The Love Bug (1968) Review:

Whether it be in person or the TV screen, race cars have captured many attention for their noisy antics. No matter if it’s the speed these cars pass by at or the wrecks they get involved with, racing can be an exhilarating sport. The people who obviously get the most out of it though are the racers themselves. Even then though, they can hit slumps especially if their season isn’t going as planned. Pick me ups are possible, but sometimes it’s difficult getting back in the ring. But what are those pick me ups? Surely not getting a completely new car. Well, this movie happens to feature something like that with a very unlikely added feature for a fun ride. This is also the film that began a franchise favorite for many people who love racing and classic cars.

Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) is a struggling driver trying to make something of his profession. Unfortunately for him, he’s just making ends meet by participating in demolition derbies with his partner Tennessee (Buddy Hackett). That is until he takes a stroll and happens to meet Carole Bennett (Michele Lee) an assistant to Peter Thorndyke (David Tomlinson) the owner of a car dealer. While perusing, he crosses paths with a white Volkswagen beetle. Feeling the car is an eyesore, Thorndyke offers it to Douglas. What nobody seems to know is that the car has a mind of its own except Tennessee, which leads to all kinds of shenanigans. Written by Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi from Mary Poppins (1964) fame, this story is a cute little racing movie, although highly unrealistic. Robert Stevenson serves as director who also helmed other Disney pictures like Mary Poppins (1964) and Old Yeller (1957).

As for stories go, there’s a decent amount of family entertainment to be had. While the character of Jim Douglas is a bit stubborn at times, he does have a character arc which makes him an amicable protagonist. It’s a little questionable why Michele Lee’s character would warm up to him rather quickly, but perhaps this writing is more of a product of the time. Both Tomlinson and Hackett are the actors who have the more comedic characters. Tomlinson plays Thorndyke as an overly confident man in his abilities to persuade others. His development is interesting seeing that he became more and more unstable as the story progressed. Hackett as Tennessee is fairly consistent throughout, but it’s never explained how he could tell that Herbie was a sentient motor vehicle or how it became sentient.

However, audiences do get to learn how Herbie gets his name. As for the car itself, Herbie is a charming little car that shows just how much energy it really has. While the vehicle may not be able to make faces, through a series of actions, audiences will be able to tell what mood the car is in. There’s also appearances from Joe Flynn playing Havershaw, Thorndyke’s sniveling partner, and Benson Fong playing Tang Wu, another shop owner who gets entangled with the bug. Since this is a family adventure fantasy film and the premise is about a sentient car, expectations should be low for realism. Reason for this being not even the racing segments are exactly believable. Which is kind of surprising, considering one would think that would be something to keep authentic if takes place in the human world.

When a car is operating only on ¾ of its base and the rest is being balanced by the crew, how is a race functioning properly with that? The cinematography shot by Edward Colman was well done for its time. Having also done cinematography for Mary Poppins (1964), the quality remains the same. Before that, he also worked on Dragnet (1954). This would however be Colman’s last credit as a cinematographer. Finally, the film score composed by George Bruns, a frequent composer for Disney films at the time, did a nice job. Unfortunately, there never was an officially released score, but Bruns does have a cute little jingle for Herbie. In a way it sounds like it took inspiration from Vic Mizzy’s Addams Family theme with the same instruments.

The realism in the racing aspects are far from plausible and the origins of Herbie’s existence isn’t given much explanation. Despite that though, it’s easy to ignore since it’s a fantasy film with goofy likable characters, cute music and skilled camerawork.

Points Earned --> 7:10

It (2017) Review:

Of all the works written by horror novelist Stephen King, none of his creations were fully recognized until the late 1980s to 1990s. Yes, Carrie (1976) and The Shining (1980) had come out way earlier than that, if anything though, they were the launch pad for King’s properties into the film industry. Yet, the one creation a generation would remember most was not even from a theatrical film, but a mini-series. Stephen King’s It (1990) with Tim Curry was successful at leaving an impression on viewers. It had a likeable cast of characters, a memorable villain and an interesting way of telling the story. Despite the fondness though people have for the whole series, it wasn’t perfect and suffered from a datedness that the 1990s only had. This new reimaging of the story not only updates it but raises the bar slightly, which is rare. Thankfully it stands out enough that it does nothing to harm the reputation of the first effort.

Instead of book ending the story with two different settings simultaneously, this entry just covers the early years. This is definitely a better way to approach this since it’s a theatrical film. Credit to writers Cary Joji Fukunaga, Chase Palmer and Gary Dauberman for having the foresight to do this along with director Andy Muschietti. When a group of ragtag children join forces for being considered outcasts, they also realize that the town they live in has something to hide. For some reason people, especially children go missing. As they continue to search for answers, they realize a dark force has been creeping on them, only known as It. While the premise is the same, it’s quite surprising how well things are handled considering Fukunaga and Palmer had no previous writing credits to a horror film before it. Dauberman does have experience, but his best known credits to this point was Annabelle (2014) and most recently Annabelle: Creation (2017).

No main characters featured in this project are adults, except It.  Jaeden Martell plays Bill, the stuttering leader of the group, who also lost his brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to the mysterious force. Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor) is the new kid on the block who enjoys reading and has the biggest heart. Beverly (Sophia Lillis) is the only girl of the group, but is able to stand her own even to them, mostly because of her abusive father. Richie (Finn Wolfhard) is the jokester and seeks to be the grounder of the group. Mike (Chosen Jacobs) is the farm boy who lost his parents in a house fire, but does his best to stand out. Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) the germophobe is a smart kid who has the clearest common sense from anyone else, but also has asthma. Then there’s Stanley (Wyatt Oleff), the kid of religion who has other things he needs to accomplish but is just as much an outcast like his friends.

There’s also the Bowers gang, led by Henry (Nicholas Hamilton) and his cronies Belch (Jake Sim), Victor (Logan Thompson) and Patrick (Owen Teague). All of these actors perform well off each other and their chemistries feel natural in every situation. Lastly there’s Bill Skarsgård as It. Taking the form of his best known character as Pennywise the dancing clown. His performance as Pennywise is definitely one in itself. Skarsgård made it clear from the beginning he had to make his performance different from that of Tim Curry because he knew how many people regarded the original incarnation. Skarsgård as Pennywise is ravenous and quite sadistic, yet has moments of dark comedy for good measure. And unlike the mini-series where Pennywise looked like the mainstream clown, here he looks like a clown from another century. The only thing that could’ve been changed was not having the child actors dropping F bombs so frequently. It seemed like almost every sentence they used.

For a film that came out in the late 2010s, the look of it is praiseworthy. The cinematography shot by Chung-hoon Chung is beautiful to look at either during the day time or in dark settings. Chung was also the cinematographer for the original Oldboy (2003). The sets built for the film also look great. Whether it be the sewers the kids go searching in or the old abandoned house. The interiors look amazing. Finally, the film score composed by Benjamin Wallfisch is unique to listen to. The score is a mix of orchestra and heavy synthesizers but still manages a balance between dark themes and the lighter ones. There’s also the use of a creepy organ and a children’s choir for Pennywise, which makes it all the more unsettling. All around though, a great work from this up and coming composer.

Aside from a slight overuse of the F word by children like it’s their favorite word, this updated version of Stephen King’s popular novel is a worthy addition. The performances from the actors, unique music and beautiful cinematography all elevate the experience of watching this movie.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Dune (1984) Review:

Prior to George Lucas and the release of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977), the genre of space related films had been out and about before. It just so happened that Lucas’ film brought it back by popular demand. While Lucas’ story was a culmination of ideas, it was still his original concept. There was however a popular story already written that was waiting to be adapted and that was Dune by Frank Herbert. With that said, who knows how it would have turned out if Lucas was in charge. For David Lynch who only directed Eraserhead (1977) and The Elephant Man (1980) before this, it seems to be clear perhaps he was not the strongest choice. That’s not to say Lynch isn’t a good director, but his previous projects were not in the same genre nor were they as big a production as this one. He also admits to not fighting for his vision.

Having written and directed this feature probably took a toll on Lynch as well. The plot for this feature is about a planet named Arrakis AKA Dune, which has a precious commodity called “spice”, everyone in the universe loves. On Dune where this good is sourced, are the natives who believe in a prophecy of someone freeing them and their planet from authoritarian control. The person whose plan is to inherit the current occupation of Dune is Paul Atreides (Kyle MacLachlan) the son of the Duke Leto Atreides (Jürgen Prochnow). They are not the only ones though seeking to control Dune. There’s also Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV (José Ferrer) who’s competing with the Atreides dynasty and hopes to overthrow them with the help from Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Kenneth McMillan) and his nephews Feyd Rautha (Sting) and The Beast Rabban (Paul L. Smith). That’s about as condensed as it can get.

Sadly, the characters and writing suffer the worst in this science-fiction story. The characters and their respective actors mentioned above are only a small handful of those to appear in this film. There’s also appearances from Brad Dourif, Richard Jordan, Virginia Madsen, Everett McGill, Dean Stockwell, Max von Sydow, Sean Young, Linda Hunt, Silvana Mangano and Patrick Stewart. The value their characters add to the picture though is average at best. With that said, it doesn’t give the audience much more for the main characters. Very few of them have any kind of charm to them. It’s like the tone was to take it very seriously, as the amount of light hearted moments come far and few between. As the lead star, one would think Kyle MacLachlan as Paul Atreides would be someone to rally behind…not exactly.

Really, it’s the villains who expel the most energy on screen. Kenneth McMillan as the pus oozing floating fat man, as he’s referenced in this film by another character, looks to be enjoying every scene that he’s in. Paul L. Smith best known for his role in Robert Altman’s live-action version of Popeye (1980) comes in a close second here. Sting is also grinning in several shots…whether he needs to be or not. Why are they having a good time but no one else looks like they are? The worst offense this film commits is having in almost every scene having characters perform inner monologue whispering. To its credit, it works in some cases for context purposes. However, this movie just over does it; audiences don’t have to be told everything a character is thinking.

Visually speaking for 1984, the film looks good. The practical effects and small assortments of digital effects are unique for their time. The greatest prop of this feature everyone remembers are the gigantic sand worms. Wonder if that helped inspire the demonic ones from Beetlejuice (1988). Helping with the visuals was Freddie Francis who also shot for Lynch’s The Elephant Man (1980) and would later shoot for Glory (1989). Lastly the film score was composed by 80s icon band TOTO. While it seems to have been their only film to score by, TOTO deserves credit for creating and mixing a competent sounding tone for this futuristic movie. There are mixes of orchestra and electric guitar some would be surprised to hear actually work well off each other. Not to mention there’s a main theme for the film.

As grand as the look of the movie is, the stuffed screenplay, over serious tone and constant inner monologues make the experience long and boring. The special effects and music is crafted expertly, but that doesn’t add much when most of the characters are bland.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) Review:

The 1980s was the decade of many things. For the film industry, more specifically the genre of horror, Freddy Krueger was one of the top icons. While he emerged almost half way through the decade, his name stuck and the fans couldn’t get enough of the series. Of course that is until the character became campier and campier therefore viewers not taking him as seriously. It was also obvious to director Wes Craven after leaving the franchise from the first film that his creation wasn’t the same several sequels down the road. It was because of this realization that Craven returned to helm this film. Although, what some people might be expecting is not what they should be expecting, if that makes any sense. This is exactly why the title is called Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.

The plot is one the most absurdly meta stories to a franchise. After taking part in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987), Heather Langenkamp is now married with a son Dylan (Miko Hughes). Producers from New Line Cinema want her to return for one more Elm Street sequel, but she’s currently being stalked by someone imitating Freddy Krueger…or is it? Once people she knows starts showing up dead in familiar ways to that of the films, it’s up to Langenkamp to stop the evil force. Written and directed by Wes Craven, this pseudo-sequel which in a way, rounds out the two trilogy of films rather well. What’s crazy is just how self-aware the script is. There nods to how fans have seen the franchise through the years, how Freddy has been perceived and what parents have thought of the films.

The script also has people who played characters in past films playing themselves this time. Rob LaBelle from Jack Frost (1997) has a small role as a special effects technician. Jsu Garcia who played Rod in the first film has a cameo, as well as Tuesday Knight from A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988), John Saxon and Lin Shaye. It’s just weird, but cool at the same time. This also seems to be the template for what Craven would use in Scream (1996) and maybe even Bride of Chucky (1998). All the actors entertain and are convincing in their roles as themselves and their characters of this movie of a movie within a movie. Also as a child actor, Miko Hughes is believable and would later have roles in Apollo 13 (1995), Mercury Rising (1998), Escape to Grizzly Mountain (2000) and Clockstoppers (2002).

But of course, what would the film be without Robert Englund playing Fred Krueger? Well that’s kind of the thing about this movie. First off, Englund not only plays himself, but also Krueger again. That’s a plus. The problem is, Krueger doesn’t seem to appear as much in the film as one would hope. There’s a balance and sometimes less is more. However, even the very first film had more appearances that what seems to be this one. The same could be said for gore as well. This doesn’t take away the performance or look of the new Krueger design though. The criticism of Krueger being too campy cannot be made here. He is very much what he was from early on; serious, dark and has just right number of one-liners. Kudos to Englund.

The cinematography was shot well for this movie. Behind the camera was Mark Irwin, the same guy who worked on Scanners (1981), Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), The Blob (1988), RoboCop 2 (1990), Dark Angel (1990) and Showdown in Little Tokyo (1991). Probably the only weak visual component was CGI effects since it was the early 90s, which is forgivable to a degree and not much of it exists in the movie. Lastly the film score was composed by J. Peter Robinson, who during the same year scored Highlander: The Final Dimension (1994). Surprisingly, the music for this film pays respects to Charles Bernstein’s original theme while incorporating some of his own style in various tracks. Thankfully there aren’t too many stings if at all.

As the seventh entry in the series, although it may not be considered depending on who you ask, this film is bizarrely clever in its execution paving the way for other self-aware horror films. The actors all put in good performances, the music and camerawork are all nicely done too. Only issue is, the main villain may not be as prevalent as some might hope him to be.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) Review:

Ten years ago from the release of this entry, Transformers (2007) was never considered a deep film nor did it gain all around glowing reviews. Yet it made an impact on audiences and people loved it. Its visuals were eye popping, the action was gigantic and the music was fun. Sure, characters were a bit exaggerated and seen as annoyances, but there was some likability to them. Five entries later and it looks like mainstream audiences still enjoyed that familiar formula. People still came out to see it, despite this being the lowest earning entry in the series and that should mean something. Perhaps viewers want a little more in their robotic action romps? It's truly unfortunate when the only redeemable aspects to a film are it's visual and audible components.

Picking up some time after the events of Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014), where Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) left Earth to find the autobots' creator(s), Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) and the rest have been hiding from government authorities. Kind of strange considering like in every film, they've saved the planet from being taken over. Nevertheless, Prime returns to his home planet and is captured by his creator Quintessa (Gemma Chan). Her plan is turning Prime against his allies in search of an old artifact given from the autobots to the humans during medieval times. Surprisingly the one writer not involved with this sequel was Ehren Kruger, who was credited in the last three films and felt more like a burden than contributor.

This time, the script was penned by Ken Nolan (Black Hawk Down (2001)), Art Marcum and Matt Holloway (Iron Man (2008), Punisher: War Zone (2008)). Unfortunately, these changes did not improve on the story. The only thing the story properly gets correct is referencing the events from prior films, while occasionally using characters from those films. This is not enough though to prove itself to be a cohesive narrative. The fact that each entry has had to somehow retroactively fix the history of the autobots and how they played a part in the Earth's history is moronic. This kind of lunacy doesn't permit even continuity and makes characters feel far less unique. While the run time to this feature is much shorter than the last film, the delivery of the story is just a slog. Nobody seems to remember how many times Bumblebee's real voice has been heard.

Anthony Hopkins plays Sir Edmond Burton with Cogman (Jim Carter), a robot (transformer?) butler who does nothing but provide exposition dumps. It is a complete phone-in from Hopkins. Speaking of phone-ins, Peter Cullen does the same for Optimus Prime. Laura Haddock plays Vivian Wembley who also has a past she isn't aware of. Want to guess how she interacts with Cade Yeager? Everything is forced. Even new characters like Izabella (Isabela Merced) and her robot (transformer?) sqweeks (Reno Wilson) get sidelined further in the story. There's just too much to handle for this sequel. Actors like Josh Duhamel, Jerrod Carmichael and John Turturro try, but they're forgettable because of all that's going on. Voice actors Frank Welker, John Goodman, Ken Watanabe, Omar Sy, John DiMaggio and Jess Harnell also deserve better for their characters’ development wise.

From a visual standpoint, this is the one element to this franchise that maintains its consistency. The CGI special effects blend well with the physical backgrounds and the attention to detail on the robotic characters are as good as they've always been. While the cinematography has changed throughout the series, that too has remained competent. This time, the director of photography was Jonathan Sela, who also worked on Max Payne (2008), Law Abiding Citizen (2009) and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013). Lastly, the music composed by Steve Jablonsky who has worked on the franchise since the beginning has remained true to his form. Also with producing the most music for this film, those who enjoy the music will have plenty of tracks to listen to.

The technical fundamentals of this final film in the franchise have been as solid as they have ever been. The problem is, it does not make a movie by itself. The screenplay, while written by different people, does nothing to close plot holes, maintain continuity or make any of the characters interesting. Most performances are either boring or underutilized. It's sad because so much better could have come from it.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Misery (1990) Review:

With every plus there's a minus. Life comes with scales and scales require balance. People want success but don't know how to handle it once they do. Being rich is great unless one doesn't know how to be fiscally responsible. The same goes for fame. It's great being the center of attention, but sometimes it's not so great. This film is a great example of that, despite the actual story being an allusion to the author's alcohol addiction. Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things. Sometimes those things are of no benefit to anyone. So how could being a famous writer lead to such a situation? Try meeting a deranged fan who won't let up on the harassment.

The plot is about famous author Paul Sheldon (James Caan) who just finished a new book he's ready to publish. On his travels he has a car accident and is rescued by a devoted fan named Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates). At her place she nurses him back to health, only for Sheldon to realize Wilkes is more than a fervent fan. Her desire is to be Sheldon's next character of focus. Meanwhile, Sheldon's family and agent Marcia Sindell (Lauren Bacall) are concerned about his disappearance. For help, they contact the local sheriff Buster (Richard Farnsworth) and wife Virginia (Frances Sternhagen) to see what they can do. Based on the novel by Stephen King and written by William Goldman who'd later pen Chaplin (1992) and Maverick (1994), makes this quite a watch.

It's interesting that viewers get to know quite a lot about the main characters just by the trailer alone. Even with all that being revealed, there's still much to see that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats. With Rob Reiner directing in this genre for the first time, it's all the more captivating. Before this Reiner had also directed Stand By Me (1986) and The Princess Bride (1987). Like mentioned before, the film has a balance between the high strung and more pleasing moments believe it or not. Seeing Paul Sheldon trying to find a way to escape his captor's home is beyond nerve racking because of how unhinged Annie Wilkes is. But then there's also the scenes involving Buster where his deductive skills play a major part in the story.

However, a weak point in the story occurs when a plot device is used to tie two different plot threads together. These two plot threads share the plot device, but when looking at it from a bigger point of view, it seems very convenient. Almost like the probability of such a thing happening is completely unlikely. This doesn’t take away the performances from the cast members. While Kathy Bates had been acting prior to this feature, it was here she made her breakout role. She plays her character well alongside veteran actor James Caan who was in hits like The Godfather (1972) and Rollerball (1975). The more intriguing scenes are delivered through Sternhagen and Farnsworth’s characters. Farnsworth is also known for starring in The Grey Fox (1982).

The camerawork is also well done. Shot by Barry Sonnenfeld, who would later on direct The Addams Family (1991) and Men in Black (1997), the camerawork here is shot competently for the film. The viewer truly gets to see how mentally unhealthy Annie Wilkes is in her home and the stress that Paul Sheldon develops because of it. The music was another great component. Composed by Marc Shaiman, the film score again has a stable mix of tones in different areas of the story. There are unsettling cues with piano and strings for Sheldon’s hardship, as well as softer easy going motifs using horns for Buster’s investigative scenes. Unfortunately, the score is a bit short in material but still captures the feel of the movie.

Taking out one convenient particular part of the story that helps move the plot, this thriller will hold its viewers’ attention. The tension only cranks up as time goes on thanks to the acting, camerawork and music.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night (1987) Review:

Once Walt Disney and his film studio made a name for themselves after making several animated movies, it's no surprise that other people wanted to capitalize on those properties by either making their own version or creating cheap knock offs. For Filmation Studios, the company had even more ambitious plans which was to make sequels to Disney's popular films. However, due to the massive legal advantage Disney probably had at the time, Filmation didn't get far in this. Despite this though, the studio did release two of the fifteen they had in their lineup. One of which was this movie. Some won't likely see this a legit movie to bother watching, yet there are components to this feature that make it worth at least one viewing. Of course the things that may make it worth watching could be for the wrong reasons.

The plot takes place after the events of the original Pinocchio story. Now that he's a real boy, Pinocchio's birthday has come and wants to help his father Geppetto (Tom Bosley) deliver a special package. On his travels though he comes across several obstacles in the forms of bandits Scalawag (Edward Asner) and Igor (Frank Welker), the carnival ran by Puppetino (William Windom) who has a more sinister boss known as the Emperor of the night (James Earl Jones). The script was written by Robby London, Barry O'Brien and Dennis O'Flaherty, who had credits to shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the less popular Ghost Busters show. Directing for the last time for this feature was Hal Sutherland, known for also working on Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Star Trek: The Animated Series.

For the story that's presented, it's not strong at all, but it's not terrible either. Due to Pinocchio's innocence, one could argue he's still very gullible. But after going through his first adventure before becoming a boy, you'd think he'd remember some things. The narrative just seems to have a number of useless characters. Most of which these characters have a parallel side plot that feel unnecessary as well. Aside from Pinocchio's fairy god mother (Rickie Lee Jones), there's Grumblebee (Jonathan Harris) and Gee Willikers (Don Knotts) who help, but it feels so small by comparison, no pun intended. The bandit characters Scalawag and Igor are also not that likeable. This is most likely due to them being able to persuade Pinocchio more than once to make a bad decision. It's cases like these that make the thin development of the characters feel that much more flimsy.

The same could be said for the villains and their motivations. Despite this though, the voice acting is performed well by everyone. Scott Grimes the voice of Pinocchio sounds good and would later go on to be voices for Steve Smith in American Dad and Kevin Swanson in Family Guy. Edward Asner would go on to voice J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man: The Animated Series and Carl Fredricksen in Up (2009). But the fact that this production was able to nab James Earl Jones and Frank Welker is amazing. Just considering how many credits Welker has and what Jones would best be known for less than a decade later under the actual Disney banner. The actor who steals the show was William Windom as Puppetino, this is due to the nightmare inducing design of the character and the memorable voice he was given.

For an animated film, the movie is decently produced. With supervising animators like Kamoon Song, Chuck Harvey and John Celestri, majority of the scenes have fluid and expressive movements. Unfortunately, some of the character designs are what gave young viewers such scarred memories. There are some fairly dark moments in this feature. Specifically, the first scene of the film and when Pinocchio first meets Puppetino. The music sadly is also largely forgettable despite having talents like Rickie Lee Jones doing a song. The score composed by Brian Banks and Anthony Marinelli who would a year later score for Young Guns, make adequate music. The problem is, the film itself isn't completely memorable and that's because of how stock the music felt. That's not to say it's boring, it's just not memorable.

This animated film hits straight down the middle. The story isn't very strong, the characters themselves don't develop much and the music is marginally forgettable. However, this film does deserve a view out of curiosity because of its decent voice cast, acceptable animation and uniquely disturbing character designs.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Maniac (1980) Review:

Horror films, no matter what the focus can be scary. Perhaps what makes people more frightened is when they realize what they're watching is more likely to happen in real life. Supernatural entities, other worldly creatures or scientific abominations are all monstrous by design, but the likelihood of coming across something like that is slim to none. Maybe the person who just walked by is your average citizen. They also could very well not be the average citizen one would expect them to be. Sometimes people have alternative activities when no one's looking. This is the feeling a viewer can have after watching this flick, because it does feel very grounded. One never knows what another person does behind closed doors.

The story is about what seems to be an ordinary person by the name of Frank Zito (Joe Spinell). From the outside, he's not the classiest looking person, but he's not a slob. That is until viewers see what he does for a hobby, which is murdering random women and scalping them after. Written by C.A. Rosenberg and Joe Spinell himself, the script gives its viewers a twisted look at a disturbed person. This feature would also be what director William Lustig was best known for until he created the Maniac Cop (1988) franchise. While that horror film was unique its own way, it is completely unrealistic. However, the possibility of this scenario happening is much higher.

Think of it this way. What's more popular for the execution of horror films? Most of the set ups require a bunch of random characters that don't receive proper development and end up becoming fodder to the villain. This feature though, focuses on the villain as the main character. This allows the viewers to see Frank Zito when he's the killer, when he's playing a regular guy other people and how he is when he’s by himself. It's definitely a different way of showing the audience the story and not blatantly exposition dumping everything at key plot points. That doesn't mean the script doesn't have its problems. One thing that's missed is explaining why Frank scalps his victims. What's the purpose? What does it represent?

Then there's also the supporting cast which is very small but understandable since it is a low budget flick. Unfortunately there, one of the characters that begins to get development is abruptly dropped. But that's where the issues end. The supporting cast has very few recognizable names but they all act decently. Spinell gives a creepy performance as Frank, considering he also played Rocky Balboa's boss Gazzo in Sylvester Stallone's franchise. There's also Anna (Caroline Munro), a professional photographer. Munro was also in Dracula A.D. (1972) and The Spy Who Loved Me (1977). Even Dawn of the Dead (1974) makeup effects artist Tom Savini has a brief role to play.

Visually speaking, the film has a very raw feeling to it. This is most likely due to the film equipment at the time but it's because of that realistic feel to the movie that helps make the story that much more frightening. Shooting for this feature was Robert Lindsay as cinematographer. Prior to this Lindsay had worked on adult films, which is as far as I'm going to go there. Special effects were also handled by Tom Savini so the violence is definitely credible. As for the film score, this would be the first debut for Jay Chattaway who would also later be known for his compositions to Maniac Cop (1988) and Maniac Cop 2 (1990). Here, Chattaway's music is just as creepy and provides interesting cues using synthesizers.

Something this horror film does right is changing the focus of the story to the villain. This allows the viewers to get a better understanding of who they are. While the cast is bare bones and a true reason as to why the killer kills the way he does goes unexplained, the music is appropriately unsettling, the acting is good and the gore effects are noteworthy for the time.

Points Earned --> 7:10

RED 2 (2013) Review:

The inevitable curse of sequels coming with a diminishing return is more or less expected by familiar moviegoers. For some reason, capturing lightning in a bottle can be as hard as it physically sounds. The original RED (2010) was a unique action comedy that was very much a lighter toned version of Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables (2010). A dangerous mission involving lethally trained old people who still pack a punch. Based on an obscure DC Comic of the same name, the film managed to be successful either way thanks to its leads and execution of the story. While three years is about average for sequel output, it is no surprise that RED 2 (2013) doesn't meet its original in the same way. However, considering the changes in crewmembers, the decline was not profound.

Continuing roughly where the last film ended, Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) and Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker) are now together trying to live a normal life as intended. Until they are visited once again by their past, this time being Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich). It is there they are pursued by Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) looking to lock them down over a missing nuclear device. Apparently, the device was reported during an earlier time in Frank's career trying to protect a physicist named Dr. Bailey (Anthony Hopkins). Written again by Jon and Erich Hoeber, the screenplay is probably why the experience of watching this sequel doesn't feel like such a misfire; since they worked on the first entry. Directing this time though was Dean Parisot, known for his work on Galaxy Quest (1999), Fun with Dick and Jane (2005) and most recently after this film Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020).

For what it’s worth, the overall execution is fine. Willis, Malkovich, and Parker as the main three still work well off each other. What feels to be one of the drawbacks to this entry, is the relationship between Frank and Sarah. Even for the first film, old man Moses paired up with Ms. Ross just seemed like a mismatch in age. Here, Sarah continues to try and connect with her ex-CIA partner, which comes with very common tropes seen in other rom-com sub-genre movies. When traveling the world, it is revealed that Frank was swooned over by another field agent by the name of Major General Katja Petrokovich (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Want to guess where that subplot goes? Another problem with the story is that more characters were thrown in as well. There's also appearances from David Thewlis, Byung-hun Lee, as well as returns from Brian Cox and Helen Mirren. It just feels very cramped.

And with the amount of characters put into play, there's one scene that seems be edited in the wrong order. This actually messes with the execution when realized and it’s unfortunate. Instead of one character chasing the protagonists like in the first film, now there's almost three times as many. It's unfortunate when Neal McDonough is pretty much a copy of Karl Urban's character in the first film. Aside from this though, the actors still play off each other well. Some of the comedic lines are delivered adequately, while other times it falls flat. This is mainly due to the relationship plotline. Anything outside of that thread though tends to work better. The action still entertains though, featuring similar things that have been shown before such as gunfights, explosions and other goofy antics. There's a scene with a helicopter that's pretty hilarious.

As for visuals, this time camerawork was shot by Enrique Chediak. Sadly, this crewmember has well-known credits to this name like 28 Weeks Later (2007), 127 Hours (2010), Intruders (2011), The Maze Runner (2014), Deepwater Horizon (2016), Bumblebee (2018) and the Lady and the Tramp (2019) remake, but this sequel is not really one of them. Not to say it's shot badly,...by no means. But it's just nothing out of the ordinary, just like the first film's cinematography. Music though was an acceptable element to this sequel. Again, this also had a change in hands. Instead of Christophe Beck's clicky synthetic percussion based score from the first film, comes Alan Silvestri doing his best to mimic that style. While the sound is more organic using more classic orchestra, there are still jazzy motifs viewers will hear that keeps to the tone of the first movie. Not bad considering Silvestri isn't really cut from the same cloth as Beck.

For a sequel, it's okay. It's not an average follow up since the actors still have the chemistry, the music still fits the tone and action comedy elements still entertain; to an extent. Like the first film though, camerawork is still nothing to talk about, the romcom elements feel too familiar and the amount of characters packs the story more than necessary.

Points Earned --> 6:10

The Fly (1986) Review:

The 1980s was known for many things. It cranked up several avenues of which people were not used to. Music became fiercer. Hairstyles became more wild. Clothing became more over the top. Violence seemed more like trend than an event. The movies also experienced similar traits. However, the one thing people tend to remember the 80s film industry for, were the horror films. More specifically the remakes of older ones. While many enjoy an original like The Fly (1958) with Vincent Price, many people cannot deny just how much the 80s remake truly helped define horror. Despite is critical success and the imprint it left, it does have one thing viewers may find obnoxious.

Adapted from George Langelaan's short story with writer Charles Edward Pogue and director David Cronenberg, this horror remake has several things going for it. The story is about a scientist who is in the process of completing a breakthrough that could change the future. Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) has managed to discover the possibility of matter transportation using uniquely designed teleportation pods. Showing this to his new found journalist friend Veronica (Geena Davis), viewers learn along with her that the process has one flaw - transporting living matter doesn't work. Meanwhile, Veronica's on and off again boss Stathis (John Getz) fiddles between professional and personal flirtations. On the whole, the story is very simple and that's good.

The fact that the plot only has three main characters to focus on really helps viewers give them something to care about. The issue with it is that while the internal conflicts are what help drive the plot forward, some of the decisions made by certain characters come off questionable. For example, Veronica gave her apartment key to Stathis, but now she wants him out. For him though, he says he'll hold onto the key for "old times sake". That's already a red flag. So what does Veronica do? Nothing. Really? Either change your apartment lock or get that key back! It's strange because during the 1980s maybe people were laxer in their privacy, but nowadays, that kind of crap don't fly. Why take the risk? These kinds of moments don't happen too often though.

Despite the point above, the acting is still well performed. John Getz as Stathis shows just how self-centered he really is, even though there are points where he sort of redeems himself. Geena Davis as Veronica is exceptional aside from one of her decisions making no sense. Whether she's happy or horrified, her expressions look very genuine. As for Goldblum, who went from a nobody to very quickly a somebody gives an interesting performance. The reason for calling it an interesting performance is that counter to what you'd think, the progression of Brundle is a mixture of disturbing behavior that comes across awkward and comical at the same time. Perhaps that's just the Goldblum charm.

The visuals to this picture are top quality too. The practical effects and gore are pretty much what Cronenberg is well known for as well as for this remake in general. Cinematography was handled by Mark Irwin and it looked good. There are some neat camera tricks used for Brundle's transformation. Irwin would also shoot for Dark Angel (1990), RoboCop 2 (1990) and Showdown in Little Tokyo (1991). Lastly the film score composed by Howard Shore is unique. As a horror film, a fan would expect creepy supernatural themes. Here, Shore provides a much more grounded approach giving the experience a human aspect, which also cranks up the dread. While the motif itself is slow, it is memorable.

The one thing viewers may wonder is why some of the main characters don't act on things that require immediate closure. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does seem silly. However, one cannot dismiss the prowess of the crew behind this movie. From the effects, to acting, music and cinematography - it is a remake that has been hailed as one of the best.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) Review:

When looking at history and how mankind has progressed since World War II, the moment that changed the world forever was dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Seen as the defining moment for not only the allied powers and defeat of the axis powers, it also set the stage for the arms race between the United States and Russia. Before that time though, the atomic bombs were viewed as a means to end all wars. Little did anyone realize just what doors had been opened since that time. Prior to this though, there were people who were considering such consequences and the journey to the bomb droppings was not easy. This film gives a pretty captivating peak into that time when the race was on.

Viewers are introduced to the two main characters. General Leslie R. Groves (Paul Newman) is trying to have the atom bomb built before the Germans do, so the war can be ended for good. Hoping to have it completed by summer of 1945, he hires J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) the physicist who would be known for accomplishing such a feat. Together they meet in New Mexico where they begin the project along with several other educated scholars. As milestones are made, tension begins to rise, mainly because everyone begins to realize just how dangerous things have gotten. Written by Bruce Robinson and Roland Joffé and who also directed, deliver a thought provoking film about this topic. Both also worked on The Killing Fields (1984).

What makes the execution so entertaining is that it really drives home to the viewer how both sides are seeing things. This also proves how divisive this project is when looking back on it. Groves, who obviously is working for the military and on behalf of his country's government wants to get the bomb fully functional. In a war, each side wants to win and that's what Groves' wants. That's not to say Oppenheimer doesn't want to be on the winning side. His dilemma stems from seeing what being the creator of such an invention might lead to. Is it worth creating such a terrible device that could kill innocent lives only for other people to obtain them later? Is it a necessary evil? Does peace through power truly resolve the issue? To some, it's very difficult to know. The only issue that may not look good is that depending on the viewer, some may perceive Oppenheimer in the wrong light, but that's it.

That's only some of the factors that affect these characters. There's other stressors like other political officials breathing down Groves' neck and Oppenheimer's personal connections that were not seen as reputable at the time. There's also Oppenheimer dealing with the secrecy of the project, trying to remain true to his lover Jean Tatlock (Natasha Richardson) and dealing with his colleagues’ differing opinions. All factors played into the deeply stressful time that was World War II. There's also Bonnie Bedelia from the first two Die Hards, who plays Kitty Oppenheimer, Michael Merriman played by a young John Cusack, a nurse played by Laura Dern who would later play Ellie Sattler from Jurassic Park (1993), as well as appearances from Don Pugsley, Ed Lauter and John C. McGinley.

From a visual standpoint, the film is competently handled. Working behind the camera was the late Vilmos Zsigmond. Zsigmond's skill in getting large scale shots of different settings is mostly unmatched. And since this took place before CGI was a common place asset, many of the places depicted are physical props and they look great. Zsigmond would also work on The Deer Hunter (1978), Heaven's Gate (1980), Blow Out (1981) and Maverick (1994). Lastly the film score was composed by Ennio Morricone. Better known for his music in the spaghetti westerns like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), but also horror films like The Thing (1982), the La-La Land record release of this score mixes both aspects of romanticism and horror due to the nature of the material. It by far deserves a listen to those who are fans of his work.

If a viewer is looking for a movie that makes one think about how things could have played out if the atomic bombs were not created, then this is the film. What's done is done, but it’s always interesting to look at and ponder whether the right decisions were made based on this movie. The acting is great, the story is developed well, the camerawork is professionally shot and the music is horrific and beautiful when it needs to be.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) Review:

The franchise of Friday the 13th (1980) has been a wildly uneven viewing experience. The first three films had a storyline that started strong but gradually faltered as it continued. The next triplet of sequels further declined in storytelling, only to moderately swing itself back with some mild entertainment in the sixth entry at the time. But of course, like all popular franchises, studios cranked out another film, set to begin the next narrative for the hockey masked machete wielding undead killer. As one would expect though, the way this entry plays out is another disappointing attempt at continuing the franchise that has beaten its audience with the same repetitive plot. It's beyond frustrating when nothing changes from story to story. Seriously....no one must have thought the script needed work.

The story for this entry is about a girl named Tina (Lar Park-Lincoln) who accidentally killed her abusive alcoholic father while they lived in a cabin at Crystal Lake. How did she do that? Telekinetic powers....you know like Stephen King's Carrie (1976). Years later as a young adult, she returns with her mother (Susan Blu) and Dr. Crews (Terry Kiser) to confront those demons only to accidentally revive Jason Vorhees (Kane Hodder) who was anchored to the bottom of the lake from the last film. Meanwhile next door, a group of friends are celebrating a birthday party. Written by Daryl Haney and Manuel Fidello, the script is by the book a copy of past entries, except now it also has psychic powers thrown in too. Being that Fidello would only have this to his credit and Haney would have this as his most well-known credit, it's no surprise this entry is a dud.

Any character one would think should be developed or has any kind of interesting trait are completely neglected. The birthday is for the brother of Nick (Kevin Spirtas), who he and others are attending. Most of them don't look like teens, more like early 20s adults. Of that group only some stand out as interesting characters. The rest do what many past entries had the other characters do; fornicate, get drunk or high. It's unfortunate because not all characters do this, but that's all the franchise seems to know, making the story very old very fast. Tina's psycho-kinetic powers largely go unexplained leaving the viewers less interested even though she's the main character and the one who's supposed to reinvigorate the franchise in this new set of oncoming films. The tongue and cheek humor from part six was more creative than this.

Kane Hodder as the new actor to play Jason Vorhees is perhaps the most iconic. Thanks to director John Carl Buechler's insistence, Hodder's look stands out. On top of that, visually speaking this sequel has the best looking effects from a practical standpoint. Being that Buechler's skillset was more well versed with special effects, the look of Vorhees in this film is top notch. The fact that the film acknowledges the prior films and shows that time has passed gives viewers the sense of just how long Vorhees was left undisturbed. The only unfortunate part is, like most horror films, they are heavily cut on the gore, leaving many of the kills not on screen. So much for being gruesome. How is it okay to have Vorhees as a rotting zombie with decaying flesh but can't show gore? Total contradiction.

From an execution perspective, the camerawork was also competently handled. Shot by Paul Elliott, the camera has a number times where its focus captures the right image at the right time. Some of which have become iconic just as a still. Elliot would also shoot for 976-EVIL (1988). As for music, there has been a slight shake up. Due to conflicting schedules, original composer Harry Manfredini couldn't return to create new music. This time, composer Fred Mollin stepped in. For this entry, while its sound is nowhere near the same, Mollin does use the Dies Irae hymn in his music. Most of it is more electronic than organic orchestra, but the post production team recycled in Manfredini's past cues to support the film and it works.

It unfortunately is again a step down from its last entry. The script abandons the fun, self-aware humor of part six and instead focuses again on unlikable characters, not developing the ones that are mildly interesting and having a boring lead. Yes, visually the film looks good and the music works. Even Kane Hodder as the new Vorhees is great, but without having visible kills, there's almost no fun to be had.

Points Earned --> 4:10

Clue (1985) Review:

Movies based on games in general have definitely become a thing in the last two decades or so. However, those adaptations are more relegated to video games. There are in fact other movies based on board games, but this pool of choices is significantly smaller by comparison. While the film wasn't a success, Clue (1985) has gained a reputation among its fans and is considered to be one of the best. It's quite intriguing to say the least considering making a board game into a full motion picture is not the easiest sounding thing to do. However, with the help of some entertaining performances and unique direction, any viewer who watches it probably won't come across anything else like it. In order to come up with such ideas, one would really have to sit down and think creatively.

The story follows very close to the game by having the audience introduced to group of individuals all under pseudonyms. Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Yvette (Colleen Camp), Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving) are all the guests, served by Wadsworth (Tim Curry) the butler. They all soon realize they have common connections between each other that could hurt each other’s reputation. However, when the host of the gathering is killed, it's up to the group of mysterious characters to figure it out for themselves. This is the directorial debut of Jonathan Lynn, who would later direct My Cousin Vinny (1992), The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) and The Whole Nine Yards (2000).

The screenplay was also penned by Lynn and director John Landis (The Blues Brothers (1980)) would help in the story prior to the screenplay. For what's shown, the way the mystery plays out is pretty rare for its time, even by today's films. Even the film crew made three different endings and had them played at different theaters. No one does that anymore! How the characters interact with each other is mostly how one would expect them to behave. Each scene leads to a new discovery, which drives more verbals spats and relinquishment of secretive information. All of this is believable because anyone in such a situation would feel the same way. Panic and frustration can cause people to make irrational decisions. That doesn't mean the execution doesn't have its flaws. Was it due to it being Lynn's first directorial outing? Maybe.

The biggest thing that perhaps doesn't translate well to the film medium is time. Unlike a board game that immerses a player in the story. The film doesn't actively have the viewer participate in the story other than watching. And with that, the runtime is an issue. There are parts in the movie that go about explaining how things are done. Yet, due to the run time, that exposition can feel rushed. Contrary to a board game where players can sit, discuss and explain to each other what's happening for as long as they want without a time limit. If a viewer misses a piece of information here though, forget trying to catch up. This can be confusing. The only other minor tidbit is that the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny. It has some good chuckles and moments that'll make a viewer laugh, but nothing that's fall over laugh inducing.

The visuals to the movie are well crafted for 1985. The set of the mansion provides a great atmosphere with the setting. The camerawork was handled by Victor J. Kemper and it was competent enough for the movie. Kemper was also the cinematographer for The Gambler (1974), Magic (1978), National Lampoon's Vacation (1983), Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) and Tommy Boy (1995). The music was another plus to this film experience. Composed by John Morris, the score to this picture captures the goofy frenetic nature and mysteriousness of the setting at hand. There's a mix of synthesizers, organic horn orchestra and even a calliope. Morris would also lend his talents to The Producers (1967), Blazing Saddles (1974), Young Frankenstein (1974), The Elephant Man (1980) and Spaceballs (1987). Well done!

Due to the translation of board game to movie, viewers need to be quick to pick up on hints and explanations. Otherwise, they may get lost. Aside from the comedy not being gut busting, the actors do a great job, the story is a fascinating watch and the music compliments the style of the film well.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Poltergeist (1982) Review:

Tobe Hooper will always be known for injecting a shot of fear into viewers after he released The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Fans also remember him for The Funhouse (1981) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2 (1986), but he still managed those projects himself. What was probably more surprising was when he decided to collaborate with Steven Spielberg on a movie between those entries. While Spielberg did make his own horror film with Jaws (1975), the director was known for more wonder and adventure type themes going on in his stories. So to have an actual horror director work with him may have seemed like a mismatch. Turns out though many enjoyed this film, however it's not as scary as some may say; especially those who have seen much darker stories.

The story is about an average family who ends up being visited by some spirits and capture their youngest child into their dimension. Then they bring in some paranormal specialists to investigate and help recover their lost child. With Hooper directing, Spielberg, Michael Grais and Mark Victor wrote the screenplay. The cast of actors playing the family is Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Dianne (JoBeth Williams), Robbie (Oliver Robins), Dana (Dominique Dunne) and Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke). The paranormal investigators are Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight), Marty (Martin Casella), Ryan (Richard Lawson) and Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein). The unfortunate thing is, while the use of these actors was a strategic choice, they're just not that interesting as characters. Craig T. Nelson is just a grab, now that people know him from Pixar's The Incredibles (2004).

The character that is interesting to watch is Tangina. In a way, the story feels like what James Wan's Insidious (2010) drew inspiration from. Tangina is the know all of spiritual infestations. What probably makes the viewer pay attention is Zelda Rubinstein's voice alone; it's so light in pitch. However, that's it for characters. She may provide more exposition to the story, but at least she provides context in a captivating way. Not even the understanding of how Carol Anne communicates with the specters is explained in much detail. Yet, she's constantly quoted as the staple of the franchise. What the script does do correctly is not following the usual clichés horror films contain in terms of death. That's a nice change. Sadly, this doesn't help with how the viewer will perceive the horror on screen.

While the horror elements on screen would be scary to anyone in real life, the way they're used here is half and half. The real disturbing imagery doesn't really come about until later in the film. Initially, the "scary" activities start very mild and do very little. The moments are more eyebrow raising than anything else. The real scary thing is that this franchise has its own curse. Both Dominique Dunne and Heather O'Rourke would not live long after this film was made. For an improperly rated PG film though, there are moments of blood and gore. Martin Casella would have one of the most shocking scenes in the entire franchise, which would also be parodied in other media. The practical effects used are well done, considering the film crew used actual skeletons on the set without telling their cast. Talk about something that makes your skin crawl.

Adding to the visuals is the camerawork provided by Matthew F. Leonetti. The shots captured are dynamic enough to show different portions of the house and the creepy spooks that end up terrorizing the Freeling family. One of the best shots featured was of the cemetery located on top of the valley, it is a gorgeous view. Leonetti also filmed for Raise the Titanic (1980), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), Commando (1985), Hard to Kill (1990), Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997) directed by his brother John R. Leonetti, Rush Hour 2 (2001), 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) and Dawn of the Dead (2004). Lastly the film score composed by Jerry Goldsmith was entertaining to listen to. Carol Anne's theme is the most recognizable using a children's choir but there are other tracks that work. One thing that never made sense was the US national anthem....why was that a thing?

This film is liked by numerous people, but for those who don't, it's apparent why. The scares are not really there, things are left unanswered about one of the main characters and the rest except one are just there. That doesn't take away the music, camerawork and practical effects looking good though. It just slightly above average.

Points Earned --> 6:10

We Were Soldiers (2002) Review:

War is nothing like it used to be. The act of military aggression has transformed over the years, but the end result has usually remained the same. No matter what, innocent lives will be lost and casualties will be had on both sides of the combatants. The worst part, is that it's basically people being pitted against each other and being convinced their side is right vs the other. All this because the higher ups in their respective governments either cannot stay out of each other’s business, or because they cannot come to an agreement on a specific issue. It's truly unfortunate when countries just can't get along. There's always someone stirring the pot and messing things up. For the Vietnam war, it was seen as a necessary intervention to prevent the spread of communism, while others felt it wasn't anyone's business to get involved.

The plot about this film is specifically about the battle of Ia Drang, which took roughly three days. Writing and directing was handled by Randall Wallace, adapting this from a book based on the accounts of two soldiers in this film. The soldiers were Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) and Joe Galloway (Barry Pepper), one being a Lieutenant Colonel and other being a photographer. Together, they meet at which the setting takes place and they both take away things from it they never forgot. Randall Wallace was also the writer to Braveheart (1995), The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) and Pearl Harbor (2001). Probably what's the most unique about this feature is the story line and the way it is shown. Other war films tend to show characters as they progress through the war from beginning to end. Here though, it's only for three days. That's it.

What's more interesting though is how much happens in three days So much happens in that short time span and viewers also get to see just how quickly a life can be lost. Predictability is probably the only downside to this film. Like any story, characters are introduced at beginning, For this movie, by actors Greg Kinnear, Sam Elliott, Chris Klein, Ryan Hurst, Jon Hamm, Clark Gregg, Josh Daugherty, Jsu Garcia and Brian Tee. However, since this is a war film, it should be known that not all the characters introduced will live to the end. Mind you this was just list of the actors from the US side. The same is also portrayed for those who fought on the opposing side. Each person had at least someone who was thinking about them. Madeleine Stowe, Keri Russell and Simbi Kali play those kinds of roles - the veteran's wife.

The realism to this film is another huge positive. Much of the production looks like the effects were all practical which can be tough to pull off. Here though it looks good. Whether it be the explosions, gunfire or hand to hand combat, it is a very intense to watch. The sounds will really immerse the audience in the setting. Even when people are talking to each other on the battlefield, it's not the easiest to hear what's being said. It makes sense though because there would be a lot of noise and chaos happening all at once. There's also burns and blood squibs depicted on screen, some of which are not pleasant looking at all. If anything it just shows how serious war is, no matter how much it's fun to play on a video game. In real life, it is by no means a fun experience, there are no cheat codes.

All around the camerawork is visually accurate looking too. Managed by Dean Semler, the footage shot captures the carnage and atmosphere of those fateful days. Semler also worked on Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985), The Three Musketeers (1993), Eye See You (2002) and xXx (2002). Lastly the musical score composed by Nick Glennie-Smith was an interesting work. The score has a mix of thumping drums and music box like tunes that give the viewing an eerie and horror like sound that accompanies the bloody violence on screen. It's effectively left out though for certain scenes to maintain their realism too. Smith also composed for The Rock (1996), Home Alone 3 (1997), The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (1998) and Highlander: Endgame (2000).

Predictability is the only aspect to this picture experienced viewers will see coming a mile away. Despite that though, the acting, camerawork, realism, practical effects and narrative are a sobering reminder of the casualties of war, no matter how glorified it may seem.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Fritz the Cat (1972) Review:

The idea of taking certain concepts to the extreme has been happening forever and it's no stranger to the film industry. Originally, the thought of making animated movies was scoffed at, until Disney made theirs. Then as time progressed, people began to treat animated features with more relevance towards adults. However, it wasn't until the experimental era of rock, fornication and drugs did that particular push come into play. Classic cartoons that came before the 1950s were considered for adults, but they didn't contain blatant drug abuse and graphic sexual content. That is until Ralph Bakshi became one of those pioneers of said genre. Having worked on several other animated projects prior, Bakshi was very familiar with this aspect of filmmaking, which led him to his feature film directorial debut.

Fritz the Cat (1972) is Bakshi's satirical take and social commentary on the 1960's in the United States. Plot wise, it follows the adventures of Fritz the cat (Skip Hinnant) looking to fine the "inner meaning" to life and such. Being a college student, he floats around hopping to different places and experiencing different kinds of people with their ideologies. Also written by Bakshi, the script finds itself bogged down with a hodgepodge of events and underdeveloped motives for the audiences’ "protagonist". It's rather unfortunate because the film itself isn't meant to really make Fritz a likable character, but the film also partially fails to provide any sort of understanding as to why he acts the way he acts. It's just Fritz being hypocritical doing things with different people; which was already spoiled in the plot synopsis.

In a way, it feels like Bakshi's version of Alice in Wonderland but grittier and graphic. The audience bumbles along with Fritz on his misadventures watching him try to fit in with all sorts of individuals that in no way fit him. Worst yet, is that Fritz himself feels weightless in his motivations. He just keeps searching, and searching, not really getting to a definitive state of understanding. Fritz is a lost puppy....how oxymoronic. Along his travels, Fritz tries drugs, fornicates with whatever character he finds appealing that he can woo over, joins extremely dangerous cults and causes tensions between different groups of people. All to find that "inner meaning" he so desperately wants to understand. In some ways, it feels like what some of the 1960s were about, but was it that chaotic and scatterbrained?

The acting is fine despite the cast being a very short list. Skip Hinnant as Fritz is fine, he gets the job done adequately. He didn't perform very much after this, returning for The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat (1974) and I Go Pogo (1980). Rosetta LeNoire also plays the role of Bertha in this film. She does fine for the role while also voicing other characters too. LeNoire would later have roles in The Brother from Another Planet (1984), Gimme a Break! and Family Matters. There are some other actors involved in this production, but their contribution is so little in comparison and they didn't go on to do much later, so it's not worth covering. If there's one thing Bakshi got right, it was making this cartoon directed towards adults because no youth should see the amount of graphic nudity and violence that is in this picture. There's blood, private parts and racial undertones that would not be accepted at all today by any means.

As for the visual aspects, it's a little confusing as to why two cinematographers were needed as this was an animated film. There are some settings where the picture gets rotated but I'm not sure if camerawork was needed for that. As for the animation itself, the colors and movements to the characters are good. The textures to the animation are unique too since it was most likely cell animation. The coloring in every stage of the animation looks like no frame was filled in exactly the same. It's a different look for sure. Lastly the music composed by Ed Bogas was okay for the time and budget it was produced on. Bogas would also go on to compose for The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show and Garfield and Friends. He would also go onto compose music for video games like Gameboy's Swamp Thing and even the dreaded NES Action 52 cartridge. Very interesting indeed.

As a whole, the movie should be looked at more as a trial in pushing the limits of acceptable animated films. Sadly, this movie tries to make a point but doesn't. The animation, music, social commentary and acting are okay, but the point of it is lost with its haphazard story, overly graphic detail and half-baked script.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Winnie the Pooh (2011) Review:

 Disney's original release A.A. Milne's property in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) was one many people took note of. While the characters had been around years before, Walt Disney Studios was the production company who gave the iconic group of characters their voices. The most recognizable being Sterling Holloway as Pooh, Paul Winchell as Tigger and John Fiedler as Piglet. The rest of the initial cast also cemented the personalities as well even though they were later replaced, including Holloway. The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh series reinvigorated the franchise with new life while developing the newest Pooh voice from Jim Cummings. Since then Cummings has played the bear onward along with many home video movies on top of it. Finally, though, the characters would return to the big screen once again to be admired by fans.

Unlike The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977), which followed segmented stories. This feature has a plot for the entire run time. Crediting eight different writers who also worked on Frozen (2013) and Big Hero 6 (2014), two of which also directed this feature (Stephen J. Anderson & Don Hall), created an equal follow up to that of the original film decades ago. The plot starts the usual with a narrator (this time John Cleese) introducing the audience to Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings) deciding he needs to feed his grumbling stomach. But before he does that, he discovers Eeyore's (Bud Luckey) tail is missing. Thus Pooh meets with the rest of his friends to either find Eeyore's missing tail, or makeshift a completely new one for him. Whoever accomplishes the task first, will be awarded a pot of honey from Christopher Robin (Jack Boulter). Just what the doctor ordered.

Being that story structure is now one entire narrative, it's a refreshing direction from a theatrical viewpoint. While this method has been used for all the home video releases, people watching it on the big screen may feel different about it as opposed to watching an anthology of shorts. All the voice actors who were cast for their roles do great jobs; every single one. The unfortunate part is that particular characters who had already been voiced by certain actors could not make the production. Ken Sansom as Rabbit, Peter Cullen as Eeyore and Michael Gough as Gopher should have all reprised their roles. Especially Gopher,..mainly because he's not even in the film, which is very sad to see. These three actors had solidified their status as those characters. Again though, this does not take away the performances of Craig Ferguson as Owl, Travis Oates as Piglet, Tom Kenny as Rabbit and Kristen Anderson-Lopez as Kanga.

As for tone and comedic elements to the story, it remains very much consistent with past stories. Pooh is still a small brained bear, Piglet is still afraid of many things, Rabbit is as methodical as usual, Owl loves to talk about anything related to him, Kanga still watches over Roo, Eeyore is still as mopey as ever and Tigger is bouncing around like he always does. There's also the usual 4th wall break the characters make with the narrator, as well as leaping off pages and stumbling onto the text in the body of the story. Perhaps what’s utilized even more is that the letters also become entangled into certain scenes with the characters. It's funny, but it also seems even more meta than it has to be. Does the book itself say the characters use the letters from the last page that fell into the story? It's like the 4th wall breaking the 4th wall....if that's even a thing.

Visual speaking, while the film was classically animated instead of digitally, the look of the movie is very crisp. The character movements are fluid and fun to watch. The character emotions displayed are expressive and match the voice over work. There's also cinematography shot by Julio Macat, which was utilized for the live action introduction. Macat also filmed for Home Alone (1990) and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994). As for music, songs were also composed by Robert and Kristen Lopez. The new songs for this feature work very well and match the tone of the other films. The score was composed by Henry Jackman, which also does the same thing. To hear music for Winnie the Pooh in full orchestra is rare as well, since very few films in the franchise was released with an official score. The soundtrack in its entirety work well together for a pleasant listening experience.

The only disappointing aspect about this feature is that Ken Sansom, Peter Cullen and Michael Gough couldn't return as the voice actors for their respective characters. That's it though. The story, music, animation and writing very much make this film a family picture to be enjoyed by all ages.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Basket Case 3: The Progeny (1991) Review:

Frank Henenlotter's feature film debut in Basket Case (1982) is certainly what he's best known for. While it was by no means a good looking film, it served its purpose in creating an underground horror icon. As bad as the film was. When Basket Case 2 (1990) was created, not only did it have better production quality, but it also had a concept worth getting behind. Sadly, the sequel fell short of this leaving ideas half-baked that could've progressed the story much further than the original could have realized. And just like that entry, the second sequel very much follows the same footsteps. As a rushed sequel, Henenlotter wasn't even happy with it...but it still has some credit to its name. This final film though proves it just wasn't a really good franchise.

 Written and directed by Henenlotter for the third time, along with co-writing partner Robert Martin (Frankenhooker (1990)), this sequel picks up just like the last entry with recalling the events of Basket Case 2 (1990). After Duane Bradley (Kevin Van Hentenryck) kills Granny Ruth's (Annie Ross) daughter, Bradley has been in solitary confinement for several months. Only to be brought out to see that his brother Belial is going to be a father after mating with Eve (Denise Coop) the other lump of flesh living at Granny Ruth's. But in order to have a safe delivery, Granny Ruth wants everyone at Uncle Hal's (Dan Biggers) where he and Granny Ruth's son Little Hal (Jim O'Doherty) live. After Duane is freed from his cell, he escapes causing more damage.

 It's interesting because as this series has progressed, Henenlotter has exposed just how much of a screw up Duane really is. Belial is no golden boy either, but at least he tries to settle down and live a normal life. This just shows how much little development Duane really gets in this franchise. Duane is the one who escalates other character viewpoints on certain situations retracting their development as well. When Duane escapes, he comes across the local sheriff (Gil Roper) and his daughter Opal (Tina Louise Hilbert), who he only entangles them into his issues too. But even then, things get strange between Duane and Opal where it goes from Opal seeming sane enough, only to have strange sexual desires. What is going on?

 The more engaging characters viewers might want to see more of is Little Hal as he has the ability to make mechanical contraptions. Yet, he has very little screen time. Even Uncle Hal falls off the story not long after he's introduced. Much of the characters in general are just unlikable or are too strange to care for. Even Beverly Bonner returns (not as Casey from the last two films) as a cashier. The cast in general do their job, it's just the choices in direction of the story that don't really make sense. Visually, the film went all out on that. The gore may not be as abundant as the other two films, but when it's on screen it's still gruesome. This coincides with the practical effects used, which for 1991 looks good for its budget.

 Cinematography was competently handled too, this time by Robert Paone. Starting his career as a second camera assistant in Saturday Night Fever (1977), Paone keeps the camera steady for what is shown, as well as hiding various elements that get revealed later. The film score was composed once again by Joe Renzetti and sadly it still doesn't get featured as much as it should. The music certainly fits the tone, having ethereal and strange sounding tracks, but it doesn't have recognizable traits making it hard to recall on its own. There are hints of melodic themes, but Renzetti doesn't utilize it enough. Thankfully there is a score to hear in case it was difficult to make out in the film itself.

 As the final film in this franchise, Frank Henenlotter's trilogy about a deformed Siamese twin is average at best. The final entry is still better than the original, narrative wise, but not by a lot since much of script shoots itself in the foot before it even gets started. The visuals are fine and the actors do their okay, but there's still very little character development, they’re not likable and the music is sorely unhighlighted.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Runaway Train (1985) Review:

Railroads have been an important industry for quite a while. Ever since they were designed, they have helped mankind traverse the land with strength and speed unlike many had never seen before in the modern age. And while it has enamored people from all walks of life about the career paths of working on the railroad, it is very much a dangerous job. Probably one of the biggest fears for anyone in this profession is the exact situation that happens in this film; a runaway engine. With amount force, momentum and weight behind such a mass clocking in above a recommended speed limit, these behemoths can become quite an instrument of destruction. The way it's portrayed here for the time is commendable...but the story is where it's lacking. Which is surprising considering the lead actor won a Golden Globe for it.

 The concept was originally penned by Akira Kurosawa, who directed Seven Samurai (1954) and would later have that adapted into The Magnificent Seven (1960). The screenplay was adapted by Djordje Milicevic, Paul Zindel and Edward Bunker, where two convicts Manny (Jon Voight) and Buck (Eric Roberts) escape a maximum security prison ran by Ranken (John P. Ryan). Together they hide on a freight train where they discover no driver is controlling the now runaway engine. They also discover a crew member by the name of Sara (Rebecca De Mornay) who was asleep when the runaway took off. Together she looks to stop the train while simultaneously the convicts try to avoid being captured. This was also director Andrey Konchalovskiy's first action drama in North America. The same person who went onto to director Tango & Cash (1989).

 This film from a filmmaking viewpoint very well crafted. The problem is its script and acting. Viewers will have a hard time to connecting with the main characters. Rebecca De Mornay perhaps plays a character more relatable only because anyone would be scared in that situation. However, for Voight and Roberts' roles there is no indication as to what there is to sympathize with these two criminals. Manny is a high profile bank robber and Buck is convicted of sexual assault. The story shows it's not Manny or Buck's fault for the runaway train.... nor do they kill anyone when they escape the prison. But they did break out of prison, so they're still in the wrong. In certain ways, the movie seems like it tries to impress upon its viewers that we are to care for them...when really how could we? It just the Sara character that's forced into this uncomfortable situation who seems to be the only likeable one.

 Not even John P. Ryan as Ranken is likeable. The acting is questionable at times too specifically with Voight. At times he goes from reserved to completely outlandish. There are also appearances from Kyle T. Heffner, T.K. Carter, Kenneth McMillan, Danny Trejo, Tommy 'Tiny' Lister and Carmen Filpi. Aside from these points, one cannot ignore the technical prowess of this film and how it was filmed. When the diesel locomotive leaves the railyard is when things get intense. It's actually quite peculiar how similar this film is to Unstoppable (2010). Because this was 1985, viewers can be sure all effects used were practical. Everything from the sound design of the rails hissing before the train coming, to the clanking of couplings is very realistic feeling and treacherous.

 Credit should be given to Alan Hume for being such a competent director of photographer. The angles at which are filmed for this feature can be quite dizzying being that of how the viewer will feel while watching. The shots are made to look like the viewer is riding this megaton engine flying down a rail at 90 miles an hour. It's scary. Hume also filmed for Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) and Supergirl (1984). Sadly, the music was disappointing. Composed by the underrated Trevor Jones, the score is an interesting mix of synthesizers and orchestra. Unfortunately, it's not highlighted enough to truly be recognized. Thankfully a score does exist to purchase, but it would've been helpful in the film too.

 From a film tech perspective, it should be praised for how it was filmed. The tracking and internal shots of this chase is quite unique, as are all the practical effects. But this doesn't take away that viewers may not have compassion for the two lead characters, Voight's uneven acting and hidden musical score that should've been featured more.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Highlander III: The Final Dimension (1994) Review:

The original Highlander (1986) is a film that truly has earned its cult following. Sadly, the story was made in such a way that trying to continue it in further installments would be downright mind boggling. Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) was reviled by fans due to its departure from the original story. Maybe that blunder would talk sense to the producers right? Wrong. Instead another sequel was made, this time further following original story. Initially...this could be promising, but why bother? Once Connor MacLeod won the prize, that was it. Yet somehow, he ends up not being the only one, completely undermining the story from the original. I think continuing the concept is fine...but the original seems to have made the story too perfect.

With a screenplay written by Paul Ohl, his first credit and directed by Andrew Morahan in his first film credit, this sequel is no better than Highlander II: The Quickening (1991). It's nice that everyone tried to approach this entry more faithfully than the last but even then, clearly bad decisions were made. Fans learn that before MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) moved to America but sometime after Ramirez's death, he was in Japan learning skills from another master by the name of Nakano (Makoto Iwamatsu) to fight against the deadly swordsman Kane (Mario Van Peebles), who happens to get frozen in a mountain. Now present day, long after MacLeod has "won" the prize, Kane awakes to finish what he started.

The writing is what really drags this potentially redeeming sequel through the mud. Ohl, deserves credit for at least trying to come up with a way to continue the original. But again, the original story seemed too perfect to continue to begin with. A vast majority of this feature is retreading familiar ground that happened in the original and even some of the first sequel. With Kane on the loose, MacLeod returns to New York where not only does he get pursued by a new cop Lt. John Stenn (Martin Neufeld) who is looking to jail him under his pseudo name of Russell Nash, MacLeod also crosses paths with another woman named Alex Johnson (Deborah Kara Unger) who's interested MacLeod's backstory. Also not to mention, he has an adopted son now too in the middle east named John (Gabriel Kakon).

There are parts of the script that acknowledge the past, like mentions of the first cops who were on MacLeod's tail and MacLeod’s first American love interest Brenda Wyatt, but that's it. Everything else is more or less repeated, including the line "there can only be one". Got it, thanks. This leads audiences to believe though character development doesn't really exist here if similar ideas are revisited. It really makes no sense. Continuity while ok in some places, is another issue in others. Characters are able to find one another with almost no issue....even if they're countries apart. How? As for action, it's slightly better than before, but not by much. For 1994, the special effects are about the same as the last sequel. It's nice to see a different cast of actors alongside Lambert but that's about it. Acting is just average due to the script.

Visually speaking, the camerawork and set design was an improvement. Mainly because the setting took place either in the mountain ranges of different countries or the urbanized streets of the city. The director of photography this time was Steven Chivers, better known for his start with Richard Stanley's Hardware (1990) and Dust Devil (1992). At least the shots filmed look distinguishable from each other, unlike the first sequel. As for music, the score was composed by J. Peter Robinson. Probably better known for his work on Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994), Robinson does produce more recognizable music than the first sequel’s musical score. It's still not as memorable as Michael Kamen's rendition but it does have some Celtic flavoring sprinkled throughout.

Say what you will about Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) being a bad sequel. However, it's bad for doing something way out of whack. Unlike this sequel which redeems itself with minimal correction in its story, with only average acting, good music and camerawork. Other than that, the action still isn't that impressive, the effects aren't top notch and the story almost being a complete rehash.

Points Earned --> 4:10