is a bonafide western outlaw/anti-hero just like Han Solo was. Vampires is a western with blood-suckers instead of Indians. The starkness and isolation expressed through his imagery, characters, locations, events and music is very much a loving tip o' the hat to the western genre. I don't need to go on. Fans of his work know this. Doubtful? Just go and watch is films again (As if you need that excuse!). The weakest aspect of this film is how under-developed it all is. From the outset we are thrust into a future that exists in an oppressive matriarchal society (another staple of Carpenter's being his satirical political bent), but this is only a glimpse worthy of more exploration and development. This aspect really served to distance it as an original work of film lore from the likes of STAR WARS, BLADE RUNNER and other sci fi works. A real pity that not much was done with it. Of course the score is a typical Carpenter work of bravura. One thing that Carpente knows above others is how to utilise music to enhance one's viewing experience. Sure this isn't Carpenter's finest work, but as B-grade, Saturday afternoon view, it more than delivers. And you really can't ask for much more than that. I think we just expect far too much - our expectations and ability to over-hype things in our own imaginations prejudices our ability to simply enjoy a movie for what it is. Just a movie. To be watched and experienced and to forget all the crap in our lives. Why we need to bring so much baggage to our entertainment is sometimes beyond me. Carpenter is one of the greats who has given me so much viewing entertainment that I think it's unfair to simply dismiss his work outright without giving it the benefit of time. At least consider that before slagging off (fill in the blank).
	John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars
	"HYBRID SCI FI-HORROR-WESTERN SUITED TO SMALL SCREEN"	2007-09-30
I saw this on the big screen and must say I was not impressed. It seemed very lacklustre and pedestrian by Carpenter standards. Watching this recently on the small screen, I enjoyed it. Not sure whether it says more about the film or myself (or both?) but what Carpenter delivers is a B-Grade (I say that in the best sense of the term; let's face it, Carpenter is a gloriously talented B-movie King, no disrespect intended) movie that allows him to do (yet another) western riff in the shape of a sci fi-horror flick. The titular "GHOSTS" are less aliens or zombies as they are "Injun" savages in the best (politically incorrect) context. Knowing how much Carpenter has wanted to make a Western, looking over his body of work, one sees that influence on his films. Snake Plissken is a bonafide western outlaw/anti-hero just like Han Solo was. Vampires is a western with blood-suckers instead of Indians. The starkness and isolation expressed through his imagery, characters, locations, events and music is very much a loving tip o' the hat to the western genre. I don't need to go on. Fans of his work know this. Doubtful? Just go and watch is films again (As if you need that excuse!). The weakest aspect of this film is how under-developed it all is. From the outset we are thrust into a future that exists in an oppressive matriarchal society (another staple of Carpenter's being his satirical political bent), but this is only a glimpse worthy of more exploration and development. This aspect really served to distance it as an original work of film lore from the likes of STAR WARS, BLADE RUNNER and other sci fi works. A real pity that not much was done with it. Of course the score is a typical Carpenter work of bravura. One thing that Carpente knows above others is how to utilise music to enhance one's viewing experience. Sure this isn't Carpenter's finest work, but as B-grade, Saturday afternoon view, it more than delivers. And you really can't ask for much more than that. I think we just expect far too much - our expectations and ability to over-hype things in our own imaginations prejudices our ability to simply enjoy a movie for what it is. Just a movie. To be watched and experienced and to forget all the crap in our lives. Why we need to bring so much baggage to our entertainment is sometimes beyond me. Carpenter is one of the greats who has given me so much viewing entertainment that I think it's unfair to simply dismiss his work outright without giving it the benefit of time. At least consider that before slagging off (fill in the blank).
	Fantastic Four [Blu-ray]
	"FANTASTIC FILM!"	2007-09-01
I'll admit that when I first watched this movie, I was rather sceptical and even somewhat cynical. I'd heard a lot of the rumblings that it wasn't "epic" enough and that they'd made too many changes, etc. However, when I sat down to watch this, it really won me over. Sure it's not the big action/effects blockbuster that it could have been, but that is really where it succeeds. If it had been made in that way, it would've been a lesser film. Allow me to explain. This film really captures the characters (their personalities, quirks and tensions) remarkably well. The emphasis IS on the characters. Not the effects or the action or the spectacle. THE CHARACTERS. The casting here is near-perfect. Jessica Alba probably isn't the right choice for the role, however, that said, she really does radiate a definite charm that won me over. Plus, Reed may not have noticed it (or at least he wasn't admitting it), she does look HOT in that outfit! Julian McMahon makes Doom his own, which more than makes up for the changes they made to his character. Michael Chiklis is perfect as Ben. But the real casting coup here, in my opinion, is Ioan Gruffudd. He is nothing short of perfect as Reed. Intelligent without being boring, confident enough to really convince as team leader. Tim Story really deserves way more credit than he received for making such a fine film. Pure entertainment from start to finish. And you can't ask for more than that. And to all those who dismiss this DVD version of FF, both the JACK KIRBY: STORYTELLER and THE WORLD'S GREATEST COMIC MAGAZINE documentaries are worth it alone to buy this version. They are hands down some of the best documentaries I have seen regarding comics. If you have any doubts whatsoever about whether it is worth the cost, please let me persuade you to buy it and buy it now! You won't be sorry!
	Cocoon
	"Entertaining movie."	2007-03-18
"Cocoon" is a good Sunday afternoon, put-your-feet-up-and-sit-back type of film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's real old fashioned entertainment. And while I like this film, I really am surprised just how revered it is. Some call it a "classic" which really is stretching things just a tad. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but having just watched this film again, after not having seen it since it originally came out, I was struck by just how under-developed the whole film was. The focus of the film is (deservedly so) on the elderly characters who get a new shot at life, so to speak. This then relegates the rest of the characters to nothing more than background dressing. Perhaps there were a few scenes (reels, maybe?) that were cut from the film or just not filmed. And yes, I know that a lot of people will decry my review as being "ageist" -- however, this being a sci-fi film, one would think that the alien angle would have been beefed up a bit more. As it stands, the revelation of the alien's identities and intentions are so conveniently and expediently accepted by the characters that one would presume the aliens are capable of mind-control; however that would be to introduce a sinister underpinning to the film and that sort of complexity would have gone against what Ron Howard was trying to convey. I would assume that Ron Howard just didn't have a strong handle on the material, nor a clear vision of exactly what he wanted to convey with the story. I personally felt that Wilford Brimley's decision to go away with the aliens was terribly insensitive to his grand-son's needs, not to mention unrealistic. I know it's "only a movie" but some kind of wisdom (in keeping with the older makes wiser notion, if nothing else) would have made for a stronger conclusion. Steve Guttenberg's character was completely under-developed, apart from playing boat captain, then peeping tom, then fodder for the token alien-human love scene. The same for the alien characters. I mean, casting Brian Dennehy and then not utilising his talents is like casting Robert De Niro in the role of Darth Vader and not using his voice either! There are a lot of aspects (characters and situations) that Ron Howard had to juggle with this film, and once again, it comes down to his handling of the material that impedes the film. The inclusion of Guttenberg's and Tahnee Welch's love interest is obviously in catering to a younger demographic, and really wasn't necessary. It plays out as tacked on and not realistic or natural. More screen time and development of these two characters would have served the film better and made the love scene less intrusive and more necessary to the plot. Overall, this movie is a good movie, very entertaining and it is great to see some veteran older actors/actresses getting their due, however, it's just not a true cinema classic. I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a film concerning old people that most definitely IS a classic, do yourself a favour and buy David Lynch's "The Straight Story" one of the warmest, sincerest and original films ever conceived. And don't let the fact that David Lynch directed it put you off. If you only think Lynch is capable of producing "weird for weird sake" type films (and I love Lynch's work), then allow "The Straight Story" (and yes, the title is meant to be somewhat ironic) to dispell those preconceptions.
	Cocoon
	"Entertaining movie."	2007-03-18
"Cocoon" is a good Sunday afternoon, put-your-feet-up-and-sit-back type of film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's real old fashioned entertainment. And while I like this film, I really am surprised just how revered it is. Some call it a "classic" which really is stretching things just a tad. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but having just watched this film again, after not having seen it since it originally came out, I was struck by just how under-developed the whole film was. The focus of the film is (deservedly so) on the elderly characters who get a new shot at life, so to speak. This then relegates the rest of the characters to nothing more than background dressing. Perhaps there were a few scenes (reels, maybe?) that were cut from the film or just not filmed. And yes, I know that a lot of people will decry my review as being "ageist" -- however, this being a sci-fi film, one would think that the alien angle would have been beefed up a bit more. As it stands, the revelation of the alien's identities and intentions are so conveniently and expediently accepted by the characters that one would presume the aliens are capable of mind-control; however that would be to introduce a sinister underpinning to the film and that sort of complexity would have gone against what Ron Howard was trying to convey. I would assume that Ron Howard just didn't have a strong handle on the material, nor a clear vision of exactly what he wanted to convey with the story. I personally felt that Wilford Brimley's decision to go away with the aliens was terribly insensitive to his grand-son's needs, not to mention unrealistic. I know it's "only a movie" but some kind of wisdom (in keeping with the older makes wiser notion, if nothing else) would have made for a stronger conclusion. Steve Guttenberg's character was completely under-developed, apart from playing boat captain, then peeping tom, then fodder for the token alien-human love scene. The same for the alien characters. I mean, casting Brian Dennehy and then not utilising his talents is like casting Robert De Niro in the role of Darth Vader and not using his voice either! There are a lot of aspects (characters and situations) that Ron Howard had to juggle with this film, and once again, it comes down to his handling of the material that impedes the film. The inclusion of Guttenberg's and Tahnee Welch's love interest is obviously in catering to a younger demographic, and really wasn't necessary. It plays out as tacked on and not realistic or natural. More screen time and development of these two characters would have served the film better and made the love scene less intrusive and more necessary to the plot. Overall, this movie is a good movie, very entertaining and it is great to see some veteran older actors/actresses getting their due, however, it's just not a true cinema classic. I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a film concerning old people that most definitely IS a classic, do yourself a favour and buy David Lynch's "The Straight Story" one of the warmest, sincerest and original films ever conceived. And don't let the fact that David Lynch directed it put you off. If you only think Lynch is capable of producing "weird for weird sake" type films (and I love Lynch's work), then allow "The Straight Story" (and yes, the title is meant to be somewhat ironic) to dispell those preconceptions.
	Cocoon
	"Entertaining movie."	2007-03-18
"Cocoon" is a good Sunday afternoon, put-your-feet-up-and-sit-back type of film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's real old fashioned entertainment. And while I like this film, I really am surprised just how revered it is. Some call it a "classic" which really is stretching things just a tad. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but having just watched this film again, after not having seen it since it originally came out, I was struck by just how under-developed the whole film was. The focus of the film is (deservedly so) on the elderly characters who get a new shot at life, so to speak. This then relegates the rest of the characters to nothing more than background dressing. Perhaps there were a few scenes (reels, maybe?) that were cut from the film or just not filmed. And yes, I know that a lot of people will decry my review as being "ageist" -- however, this being a sci-fi film, one would think that the alien angle would have been beefed up a bit more. As it stands, the revelation of the alien's identities and intentions are so conveniently and expediently accepted by the characters that one would presume the aliens are capable of mind-control; however that would be to introduce a sinister underpinning to the film and that sort of complexity would have gone against what Ron Howard was trying to convey. I would assume that Ron Howard just didn't have a strong handle on the material, nor a clear vision of exactly what he wanted to convey with the story. I personally felt that Wilford Brimley's decision to go away with the aliens was terribly insensitive to his grand-son's needs, not to mention unrealistic. I know it's "only a movie" but some kind of wisdom (in keeping with the older makes wiser notion, if nothing else) would have made for a stronger conclusion. Steve Guttenberg's character was completely under-developed, apart from playing boat captain, then peeping tom, then fodder for the token alien-human love scene. The same for the alien characters. I mean, casting Brian Dennehy and then not utilising his talents is like casting Robert De Niro in the role of Darth Vader and not using his voice either! There are a lot of aspects (characters and situations) that Ron Howard had to juggle with this film, and once again, it comes down to his handling of the material that impedes the film. The inclusion of Guttenberg's and Tahnee Welch's love interest is obviously in catering to a younger demographic, and really wasn't necessary. It plays out as tacked on and not realistic or natural. More screen time and development of these two characters would have served the film better and made the love scene less intrusive and more necessary to the plot. Overall, this movie is a good movie, very entertaining and it is great to see some veteran older actors/actresses getting their due, however, it's just not a true cinema classic. I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a film concerning old people that most definitely IS a classic, do yourself a favour and buy David Lynch's "The Straight Story" one of the warmest, sincerest and original films ever conceived. And don't let the fact that David Lynch directed it put you off. If you only think Lynch is capable of producing "weird for weird sake" type films (and I love Lynch's work), then allow "The Straight Story" (and yes, the title is meant to be somewhat ironic) to dispell those preconceptions.
	New X-Men Vol. 7: Here Comes Tomorrow
	"WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? HERE COMES TOMORROW!"	2006-05-29
Grant Morrison is the best thing to happen to comics in, well, forever. His sheer imagination and inexhaustive energy explodes from every page. Even when he's been teamed with lesser artists, his comics are always far superior than most that feature flashier (read: pin-up) artists. His scripts bring out the best from most of his artists (one notable exception: some of the art in the last story arc of THE INVISIBLES springs to mind). Take Chas Truog on ANIMAL MAN. No offence, Truog is by no means a Jim Lee or Todd McFarlane-league artist, but his interpretation of Grant's scripts were right on the money! His visuals told the story perfectly. Now that Grant has hit the big league, he has had the pick of the crop. Pairing him with Marc Silvestri on his final arc is further proof of this. I'll admit, I'm a little biased when it comes to Marc. Having sat in on one of his convention panels some 10 or so years ago, he revealed himself to be one of the true nice guys. Very affable, very down-to-earth and approachable. In short, NO EGO! So anyone who slags his art off, well, it's just not warranted. I admit, some of his line work at times IS overkill, but, when he's paired with a great inker (or doesn't appear to be rushed) , his art shines. Besides, his Wolverine still stands as one of the definitive versions. I love his Beast and Nightcrawlers in this arc as well. But it is Grant who is the star of this show. As the Grand Finale to his meta-series (begun in "E Is For Exctinction") , "Here Comes Tomorrow" is the gem of the lot. (I will admit, I would have liked Frank Quitely to return, but, alas...) One really needs to read all of Grant's run (and re-read again and again) to truly appreciate the sum of Grant's saga. "Here Comes Tomorrow" is the pay-off for all of the hints and teases that Grant has been developing. One could argue that there are a couple of things not fully explained or tied-up, but to simply write these off as the work of a bad writer is to miss the point. Ambiguity and mystery are the key (think David Lynch) and I thank Grant for not taking his audience's intelligence for granted (no pun intended!). I mean, is Apollyon revealed as Fantomex (as E.V.A. seems to imply) or, as Silvestri's rendition of his bald unmasked face seems to suggest, is he Charles Xavier?? Ambiguity, indeed, and I love it! And take the Phoenix Phalanx (as I dubbed them) introduced toward the end. Just who is that lad who informs Jean: "And they said I was to tell you to hurry..." None other than Quentin Quire from "Riot At Xavier's". Genius! Far too many failed to recognise just what it was Grant set out to achieve on his X-run. To return the sense of greatness and majesty and vitality that had been flogged out of the X-books by far too many X-overs and convoluted history that made many soap operas seem straight-forward in comparison. I'd say he succeeded. And then some. I gave up on the X-Men years ago due to the interminable nature of the (seemingly never-ending) storylines and cheap gimmickry that saw the books become ever-more impenetrable and frustrating. When I heard that Grant Morrison was to write one of the regular series, I knew that I was in for a treat. And what a treat! Grant's run on "NEW X-MEN" stands as THE definitive Mutant Epic, unrivalled, not even by the mighty Claremont-Byrne run! Big words, I know, but ones I stand behind. If you have never read an X-Men comic before, do yourself a favor and read Grant's entire "NEW X-MEN" run. And if you have read X-Men comics in the past but not Grant's run, then what are you waiting for? Here comes tomorrow!
	Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
	"WORK OF INNOVATION. HOWEVER..."	2006-04-15
Frank Miller's Dark Knight series from '86 is undeniably a work of innovation and exhiliration. In short, I love it. However... (dramatic pause; imagine squinted eyes and gritted teeth for full effect) Frank Miller has been praised and hailed far and wide with reimagining the Batman milieu and single-handedly bringing the character back to his dark roots. This whole mind-set usually refers to the '60's camp TV show (which Miller reviles like no other). And here's where the however comes into play... After Adam West hung up his tights and long before FM produced the DARK KNIGHT, Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams produced a take on the Batman that was (at least in my opinion) even more thrilling and revelatory. Their Dark Knight was the real deal. A tough, capable and, most importantly, rational figure who was guided by his demons but not controlled by them. Unlike Miller's Dark Knight - who is introduced as a hollow-but-not-empty shell, a Bruce Wayne who cannot function without the demon in the drivers seat. His Gotham is a world overrun by crime and criminals who are far removed from the likes of the Joker and Two Face. There are no colorful costumes or zany gimmicks to be seen. Just a gang of vicious thugs who obviously don't have any competition from the law. It's a wonder Bruce Wayne allowed it to get this far. But then again, the demon wasn't in the driver's seat any more. Now, whilst Miller's influence on the character of Batman after DARK KNIGHT first saw print is undeniable, a lot of people have lost sight of exactly what Miller's series is - namely, a deconstructionist satire and examination of the Batman milieu. In short, it really isn't meant to be taken as a literal interpretation of the character, much less a definitive take. To take stock, Miller's Batman is a reaction to the Adam West version. All the same, his Superman is really a reaction to the Christopher Reeve version: namely, the end of Superman 2 where he is mending the White House, cowing to the Presidency - which in reality really isn't synonymous with values of decency or justice. Take his depiction of Clark Kent in Book 3, standing in such a heroic way, no longer the meek & mild Kent of old, butterflies floating about him in such a boldly surrealistic fashion. This is super heroes as pure myth. As to the villains of the piece - The Mutants - gee, no small wonder which comic book characters he's taking a swipe at there.. all that's missing are giant "X's" tattooed on their faces to really drive the point home. Basically, Miller was taking stock of where Batman was in the mid-80s: a tired shadow of his former self, nasty memories of THAT 60s show still influencing pop culture's perception of the character, sales sliding to the likes of the X-Men, heroes who - especially in the case of Wolverine - were getting harder to tell from the villains. Overall, Miller's DARK KNIGHT is a work that demands to be evaluated from a number of levels, not simply as THE definitive take on the character. A special note must be made in regard to Lynn Varley's use of color over Miller's art. Barely a primary color in sight, her pallette is a muted, earthy one that serves Miller's Gotham well. I believe that her coloring was responsible for a lot of the critical reaction to this story. A true under-rated effort, to be sure. I recommend DARK KNIGHT RETURNS to anyone who has heard the hype and not yet taken a leap into Miller's Gotham. But please, plan a stay in O'Neill and Adams Gotham as well (Best evidenced in the 3 volume BATMAN ILLUSTRATED BY NEAL ADAMS hardcovers). Oh, and Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers' Gotham, too (BATMAN:STRANGE APPARITIONS collection). Then, make a dash to Doug Moench and Paul Gulacy's Gotham (BATMAN:PREY and TERROR collections). After that, however, you may just need a rest - may I recommend Grant Morrison and Dave McKean's ARKHAM ASYLUM... Either the collection or the actual asylum, depending on just how much rehabilitation one needs.
	Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again (Batman (DC Comics Hardcover))
	"A FIST IN JOEL SCHUMACHER'S FACE!"	2006-04-15
In order to fully enjoy this follow-up to Miller's own DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, one really must take it on it's own merits. In short, forget about the former books reputation and execution and just enjoy STRIKES AGAIN for what it is: A rollicking juggernaut of an epic super-hero explosion. This is Miller over-dosing on super-tights and LOVING IT (albeit thru gritted teeth)! I agree that at first, Miller's art style on this (and the use of color and computer effects) is jarring. But that's more from one expecting it to be a complete retread of DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. And one thing Miller has shown us is, not to expect the expected from him. The story is pure Miller - gut full of bile and venom, teeth gritted and bared, fists ready to turn your sensibilities to a bloody pulp. You either love it or loathe it. I, for one, love it. Who cares about established (DC) continuity or characterization. This is the DC Universe as ruled by Miller, an iron fisted rule where only the strong survive and no, the geek don't inherit squat! It's not how the DC Universe should be, just how Miller has chosen to portray it. DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN is a guilty pleasure that I proudly profess to love! It's the type of COMIC (NOT graphic novel!) that needs to be read with a good, cold beer. It's messy, violent and maybe just a little bit fascist. It's the kind of comic that needs to be made into a film directed by Paul Verhoeven, goddammit! And it's just the right fist to be applied to Joel Schumacher's delicate features (low blow, I know)... The only thing that I could really find at fault with it is, Miller really should have featured a scene that acknowledged Alfred's demise at the end of DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. The death of such a crucial figure in Batman's world needed to be addressed. This would have given STRIKES AGAIN the heart that it sorely needed. Perhaps with the upcoming ABSOLUTE edition, Miller may do a director's cut (hint, hint!) and rectify this. Let's just hope.
	Say You Want a Revolution (The Invisibles, Book 1)
	"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING. BECOME INVISIBLE!"	2006-04-14
Let me start by saying that The Invisibles is by far my favorite comic book of all time. It is such a demanding and rewarding experience. I read the entire series at least once a year and not once have I grown tired or bored by a single page or panel. Grant Morrison is the finest talent working in the comic medium, bar none. His imagination knows no bounds, be it writing super hero fare like New X-Men or his current All-Star Superman, or more intelligent, cerebral stuff like The Filth or The Invisibles. All of his comic work shines like a diamond in a dark mine, lighting one's way to an eternal salvation of enlightenment and bliss. In short, GM Rocks! Volume 1 of The Invisibles is a good introduction to the main characters and concepts of the series, but rest assured, this is only the first section of a further 6 volumes that need to be read in order to fully understand and appreciate the significance of what Grant Morrison is attempting to convey. A lot of people seem to have disliked the second half of this first volume, ARCADIA, dismissing it almost outright as incomprehensible and far too strange and disorientating to be worthwhile, but make no mistake, ARCADIA is a key storyline in the overall narrative of the Invisibles. It defines a lot of the core philosophical concepts of the Invisible saga. The inclusion of the Marquis de Sade into the mix is a particularly inspired choice. In particular, when he is transported forward to our time only to be faced with a world whose standards and choices mirror his own beliefs and writings. Not that I side with de Sade; I simply find it an interesting insight that what was once considered damnable and deplorable is now embraced as cool and thrilling. Down and Out in Heaven and Hell, indeed! On the art side, I favour Steve Yeowell over Jill Thompson, however, Thompson's art is still quite impressive and suits the seedy nature of the overall ARCADIA story. I particularly like her depiction of Ragged Robin. And while a lot has been said about the Invisibles/Matrix connection, I'll just let the fact of the Matrix films' declining quality and narrative inventiveness/cohesiveness speak for themselves. Besides, Neo is no Dane McGowan and Morpheus is certainly no King Mob! Viva la Invisibles!