Twins of Evil (1971)

Title: Twins of Evil (1971)

Director: Jhon Hough

Cast: Peter Cushing, Dennis Price, Mary and Madeline Collinson, Damien Thomas

Review:

This Hammer film had managed to elude me for sometime because unfortunately, its NOT on DVD yet! For some unholy reason some studio head somewhere has not done his homework, and as a result, we still dont have a proper DVD release. But thanks to a buddy of mine I finally got a bootleg copy of it. So I finally I got to get a look at Twins of Evil. And Ill be damned if it wasnt one of the coolest vampire flicks Hammer Studios ever produced!

This is the third film in Hammer films "Karnstein" trilogy. This trilogy consisted of The Vampire Lovers, was followed by Lust for a Vampire and ended with the film I will be reviewing today, Twins of Evil. They all deal with the Karnstein family as the vampiric threat in their stories. On this one we get Count Kernstein, a young bachelor who lives on a castle at the top of a hill, as is usually the case with villains in Hammer films. Everyone in town knows he is into witchcraft and devil worship, and they are right. It's all true. This count is really into worshipping Satan! Black Masses! Human sacrifices! Anyhows, Count Karnstein grows bored with charlatans and fakers claiming to be true devil worshipers. So on a desperate attempt to really get things moving, Count Kernstein decides to summon old Beelzebub himself into his home by sacraficing a virgin! This makes for a fantastic scene if there ever was one! The scene reeks of satanic blasphemy! The virgins blood doesnt make Satan show up...but it does awaken the corpse of Mircalla Karnstein! An old vampire vixen who's laid dormant for years! When Mircalle wakes up, she in turn transforms the young Count into a vampire. Shortly after that, two innocent yet mischievous twin sisters decide to wonder into the castle...will they fall for Count Kernsteins charms? Will these twin sisters be turned to the dark side to worship the devil?

The first film in the Karnstein trilogy was Vampire Lovers wich starred Ingrid Pitt as Countess Mircalla Karnstein. And even though the beautiful Ingrid Pitt, who wows us in Vampire Lovers does not reprise her role in this sequel, Twins of Evil is an excellent example of what a really great Hammer vampire film should be like. A great story, great atmosphere, lots of blood and lots of nudity. Oh and lets not forget the girl on girl action. Lust for a Vampire, the second entry in Hammers Karnstein trilogy I have yet to see, so I cant comment much on that one. But from what I hear, its one of the weakest in the trilogy. But with Twins of Evil Hammer studios out did themselves once again, as if they were trying to compensate for making a weak film with Lust for a Vampire. As I watched Twins of Evil, I couldnt believe how good this movie was turning out to be and I realized what a crime it is that its not yet available on DVD. Last info I discovered about this getting a U.S. DVD release, Fox bought off most of MGM's library (cause MGM is actually going bankrupt if you can believe it!) and well, it looks like this films DVD release is still very much uncertain, at least in the U.S.

One is the good sister, the other is the bad.

I was surprised to see that this film, had non of the usual Hammer directors, writers or producers. Theres no Terrence Fisher or Freddy Francis, or Roy Ward Baker directing...no John Elder writing the script. It was weird not to see any familiar names (save for Peter Cushing) being involved on this Hammer production. Maybe thats why this film feels like a breath of fresh air in certain occasions. Though this still is a Hammer film and we do get a lot of traditional Hammer situations...this one did things just a little more intensely. Its a very viscious film for a Hammer film, with a slightly edgier tone to it. More graphic, more satanic. Which of course in my opinion makes for a better film. This film in particular was directed by John Hough, who would go on to direct the excellent Legend of Hell House. He was also responsible for a horror film called Incubus (1982). He also made the Witch Mountain movies and the haunted house film The Watcher in the Woods (1980) for Disney Pictures. He also directed Howling IV: The Original Nightmare. But we dont need to get into that.

One of the things that stood out for me on this film was the sets. Usually on a Hammer film the sets will seem familiar some how, because many times they just reused sets used on previous films. On this one, the sets had a very unique look to them. Specially Count Kernsteins castle. That castle looked great on the inside! Its got a lot of skulls, Gargoyles and statues with horns coming out of them, it just made everything all the more gothic. Also the way the interior of the castle was lit, helped everything look all the more spookier. They later reused these sets for filming Vampire Circus.

The comes the acting. Peter Cushing is known for elevating Hammer films with his acting, in this film, his character is one Gustav Weil, witch killer! Cushing plays a priest, hunting down witches and warlocks and burning them at the stake! Part of that whole inquisition deal where a lot of innocent people were burned at the stake and tortured if they werent catholics. Cushing plays the witchfinder, his character in Twins of Evil is very similar to that of Vincent Price's in Cry of the Banshee or The Conqueror Worm, constantly looking for witches to burn. Great thing about this character is that apart from Cushings great performance, he is a very ambiguous character. He is often times seen as the villain of the film because of his habit of burning beautiful girls in account of religious fanatism. But at the same time he is seen as the heroe who is after Count Kernstein. So theres a duality to his role on this one. A detail that might have added to the somberness of Cushings character is the fact that his wife had very recently died right before he began production of this film, so during the filming of Twins of Evil, Peter Cushing was an actor in pain.

Still, I like how the film explores these themes, of how at one time people were burned if they werent catholics. Shinning a light on those dark times when you had to be a catholic, or else you were in cahoots with Satan! There is a scene that I really loved where Peter Cushings withfinder character almost burns a completely innocent person, and realizes it just before they burn the person alive! In this way, the film comments on how this sort of thing happened during those dark days of the inquisition.

As for the titular twins, well they do a good job of looking sexy as heck. These two actresses actually appeared in a 1970s issue of playboy! This film was actually marketed as a new X rated horror film from Hammer Studios! The sisters reveal their respective cleavages more then once during the film. Though nudity was not common in Hammer films of the past, after they did their first use of it in Vampire Lovers, nudity was common in Hammer films. I liked how one sister was the good girl, while the other was the rebelious one, looking to get into trouble all the time. I found it interesting how the "evil" twin was actually lured into the dark side because of how she hated her religious fanatic uncle. In a way, religious fanatism made her run into the clutches of something even more evil. Interesting situation they present us with there. The rebellious sister runs right into the vampires arms! Then she has to deal with the ambiguous nature of being a vampire, and trying not feed on her own sister! Kind of like the same situation we saw a couple years later in Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys.

 Burning innocents was something catholics enjoyed doing during those days.

Another thing I really enjoyed about this film was its fast pace. Lets face it sometimes Hammer films can get a little slow...specially the earlier ones. But this film comes to us from a new school of Hammer directors and writers, who moved their story telling at a faster pace. The ending is a rollercoaster ride of thrills when compared to other Hammer films. Another cool little tidbit about this film: the vampires have huuge fangs! When they reveal their vampire fangs its awesome. Kind of reminded me of the vampires in Vampire Circus. So what we got here is actually a Hammer vampire film that comes from a new generation of Hammer directors, striving to move things quicker, and striving to give their films a new edge.

In conclusion, I can say that this film quickly became one of my favorite Hammer vampire films. Its right up there with the best Hammer films. Im surprised to see that most of my favorite Hammer vampire films ended up being the most offbeat ones! Or the ones that have not yet made it to DVD. I love these flicks because they are films that were made many years after Hammer had already firmly established itself as a horror studio, so these last films learned from the mistakes of all the previous Hammer efforts. Hence the faster plots, abundant nudity and blood. Try to get your hands on this flick if you get a chance, its well worth the effort!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Mad Max 4 Fury Road is lifting off!

Check out this video of George Miller talking all about Mad Max 4 and how its going to take about a year to make all the vehicles in the film! Also, you get to actually look at one of the vehicles that will be appearing! Im excited as hell to know that finally, a new Mad Max film is getting made! And with series creator/director George Miller directing!

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Title: The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Director: Roy Ward Baker

Cast: Ingridd Pitt, Peter Cushing, Madeline Smith, George Cole, Kate O Mara

Review:

As I have mentioned before on my previous Hammer film reviews, Hammer had a way of making their vampire movies. And I love it. Full moon, plus spooky castle at the top of the hill, plus fog, plus unsuspecting wanderers, plus vampires = A Hammer film. But I find myself enjoying the films that deviate from Hammers formula for vampire movies a whole lot more. The director of this film, Roy Ward Baker was the one director on Hammer's Studios roster that strived to always make something different with his films. On this one we have lesbian vampire chicks falling in love with their prey! And this film has nudity!

The story is about a vampire vixen known as Carmilla Karnstein. She belongs to a family of vampires that used to plague the local townsfolk. She has a modus operandi where she looks for an excuse to end up in someones home, then she proceeds to feed on them. It seems that Carmilla has a preference for female blood since thats practically all she does, feed on young girls. Her next victim is the innocent Emma whom she has just met and instantly befriended. But Carmilla faces a problem this time. This time she has fallen in love with her prey! Suddenly, Mircalla has an internal battle. What will be stronger? Her need to feed or her need for love? Carmilla wants Emma to love her "Her whole life!" as she so erotically puts it in one scene. This film is based on the novella Carmilla, a Gothic vampire novel written by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu in 1872, and it tells the story of a young woman's susceptibility to the attentions of a female vampire named Carmilla. The novella Carmilla actually predates Bram Stokers Dracula by 25 years! This is just one of its incarnations. This little novella has actually been adapted to film on various ocassions. Hammer Studios made three films that dealt with the Carmilla mythology. Vampire Lovers (1970) was the first, and it was followed by Lust for a Vampire (1971) and Twins of Evil (1972). This film isnt a faithful adaptation of this novella, but it uses the Karnstein family as a means for the vampiric threat. Its one of those films thats not really interested in being faithful to the source material. They simply used the name of a famous book to give it some credibility.

This film starts off with a great opening sequence wich is loaded with Hammers mandatory atmosphere. Starting out with a scene like that lets you know that this director hasnt forgotten what we love about these old Hammer films. Mainly all the gothic atmosphere! And theres lots of it on this one! It's one of the things that makes a Hammer film a Hammer film. Theres scenes that take place in grave yards, theres a lot of shots with the full moon in the back, the wind blowing, you know, the whole Hammer thing, which is great cause I hate it when they try and leave that behind and set things in modern times. I like the magic and the atmosphere of the old castles, the graveyards, the fog. And though this film is a bit different then your regular Hammer flick, we still get the atmosphere we've come to expect from these films. It doesnt veer off too much from the path.

So whats the element that makes this one a bit different? Well, before this film, nudity was unheard of in a Hammer film. Vampire Lovers was the film to pop Hammer Studios cherry so to speak. And trust me, there's lots of nudity in Vampire Lovers! Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith always find a way to end up naked on screen. Theres this one hilarious scene in which Carmilla (the voluptuous Ingrid Pitt) is taking a bath and she gets up, and runs around the room after Emma trying to get her towel. Its the most shameless excuse to have so much nudity in a film! I thought it was funny, and at the same time, of course super hot! Both Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith were some of the most beautiful actresses on the planet at their time. Nudity scenes like the one Im referring to here are very gratuitous, and have nothing to do with the story. These scenes were just squeezed in there to please the largely male audience. Im sure more then one Hammer fan was happy about these scenes, which by the way are many. This film got into some trouble when it came time to rate it because of the lesbian theme it so heavily portrays. Actually the two films that followed this one (Lust for a Vampire and Twins of Evil) both toned downed their lesbian theme. Lust for a Vampire actually had Carmilla fall in love with a man, which completely goes against the nature of the character represented in the book.

It's easy to say that what makes this film special is the nudity. That would not make it a good film perse, just a film with lots of nudity. But putting the nudity aside, this is one excellent vampire film! The story is really what blew me away, watching Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith running around naked in their room was just a really juicy extra. I thought the idea of having a vampire vixen falling in love with one of her victims was a very original one. Not only that but she also seduces the men, and the rest of the ladies in the house! Carmilla is one viscious vampire vixen! Ingrid Pitt's scenes are really good in terms of acting as well. I dont know what it is about her voice, but Ingrid Pitt has that kind of voice where, no matter what she says, it ends up sounding sexy! I have no doubt in my mind that during the 70s she was considered the embodiment of all things beautiful and erotic in a female. Thats what I love about films. I love how they can preserve a moment for ever. Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith's beauty is frozen for all eternity on this film for future generations to enjoy!

At heart Vampire Lovers is really a love story with a vampire twist and in my book, it really works. I would have no problem in saying that it is one of the best Hammer films Ive seen. All thanx to Roy Ward Baker, who directed some of the best Hammer films, among them Quatermass and the Pit and Scars of Dracula wich is one of my favorite of the Hammer Dracula films. On Vampire Lovers he not only kept what we know and love from Hammer films, but he added the sexy angle to it, and he even put some gore in here to keep things interesting! Theres more then one beheading on this film.

It even has Peter Cushing in it, with a small role as "The General". As usual he did a great job, even though this role was a small one. He basically appears at the beginning of the film, and then at the end. Ingrid Pitt excells in this one not only in beauty but in the acting department as well. She actually manages to make us care for the villain, she is sweet, savage, erotic, and tender all roled up into one. Madeline Smith exerts a strange sort of innocence in her eyes, that makes her sexy as hell.

One thing I didnt get though is one character that shows up in the film. Every time Carmilla attacks or eats someone, theres this mysterious character on a horse who never says a word. He just stares and laughs revealing his teeth. You end up thinking that this guy might be Mircallas master or something, but sadly that plotline is never explained. Also, they play around a lot with the rules of being a vampire. In certain scenes Mircalla actually walks in the daylight and lets not forget the fact that vampires are supposed to hate water, yet on this film Mircalla is shown taking a hot bath! Not exactly something that a vampire would be doing in my opinion. These are really minor setbacks in what is otherwise an excellent vampire film.

If you are on a hunt down to see the best Hammer has to offer, you cant go wrong with Vampire Lovers. Its one of their best films, with an involving storyline, Hammers delicious atmosphere, a decent amount of gore and of course, the two beautiful bomb shells known as Madeline Smith and Ingrid Pitt. Whats not to like? Go get this one right now! You'll thank me later.

Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5

 

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

Title: Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

Director: Alan Gibson

Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham

Review:

When it comes to Hammers slate of Dracula films everything is fine and dandy until we come upon two films. Dracula A.D. 1972 and The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973). Today I'll be focusing all my hatred on reviewing Dracula A.D. 1972. The thing I love about these old Hammer films is how they all take place in a time of castles, and fog, and full moons. A time when people rode in horse carriages and didnt have cars, these films took us to another time and another place. The proceedings were made almost magical because of the atmospheric way in which Hammer Studios produced these films! So what happens when a studio wants to adapt to modern times and tries to put these old Dracula films in moder times? A disaster. Thats what happens!

Sometimes movies can turn into time capsules that transport us into the past or into the future. With Dracula A.D. 1972 were magically whisked away to a groovy time in wich Austin Powers would have felt right at home! The story is about this group of kids (were not a gang! were a group!) that love to hang out at a cafe shop called "The Cavern". The kids are bored, and looking for something to do. One day, Johnny Alucard (hmm strange last name...wait...it spells Dracula backwards! Aha!) a new kid in town waltzes into the coffee shop and offers the group of kids a new way they can get their kicks. He offers them a night of black mass and black magic! To wich they say "sure why the hell not, it could be fun!". So in no time flat, they find themselves resurrecting Count Dracula from the ashes. Problem is, one of the kids in the group is a direct descendent of Dr. Van Helsing! And that just doesnt sit well with Dracula at all!

This movie opens up with a swinging party somewhere in London, of course, this is just a way to try and get modern kids interested in these films, so they can feel identified with their music, and their clothes and they'll want to spend there money in this new modern take on the age old Dracula formula. As I watch this whole scene of young kids partying the night away in his house, doing drugs, making out and dancing on top of tables, I kept asking myself how they were going to fit Christopher Lee with his red and black cape into all of this. The filmakers wanted to make sure that this film was completely engulfed in whatever young people considered cool at that time. Everyone says words like "way out" and "groovy" and they finish many of their sentences saying "and all that jazz". To top it all off, theres a band that sounds something like "Jefferson Airplane" playing at the party...I mean youll be drowned in all things 70s! How was Dracula going to react when he wakes up in this modern world? Is there room for Dracula in the midst of modern 1970's London?

Of course this being a Black Mass, some blood has to be spilled on the altar..

Thats exactly the problem for me with this movie. Dracula feels really out of place in between all the partying and the rock and roll and the drugs. There are some potentially cool situations going on but sadly the music they decided to add to the proceedings doesnt fit at all and completely takes you out of the mood of things. Something horrifyin or scary will be happening on screen and suddenly a bunch of loud trumpets and congos start to beat and your just completely taken out of the horror element. The musical choices for this film sucked the atmosphere right out of this movie! Suddenly it felt like when Dario Argento puts heavy metal in one of his movies, and it just doesnt match with the feel of the horror film. Why couldnt they have updated Draculas look somehow? Does he always have to dress like he is stuck in time? How about having Dracula update his garments or something? Unfortunately, on this film, Dracula looks like an old dude trying to fit in within the young kids of the 70's. The ones to blame for this are Warner Brothers Studios and their Count Yorga The Vampire was succesful, therefore they wanted two modern day Dracula films from Hammer Studios. As a result we got this one and The Satanic Rites of Dracula, both dreadful in my book.

Another negative aspect of this film is that the story is just a re-hash of what they had already done in Taste the Blood of Dracula, which was a great film on its own. The story in Dracula A.D. 1972 is damn near identical, save for the fact that its set in London during the 70's and its got young people as lead actors. Lets see, a young lad inherits Draculas ring and ashes? Check! He then decides to bring Dracula back to life with the help of some people who know nothing about what they are getting into? Check! They perform a Black Mass to bring Dracula? Check! Said black mass takes place in a desecrated church? Check! The list of similarities between these two films goes on and on. So to top things off, this movie wasnt too original either.

No! Get those boobs away from me! They are too beautiful to behold!

There are a few things that make this movie worth while though. For example the fact that the movie is a time capsule to London in the early seventies makes the film entertaining. It made the movie fun for me, but we are here to get spooked, were here to see Dracula kill a few virgins and take his revenge on the House of Van Helsing. Did we get any of that? Well, in a way. We do get some Dracula vs. Van Helsing action. Only thing is that its too brief. The movie starts 100 years in the past, with Van Helsing and Dracula fighting on top of a horse carriage as its rasing through a forest! Both Dracula and Van Helsing die, but one of Draculas servants picks up his ashes and they are cared for 100 years until they end up in the hands of the guy who resurrects him in 1972. Then, in the 1972 Van Helsing and Dracula have another encounter and they fight each other off yet again, the proverbial battle of "good vs. evil". The one good thing this film has for it is that Christopher Lee plays Dracula, and he looks awesome even if the film does make the character feel like its entirely out of place. And that we get Peter Cushing playing both Van Helsing in the past and Van Helsing's descendant in 1972. I really cant say this film has anything other then that going for it.

All in all, an unintentionally funny Hammer Dracula film. Its trapped in the 70s and though that makes it a fun watch, it still doesnt gel well with the Hammer Dracula universe we've come to know and love.

Rating 2 out of 5

This foreign poster for the film was altered because it was released one year later in other countries.

This is It (2009)

Title: This Is It (2009)


Director: Kenny Ortega

Review:

It was decided by my friends and I that last night was going to be Michael Jackson night. The guy died. The guy was a living legend. And he died while prepping this big ass concert. We decided, last night was going to be a night to remember him. You see, I grew up listening to Michael Jackson, I saw the guy turn into the biggest thing in pop music right before my eyes. Id seen him do a respectable scarecrow in Sidney Lumets The Wiz. Id seen him transform into a spaceship in his own film Moonwalker, which I saw in theaters when it was first released. On the way to the theater, we popped a Michael Jackson cd on the cars audio system. Along the way we talked about his past while singing his songs. I was looking forward to seeing Michael Jackson thrill the world one last time with this new world tour that was to be called This is It. As fate would have it, he didn’t get to entertain his public one last time because of his untimely death, but he did get to give audiences one final jolt of entertainment through this concert film. How was it?

The thing with Michael Jackson’s death is that before it, the words Michael Jackson were synonymous with the words “freak”, and with finding a way to make fun of Jackson and his eccentric lifestyle. After his death, everything changed. He is no longer “Jacko” the guy we love to make fun of, now he is referred to once again as the “King of Pop”. I cant help but think he could have used some of that love back when he was alive. But I guess that’s the nature of being such a huge star. At some point the media just wants to eat you up and spit you out. Which they voraciously did with Michael. But now, that same media that destroyed him is feeding off of his death, which is a sad and hypocritical thing to do. But that’s they way it goes with big artists. Once they are dead, they are appreciated that much more.

Of course, I recognize that he was an unusual individual and that he was definitely guilty of doing a thing or two that would make people say he was kind of crazy. Like hanging his baby from a balcony. Or reconstructing his whole face to the point where it was falling apart. Or turning himself from black to white. And finally, being accused of pedophilia, which of course was never proven. As far as we know, they guy was simply being targeted by a group of greedy people looking to get a couple of million dollars from him. But I guess we’ll never know. But, aside from all the eccentricities in his life and the wild stories (he sleeps in a cryogenic chamber!) one thing cannot be denied about Michael Jackson and it is that he was one of the greatest performers and entertainers that ever lived.

When you saw him up on stage you just knew, this guy really had it. It’s that magic, that sparkle of someone bigger then life. His got that aura of someone who will live on through time. On this concert film, his talent is captured in a very raw fashion. Jackson was primed for a comeback, and he was going to make it a big one, the 'end all be all' of comebacks. It’s why he called it “This Is It!” This film shows us the rehearsals that took place during those long months of pre-production for the concert. You practically get to see every song he was going to sing on the concert, as rehearsed by Jackson, his musicians, his back up singers and his extremely talented dancers. Essentially, you get to see what the show was going to be like. Not the full on 100% version of it, but the 75% version. Still, you definitely get to see that it was going to be a huge spectacle.

How big was this concert? Well, first there was that long process of choosing the best dancers for the thing, and you get to see just how emotional some of these dancers were because they were getting the chance to dance next to Jackson. Then, you get to see how every song was going to be this huge production number, with special effects, make up effects, even part of the concert was going to be in 3D! Thriller was going to be a show stopper! Michael Jackson and his crew filmed a couple of short films for some of the most important songs. For Thriller, he did this short film filled with cemeteries, ghosts and zombies. Cool part is that the zombies were going to be coming at you in 3-D! And you get to see it on the film, because the fx for the short films were actually finished.

What I enjoyed the most about the whole film was how you could see Jackson at his most vivid. You can see him commanding that stage. When there was something he didn’t like in the show, he lets the crew know in a very gentle yet firm fashion. Yet you can’t get past the notion that Jackson knew exactly what he wanted for every second of that show. There’s one moment where you can see him literally thinking and coming up with how the show was going to be! We can see a couple of clashes, mistakes to which Michael would reply “that’s why we got rehearsals!” He was so respectful while rehearsing; he was never a pompous ass hole. He was always the nice guy, who would tell you what he wanted in the nicest way possible, but rest assured, he would get what he wanted. Make no mistake about it. On this movie you can really appreciate that the place where Jackson was meant to be was on stage. It’s what he was born to do.

His physical deterioration was evident. By this I don’t mean he wasn’t dancing or singing well. He is not 100% on these rehearsals because as he mentions quite a few times, he was saving his voice for the show, he was saving all his energies and his all, for the big concert, which he was obviously looking forward to. When I say his physical deterioration was evident I’m talking about his face. While seeing this movie you will see clearly how all the facial reconstructions he went through disfigured his face to the point where he no longer looked normal at all. It a sad thing to see, but his talent and his persona, and his energy during the film kind of obliterates this. All I could think while watching him prepare for this show was how talented he was, and what a loss it was for him to have died so soon.

I don’t know how I feel about the fact that this movie is making huge amounts of cash, that the cd’s and dvd’s are selling like hot cakes and that Michael Jackson is selling more records now then ever. Some see it as a little morbid, making so much money off of him now that he is dead. On the one hand you can see the whole film as Michael Jacksons swan song. A way to see into who he really was behind the scenes, how his mind worked while preparing these shows. On the other, it’s turned into a huge marketing scheme, selling box office tickets, t-shirts, posters, cd’s, dvd’s you name it, if it has Michael Jackson’s name on it, its selling. But then again, The Beatles keep selling. And so does Elvis. Michael Jackson is now amongst those dead and famous, who will live on through their merchandise and their music. Becoming a part of popular culture.

So yeah, I’m a huge Michael Jackson fan. And not the kind that turned overnight after his death either. This review comes from a true blue Michael Jackson fan who’s been listening to the guy since I was something like 9 or 10 years old when he was just starting out on his own way back in ’83 and ‘84. Though I don’t go around dressing like him or putting on Michael Jackson t-shirts, I do respect the guy’s artistic abilities, his talent to dance like no one else, and his musical legacy. I was singing every song in the theater as I watched this one! And guess what? I wasn’t alone! People were singing his songs, and clapping after some of them were over, as if we were seeing him perform in a concert, which in essence, we were. For the last time. This film was his last will and testament. For those of you who enjoyed his music, videos and films, don’t miss this one! This one is most certainly it!

Rating: 5 out of 5