Gods and Generals (2003) Review:

As a prequel to Gettysburg (1993), one of the greatest war epics ever made, I expected director Ronald F. Maxwell to make another film just as great. He did make good film in a sense, but with some minor flaws. Once those flaws are recognized, the rest of the film is almost as great as its predecessor. It is unfortunate this film was a financial failure because I really wanted to see this civil war trilogy end and not just be left in the corner to collect dust. Right now though, this franchise is going nowhere. I blame Ted Turner for this because if he had not forked out so much money, maybe there would be another movie on its way. I would like to know what was needed for the budget to be raised by $30 million dollars. It doesn't make sense to me.

Jeff Daniels (as Chamberlain)....maybe a little heavier

First on the list is getting the bad things out of the way. What doesn't work in this motion picture? For the most part, viewers will complain that the point of view on this film is more one sided than the other. I won't deny it either, this film does focus more on the Confederate troops than it does the Union troops. But there is a reason for this; the Confederate States of America were the ones who lit the fuse of starting the civil war. So it is they who should be focused on, not the Union. I think it's good the way the story starts off. Then as the second movie, the story slowly shifts more of its focus to the Union side. As a suggestion, if the last installment is made, the point of view in that film should be like the first but more on the Union side. That is who wins in the end right?

The only other thing that people have problems with this film is the use of dialog. Sorry folks, I'm not a historian or civil war buff, so I can't clarify which is more accurate, the dialog in this movie or in its sequel. I will say though, most of the dialog is normal, it is just some parts where it seems like what is supposed to be said is drawn out in a extremely excessive way of talking. It was almost like they were quoting Shakespeare. But this doesn't happen frequently, so I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Robert Duvall replaces Martin Sheen as General Lee
Bruce Boxleitner replaces Tom Berenger as General Longstreet
& Stephen Lang as Stonewall Jackson (far right)

As for the cast, most of the actors from Gettysburg reappear again, although some may be playing different parts. Jeff Daniels still is Lawrence Chamberlain, but for the other main characters, they are all different. Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee has replaced Martin Sheen. For Lee's old war horse, James Longstreet, is now played by Bruce Boxleitner. Unfortunately, I really liked the performance of Longstreet by Tom Berenger and it is a little weird to see Alan Bradley from Tron (1982) with a beard and talking with a southern accent; but it works I suppose. Playing Stonewall Jackson is Stephen Lang and I'll admit he does good job. His speeches may not be moving but they are well performed. Besides these characters, everyone else stays the same.

The reality of this movie has been raised as well in this movie. Gettysburg (1993) was rated PG, but this has been bumped up to PG-13 for extended battle sequences. Even so there are only some parts that are graphic and they're for brief moments. If this is the reason why the budget was raised, I'm sorely disappointed. The music, although the themes were made by Randy Edelman, were carried out by John Frizzell. Although I prefer Edelman, Frizzell does have some nice tunes. I assume this is because the first couple years of the war were made to sound mournful and gloomy. All in all, Gods and Generals was a good film and should have gained more respect for what it's worth and not what it displays.

Even though Gods and Generals is long in running time and has some small weak points, that does not make this film not worth seeing. This film is held up by its good performances, and excellent battle sequences.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Gettysburg (1993) Review:

I'm not a civil war buff but I've always had a fondness for the War Between the States. It's the point in time where America realizes on what their views should be for any race and not just the white Anglo Saxon individuals. I am proud to own this movie for multiple reasons. The first is that it is the longest in running time in the history of cinema, four hours! And that's not even the extended cut version, that one's even longer! I also love the performances, the music and the way everything was film at up-most accuracy. If I could give this film eleven stars out of ten, I definitely would.

The main cast for the Confederate Generals
(Richard Jordan is in front of the flag)

The cast for this movie is way too large for me to all name but there are many good actors in this film. Starring as one of the main characters is Tom Berenger as General Longstreet who has the beard almost as amazing as Albus Dumbledore's! Berenger is a fine actor and I enjoy watching how he acts and reacts to situations. He does a magnificent job and I only wished that he had reprised his role in Gods and Generals (2003). Along side Berenger is Martin Sheen, playing as General Lee. He too does a good job at his part. Whenever he talks, he gives his character the impression that he is gentle but also a strong leader who knows what he's talking about.

Jeff Daniels plays as Colonel Chamberlain. Whenever the camera is focused on him, I lose the sense that this is Jeff Daniels talking. That is how good Daniels acts out his role. It's almost like Chamberlain came back just for this movie. Even Sam Elliot has brief role in this film as General Buford. Although it is hard to picture Buford talking like Sam Elliot he's pretty convincing with his part. The last actor that I think does a superb job with his part is Richard Jordan who plays General Armistead. I've always enjoyed Richard Jordan's performances. He has a way of doing things that are just so believable. There were points in this film where I almost cried because of the way Jordan acted. And for me, it's not easy to make me cry. Although his part is not as major as the other roles, it's still just as powerful. And what a fine way for Jordan to end his career because not long after he passed away (unfortunately).

Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain leading his men

The music in this epic was composed and conducted by Randy Edelman. I love Edelman's work, I really do. The way the music starts out, and the way it ends is so noble and unforgettable. There is one song that I really enjoy listening to; that song is Kathleen Mavourneen. This song can be heard when Armistead and Longstreet have a heartfelt conversation. It was so beautiful to listen to that it is now one my most favorite soundtrack tunes.

One thing that I've heard some say about this film is that it is not a good war movie unless it has blood, guts, and body parts flying everywhere. I agree TO A POINT. Sure it would have been nice to see a little more bloodshed to make the film more realistic but isn't it realistic enough as it is? The film contains all the military movements of both armies; it shows the viewer how they were executed and the mistakes that were made. And its not like there AREN'T people shown getting shot or blown away by a cannon shell. Is blood and guts really necessary? That's just icing on the cake if the viewer can handle such graphic images. Plus that would restrict the age limit for this movie, which could have possibly lowered the amount of money it could have made. There is nothing wrong with a PG war movie, The Big Red One (1980) was like that too. Case closed.

Director Ronald F. Maxwell has created a fine piece of cinema for anyone to enjoy; even non civil war buffs will like it. Although it is long for a movie, Gettysburg sustains realistic images, great acting, and a memorable soundtrack.

Points Earned --> 10:10

George Carlin: On Campus (1984) Review:

When I first heard about this hour long film I wasn't sure if it would be an hour wasted or not. It would be my first time watching George Carlin as the comedian he became famous for. I didn't think I was ready only because I remembered Carlin only for doing the voice characterizations in Thomas and Friends (which I really liked). I was given a heads-up and was told Carlin is very crude with his humor and decided to watch for the sake of personal interest. Turns out, the whole hour I was laughing my butt off to kingdom come!

What seems to be normal,...

George Carlin is a genius. Never have I experienced such humor before that made me laugh so hard. Although this was filmed in 1984 the jokes were still relevant in today's standards for the most part. Sure there were some that I may have not understood but besides that, I was cracking up at everything he was talking about. What made me laugh most were the different voices that Carlin made and the facial expressions he made. Sometimes he had a really high voice, while other times he had a deep scratchy voice. Along with that, his facial expressions ranged from scrunched up to googly eyed.

Gets REAL DIFFERENT & FUN!

There is only one thing I felt about this short film could have left out. Sometimes between intermissions on the set, short crude cartoons were played. Even though they were narrated by Carlin, I thought they could be done without. They just weren't as funny as Carlin talking before. Besides that though, I had a blast with this and I'm glad was able to see it.

For anyone who's not familiar with George Carlin's work, this is the film to start off with. Not only will the viewer have consistent laughs but also it will make them want to find other Carlin videos because of how funny he is.

Points Earned --> 9:10

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) Review:

As a kid, I never was into G.I. Joe action figures. It didn't really grab my attention. Nor did director Stephen Sommers really grab my attention with this film originally. But I ended up going because I had nothing else better to do. I must say that for a person who was never into the franchise, definitely turned the other cheek. I enjoyed this film better than I thought I would. I'm not saying it's great and memorable, but it is fun to watch.

The G.I. Joe crew

This movie is probably why Sommers could not direct The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), which is what I was more interested in watching. Anyway, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra stars Channing Tatum and Marion Wayans as two soldiers who end up finding their way into the secret society of the "Joes". That's the other thing, I originally thought G.I. Joe was a specific character. Why would you change it to as name of an organization? I spent the whole movie trying to figure out which the original Joe was. In this film, there's a Commander Cobra, but no G.I. Joe? How did that get passed during the screenings of the script?

Appearing as the leader of the "Joes" is Dennis Quaid. I enjoyed watching him act. He for some reason reminds me of a Harrison Ford duplicate because of the way he talked. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is also in this movie and he's fun to watch because of his callous nature. Rachel Nichols plays a character called Scarlett who is just an eye pleaser to watch and I don't blame Wayans character for doing the same. Finally Ray Park, the martial arts man who knows how to amaze us with his physical abilities plays Snake Eyes, the silent but deadly man. He is another character that is great to see move around.

It's scenes like these (that feature Ray Park) are a joy to see

Since G.I. Joe is a military force, there is going to be action in here. Much of it is pretty fun to watch. At points it had me just want to hop on screen and do the same. All the guns make good noise and the vehicles have never before seen attachments, not sure if it's a new thing though. Ray Park is great to watch, he's too good with a sword! Besides just swinging a sword, he also does flips, somersaults, rolls anything you can think of.

This movie also has some comedic moments but obviously this isn't supposed to be a comedy. And because this is a Stephen Sommers' movie, he has called upon his two most famous actors for small parts. Who are they; Arnold Vosloo and Brendan Fraser. Ten years after The Mummy (1999), they are still fighting on opposite sides. It's almost like his trademark. The music is also good listening. Alan Silvestri composed this music and it goes well with all the action that occurs during the film.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra doesn't quite make sense in some areas but it's made-up by its good cast of actors, impressive music and fun action sequences. Director Stephen Sommers may not be able to create the most astounding films, but he knows how to make fun ones.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Fright Night (1985) Review:

Director Tom Holland has been known to make some wicked horror films. He is best known for producing Child's Play (1988) but Fright Night is no different. It has its freaky and creepy moments too. However there are parts to this movie that could have been tweaked. And it's not like they're totally bad choices because it is a good movie. But those parts could have been replaced with something better if the producers were given the chance to.

Ragsdale & McDowall attempt at defending themselves

Fright Night is your typical teenage horror genre movie. A boy notices something supernatural and tries to tell the public about it and no one believes him. Worst of all, now that supernatural force is out to get him so no one will know the truth at all. In this case, the supernatural something that this boy notices is a vampire living next to his house. That plot line is creepy enough as it is. I don't think anyone would feel comfortable if that were to happen to him or her. The teenage boy, Charlie Brewster, is played by William Ragsdale and he's one of the flaws in this film.

Ragsdale is good as the kid that he is, but I can't help but not feel any pity for him. Why? Because it was he who got himself into trouble with the vampire. He was spying on the vampire while feasting on his prey. Sorry but you don't go spying on others and expect to get away with it. Besides I really didn't care for his character either because of the nasally voice that he had. However, the vampire played by Chris Sarandon gives a redeeming performance for this movie. Sarandon's acting is so good that it really is hard to tell sometimes whether the vampire he's playing, is mean-spirited or just misunderstood.

Chris Sarandon as the vampire in disguise

Getting help for Brewster is not easy until he decides to call upon a renowned Vampire slayer, Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall). Funny enough, even for him, Vincent has to confront with himself that Brewster's case is serious. The special effects are good too. It is fairly surprising for a 1985 film. The only other drawback this movie has, is that it never frightened me and it's not because the visuals weren't scary. It's that the movie never reached the psychological level where things can become truly terrifying and I never felt it. But nonetheless, this film is very creepy.

The scares may not be all there but it will definitely evoke some good chills. Much of which the credit goes to Sarandon for his believable execution as a vampire.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Fifty / Fifty (1992) Review:

Charles Martin Smith who is not the most critically acclaimed director has made some pretty good movies in his time although not many people seem to know about them. However, this did not stop me from finding the movie Fifty/Fifty. I stumbled onto this little token because I was searching for films Peter Weller had starred in. Boy was I glad this film caught my attention with its excellent trailer. I usually do not laugh during trailers but this one was a rare gem.

Jake (Weller) & Frenchy (Hays) stand their ground

Fifty/Fifty was released by Cannon Films who seemed to me like a well- known cinema company; I guess not. This film wasn't even theatrically released. But that makes it all the better. Peter Weller and Robert Hays star as two CIA operatives who are given an assignment to overthrow a ruthless dictator. Although both are from two different genres, both of them work really well together. I say this because their wisecracks seemed so natural like they didn't read the script. I'll admit that I did not have one favorite scene in this movie, because almost every scene was too good to pick a favorite. Even director Charles Martin Smith has a role in this story and he does his part well too.

Director Charles Martin Smith's character role, Martin Sprue

The action is good in this movie too. There are plenty of shootings, explosions and there is some blood but not a lot of gore. The MPAA rating for this movie is rated R mostly for the language. I enjoyed Smith's direction on how he had Weller and Hays act during trouble. Even near death scenes, they never let go of their wit and funny comments.

Making this movie even more rare of a find is the score composed by Peter Bernstein, son of famous composer Elmer Bernstein. It's a little distressing to me because I enjoy many soundtracks to movies and I love collecting them and Bernstein's score is unobtainable. The score is fun to listen to because of its cheery mood and the way it gets fed into whatever scene is currently happening. I enjoyed this film a lot and wished that it was released theatrically. Director Charles Martin Smith outdid himself with this movie and its unfortunate not many people know of this funny action movie.

For some, it would seem like Robert Hays and Peter Weller are not the best duo in action comedy when in fact they deliver goods extremely well. With funny lines, a good soundtrack, and loud action, Fifty/Fifty will please any hardcore action comedy fan.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Fair Game (1995) Review:

Fair Game, a book written by Paula Gosling gets a reboot for the second time but with a different cast. Nine years before this movie, Cobra (1986) which starred Sylvester Stallone in an action packed film that was great to watch. In this film, the story is more or less the same except it has a totally different cast. This is not a horrible film but I feel that it could have used some more work.

I'll skip right to it,....this was bound to happen

Starring in this film is William Baldwin, who earned his stardom in Backdraft (1991). Co-Starring with him is Cindy Crawford in her first feature film. Besides these two, I really didn't know any of the actors. However, Salma Hayek does appear in this movie but as a very minor, irrelevant character (unfortunately), she's actually pretty funny for the minutes she shows up.

This movie is one whole big chase scene but most of it is entertaining. Sometimes it can get annoying because Baldwin and Crawford's characters are forced to argue with each other due to the screenplay. Then you have the moments where they actually cooperate and that's always a nice relief. There are also some scenes that have some comedy. I liked the part where Baldwin talks to the bad guys through a regular phone but not by directly calling them. When he does this, a store cashier gets involved in the conversation, I couldn't stop laughing.

Steven Berkoff  (Colonel Kazak) as the villain

The action is good in this movie. There's plenty of big explosions; cars, houses, boats, you name it. For the musical score, Mark Mancina composed and conducted for the background of this film. It has an interesting beat that keeps the movie on its toes. I guess what sinks this movie is the plot. It just seems so weird how a small group of terrorists can do so much damage and get away with so little. Obviously this is not the greatest movie ever to hit the big screen but it can please action fans to a point because that is the strong element in this film.

As the second adaptation to Gosling's book, other than Stallone's Cobra (1986), this film is mostly unrealistic because of how the plot was written up. All in all, it makes a good popcorn flick for when you just want to sit down and watch some random action movie; but that's about it.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Executive Decision (1996) Review:

Kurt Russell does it again! It is very rare to catch Kurt Russell making a bad film and it's no surprise to me that he makes this film just as exciting as the many others that he's done in the past. And it's not just him either; Russell is paired up with several other actors to make this movie good. Executive Decision (1996) is the story of when a small military group and a few civilians take on an impossible looking task when an airplane is hijacked by terrorists.

There isn't much to say about Kurt Russell and his character, Dr. David Grant, because it's likable like any other character that he's done before. Because Grant's a civilian in this story, of course he's going to be much more nervous than his military counterparts.

Grant (Russell) & Cahil (Platt) try to figure their way
through a bomb procedure

Two other civilians that play key roles in this story is engineer Dennis Cahil (Oliver Platt) and flight attendant Jean (Halle Berry). Platt is good making his character sound like he knows what he's talking about, until he's called upon to diffuse a bomb, but hey, I'd be nervous too if I was him. Halle Berry also plays her role quite accurately as a nervous but strong willed flight attendant. If the situation were for real, it would take a lot of guts to put herself in so much danger.

John Leguizamo, BD Wong, Joe Morton, Whip Hubley and Steven Seagal play the military squad. All of which I commend for their believable and entertaining performances as troopers under the gun and under a lot of pressure. Even the actors who portrayed the terrorists did a good job at instilling fear in the plot.

What specifically makes this film so good though is how continuously stressful the situation is and becomes as the plot runs it course. Plus, there are several times where the possibility of the covert operation being discovered by the terrorists. And if it's not this, it's the fact that there's the possibility of a bomb going off. In many peoples' opinion, the stakes are way too high and there are too many odds against them. And for a while, I was thinking that too!

Halle Berry in her most suspenseful role

Adding to the suspense is Jerry Goldsmith's score to the film. In some ways it sounds like a premature attempt at the Small Soldiers (1998) theme, but either way it works well. My only complaint with Goldsmith is that he couldn't make one last track for the credits. Why? Which leads me to the problems I had with this film.

The ending is good to this movie but the way it transitions in tone from high tension to relaxation is way too abrupt. I won't say much, because I don't want to give it away but how does playing a Frank Sinatra tune at the credits appropriate to the ending? It's like the main characters are just purposefully forgetting all the damage that occurred through the whole movie! Yeah,...everything's all happy-go-lucky.

Then there's the whole issue with the innocent bystanders who die in this movie. Yes, this movie is rated R, not everyone lives (but I won't say who)! How did the Thomas brothers (Jim & John) forget to write in a scene where the people who were lost are given a respectful burial? Isn't that kind of important? And finally, if any viewer doesn't like constant whispering, then I would not recommend this film because for the most of the beginning, everyone's whispering. To me, it wasn't a big deal but speaking softly is preferred than whispering. Overall, I was satisfied with the result, I just wish the ending wasn't so oddly weird.

The suspense is really high in this film and all the actors play their parts really well. Just watch out for the ending, which seems a little out of place.

Points Earned --> 8:10

El Mariachi (1992) Review:

It is a surprise to see how far director Rodriguez has come from this movie. This particular movie involves probably the least amount of blood. But either way, it is still entertaining, even if it has English subtitles. I liked the majority of the film except for a few parts.

He did want it to happen....but it did

This movie is the story of the guitar player, El Mariachi, who became the vigilante that he was from Desperado (1995) that Antonio Banderas starred in. Everything is explained. From why he became what he became, and how it happened. This movie is not particularly the jolliest of all films. Neither was Desperado (1995) but it did thread in some humor every now and then that did enlighten the spirits. This movie does have a little of it but the story is more focused on the main character itself.

Carlos Gallardo plays the original Mariachi, as is his original "girl friend", Domino, played by Consuelo Gomez. Both look great together as did Banderas and Hayek did in the sequel. But because the way the story is told, love never develops. Unfortunately, that was one of the things I wish did occur. However, I can't complain because it led up to a nice sequel. Turns out though, the beginning of the Mariachi's story is quite tragic. Like I said before, it explains everything.

Domino, El Mariachi's original love interest

The fact that the actors spoke Spanish throughout the movie didn't bother me at all. I am grateful that there were English subtitles because I could still follow what was happening and what was being said. I also enjoyed listening to the dialog in Spanish. It's not often you run into a foreign film when you're in a English speaking nation. Every Spanish word that I heard sounded sexy and attractive, no matter what mouth it came out of.

The music, which had many composers, sounded alright too. It wasn't as memorable as the soundtrack provided by Los Lobos in Desperado (1995) but it still had a good beat. Something I got confused over were the dream sequences that El Mariachi had. What did they represent? Past events? Was the child a younger version of him? Why the severed head? What did that mean? These nightmares were never addressed and there for left me frustrated because I did not understand the meaning of it.

The introduction of the Mariachi franchise has the same trademarks by Robert Rodriguez but is also much different. Although it's in Spanish, it's still fun to watch and listen, even if the story is tragic.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Echelon Conspiracy (2009) Review:

The idea of Y2K and judgement day, the day technology turns on mankind can be a scary thing. One can never be sure of when this day might come, so for now, it's still a widely accepted plot device for many films. But when it comes to making a movie, there are good ways and bad ways to go about it. Unfortunately, Echelon Conspiracy does not take this story in a completely new direction, nor does it make much of what it was given.

Max Peterson (West) & some chick he runs into....

The story of the Echelon Conspiracy is about a computer program gone wrong. This program is an economical, calculating financial wizard that was built to benefit the United States. But somehow it gained a mind of its own and decided to go rouge. Good enough; it's a nice idea. But its execution wasn't very good. Shane West stars as Max Peterson, an American engineer traveling through various countries hooking up security systems when he anonymously receives a mysterious phone. What this phone does: sends him tips to become financially successful. Sounds like a good thing right? But it's not. Peterson finds himself caught by the FBI agent Grant, played by Ving Rhames. Rhames does have some funny one liners but this doesn't really help the plot along. What Rhames' character tries to do is find out who is sending these financial tips to Peterson.

Ving Rhames as FBI Agent Grant

The problem is Peterson doesn't know. Turns out though, the culprit behind these tips is the computer program. So now the question remains, when did this program begin to think for itself? And why weren't there people monitoring it? Throughout the film,  audiences will see a massive surveillance room headed by Raymond Burke played by Martin Sheen. So out of all these people, no one detected Echelon going rouge? None of these people should still have their jobs. So even though the plot is different than your usual "Artificial Intelligence" film, it is unrealistic and doesn't add up.

The action in this film is enjoyable. Although much of it didn't have any relevance at all. There were two times where action sequences were staged and the end result had of no consequence or importance. One was where Peterson has two assassins try to kill him and an agent who is sent to watch him. Turns out, this only happened once and for no real reason. The other is when Peterson is chased down by car. When he's finally caught, the perpetrator only chased him down to ask if Peterson would help him. Really? Why didn't you just directly ask him?? The music, which was produced by Bobby Tahouri, adds a little feeling to these scenes but it's not much when the end result comes around. It's disappointing because something could've come out of it but the direction just wasn't there.

Echelon Conspiracy has a unique idea but has a hard time making a tense thriller that feels like it could happen in the real world. The music helps a tad but its good action scenes go to waste because of their silly end results.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Dredd (2012) Review:

Deciding how a comic book character should be performed on screen can be a difficult task. Then comes the story; how should it involve its main character? In Sylvester Stallone's adaptation of Judge Dredd, his role was interested in the background aspect of the character and how he dealt with that situation. But for some protagonists, the background is not needed or shouldn't be explored. That is unless it's done in a fulfilling way. This version of Judge Dredd fully embraces it's combatant with open arms and displays to its audience what the world of Judge Dredd is truly like.

To start off, the atmosphere of this dystopian America is much darker and grittier than that of the 1995 film. Perhaps that's what makes just the introduction itself so different than that of its predecessor. And to boot, various other elements have been changed. Things seem slimmer. The bikes the judges ride don't look like Honda Goldwings. The suits they wear are not big and bulky with enormous metal badges. Even from looking down at the city from a bird's eye view seemed rather spaced out. I criticized this in Stallone's film for feeling that everything seemed cramped, like it was all put in there at the last minute. But it's not like it here and that's good.

Judge Dredd & his rookie partner Judge Anderson            

Now, turning towards Dredd, I felt that Karl Urban played Dredd with high accuracy and precision. When no music was playing, just hearing his leather suit squeaking in the corridors gave me the chills. I would hate to be caught by him in that universe! Making him look even more hard-boiled was that Urban gave Dredd a five o'clock shadow. It's a nice touch actually. It makes the character of Dredd that much more believable as a soldier. Also staying close to it's comic book origins, the film crew decided not to reveal the look of Dredd under his helmet. Another brilliant choice because it creates a sense of perplexity about him as an individual. It's the same thing that was used for Darth Vader in Lucas' first three Star Wars films.

And although Urban played Dredd with rather no emotion at all it was because of how he embraced the character that made it entertaining. Stallone, how would you say, messed with the recipe. He wanted to explore Dredd's backgrounds and made him transparent and uninteresting. I also stated in my review of Stallone's version that I enjoyed Rob Schnieder's character more than I did Stallone's. That's because Schnieder had funnier lines and had some sort of dimension. In this alternate film, Urban gives Dredd a lot of good lines. And if the main character is giving better lines than the side characters, that's one step closer to making a better film.

Lena Heady as the sadistic drug lord, Ma-Ma.....real friendly

As for female characters go, Olivia Thirlby is not only very attractive here but she's also quite fun to see her character learn from Dredd. Seeing her have her way with a baddie is quite satisfying too. Lena Heady, who is more known for playing Sarah Connor in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008), also gives a good performance. Her portrayal of a violently psychotic ex-prostitute was not only disturbing, but also rather enthralling to how bad she could actually be. As for action, there's not much to be said. There's plenty of it and the gore is happily appealing.

My only complaints are of two things: the music and a subplot left unchecked. The subplot left unchecked was about a few characters that had an inside job and this inside job was never given a full explanation of how they snuck under the radar. That got to me a little bit. But oh well, it didn't matter in the end anyway. Music-wise, Paul Leonard-Morgan does create some nice tunes but a lot it is done in a way that doesn't sound engaging enough for an action film. I wanted to hear more but all I got was a bunch of electronic beats. Like can't there be a main theme? Music is important when it comes to film and that was an up-setter. However, overall, this is by far much better than the first Judge Dredd.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Desperado (1995) Review:

Desperado is a very interesting piece of film work. This was my first movie watching Antonio Banderas in rated R movie and I really wasn't sure what to expect - boy was I surprised. This movie is highly entertaining and packs a punch in multiple genres. For the most part, this is one big shoot 'em up movie. Although much of the action scenes are the same, they still somehow end up being exciting to watch no matter how many times you've seen it. This is not your regular western, where people have their little revolvers and twirl them with one finger, no. This is about a man getting revenge for the sake of his loved one using any weapon he can find.

The beautiful Salma Hayek
as El Mariachi's love interest

As I said before, Antonio Banderas stars as El Mariachi who looks to find revenge on the man who hired a couple of thugs to kill his wife and permanently damage his playing hand. Co-starring with Banderas is actress Salma Hayek. Although back then she was not well known, this is the film that started her career. I think these two actors really do a good job. Not only do they work well together, but also they look good together.

Making things even more awesome are the action scenes. The way El Mariachi fires upon the bad guys, the way he leaps and rolls; is just really exciting to watch. The style of the film is done differently than the usual action movies. Out of all the people that are killed by El Mariachi, you would almost think that he's villain, but he's not. The bad guy's henchmen just keep getting in between the cross hairs.

Banderas has some rather comical faces that he puts
on when he's shooting others

Although much of this movie is shooting people, Banderas has many moments of comedy. And it's not like, "Haha! That was a good joke". It's more of, "These guys better watch out, because they don't know who they're messing' with". El Mariachi says it himself, he's just looking for a man. And when he says the man's name, everyone starts shooting at him! He's just looking for a certain guy, why does it matter to them- ...Oh well...that's their fault. Those guys got what was coming for them. They just didn't know that.

Finally for the music used in this movie was by Los Lobos. I think Lobos did a great job with the musical score. With the Hispanic tone in every part of the music, it really gets the blood flowing. Because the story is about El Mariachi, it has a lot of guitar. That is what gives the film its zest.

Director Robert Rodriguez has recreated El Mariachi and made it into a high spirited "boom" "pow" movie that can make the viewer start jumping out of their seat. With fun performances, loud action and great music, this film is bound to get the attention it wants.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Demolition Man (1993) Review:

Sylvester Stallone has tried many times to lose his macho manliness by playing in films that involve silly plots and characters. Most of them are not good movies - however he has made a couple comedic action films that do stand out from the rest. Demolition Man is one of these films. There are many elements that help this movie excel past other comedies action flicks. The characters are funny to watch and listen to, the action is very good, and the special effects are well done.

Bullock & Stallone in their rather goofy uniforms

The cast of this movie is pretty big. Sylvester Stallone stars as a record-breaking cop, John Spartan, who has jailed the most of amount of criminals during the 20th century. He's the last resort when it comes to taking down the real baddies. The character itself resembles Marion Cobretti from Cobra (1986) because of how he's relied on to do the hardest jobs on the force. The only difference is that Spartan is probably a little more outgoing than Cobretti.

Co-starring with Stallone as his partner is Sandra Bullock playing as Lenina Huxley. Although Bullock played in a couple movies before this, I think this is where her career finally took flight. Playing the villain, Simon Phoenix, is Wesley Snipes who plays an eccentric psychopath with two different colored eyes. Nothing better than adding some strange features to the bad guy. To keep the viewer glued to the screen, director Marco Brambilla even cast Rob Schneider and Jack Black. Note: Schneider's appearance is longer than Black's appearance. Jack Black appears very briefly and he's hidden a lot so you got to have a keen eye.

Even goofier looking is Snipes in dungarees

The action in this film is good too. In my opinion, any movie where Wesley Snipes is involved, is a good action movie. Snipes is a trained martial artist and his style of fighting is really neat to watch although it is quick. The only thing that I did not like about this movie was that there was not enough action. I felt like the film could've had more action scenes but for the most part I enjoyed the film. What made this movie funny was the dialog. Because the story takes place in a futuristic society, much of the language was changed. And some of it is truly weird but it's a funny weird. Stallone and Snipes also have funny moments because of having a hard time understanding and communicating with all the other residents.

Lastly, because this story line takes place in the future much of the technology is different. I felt that a lot of the special effects were very creative. For example: most of the cars were on auto-drive but as soon as manual driving was turned on, the steering wheel would enlarge and allow the driver to take control. That's cool if you ask me. It's even cooler when the cars get into accidents but I won't say because I'll ruin the surprise.

It is rare that Stallone makes a good action/comedy film, and Demolition Man is one of them. With interesting plot devices and a funny screenplay, this movie is sure to entertain any action/comedy moviegoer.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Dead Silence (2007) Review:

Dolls in general always have a distinct unpleasantness about them, especially the ones from older generations. It’s that they are made to look human is what gives them such a weird feel. Their eyes constantly stare, never blink, and have a smile that only a puppeteer could love. But to see a movie such as this requires a little more than just an appreciation for the doll itself. The plot is the most terrifying thing here (in good way).

Ryan Kwanten is a widower for some strange reason....

After receiving an anonymous package that contains a mysterious doll, Jamie Ashen, played by Ryan Kwanten becomes a widower who saw the death of his wife and now he's on the search to discover the truth. The truth takes him to Raven's Fair, a very ominous looking town to boot. Shouldn't the word "Raven" mean something to him though? A raven is the symbol of death. Guess he didn't know that. Soon he learns from his ill-stricken father that the town has an old folktale about a woman named Mary Shaw (Judith Roberts).

To get more information, he even visits the mortician of Raven’s Fair, surprising that he's still alive. There he learns that ever since Shaw's alleged murder, the town has been tormented with gruesome deaths. And the way they were performed were done the same way Shaw died; having their tongue cut out. Not pretty. And as Ashen digs deeper to find the truth, he is literally confronted with some horrifying details!

Judith Roberts (Mary Shaw) & her creepy doll.....Billy.....

Perhaps the dialog did not excel the story as fast as I would have liked it too though. Ashen also runs into a hard headed detective (Donnie Wahlberg) who doesn't quit at trying to punish Ashen for killing his wife. It's when these too talk that it seems like the tension is lost and the whole story is left behind. The same goes for when Ashen is conversing with the mortician and his father. Why do the conversations have to be so painfully slow when the plot moves fast everywhere else?

Nonetheless, the scares are in this movie. The ghost of Mary Shaw is frightening. Her face looks like a weathered wooden board that just keeps cracking and peeling. Her crazed grin and undead eyes feel like they penetrate the soul, almost like she knows you’re scared too. Jo-Ann MacNeil was the make-up artist and I think she made the look of Shaw as the best as it could have been. The gore is there too but the real spectacle lies in the dolls and the horror within them. The music by Charlie Clouser was great too. Every time there was a scare to be had, Clouser knew how to make the audience jump.

Besides having sluggish dialog, Dead Silence has everything a horror movie could ask for. It has good scares, a palatable plot and the music is right on target.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Dead Alive (1992) Review:

Out of all the zombie movies ever created, I have never witnessed one made with so many atrocities and somehow not allow me to lose my lunch. Even more surprising was that this was before director Peter Jackson was really known for making some big movies. And although no one hears about the actors who were in this movie, much of it still leaves a scarring impression for the better.

Timothy Blane (Lionel Cosgrove) kind
of looks like a young Charlto Copley...

Dead Alive is the story of a small town of civilians that become infected by a virus that turns its victims into flesh eating zombies. The origin of where this virus starts is at the house of Lionel Cosgrove played by Timothy Balme. The person to be infected first is his snooty grandmother (Elizabeth Moody) who never seems to be happy with anything. But before this even begins, the introduction alone is only a tiny glimpse of what monstrosity is coming the viewers way for the rest of the film.

Honestly I can't even comprehend how this much gore was even acceptable let alone feasible. From singular moments to hoards of zombies, Jackson immerses his audience into what seems like a zombie paradise; where anything and everything is ripped to shreds and or eaten alive. Much of which I could not believe occurred. After watching the movie once, I had to go back and watch all the scenes I didn't think I had viewed.

Turned out I wasn't hallucinating.

Lionel's mother,...the first to be infected....

Some people complain of adventure films having too much over the top action, well in a sense, this is a parallel to the horror genre. Dead Alive has over the top gore. I congratulate Richard Taylor's (creature & gore effects) ability to make some really horrific scenes but there were times that I felt like there needed to be an intermission so the main characters could take a breather. Instead, I got non-stop yuck.

The comedy aspect I could have cared less for too. There weren't many scenes I laughed at. Most were just "Ah,..funny" moments. The zombie baby was a turnoff for me. It was at that part of the movie that made me feel like Jackson just put it in for us to not take seriously. It just didn't seem to match the rest of the tone in the film. However, the karate-chopping priest was neat and entertaining add-on. Overall it was an enjoyable and scarring experience.

The intended comical scenes are silly and the gore may be excessive at times but what distinguishes itself from the rest is how abundantly it is relied on. Dead Alive is not for the squeamish.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die (1996) Review:

What makes Darkman III better than Darkman II? I would say the amount of substance makes the cake in this movie. Sure, all the elements stay intact from the first and second. Durant is finally dead (for good) and now Darkman has another villain to subdue. So what makes it different? Doesn't Darkman defeat his enemies like he's done for the past two movies? Yeah but Peyton Westlake becomes involved with another situation that actually hit a soft spot for me when I saw it.

Jeff Fahey as Peter Rooker

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die, was directed by Bradford May whom I think did a pretty good job directing Darkman II. Not many Direct-To-Video sequels end up as good as their originals but Darkman II was very satisfying. I was expecting to see something mediocre but ended up seeing something worth my time. In this third installment in the franchise, Arnold Vosloo reprises his role as the face changing super hero. This time instead of just trying to get rid of a gang leader, he also tries to save a mother and child from utter destruction.

Playing the villain (Peter Rooker) in this film is Jeff Fahey. The character of Rooker is really selfish. He is hardheaded and has a sick twisted mind. If he were paired up against Robert G. Durant, I still think Rooker would come out on top. Rooker's wife, Angela, is played by Roxann Biggs. Truly I don't understand how they even fell in love at the start but my question is irrelevant since we're never really told about how they met.

Roxann Biggs as Rooker's troubled wife

Just like its predecessor, Darkman III does contain some witty dialog that the first Darkman film did not have. Credit to Bradford May for keeping most of the content the same but not all of it otherwise this film would not be better than Darkman II. There is even a scene that pays homage to the first movie. I won't say because what because its pretty obvious. The beginning of this film was the only thing that confused me. In Darkman II, we were explained about Darkman's past which is fine and all but then it's explained again in Darkman III in the beginning. They didn't do that for any other movie franchise; Batman, Superman, X-Men, RoboCop, or Terminator. Is that really necessary?

This film does contain good action but it also contains some very heartfelt drama scenes. It was at these points I felt like something better was added to this movie. It wasn't just Darkman doing what he did for the past two movies - just trying to get rid of his past. This was about Darkman helping someone else get rid of their problems. This is what distinguishes this film from Darkman II.

Bradford May's final installment of Raimi's Darkman series takes a better turn and adds a little more feeling than the usual to its story. Although it still does not measure up to the original, it surpasses Darkman II with triumph.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Darkman II: The Return of Durant (1995) Review:

It's very unfortunate that a box office success like Darkman did not have any sequels released in theatres. Heck, even RoboCop had two sequels that were theatrically released. Darkman II: The Return of Durant is quite obvious in its title about what the plot will involve. Never the less this film is not all that bad as others claim it to be. I do feel it does not match the same greatness as the first by Sam Raimi but I feel it is still a strong sequel for multiple reasons. New or old actors, all them do a good job with their characters. The story is good even though it is a little bit of retread. And it even contains some interesting dialog that was not included in the original.

Vosloo replaces Neeson as Westlake

Playing as Darkman in this film is Arnold Vosloo, who probably at the time was not a well-known actor for anything. I will give him credit though, I think he fills Liam Neeson's shoes quite nicely. Once you get past his accent, which can take a couple minutes to get used to, the rest of the film is fine. I'll say it anyway although we know he comes back; yes, Larry Drake returns as Robert G. Durant to get his revenge on Peyton Westlake. The same goes for Darkman, who also wants to get his revenge for the final time. One thing I'm kind of upset about is that in the first film we saw Durant die. So he comes back in this film, but with all of his body intact?! And how?! None of this is ever explained. I was expecting at least a missing arm or something. Any of the other main characters from the first film are replaced with new ones. The characters of Darkman and Durant are the only two to return. Even though there are new characters in this film, all the actors do their job well so I was pleased with it.

Larry Drake as Westlake's thought-
to-be-dead nemesis

For the story of Darkman II it's a little bit of a step backward because it looks like Darkman has to kill Durant and his goons AGAIN. But to me, there was nothing truly wrong with that. This film has Westlake do some other things that are neat to watch. Of course Darkman steals their faces, its what he has going for him. Director Bradford May who is not well known for directing any other film franchise I think did a good job. He at least tries to keep much of what was left of the first movie and added into this one.

Even in the screenplay there are some scenes that are different from the first film. Durant and several other characters use dialog that is funny to listen to. It's not gut busting funny but it will develop some chuckles here and there. Darkman even has some funny moments that I would not have expected to see him do because of his portrayal in the first film. Altogether this is a satisfying sequel.

Darkman II: The Return of Durant is no prize package but it keeps the story of Darkman alive and moving. With good performances from the actors, this Direct-To-Video sequel is probably one of the few that actually works and sticks close to its predecessor.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Darkman (1990) Review:

For director Sam Raimi, who couldn't get the papers to The Shadow, decided to make his own super hero which came out to be a great film. Darkman seems to be a mix of different genres. It's like a mix of science fiction, horror, romance, and action/adventure. It plays a little like Beauty and the Beast (even though that came out after it). It is Darkman's disfigurement that makes him like the "beast". The storyline is almost a replica to RoboCop. An innocent man is physically disfigured in some manner by a group of bad guys and has now become a vigilante and gets his revenge one way or another.

A very, very young Liam Neeson

Liam Neeson stars as Peyton Westlake who is a scientist who looks to find a cure to repair damaged skin cells. Co-starring with him is his love interest, Francis McDormand. Ironic as it is, Westlake is attacked by a gang and is blown up with his lab. Somehow he survives but sustains major skin damage. When he escapes the hospital he reconstructs his lab in an old warehouse and manages to start where he left off. Because Westlake's original face is literally unrecognizable, he can create other faces from his enemies and pose as them. How many super heroes can do that? So who plays the lead bad guy – no other than Larry Drake. Boy is this guy smug. Never have I seen a bad guy who doesn't care what happens half the time. He almost seems lax with everything, except for when things don't go his way. Of course villains are supposed to be jerks but Larry Drake plays the character of Robert G. Durant too well. Drake makes it look like playing Durant is part time job! It's almost like he goes home with that kind of personality. His henchmen are pretty interesting too. They even surprised me at times in this film.

Larry Drake as Darkman's nemesis, Robert G. Durant

Making things even more interesting is the musical score composed and conducted by Danny Elfman. Once again, Elfman has outdone himself with his music. As I watched Darkman, there were points where I felt so terrible for Westlake because of the music playing in the background. Elfman really knows how to get the emotions going.

Sam Raimi's story of a super hero is amazing to watch and can be emotional at times. With strong performances by Neeson, McDormand, Drake and other actors, Darkman hits the mark on bringing a new face of justice to the screen.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Dark Circle (1982) Review:

Atomic bombs, sure we know they're deadly, but how devastating can they really be? We've been introduced to photographs and a variety of texts but have we ever seen stock footage of an actual bomb going off, probably not. Dark Circle reveals all this and much more. Maybe a little too much, but that's what makes it so powerful. Dark Circle is so up close with its information it is scarier than an Alfred Hitchcock flick. Why - because its real.

Director Judy Irving

Judy Irving who directs and narrates this film does a great job with this film. Even the way she speaks will set the tone for the rest of film. The documentary mainly focuses on a town called Rocky Flats at which a nuclear plant operated. Much of this film is shocking visually. She interviews people who are affected the plant and the viewer will literally see the physical affects. She even films a Japanese native who was affected by the bombs in World War II.

A stock photo of the past.....

Irving also adds in some other exposing materials. Archive footage is shown from bomb testing on fake villages and various other footage will give the viewer a good time to let these images sick in. Some of it can be truly menacing. To experience the magnitude of an atomic bomb going off will "blow" you away. I am surprised that this movie does not have any critics talking about it. I know it's an old movie but it teaches a valuable lesson. I feel that this movie should be put back in theatres and introduced to a new generation. Just because one generation knows about it does not mean the next already knows. That's just pure stubbornness.

Judy Irving's documentary about the atomic bomb is not only moving but also very serious in its nature. With interviews and archive footage to back up its argument, Dark Circle is one documentary that will make a deep impact on any viewer.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic (2010) Review:

Reading about Dante's Inferno and the nine levels of hell really can be a trip. Trying to imagine what each level is like alone, is a big task. But once this film has been viewed, their will be no other way of thinking about them. It took six directors to make this film come together and they did a swell job with it too. There are some small tid-bits that need to be addressed but overall this film will leave a long lasting impression.

Virgil (left) who is Dante's (right) guide through hell

The story starts off with Dante returning home from a battle to see his family and fiancé, Beatrice, slain. It is to his own eyes that he witnesses the devil take his fiancé’s soul into hell. From there it spirals down to where Dante goes through each level of hell to save Beatrice. This is where things get interesting. The animation and art crew who designed what the levels of hell look like are very surreal and quite imaginative. Each level of hell has its own trait that makes it specifically different and more horrifying than the one before it.

The voice cast for this movie was good too. All the voices sounded pretty neat for whatever role they were portraying. The one most distinctly known was Mark Hamill's voice, mostly because his voice sounded like The Joker. But seriously, who doesn't like hearing that voice? My favorite character was Virgil, voiced by Peter Jessop. I just enjoyed how Virgil was nonchalant about the whole situation of being in hell with Dante, as if he didn't care! Graham McTavish acted Dante’s voice and he did a good job as well. The only thing that viewers could dealt without is Dante's repetitive and obsessive use of the word "Beatrice". I understand that he wants to save his loved one but it gets annoying to hear it in every other sentence.

Yeesh,....& things only get worse from here (in a good way)

The other elements that I could not relinquish from my mind were the grisly images that I saw. This film comes off as an action/horror genre epic. That's what I couldn't grasp about it. Reading Dante's Inferno is more like a stroll through hell and this film didn't allow any contemplation. It was more focused on Dante saving his girl from hell. There's plenty of blood and guts to go around though. I can't even begin to think of how much fake blood would have to be used if this was converted to live-action. While watching, it brought me back to when I saw Dead Alive (1992), which also was a gore-fest. Ahhh those bloody memories.

Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic may be a little more oriented to the action genre but there is still an abundance of horror meshed inside. Also Kudos to the animation and art crew for their distinctive take on Dante Alighieri's journey through hell.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Bloods and Crips: Made In America (2008) Review:

To understand how certain groups of individuals work on a very personal level, one must get into the field and experience it for themselves. However, there are some places that filmmakers would not go very often. These places are the fighting grounds between the Bloods and the Crips. But what's astounding enough is that director Stacy Peralta is able to get under the skin of these two gangs and dig up as much personal information as she can.

Various ex-members will tell their stories

At beginning of this documentary, viewers will see the progression of how the Crips and the Bloods came to be today and how the mindset of the older generation changed in the ones who came after them. No stone is left unturned here. Even more surprising is how the people who lived through that time tell this story! The audience will not receive a second hand story...they will receive,..the truth because this comes from the people who experienced it.

....and experiences,...pretty deep stuff

And the most riveting thing that one will see is actual interviews with Crip and Blood members; current and retired. They tell it how it is and what people should expect if someone walks through their neighborhood and what is being done to correct this problem. I'm curious to even if the producers themselves felt uncomfortable doing this movie. I sure would,...to most, it's the ticket straight to death's door. Not many people are willing to go so easily. It takes a lot of courage. And the most ironic thing about this film is its title and that’s because it's true.

All will be revealed in this very serious and yet careful documentary. Once people understand what goes on there, this situation should hopefully dissolve.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Cool World (1992) Review:

I've always been a fan of real people being on camera with cartoon characters. Either living in the same or different universes, the concept is fun to think and imagine about. But of course, there has to be professional work involved. And the problem with Cool World is that much of it looks unpolished. There are other examples before and after this that show animation can look really slick. The best role model would be Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), then comes others like Space Jam (1996) and Looney Tunes: Back In Action (2003). There's no dimension between what's real and cartoons; everything is 2D.

Jack Deebs & Holli Would, the couple I found less interesting

Even more surprising is how uninteresting the cartoon characters look. The only two characters that make themselves the attention grabbers are the curvaceous Holli Would played by Kim Basinger, and Lonette voiced by Candi Milo. The rest of the characters are eye soars. It's weird too because Holli Would and Lonette are the only too human-like characters that are in the universe of Cool World. Every thing else are animal-like creatures that have perverted minds. Plus that doesn't make them very funny.

The main plot is the creator of Cool World, Jack Deebs, acted by Gabriel Byrne, is dragged into the universe he created. The reason for being pulled into Cool World is that his favorite creation, Holli Would, wants to become human. But the only way she can become human is by having sex with another human,...or as they call it in Cool World,  a "Noid". And the person who polices this crime is Detective Frank Harris, played by Brad Pitt. All these actors do their jobs but nothing is done to make them stand out from other movies.

Lonette & Harris,...the couple I found more interesting

There were a couple things I did like but I didn't get enough of. I enjoyed the musical score produced Mark Isham. Much of it is jazzy with the saxophone always resounding in the background. I also felt more of an attraction to the personal connection between Harris and Lonette. Whenever they were on screen together, I wanted to see more between them than just arguments about how Harris being careless at his job. These two characters had potential and director Ralph Bakshi had minimal work done for them. Very disappointing.

Lastly, it’s very difficult to figure out who's the protagonist and antagonist in this story. At first, it feels like Holli Would is the innocent one and Harris is holding her back. And then the end of the film switches the roles. And it's also mentioned at the end of the film that Harris is the hero yet Byrne's character was the hero and was never thanked. For writers Michael Grais and Mark Victor, I don't understand how any of this made sense. I was hoping to get a different experience but all I got was unpleasantness.

The characterizations are confusing and the animation is sloppy. The only parts that stand out are Isham's music and the relationship between Harris and Lonette.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Colombiana (2011) Review:

There are so many ways that the story of Colombiana is used that it could made to look like it originated from a graphic novel. The character of Cataleya (Zoë Saldana) is a tragic hero like many other comic book characters. Something was taken away and now it's time to set things right. The action was the best part of the movie. My only issue resides in some of the key events that happened during the running time.

Saldana being a cold-blooded killer

The beginning of Colombiana starts off with young Cataleya witnessing the murder of her parents, But before this even happens, she is instructed by her father to remember some specific directions, and it wasn't a small amount of information either. So was Cataleya trained for when this day came or does she have one heck of memory because I know, that a kid that age would be in such shock that it would be hard to remember anything after watching your parents die. But I got to say young Cataleya is quick on her feet; that's for sure.

But this is only one of several more times that this story tries to fool its audience into believing that this child is the next best vigilante. After young Cataleya escaped the bad guys by fitting into a sewer drain, she then surfaces from a manhole cover in the middle of a street, not to mention, she was right at the spot she needed to be to continue her journey to America. Wait what? First, how on earth did an eight year old child even lift that manhole cover let alone move it?! Seriously, maybe I could see a muscular individual but that? No way.

Curtis as Cataleya's mentor

And then there's the issue of being in the middle of town. There were cars passing by when this happened and no one bothered to even figure out what was going on? What was a child doing in the sewer? Is this a daily thing? I'm not even going to go into the fact that she was right in front of the destination she had to go to next. That's just plain ridiculous. Once Cataleya lands in America, she meets up with a relative named Emilio played by Cliff Curtis. I like Curtis' character because he was willing to help Cataleya get revenge on the people who murdered her parents.

The thing I didn't get was when Emilio was trying to make Cataleya understand that to become a killer she needed an education. And he proved this to her by publicly firing several rounds in a local neighborhood and causing some minor damage. Plus, there were other witnesses around when this happened but when the police showed up to figure out what happened, the two had left already. Huh? You mean to tell me know one saw a casual looking fellow walking around with a gun? How oblivious is everyone in this film? Its flaws like these that can confuse and frustrate viewers.

There was another part of the film where older Cataleya was trying to escape the FBI in her apartment and she ended up pulling a machine gun out from a ceiling tile that wasn't even in her room or floor. How did she get into that room in the first place? But in place of all these imperfections, I did enjoy how the action scenes were executed. There was lots of gunfire and stealth. So that's always a plus. Thankfully there was more of that than the flaws I previously mentioned.

In a sense, Zoë Saldana's character could be another comic adaptation but what leaves it slightly crippled are the inconsistencies that are inside the plot. Besides that, the action is fairly good.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Cobra (1986) Review:

What is it that makes police thrillers so interesting to watch? Some comical dialog, high-strung action sequences and a menacing looking killer. Cobra has all of these elements in this movie and it works really well. Cobra is based off a book called Fair Game by Paula Gosling. Sylvester Stallone has ramped up the action and added some extras into it. Stallone plays Marion Cobretti (or Cobra as he's called) who is one of the best cops on the force but is only used for the major emergencies. What's funny is that many times, when there is trouble he's called in - so why bother saving him as a last resort if he's needed all the time anyway? Oh well. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sgt. Gonzalez (Santoni) & Marion Cobretti (Stallone) 

Starring with Stallone is Reni Santoni who plays his partner Gonzales. Usually when the camera is focused on them together, this is where most of the funny scenes come from. There are other funny parts but this is the main source. For some reason, Gonzales loves to eat all unhealthy food and Cobra is always trying to persuade him to eat healthier. It is cheesy but it delivers the chuckles.

In a movie where everything is tense, there's got to be a little light- heartedness. These kinds of things are included so that the viewer knows that the main characters know what they're doing. This movie was panned by many critics saying that the dialog was very boring and the acting was terrible; sorry but I didn't see that. I had some good laughs and I think Stallone's character was written to be the way it was in the film, nothing more.

Doesn't Brian Thompson look great or what?

Action sequences - what makes them good in this film? Basically how they're executed. Because much of the story is a chase, it will keep the viewer on their seat. Some action sequences are so unique in this movie, I could bet that you won't find another film before its time doing such a stunt. I'm sure this is what got this movie to earn so much money. With a budget of 25 million, they earned back almost twice as much. That's pretty good for its time.

The actor who plays the killer (or Night Slasher) is Brian Thompson who I'll admit is pretty scary looking. He grunts, snorts, and has a bellowing voice that would make you cower in fear if you were the person who was going to be murdered by this dude. Seriously, in one scene he wears a wife beater where his muscles are enormous. In an arm wrestle alone, I don't think Stallone would stand a chance. Someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger probably would be better for the job. But this is a Stallone movie so you work with what you get and either way it's a great film.

Stallone's version of Gosling's book, Fair Game is action packed and quite thrilling. Adding to the action in this film, director George P. Cosmatos has a great cast that makes the characters very likable.

Points Earned --> 10:10

City Heat (1984) Review:

Like the old saying goes, bigger is not always better. Apparently sticking two actors with the highest star power was not the best idea for City Heat. It's not a bad idea, but it's not a great one. There are SOME good moments in this movie but there is a lot missing. Because of this the bad outweighs the good by far, which can make this a frustrating film to watch.

Both Reynolds,...

We know this much; Mike Murphy (Burt Reynolds) and Lieutenant Speer (Clint Eastwood) are acquaintances on some level. In what way - we're never really told. That's already one step in the wrong direction. If you're making a buddy cop movie, you have to give some kind of background of the main characters. Otherwise, the viewer will have no clue why the two characters are at odds half the time.

Much of the time I was trying to figure out what Reynold's character was up to. Every time the screen shifted to Eastwood I finally caught up with what was happening. I'm not really sure how but that was one of the frustrating parts about this movie. It was like Reynold's was there only for fluff and laughs. I'll admit Reynold's did make me laugh at times but it was just for that specific moment. Clint Eastwood also has funny parts. Just like any Eastwood movie, he has his own way of doing things and he does that in this movie too. But these occurrences didn't really change my opinion of this movie; although I wish it had.

& Eastwood try, but it's not their best work....

To make things even more awkward was that this film barely had a soundtrack. I mean even the silliest of soundtracks sound better than nothing. There were times where I was watching action sequences in this movie where I only heard a "biff" or "baff" and an occasional gunshot. Music can change the whole feeling of a certain scene and without it I felt like I was watching anything very exciting. I was bored with it. Even when it comes to the most stupid action scenes in a movie, there was at least music to back it up. There was almost nothing here. I felt that there was nothing to be excited about. I was just watching a film with no emotion. That is really nerve racking for me. I need to feel something while watching a movie. City Heat just never took off for me and it is truly unfortunate. I was expecting a lot more.

City Heat is just another buddy cop movie with no real life in its characters. The action scenes can be boring with no music in the background and its characters are short of laughs due to the sloppy screenplay.

Points Earned --> 6:10