Stone Cold (1991)

Title: Stone Cold (1991)

Director: Craig R. Baxley

Cast: Brian Bosworth, Lance Henriksen, William Forsythe

Review:

I put Stone Cold, under the same category as Sylvester Stallone’s Cobra (1986), you know, balls to the wall action with a testosterone levels that are off the charts. Right from this movies opening sequence, you can tell the director was using Cobra as a blue print. It starts out with some ass kicking in a supermarket, just like Cobra did. Brian Bosworth is dressed pretty much the same way Stallone was in Cobra, with long black trench coat, black cowboy boots and blue jeans. This film comes to us from director Craig R. Baxley who gave us Action Jackson (1988) and  I Come in Peace (1990), both of which aren’t bad action films at all. Having directed these two action films is probably what got him the job to direct this one. It’s a macho movie every step of the way. A guys film. It’s got giant motorcycles, naked chicks left and right, explosions, fights, guns, dudes kicking the hell out of each other, a biker gang. I don’t think a movie could be more 'macho' then this one.

A motorcycle gang is terrorizing the streets. The kind of gang that you don’t want to mess with. The kind of gang that if you mess with one of them, you mess with the whole lot of them. Kind of like the way the Hell’s Angels grew in the United States back in the 70’s, to the point where they had chapters everywhere. Basically, they are a bunch of red neck, hillbilly, rebels who don’t want to work 9-5. They’d rather, party 24-7, be hammered 24-7 and party like its 1999. You know, the kind of biker gang that don’t like to bathe, shave or do anything proper. They want to go against the rules! They want to smash your face! You piss them off and they answer with a sucker punch right to your balls! So basically, in Stone Cold, this motorcycle gang is pissed at some politician because he wants to make the death penalty a must in his state. The bikers don’t like that, so they want to wipe him out.

So wow, where do I start? Well, I guess the best place to start would be by talking about the films star: Brian Bosworth. He was a football player for the Seattle Seahawks back in the 80s. You know, the guy that got run over by Bo Jackson. So anyways, after a lackluster career in Football, the guy decides he is going to be movie star, making action films for Hollywood. His first stab at filmmaking wasn’t all that bad. Stone Cold, with all its cheesiness and 80s mentality is actually a decent action flick.

It’s got all the right ingredients for a good action flick. The idea behind this movie is, Bosworth goes undercover and becomes a member of the biker gang, to try and stop the assassination attempt. Its basic plotline is very similar to that of Kathryn Bigelow’s Point Break, which was released on the same year. If you remember correctly, Keanu has to try and infiltrate the gang of surfers who are holding up banks left and right. He kind of becomes friends with them and then it becomes difficult to distinguish between his real life as a cop and life with the surfer gang. Well, Stone Cold is basically that same movie. Just switch surfer gang for biker gang and replace Keanu with The Boz. This movie also made me think of Hunter S. Thompson’s book “Hell’s Angels” where Hunter S. Thompson actually lived amongst the Hells Angels for about a year, after which they kicked his ass for using them to write his book. But that doesn’t happen with The Boz on this movie. The Boz infiltrates the gang, and actually earns their respect from the get go because he starts off by kicking some ass, after he's had his egg-orange juice-banana energy shake of course!

So now comes the part of my review where I analyze the laugh inducing moments of this film, cause hey, this movie was made in the 90s, but its still got a little bit of left over 80s mentality within it; so laugh inducing moments are practically mandatory. Its an 80s action flick every step of the way. Heavy Metal was taking over back in the late 80s early 90s. This was way before Nirvana came along and screwed things up for hair bands everywhere. As a result, this films soundtrack is very heavy metal, as well as its attitude, the guys on this movie all listen to metal, they all wear skulls, rings, leather jackets. There’s only one problem, amongst all these dirty, unshaven, smelly heavy metal loving biker dudes, one person stands out like a sore thumb, and who is it? The Boz! Brian Bosworth who calls himself John Stone in the film, does not look like a biker at all. Number one, he actually wears neon colors while riding a bike. There’s this one scene where he’s wearing this neon green bandana on his head, and I’m like: Okay, its obvious, your NOT a fucking biker dude! Give it up! Another thing is: who the hell chose Bosworth’s wardrobe for this movie? Was it himself? Cause it sucks! He wears these gigantic leather jackets! They make him look like a Highlander on wheels or something! There’s no doubt about it, Bosworth was a fashion victim on this film. But hey, its great for a laugh. Don’t get me started on that mullet!

Then there is this scene in which The Boz appears in his underwear, that’s so obviously unnecessary, its like “look at me, I’m fucking hot! Bask in the awesomeness of my built body!” It was funny, and I was thinking, okay, this is a guy’s film because everything in the movie is aimed at guys, so why was that scene in there if this movie is made 100% for guys? I didn’t get it! I guess the director wanted to give something for the one or two ladies in the audience that were dragged by their boyfriends to see this action flick. I practically heard the girls screaming when that scene came on! Good thing is that the film quickly compensates by immediately placing a naked chick on the dudes bed. And speaking of nudity, there’s lots of it on this one. It has the obligatory “lets talk things out in a titty bar, with naked chicks on the background” scene. Hell, girls play pool topless on this film! So if you like some naked chicks with your action film, you’ll be more then pleased with Stone Cold.

So what else does this film have to offer other then nudity, action and The Boz? Well, Lance Henriksen playing the leader of the biker gang that’s what this film has to offer! And he plays it great. He wasn’t all that old just yet, actually, Lance Henriksen was ripped for this role! He runs the gang as if it was some sort of religion. He says “this is my cross, my church, my religion” and to top things off, when he wants to infiltrate a building, he dresses up like a preacher so they let him walk right by! He’s great in this movie. We also get William Forsythe, back in his early days. On this one he plays second fiddle to Lance Henriksen. The henchman who doesn’t trust The Boz. Not one bit! The rest of the cast is composed of real life bikers! Which adds a bit more credibility to the proceedings. Theres this one scene where all the bikers are shooting their guns, and watching these two guys kicking each others asses like some Gladiator show or something, good scene, everyone is crazy, going out of control, gotta give kudos to this movie for making these scenes genuine by using real bikers.

And then there’s the stunts! Bikes crashing out windows and exploding on helicopters! Chase sequences where bad guys smash their bikes onto oncoming traffic! When somebody is fighting in this movie and they hurl somebody, they really freaking throw them! I mean people fly! These biker dudes entertain themselves by shooting bear cans off of their shoulders! With machine guns! 

A fun action film! Its over the top, and crazy. Everybody is in “fuck you!” mode! Everything blows up, everybody runs on choppers, and The Boz kicks ass like he was The Terminator, which is really what they were trying to do here. Make Brian Bosworth the next Arnold or Stallone. Though in truth, he looked more like the next Dolph Lungdren, actually a great many scenes remind me of Dolph Lungdren. At times, The Boz actually talks like Lungdren! Anyhows, not a bad action film, actually a pretty cool one from the 90s! Right up there with Stallones Cobra. Good for a laugh, good for some fun.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

This foreign poster for the film actually makes it look like a Terminator film!

Nightmare City (1980)

Title: Nightmare City (1980)

Director: Umberto Lenzi

Cast: Hugo Stiglitz, Francisco Rabal

Nightmare City is one of those movies that I always passed by at the video store simply because it had a crappy cover. I guess I should’ve known not to judge a movie by its cover because this movie was fun as hell! I mean, it isn’t perfect, its got all those glitches that you can come to expect from practically every low budget Italian horror film, but the film remains fun and fast paced in spite of all its flaws.

The story starts in an airport, when an unidentified military plane lands on an airport. No one knows who’s piloting it, no one knows where it came from, but it lands. When the doors open, murderous infected people burst out and start stabbing and killing everyone in sight! Soon, the contagion begins to spread all through out the city, until the whole city is practically infested with the infected. In the mean time, Dean Miller, a journalist is trying to contact his wife so he can save her from the deadly killers! Meanwhile, the military is trying its best to control the ever spreading contagion! Will they succeed? Or will the infected take over the city?

Nightmare City comes to us from Umberto Lenzi, the director of two of the most recognized Italian cannibal movies from the 70’s Cannibal Ferox and Eaten Alive. I have not seen these two Cannibal movies yet, but from what I hear, they are pretty savage and gruesome, so maybe that explains why Nightmare City is filled with non stop acts of gruesome murder. The thing that got me about this movie is that it grabs you from the very beginning. The whole thing with the military plane landing mysteriously at the airport was a great way of opening the film, though I doubt a plane could just land like that on any airport today. Somebody would probably shoot it down or something, but, we gotta remember, this was the early 80s, before Sept. 11 came along. But the idea was awesome, then, hundreds of zombies poor out of the plane and start murdering people left and right.

The infected in this movie are a weird mix of zombies, vampires and vicious murderers. Why? Well, they look like zombies, with their skin having these ugly wart like growths that make them look like they got their faces burned in a George Foreman grill. The funny thing about the infected on this film is that they all carry knives around with which to stab everybody they come in contact with. I thought that was the weirdest thing about these creatures…but I was wrong! They also feed on their prey like vampires! Sucking the blood as it spurts out of their victims body! The infected on this film act like zombies, but in reality, they are closer to vampires. Murderous viscous vampires, without an ounce of humanity left in them. All they think about is killing! Another strange thing about these infected is that a lot of them wear turtle necks for some reason. And a lot of them wear suits. They aren’t dressed in rags like Fulci’s zombies. These zombies look like they just got out of a dinner party or something!

The movie delivers an overdose of violence! There’s a moment in the film, where there is one murder after another for minutes and minutes on end! An infected kills someone! Then they kill someone else! Then they kill someone else! And it goes on and on like that without any sort of story developing. To the films advantage I will say that some of the killings were pretty cool. For example: an infected cuts a girl in her breast and begins to suck the blood of off her breast! In another awesome sequence, an infected takes this girl and slowly begins to poke her eye out with a knife. That scene in particular reminded me of a Fulci film, because Fulci had an infatuation with eyes. So the movie delivers in the gore department. It’s also extremely fast paced. Situations develop rather quickly in this film, so we are never really bored with it, which was one of the best things this movie had going for it. It was always moving.

Of course, there are couple of things that will make you burst out laughing while watching this movie. For example, there’s this sequence that takes place inside of a television station which was obviously inspired by George Romero’s chaotic television station sequences in Dawn of the Dead (1979). But Nightmare City’s TV. station sequences aren’t chaotic at all. At least not at first. First we are treated to a bunch of dancers doing aerobics in some sort of dance show that’s hilarious because the girls obviously can’t dance for shit. The dances are not even choreographed well! All they do well is shake their ass in front of the camera and spread their legs wide for every young dude in the audience to see. It’s obvious that this sexy dance sequence was only thrown in there to make more money; because you know, T&A in a horror movie will get those young dudes in the theater seats! And trust me, there’s lots of nudity on this movie! But of course, this naturally goes with the territory, this is a low budget horror movie after all. Another thing that had me busting a gut is a scene in which Dean Miller hurls a TV set at an infected zombie, and for some reason, the TV. set explodes in flames and burns the infected to a crisp! T.V. sets are like grenades on this movie! As you can see, I was having fun with this flick.

There’s a moment in the film when the lights go out in the city and everything is suddenly dark, to me that’s when the movie lives up to its title. It literally becomes a nightmare city because not only is it dark, but almost everyone in the film is a freaking zombie! There’s this cool sequence where a helicopter flies over the city and we go over a field that’s filled with zombies and people running away from them. They even end up going into an amusement park, which led me to believe that maybe this year’s Zombieland, though awesome, wasn’t really all that original.

Umberto Lenzi was imitating in some ways the films of Lucio Fulci. Actually, the producers wanted him to make a film that resembled a Fulci film, so maybe that’s why sometimes while watching this movie; you’ll feel like you’re watching something that old Lucio might have cooked up. But at times, you’ll also get this George Romero vibe going for it, with the whole television station sequence, or the social commentary that the film tries to squeeze in there at the last minute. I’m talking about a scene in which a character starts talking about how humanity is getting what they deserved, that humanity is self destructive. That the way we are living is only going to end up destroying us all. So at least it tries to throw in some social commentary in there as well.

I’ll never understand why I had not watched this movie before. It’s so zany, that its fun. It’s fast paced, and goes at a relentless pace! There are killings every five seconds, T&A galore, and we got Hugo Stiglitz hurling exploding TV sets! It was a fun ride, and a very underrated Italian film. I recommend this movie if you want to watch a dumb, fast paced, unintentionally funny zombie film.

Rating: 3 out of 5

2012 (2009)

Title: 2012 (2009)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt

Review:

There’s a couple of directors out there who’s names are synonymous with bad films. Guys like Uwe Boll for example. You say his name people immediately think of low budget bad filmmaking. The kind that makes you want to pull your hairs out. Roland Emmerich has unfortunately fallen somewhere along those lines as well, only difference between him and Boll is that Emmerich makes overpriced, big budget bad films. I mean honestly, what the hell was 10,000 B.C. if not one of the worst films ever made? That film was awful beyond description. To Emmerich’s credit, not everything he has made is shit. I enjoyed Independence Day as much as the next guy, though I enjoy it a lot less nowadays. Stargate is a pretty respectable science fiction flick if you ask me. And as a kid, I even enjoyed one of his first flicks. An evil possessed dummy flick called Making Contact.

But what Roland Emmerich is most known for nowadays is his “end of the world” movies. It seems he has become some sort of an expert on these kind of films. He enjoys blowing up famous landmarks, destroying everything in site, putting humanity in peril. On Independence Day he blows up the white house! On The Day After Tomorrow, the New York Public Library gets drowned by a gigantic water wave! In Godzilla the oversized lizard tares up the streets of Manhattan and plants all of its eggs on the Madison Square Garden! So he has sort of become some what of an expert in disaster flicks. And its understandable that he wants to make these kinds of films, he is just commenting on the self destructive nature that humanity continues to display. His message is, "if we keep this up, its eventually going to bite us in the ass! And a lot sooner then we think!". So, what’s Emmerich been up to with 2012? Does it somehow surpass his previous destruction fests? Or is it more of the same?

In 2012, the sun is sending these heat waves to earth, over heating it and basically turning our planet into one huge microwave! The rivers and lakes are drying up, theres heat waves everywhere and the weather is completely out of whack! The scientists of the world have realized what’s going on and are trying to warn the governments of the upcoming “end of the world” but they are only taking it as a joke! Meanwhile, John Cusack is taking his kids out for a holiday in Yellow Stone Park, as the end of the world is about to begin! Will humanity survive the coming apocalypse? Where the Mayans right all along about 2012?

There’s lots of talk all over the world about the upcoming year. 2012. Some idiots out there actually believe that something might happen, that its going to be the year in which the world will end by some sort of cataclysmic catastrophe. A meteor? The weather will kill us? The oceans will engulf us? There are all kinds of wild theories. Supposedly, according to the Mayan calendar, the end of the world is going to come on December 21 or 23, 2012. The film takew advantage of peoples fears on this subject matter. Weird thing is The Mayan calendar doesn’t even compose a big part of the movie, its all reduced to one guy saying “The Mayans were right all along” and that’s it. They don’t go into some big explanation or tie in with the whole Mayan calendar thing. This film leans more towards the “nature can wipe us out of existence whenever it wants” school of thought, which of course is a more believable way of seeing things for me. I mean if the world was truly going to end some day, I would say it was going to happen as a result of some cataclysmic event like a meteor hitting us or the earth deciding to move around a bit; as opposed to some ancient prophecy bull crap.

So how about that destruction of the world? How did it unfold? Well, Ill tell ya, its one of the most amazing displays of destruction I have seen on any movie to date! I do not think I will see a film in which the world is destroyed in a more gargantuan way then the way it was destroyed on this film. It’s the biggest display of destruction I have ever seen! How can Emmerich top this level of destruction? He cant, he just cant. There’s no way that more destruction can be shown on any movie. All other end of the world flicks will have to look at this one as reference because this one is the king of all “end of the world” flicks. Meteors, gigantic earthquakes, buildings colliding with one another, streets being ripped apart, giant ocean waves engulfing the land; you name it and its here! Kudos to the special effects guys! I mean, yeah, it’s over the top! But its done so well. I was literally saying “wow!” every five seconds. There’s a scene in which John Cusack and his family are flying over a plane while all the destruction is going on that’s just amazing.

But is it all a hollow special effects spectacle? Well, as is expected in a catastrophe film, we follow lots of different stories, with different families and people facing the end of the world. But the main story is that of John Cusack and his family pulling together in the middle of all the chaos. He has divorced his wife, and they have joint custody over the kids. Will the end of the world bring mom and dad back together again?

What I enjoyed the most about this movie though was that it really is epic. It takes the story further then I had expected. It’s not just about the end of the world, with all the destruction taking center stage, it’s also about he survival of the human race. How can humanity go on and survive in spite of the upcoming apocalypse? This is where I found the story got really interesting! Darren Aronofsky, the director of Requiem for a Dream, Pi and The Wrestler had an idea for a film that’s very similar to this one, but he never got around to making it. In that proposed flick, the world was coming to an end, and humans find a way to escape by building spaceships and escaping the destruction, mirroring the biblical Noahs Ark story. The same idea was approached by Pixar’s Wall-E, where humanity had to escape the garbage filled earth. On 2012, humanity manages to escape, but in a very different way.

A word of warning though. This is the kind of film where the good guys always escape at the last second, where they will be as close to death as possible without dying at all. Behind them, the world can be falling apart, but they will escape at just the last moment. I knew this is the kind of film I was going to watch, so I was just having fun with it, cause you know, this movie is a big budget studio production, millions of dollars are being spent here so of course non of the good guys are going to die! Only people to die are secondary characters or extras, and lots of those die that’s for sure! Roland Emmerich destroys many legendary landmarks on this one, like The Vatican, which gets blown to smithereens! The Christ of Corcovado gets ripped in half! The white house gets destroyed again! Yellow Stone Park goes up in flames! But somehow, the main characters always find a way to escape all of it at the last second!

Performance wise, the film has an excellent cast. John Cusack as the main character is great, to me he is always likable in whatever he is in. I loved the fact that they gave such an important role to Chiwetel Ejiofor, a great actor every step of the way, he plays the scientist trying to warn the government of the United States about whats going to happen. I was so happy to see Danny Glover in a film again! Its been so long since he was in a major film, and on this one he plays the president of the U.S. Woody Harrelson plays a bit of comedy relief on this one. It seems he is great for these kind of whacky crazy characters, he also did a fine job in Zombieland playing Talahasee, on this one, he appears briefly (his appearance plays out like something of an extended cameo) but it is one of the characters that kind of lightens up things in the film in the middle of all the chaos. Also, Oliver Platt deserves a mention here. He plays the evil polititian who cares only about himself. He lies, he is selfish, and he doesnt give a damn about the people, you know, your basic evil polititian. (Are there any good ones anyway?)  On this flick, Oliver Platt demonstrated that he has potential to play villains very well. Some director out there should take advantage of that at some point and give him more villainous roles.

On the negative side of things, the film does have similarities at one point with films like Titanic and Poseidon. You know, the kind of scene where everyone is looking out for themselves? When things get really tense and everyone goes batshit insane cause they know they that they are going to have to get really selfish in order to survive? Like those scenes where everyone is trying to get on the lifeboats in Titanic? Same type of situation here. These kind of scenes always lend themselves for lots of juicy chaos.  I hate movies that use that common scenario where people are trapped inside of a boat or something thats being flooded with water, and then someone has to go and swim underwater to do something that will save everyone else! Thats so freaking cliche! And its been done to death in hundreds of films before! And to top things off, they go with the, "but he was right behind me" bit, where you think the main character drowned on his way back...but suddenly bursts out of the water to show us that he is okay! He survived! Please, I would have been so happy without that bit in the film, but whatever, it's a minor glitch in an other wise fun and entertaining flick.

Do you think the audience will notice were standing in front of a green screen John?

The film deals with the end of the world, which is a depressing thought on its own, but it adds a bit of comedy relief thanks to the inclusion of Woody Harrelson who plays a crazy conspiracy nut, who’s up to date on all the crazy things that are going on in the world. He has one of the coolest moments in the film! Which brings me to my next point, the film is never too dark, like for example the upcoming post apocalyptic film called The Road, which presents us with a really dark out look on the post apocalyptic world. On 2012, Roland Emmerich tried his best to end things on a positive and uplifting note, because you know, this is a multi-million dollar production, and we gotta give the audience that happy ending. But multi-million dollar production hiccups aside, this movie was an entertaining ride. It’s a non stop spectacle of awesome effects from beginning to end. Highly recommend it if you want to overdose on awesome fx and an end of the world storyline. Roland Emmerich has vindicated himself with this movie. Let’s see how long he can keep himself on my good side.

Rating: 3 out of 5

 

Angels and Demons (2009)

Title: Angels and Demons (2009)

Director: Ron Howard

Cast: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard

Review:

The Da Vinci Code was a controversial film upon its release in 2006 because it asked the question: Did Jesus get laid? And did he have kids? Wow, big freaking deal. I went to watch this movie expecting to see a shocking and sacrilegious piece of filmmaking, because of all the controversy and hype around it. What I saw was a film afraid to say what it had to say. Its main character was a non believer, a man of no faith at all,  yet it always seemed to me like the film was afraid to show this. The film in my opinion was not as controversial as it was made out to be. To top things of, it was a bit boring. And it just felt like Indiana Jones, but without the fun. Still, the controversy helped the film and it made kajillions of dollars worldwide. So fast forward a couple of years later and here comes its inevitable sequel, Angels and Demons. Again, lots f controversy surrounding this one. What’s all the controversy about this time around?

Illuminati terrorist want to blow up the crib of Catholicism - The Vatican - with anti-matter! You see, apparently, members of an ancient secret anti-religion group called “The Illuminati” have stolen anti-matter from a top secret science lab. They intend to blow up The Vatican right smack in the middle of conclave, which is Christian code for “lets choose a new Pope!” The terrorists have also kidnapped the four favorite cardinals who are running for Pope, and are slowly killing them one by one. Will the Illuminati succeed in eradicating the birthplace of Catholicism, along with all its popes and cardinals from the face of the earth? Or will Robert Langdon use all his knowledge on religion to help them find the hidden anti-matter and stop the Illuminati from killing the cardinals?

I for one found this movie to be way more entertaining then The Da Vinci Code. It’s a bit edgier with its themes. It dares to say more then the previous film did, but again, it does so with the utmost respect cause you know, we don’t want to insult all those raging Catholics out there who think their religion is the one and only true one amongst all the thousands of religions and sects in the world. So again, the film walks on egg shells when it asks Robert Langdon question like the ever popular “do you believe in God?” This was fine by me, because though the film was very respectful with what it was saying, it said what it wanted to say anyways. Like addressing many of the downright evil things that the Catholic Church has done across the ages, like for example killing off anyone who thought different then they did, like they did in the inquisition. They killed Galileo Galilei (one of the most popular examples of the ignorance of the Catholic Church) because he taught the idea that the earth moved around the sun as opposed to what the church taught, that it was the sun that moved around the earth and the earth remained still. We all now know who was wrong there. Eventually, empirical science proved Catholics wrong. And so, the Church realizing it had made a huge mistake said “I’m sorry, we were all wrong back in the day”. But that apology from the church came just the other day, on October 31 1992. Literally hundreds of years after they made Galileo’s life a living hell, simply for thinking differently. The film addresses these issues and mentions them clearly, which I loved. When the film begins, it feels as though the church’s sins are coming back to bite them in the ass, in a huge freaking way!

I enjoyed how the film depicts the whole process of choosing a new Pope. This is a process that I have always found interesting. Thousands of Catholics waiting in front of the Vatican for God to choose his next representative here on earth. I always ask myself, do this people actually believe this man is going to be chosen by God? Don’t they read history books? Choosing the next pope has always been a process that’s been filled with betrayals, murders, poisonings and this film addresses these same types of situations with its storyline. Across the ages, Popes have killed other popes and bribed voters just so they could take over the papacy. Just check out the story behind Pope Alexander VI! He even has incest in his resume! And he is not alone. What baffles me is how Catholics call the pope the hand of god on earth. If this is the representative of God on earth, then we have one messed up God! So Angels and Demons plays around with these themes, but it doesn’t do it out of “maliciousness” as it has been accused of by more then one reviewer. The film is fiction, yes. But its based on fact. Often times, these Popes are seen as holy by the ignorant masses, ignorant to the things that really go on behind closed doors. What I hate is how hard the Church always tries to hide the fact that these awful things happened within the Vatican walls. I also liked how Ron Howard chose to augment the feeling of chaos going on out in the streets. People screaming, complaining, boycotting, marching, singing...the confusion brought on by religion and politics is very well depicted on this film!

Angels and Demons is a good adaptation of Dan Brown’s book. I read the book and everything I read was in there, almost exactly how I had envisioned it, which was kind of strange! Its one of those films where you go “wow, that’s exactly how I imagined it in my mind!” Of course, it did cut a few things here and there to quicken the pace of things. But hey, it’s understandable, and the changes were minor. The part I missed the most that was left out of the film is the part where Robert Langdon visits the scientific lab where the anti-matter is created. The labs are still on the film, but they used them only as a means to open the film with something quick and interesting, the creation of the anti-matter and then we move on to other matters. On the book, Langdon actually visits these laboratories and all hell breaks loose as he is there. Filmmakers decided to cut this out and just cut to him going to the Vatican immediately. But for the most part, the movie is the book.

The Catholic Church thought that The Da Vinci Code was an offensive film, so they did not allow Ron Howard and crew to shoot Angels and Demons in any of their churches, and much less, inside of The Vatican itself. So Ron Howard’s production crew had to recreate many of the locations from pictures they took of the locations they wanted. Some of the locations were recreated by building sets; others were recreated with the help of computer animation, which was excellent in my book.

Again, I thought the film was very daring with its themes. The evil within the church, the dangers of fanatism, the secrets of the history of papacy. How the church distorts things, from how they really happened, to what they want you to think happened. How being raised in a religion from birth can actually turn you into a dangerous and even psychotic individual. These are all fantastic themes! The film plays with themes of religion vs. science and religion vs. non believers, it also addresses the fact that the history of the Catholic church is not as squeaky clean or as holy as it wants to be. In fact it’s filled with many dark passages which continue to be written to this day. This film was very entertaining, and thought provoking. Catholics opted to label this film as “harmless entertainment not to be taken seriously” that its followers can see it, but that they should let others know that its “a fable, based on malicious myths”. They decided to take this stand with the film, because they thought that if they decided to boycott film completely, it would only make people want to see it even more, which is what happened with The Da Vinci Code. Angels and Demons went on to become a huge hit anyways, the fourth biggest money maker of the year, so I guess their little ploy didn’t work very well.

This was a fast paced, enjoyable flick that surpasses The Da Vinci Code in every way. It has an incredible climax that has to be seen to be believed! I not only loved it because of its themes, but also because it was highly entertaining, it was well acted, and it speaks certain truths that more people should know about, this isn’t just a film to be dismissed as some simple curiosity, it speaks about a very real truth that not many people want to face. Popes are only human, and as such have the same capacity for evil as you or I. They are not holy men with a special direct line to God. They are just humans, thirsting and coveting that desired seat of power as much as the next guy.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Ninja Assassin (2009)

Title: Ninja Assassin (2009)

Director: James McTeigue

Review:

There was a time during the 60s and 70s when Kung Fu movies were all the rave. They were being made left and right and made huge amounts of money in Japan, China and America. Some truly great Kung Fu movies emerged from this craze. Hell, even a catchy radio hit appeared in 1974 called “Kung Fu Fighting” by one Carl Douglas. But amongst all the drivel, and the commercialism, some truly excellent martial arts films arose and some of them are still considered classics to this day. Examples of great Kung Fu movies: 36 Chambers of Shaolin (1978) which is the one that always gets mentioned as being the best of the bunch. And you know, it’s not for nothing. That movie still blows me away every time I see it, it displays some of the best martial arts action that I have ever seeen on any movie. Master of the Flying Guillotine (1975) is another fine example of a truly excellent Kung Fu movie. If you haven’t seen that one, get your ass of that couch and go get it! Youll see where the premise for the Street Fighter video games came from. Another favorite of mine is also, Duel to the Death (1983). On Duel to the Death we not only get Kung Fu, we also get Samurais and yes…even Ninjas! Duel to the Death is one of the best ninja movies out there. If you want to see what a true ninja movie should be like, do yourself a favor and check it out. Amongst these jewels, there was drivel. No doubt about that, but the truly good ones, with great actors and good production values always shined.

Then came the American “martial arts” films from the 80s and turned ninjas into laughable cartoon characters. Films like Revenge of the Ninja (1983) and American Ninja (1985). These films (and its sequels) had second rate actors in second rate straight to video movies. They had laughable martial arts sequences, with nothing amazing about them. Not many good martial arts movies were made in the United States during the 80s. I mean let’s face it, films like American Ninja are good for a laugh, but can’t be seriously considered as good martial arts films. The only American martial arts film that deserves to be mentioned is John Carpenter’s Big Trouble in Little China (1986). Now there was an excellent martial arts film! It had fantasy and horror elements, great visual effects, but unfortunately, no ninjas. During the 90s, ninjas only appeared in children films like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie (1990), Surf Ninjas (1993) and 3 Ninjas (1992). These films only helped turn ninjas into something goofy and child like. Suddenly, ninja movies were for kids, when in reality, ninjas were supposed to be deadly killers. They were always the villains with no moral values or honor. They simply did what they got paid to do.

The interest in Kung Fu movies resurfaced with The Matrix (1999) which presented us with American actors doing their own Kung Fu fighting sequences. Tarantino’s Kill Bill films also sparked a bit of interested in these films as well. Apparently, after The Matrix and Speed Racer (which had a bit of martial arts in it) the Wachowski brothers interest in martial arts was still alive and kicking. So much so, that they decided to produce a throw back to those ninja movies from the past called Ninja Assassin. The film I will be reviewing today. Hurray, we finally get a ninja movie again! My question is: Would people welcome the ninja film back into the main stream? Or will people find Ninjas cartoonish, childish and funny? As a kid, I always loved ninjas. I was obsessed with them. I used to draw them scaling walls, and throwing their ninja stars. So of course I was excited when I saw they were making a new ninja movie. I was excited to learn that the Wachowski brothers were the ones producing it and that James McTeigue (the director of V For Vendetta) would be the one behind the camera. But a question lingered in my mind. Would this new Ninja movie live up to the glory days of the Kung Fu movie from the 70s?

Ninja Assassin is about Raizo, a kid who was raised from childhood to become a Ninja. But he soon hates the ninja way of life and decides to run away and leave the ninja life behind. Unfortunately for him, ninjas don’t like for people to run away from their ninja clan. It’s considered treason, so they hunt him down, looking for a way to make him pay for his betrayal. Meanwhile, there’s an American reporter investigating these mysterious ninja clans who have been committing assassinations for the government for years. Problem is, ninjas prefer to remain in anonymity, they don’t like people to even know of their existence, so they go after Raizo for his betrayal and after the reporter because she’s getting closer to discovering the existence of the ninja clan.

Big question is: did this movie satisfy the Kung Fu fan in me? Well, it half way did. I’m gonna start with the good. The movie has tons of action and martial arts, it’s got good production values, the movie doesn’t look cheap. They got kung fu temples, and dojos and all that. They have a decent story involving revenge (of course) and redemption. I liked the idea of Raizo wanting to cut ties with things he didn’t agree with, he didn’t want anyone to be his “master” he wanted to be his own master. So immediately, I took a liking to Raizo just for that. The actor who plays Raizo is a martial artist known as Rain who also appeared briefly in Speed Racer. He was the perfect guy for this role, he is obviously in the perfect shape to kick some ass. And he has that “don’t fuck with me aura” about him. Rain was obviously channeling a bit of Bruce Lee there. So we got a cool main character to follow through out the movie.

The movie is extremely gory and violent. These ninjas hurl their ninja stars like there was no tomorrow! The ninja star is one of my favorite ninja weapons, and trust me, you’ll see a lot of those in this movie! How they run around and jump while carrying all those metallic ninja stars around I’ll never understand, but they do. Raizo also uses this chain that has a knife at the end of it, which he uses to chop his enemies in half. We constantly see heads, arms and legs flying through the air. This weapon reminded me a bit of the weapon used in Master of the Flying Guillotine which had a similar function. You through it and you cut your opponents in half with it. My only complaint is that when he uses this weapon, most of the time it’s done with CGI effects. Had this been a Kung Fu movie from the 70s, they would have had a real martial artist using a real weapon. I don’t like when they use CGI in scenes that don’t need it. What’s wrong with getting a guy who actually knows how to use the weapon? It would have been that much more exciting to watch. As it is, you know that what you are seeing isn’t really happening, and that most of the blood you are watching is all CGI blood. Hell, even the American Ninja movies had real swords and real guys doing their stunts as opposed to having CGI stunt doubles. But whatever, I just went with the flow. I was having fun with this movie.

Another complaint of mine comes with one of the most important things in a film of this kind. The martial arts. I mean, if the main protagonist is a ninja, shouldn’t he at least be a competent martial artists? It didn’t feel that way to me for some reason. He was good at posing, and looking mean, and jumping from here to there, but real martial arts moves? The kind that makes you say “whoa!” were nowhere to be seen. The problem with me was that they did a lot of the dreadful shaky cam, and the quick cuts that don’t let you see a thing of what’s really happening on the screen. This is one of the things I hate the most on any kind of film. They cut everything so fast and move the camera so much that you can’t really tell what the hell is happening. It’s a good trick to hide lazy filmmaking. That was a big disappointment for me. But of course, there were moments here and there that were cool martial arts sequences, but most of the time, the movie is in shadows, and you cant see things very well. Best part of the film comes when the ninjas go out onto the streets and start following Raizo through a street packed with cars. That was a fun action sequence! And they have an action sequence going on every five seconds, so at least you will not get bored.

It had more or less everything you could expect from a martial arts film. It had the guy being trained in a secluded martial arts temple hidden away in the mountains. It shows us the difficult training procedures that the newly initiated has to go through in order to become the greatest pupil ever. It has the revenge side to it, with Raizo looking to avenge the death of a loved one. But it adds one new angle to it, that of rebellion. Raizo going against everything he had been taught to be truth, which was really the best element this story has going for it. Raizo goes against the ninja way of life. In short, this film has elements from lots of other martial arts films that came before it, but the ones it borrowed heavily from were 36 Chambers of Shaolin and Master of the Flying Guillotine. My only problem is that it was not better then those old movies, when it should have been considering all the advances in technology and filming techniques.

All in all, I enjoyed the film. It was not a disappointment like I had expected. I was honestly expecting something cheesier, like the America Ninja movies from the 80s. As it stands, this isn’t the best Kung Fu movie ever made, but it isn’t the worst either. Its got tons of ninjas, tons of ninja stars flying through the screen, lots of action and stuff blowing up. It’s a fun way to spend an hour and a half, but unfortunately, its not all it could have been. The thing with films, if you’re working within a genre (like the Kung Fu/martial arts genre) your film is supposed to be better then everything that preceded you. If not, you should at least entertain, and that’s the thing with Ninja Assassin. It wasn’t a great martial arts film, but it was a fun ride.

Rating 3 1/2 out of 5