RokurotaMakabe's Reviews

Rawhead Rex (1986)

4/10

20 January 2017

When a movie is titled Rawhead Rex, you already get a few indications as of what to expect: low production values, a silly premise and most likely some really bad acting. Having set my expectations accordingly, I have to say that this movie is a fun way of spending a rainy afternoon.

The plot of the movie revolves around an ancient demon who is set free from the underground prison where he was trapped, allowing him to go on a killing spree in the Irish countryside. Early in the movie, it is foreshadowed that the only person who might be able to stop him is an American photographer who is in Ireland along with his family, gathering material for a book he is writing. Their story lines are told in parallel until they collide, setting up a violent finale.

The monster itself is laughable. It looks cartoonish and is too lumbering to be even remotely scary. This is a direct consequence of the low budget – Predator came only one year later and its title character made for a much more believable monster –, but the silly monster is part of the charm the movie has. One particular scene that stands out is near the beginning of the movie when the monster attacks a middle-aged couple in their home, killing the man and then proceeding to thrash the house. The way it is shot and the awkwardness of the actor in the monster suit almost make this scene MST3K worthy.

Turning to the positives now, there are flashes of brilliance in Clive Barker's screenplay, with some one-liners that are particularly witty. The Irish setting is picturesque and the way tension is built in some scenes almost makes up for the obvious flaws the movie has in terms of direction. Acting wise, David Dukes delivers a decent performance as the leading character, but there is also the obligatory overacting from some of his counterparts, Ronan Wilmot as the possessed priest being the first that comes to mind.

Rawhead Rex is a well-paced movie that delivers on its silly premise. It provides solid entertainment for B movie fans, but all those expecting anything else might end up being disappointed.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rogue (2007)

6/10

A film that breathes new life into the genre

7 February 2016

I'll start by saying that this is probably the greatest killer croc movie ever made, but then again, the majority of the movies in this genre are mediocre at best. Rogue rises above them thanks to a good cast and some excellent production values.

The movie starts off at a slow pace, but this helps to build some tension for the part when the crocodile eventually shows up and causes mayhem. The slower beginning means we also get some character development and the leading actors put in some decent performances, most notably Radha Mitchell, who does a really good job with her character.

Rogue is by no means a groundbreaking entry in the monster movie genre. Most of the usual clichés are here and there are moments when the movie can't avoid not being predictable. On the other hand, there's not much that the movie does wrong as it provides solid entertainment throughout. The movie is also fairly realistic, from the croc to the situations that are depicted. Another plus is the cinematography, which is stunning at some points.

I prefer this flick over Black Water, which was released in the same year, because I find it to be the more entertaining of the two. If you're into this kind of movies, you should probably give both of them a shot, but in terms of production values and the sheer entertainment it provides, Rogue is definitely the superior one.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Beyond Outrage (2012)

6/10

Outrage Beyond

16 May 2013

With Outrage, Takeshi Kitano returned to his filmmaking roots and he did not disappoint, bringing to the audience one of his signature yakuza movies. Its follow-up, Outrage Beyond offers more of the same as it focuses on a larger scale conflict this time, a conflict that is the direct result of the events in the first film.

The action here revolves around Takeshi Kitano's Otomo and the way his actions lead to a war between two rival yakuza gangs. We find out that Otomo is alive and well, but still in prison after surviving the aftermath of the bloodbath in the first film. His premature release from prison leads to tensions between the two organizations and the apparent peace between them is disrupted. Thus the fight for power begins and the conflict is spiced up by the involvement of a police detective who has interests of his own, all leading to an explosive finale.

The film does not fail to deliver, although it is not in the same class as some of Takeshi's other yakuza efforts. It represents an improvement on Outrage in terms of storytelling, there is less focus on old school action and more emphasis is put on the conflict between the characters, which is a good thing since it adds more dimension to the story. The characters themselves are well developed and the acting is what you would expect. On the other hand, the film lacks some creativity and some artistic touch in order to be truly great. All the elements of a Kitano film are here, but they do not stand out as much as they should, even his trademark deadpan humor is served in smaller doses. All things aside, the film is good in its own right and the only reason for it not being on par with Takeshi's best efforts is because those films have set such a high standard.

While it does not break any new ground, Outrage Beyond is an entertaining film to watch whether you are a fan of the genre or not and it represents a good addition to Takeshi Kitano's filmography.

17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Carjacked (2011)

4/10

Sub-par

22 November 2011

There is a reason why some films get a direct to video release. As it is the case here with "Carjacked", this is the kind of film that was destined to fall into mediocrity. It seems that the people behind it never believed that they could come up with something good so they didn't care that much about the final result.

I really wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking with this movie, but I still felt disappointed after seeing it. Not only that the film doesn't bring anything new, but it also incorporates some of the most annoying elements present in kidnapping movies. For an instance, the two main characters are incredibly generic. They really could have been taken out from any similar movie and put in here. On top of that you get the usual clichés of the genre and there are also some cheap thrills along the way to provide the entertainment. The film lacks suspense and can be very predictable at times not to mention the fact that some of the decisions that the characters took along the way really defied logic. Also, the directing really felt amateurish at times, especially towards the end of the movie.

Stephen Dorff is a really good actor and so is Maria Bello, but they alone cannot save this movie. Here, the script and direction doesn't allow them to put their acting skills to good use and the final result doesn't do them justice. They manage to bring some depth into their characters, but overall this is a waste of their acting talents.

In the end, "Carjacked" is not a completely bad film, but it suffers from a lack of originality and some bad directing. A below average film that should be watched with diminished expectations.

My rating: 4,5/10

9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Dangerous Method (2011)

5/10

Perhaps a little too tame for a Cronenberg movie

19 November 2011

"A Dangerous Method" marks the third collaboration between director David Cronenberg and actor Viggo Mortensen and even though the final result is not as good as their previous two efforts, I found the film to be satisfying enough in the end.

In terms of production values the film does not disappoint, but perhaps its main flaw is the storytelling. I really failed to get fully engaged in the story and even though the characters are developed well enough I was expecting more in terms of plot. This is an art-house film and it should be treated as such, but that does not mean that it should lack the entertainment factor. The fact that some of the viewers might fail to get emotionally involved might also have something to do with the film's pacing. Despite the fact that it has a running length of a little over an hour and a half the film moves perhaps a little too slow at times and some may find it to be overlong.

The film probably lacks some of the shock elements that were present in Cronenberg's previous movies and made them unique. It does not have an element that stands out and this is where Cronenberg could have probably done a better job.

There are also a lot of good things about the movie. For an instance, I really liked the great attention to detail when it comes to costumes and settings. On top of that it is beautifully shot and it has a good atmosphere.

As far as acting goes Keira Knightley is definitely the weak link here, but the two male leads give noteworthy performances. Michael Fassbender is an actor with an incredible range and here he has the opportunity to show his acting abilities once more. As for Viggo Mortensen, I found his performance as Sigmund Freud to be more than satisfying.

In spite of the problems it has, "A Dangerous Method" manages to be a decent addition to David Cronenberg's filmography. It only left me with the impression that it could have been so much better.

My rating: 6,5/10

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Carnage (2011)

6/10

Worth watching

18 November 2011

"Carnage" is the latest film from director Roman Polanski, a film with a minimalistic plot - two sets of parents decide to meet after their sons get into a fight - that relies on a sharp script and actor power in order to tell a story. Although the concept in not entirely new and you might tell from the first minutes how the events are going to unfold, the film has a good pace and provides the viewer with some decent laughs being quite entertaining for a flick that is mostly based on dialogue.

The acting is what you would expect from a movie that features such big names, Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet being particularly good here. "Carnage" reminded me of the times when you only needed some talented actors and a good script in order to make a good movie, there was no need for flashy special effects or over the top action scenes.

If you liked films like "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" or "Glengarry Glen Ross" where the actors and the story are the ones who really matter, you might want to give "Carnage" a try as well. Although it may not reach the standards set by those movies, Polanski's film manages to be enjoyable, well paced and offers a satisfying movie experience.

My rating: 7,5/10

11 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

6/10

Not very funny, but well made

17 July 2011

Will Ferrell stars in "Talladega Nights" as Ricky Bobby, a talented NASCAR driver who manages to win almost all the races he enters, making him the most popular driver in the circuit. His luck changes though when a French Formula One driver (Sacha Baron Cohen) enters the scene and steals all the attention, so Ricky Bobby will have to work hard and use all his talent in order to retain his No.1 status.

The film has the same style as one of Ferrell's other films, "Anchorman", but it somehow doesn't manage to be that funny and hit all the right notes that the previous did. The characters are funny and the film is a good NASCAR parody, but something seems to be missing here. That's probably because sometimes the jokes seem a little absurd and out of place. The movie compensates however with the racing scenes and I found those to be particularly good for a film that doesn't want to be taken too seriously. The acting is exactly what you would expect from a film like this, most of the actors did a decent job in developing their characters and the results are satisfying.

"Talladega Nights" is a film that is entertaining and pleasant to watch, but it is a little too silly at times. It is worth watching though for its great comedy cast and well made racing sequences.

My rating: 6,5/10

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Raw Deal (1986)

4/10

One of Arnold's weakest films

16 July 2011

"Raw Deal" is perhaps one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's least known movies, a film that he made after the success of "The Terminator", marking his transition from B-movie actor to A lister. The film wasn't a box office success and you can easily tell why, because the film never quite manages to deliver.

Now, I definitely wasn't expecting an art-house drama, but even as a no- brain actioner the film somehow fails to be really entertaining. There aren't too many action scenes in the first part of the film and even those seem to be a little rushed and badly edited. The acting is also typical for a low budget movie, most of the supporting actors giving underwhelming performances. As for Arnold, there are films where he proved to everybody that he can really act, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. He isn't particularly good here, but he still has some of his trademark one liners that made him such a beloved actor.

This is a film that could have done with better directing, better acting and a more original story. It doesn't work in the end, but it might be worth seeing if you are among Arnold's fans.

My rating: 4,5/10

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Legionnaire (1998)

5/10

Almost good

16 July 2011

"Legionnaire" is one of Jean-Claude Van Damme's more serious movies. Here, he tried to take a break from his usual action packed movies and appear in a picture that focused on story and character development. The result is a film that doesn't really work that well in the end, but it is definitely not that bad either.

The film relies more on drama than on action scenes and in spite of the fact that this represents a pleasant departure for Van Damme from his usual movies, this is also one of the film's main weaknesses. The movie doesn't know exactly what it wants to be. There were times when the film was a little too slow and some of the actors seemed a little uncomfortable in the scenes that demanded some acting abilities. On the other hand, the film makes good use of its setting (desert) and it has a good atmosphere. I also found the ending to be pretty good and thought that Van Damme did a decent job as an actor, an improvement from his previous roles.

In the end, "Legionnaire" is a nearly good movie, but I had the impression that they could have made it better. Also, if I were to compare it to Van Damme's other effort from 1998, "Knock Off", this is a lot better.

My rating: 5,5/10

8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hangover Part II (2011)

4/10

The first one was way better

14 July 2011

"The Hangover Part II" is the perfect example of a movie that was specifically made to cash in on the success of its predecessor. Without any new ideas and following a very similar story, it seems that the producers wanted to play it safe and offer the audience more of the same stuff that made "The Hangover" the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time. What they don't understand is that the first one was successful because it was so original and creative.

I don't think that the film's only problem is the fact that it follows basically the same plot as the first one (other movies have done that and they still managed to be very good – "Evil Dead II" comes to mind, a film that is even better than the original). The simple fact is that even if this film had a totally different story it still wouldn't have been as good as "The Hangover" because it is just not as funny as the first film. One thing that made "The Hangover" a good comedy was the relationship between the three main characters. They still manage to be funny here and there are moments that will definitely make you laugh, but those moments are rather rare in a film that relies more on gross-out moments instead of trying to be particularly intelligent. The people who wrote this film simply weren't trying enough because otherwise they would have done a better job.

The acting is quite good, Zach Galifianakis being the one that stands out. His character (Alan) is very funny and his performance alone saves this film and makes it watchable. On the other hand, I found Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow to be really annoying (he was annoying in the first film as well) and the film would have probably been better had it not been for him.

With the success of this film, the cast and crew will probably return for a third one. They probably won't make the same mistake and they will try to bring something different this time around. "The Hangover Part II" is a lazy film that borrows too much from its predecessor and doesn't quite manage to live up to its expectations.

My rating: 5,5/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Other Guys (2010)

6/10

Overall, an enjoyable movie

10 July 2011

"The Other Guys" is a film that perhaps works better as a whole than as a comedy or action flick. It stars Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell as two cops with totally different styles who try to climb their way up the police rankings. When an opportunity to make themselves noticed arrives, the two will have to set their differences aside and collaborate in order to solve the new case.

This film brings nothing new in terms of comedy, but there are surely moments that will make you laugh. The problem is that these moments alternate with some where the story simply stagnates, moments that are not particularly funny. I had the impression that the director envisioned the film in two totally different ways and not knowing which one was better, he decided to mix them together. "The Other Guys" is also an action movie and the action scenes are pretty well made for this kind of film. It is silly, but that's the way it was meant to be and from this perspective the film reaches its objective. Also, when you put the comedy and the action in the balance you will find that the result is actually satisfying. Wahlberg and Ferrell make an OK couple here, their chemistry is not great, but you can't blame them for not trying. As for the other actors, I liked Michael Keaton's role (he is such an underrated actor) and thought that Steve Coogan was good in his part as well.

Despite not being that funny, "The Other Guys" compensates with its good action scenes and above average acting. While it feels that the result could have been better, this is a quite entertaining flick and it is still worth a look.

My rating: 6/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

7/10

A lot of fun, but not among Disney's best

8 July 2011

This is Disney's version of the legend of King Arthur and it represents an adaptation of T.H. White's children's story. Here, Arthur is a young boy who is unaware of his great destiny. He meets and befriends the great wizard Merlin who decides to give him a proper instruction and education in order to prepare him for his future.

The film has some great characters: Merlin the wizard and his intellectually trained owl Archimedes are particularly funny. The animation is very good, but this is Disney after all, so you would expect it to be like that. The film is definitely entertaining, but there are a few drawbacks as well. There are moments when it feels a little too similar to Disney's other animated features from that period. The film also incorporates a lot of plot elements from other Disney movies and the film is very predictable at times. In comparison to another Disney classic, "Sleeping Beauty", this film looks more like a secondary project.

"The Sword in the Stone" is nevertheless a good film and it is superior to many of Disney's modern efforts ("Hercules", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Pocahontas" to name a few). It is very entertaining and definitely worth watching.

My rating: 7/10

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Season of the Witch (2011)

4/10

A poor effort

7 July 2011

In the last couple of years, Nicolas Cage has appeared in several films that were below his usual standards and "Season of the Witch" makes no exception. Cage stars in this film as Behmen, a knight who fought in the Crusades in the 14th century. As he returns home, he is forced to accept the perilous mission of escorting a witch to a monastery, where the monks would perform a ritual on her hoping to put an end to the Black Plague.

I liked the premise of the film and the fact that it was set in the middle ages because it offered the ingredients for a good movie. While there were parts that were really entertaining, the film suffers from a poor script and a lack of chemistry between the actors. There were moments when I was given the impression that none of the people behind this film actually believed in what they were doing. Take for instance lead actor Nicolas Cage who is a very good actor, but he never manages to be truly convincing in this movie. The same thing can also be said about his costar, Ron Perlman. They were never believable in their roles as 14th century knights and it's sad to see such talent wasted.

"Season of the Witch" is a film that had great potential, but it is a misfire in the end. While it is not as bad as some might say, it is poorly executed and it is one of Nicolas Cage's most forgettable movies.

My rating: 4,5/10

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Detour (1945)

7/10

A good low budget noir

6 July 2011

After his girlfriend moves to Hollywood in order to pursue an acting career, nightclub pianist Al Roberts (Tom Neal) decides to join her and embarks on a long journey to California. While hitchhiking, he is picked up a by a mysterious man who offers to take him all the way to his destination, but he is then forced to take a little detour.

The beginning of the film is a little slow, but the pacing is very good once the story starts to unfold. I was pleasantly surprised that a film with such a small budget can be so well put together, especially since it was shot in only four weeks. "Detour" is in essence a B movie, but it has all the ingredients of a classic in the same time. I was expecting the plot to be a little more elaborate, but I found the story to be engaging enough. Lead actor Tom Neal does a decent job here and so is Ann Savage who delivers the best performance in the movie. I thought that her acting was quite unusual for its time, but this aspect alone makes her role even more interesting.

Of course, the film has its flaws (some lines in the film are really good, but I felt that the script could have been better and there were moments when the characters seemed a little unrealistic), but in the end this is a good entry in the film noir genre.

My rating: 7,5/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

9/10

One of the greatest westerns of all time

6 July 2011

Warning: Spoilers

From the Man with No Name to inspector Harry Callahan, Clint Eastwood proved that he is a master at creating memorable characters. Out of all these my favorite has to be that of Josey Wales, a character whose complexity reminded me of John Wayne's Ethan Edwards from "The Searchers".

Shattered by the murder of his family to a group of Union soldiers and looking for revenge, Josey Wales joins a Confederate unit in order to find a new meaning in life. The time he spends fighting transforms him into a skilled gunman, but also takes away his humanity from him. He becomes a wanted man when he refuses to surrender to the Union and a group of soldiers led by the merciless Captain Terrill sets out in his pursuit. Josey is joined by fellow trooper Jamie (Sam Bottoms) who manages to assist him despite being wounded by the Union troops.

This is not only one of Clint's best westerns, but one of the greatest westerns of all time; it has everything that a film needs to be great. "The Outlaw Josey Wales" has an engaging storyline with a well developed central character and plenty of memorable quotes ("Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?", "Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast", "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy" etc.). While Eastwood the director does a remarkable job behind the camera, it is Eastwood the actor who is even greater here. Josey Wales is one of his finest creations, a tough and complex character, one of cinema's great antiheroes. Throughout the film we witness his transformation from a hardened gunslinger who lost his faith in his fellow men into a man who manages to regain his humanity and is ready to start a new life. The moment that probably marks his transformation is his conversation with Indian chief Ten Bears (Will Sampson), a brilliantly acted scene that is very powerful in the context of the movie. The characters that Josie encounters are also well developed and they are very different from one another. That would not have been possible without great performances from the supporting cast, Chief Dan George and John Vernon being the ones that are especially good.

Clint Eastwood's westerns are known for their revisionist style and this film makes no exception. For instance, the native American characters are different from those of traditional westerns and I found their portrayal more realistic. This is a film that can be watched over and over and I consider it to be very appealing to modern audiences as well. Clint Eastwood is a master of the western genre and this is one of his greatest achievements.

My rating: 9/10

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kikujiro (1999)

7/10

On a road trip with Takeshi Kitano

5 July 2011

This is the first film that Takeshi Kitano directed after the critically acclaimed "Hana-bi" and it represents a totally different approach from him. Perhaps he wanted to make a movie that didn't have the violent content that characterized his previous work, also trying to prove his versatility as an actor. The result is a film that manages to be funny and touching in the same time and it accomplishes that without relying on the clichés that are usually present in films of this kind.

Little boy Masao decides to go on a long trip in order to visit his mother whom he had never seen, but in order to do that he must be accompanied by an adult. He finds his companion in Kikujiro, a grumpy and loudmouthed middle-aged man who sometimes cannot avoid getting into trouble. They embark on a journey that is filled with adventures, adventures that manage to build a strong relationship between the two characters. Takeshi Kitano rose to fame as a comedian and this is a film where he fully displays his comedic skills. In spite of all his bad habits, Kikujiro is a likable character and that is the merit of Kitano, who proves once again that he is a talented actor. His directing is also precise and he makes great use of the wonderful score from Joe Hisaishi.

With "Kikujiro", Kitano started from a formula that you can also find in Hollywood movies (that of two very different people traveling together), but the final result doesn't look like anything from Hollywood. Kitano managed to make a highly original film by using his unique style and that really paid off in the end.

My rating: 8/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Leopard Man (1943)

6/10

A decent horror flick, but it could have been better

3 July 2011

Warning: Spoilers

This film marked the third collaboration between director Jacques Tourneur and producer Val Lewton ("Cat People" and "I Walked With a Zombie" being the previous two) and it is perhaps the weakest of the three.

The fear factor here is represented by a black leopard that threatens a small town in New Mexico. After a local girl is found dead with marks that seem to resemble a leopard attack, the authorities start searching for the missing leopard trying to put an end to its killing spree. Feeling responsible for the leopard's disappearance because the feline escaped during one of her acts, nightclub performer Kiki Walker (Jean Brooks) decides to begin her own investigation along with her manager Jerry Manning. After another person dies under mysterious circumstances, they begin to doubt that the leopard is the one responsible.

The movie is well photographed and Tourneur managed to recreate the atmosphere from his previous two films, but one of the main issues here is the way the story unfolds. There are moments when the film jumps from one scene to another, some of them having no actual purpose in the context of the movie. The characters are underdeveloped and the acting could have definitely been better. On the other hand this is after all a B movie and it should be judged as one. Tourneur managed to be effective with a small budget and the results are satisfactory. While this may not be his best effort, it is surely worth a look.

My rating: 6,5/10

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dead Man (1995)

7/10

"I'm not dead. Am I?"

1 July 2011

Warning: Spoilers

This is the film that introduced me to Jim Jarmusch's work. Now, after watching several of his movies I can say that "Dead Man" is right there among his best. This is a good movie in every way, it has an original concept and a good execution, but it also has a few problems: viewers may find it a little slow and sometimes it doesn't have a clear message.

The film starts like an ordinary western with accountant William Blake traveling to the town of Machine in order to take up a job. Arriving in Machine, he finds the locals to be hostile towards him and his employer Mr. Dickinson informs him that his job was given to someone else. Out of money and luck, he gets into trouble after he kills Mr. Dickinson's son, Charles, and he finds himself forced to leave town. He is found wounded and unconscious by an Indian named Nobody, who believes that he is the great poet William Blake. From this point on, the film's atmosphere and narrative style somehow dissociate from that of traditional storytelling.

"Dead Man" is filled with symbolism and there are plenty of situations where things have more than one meaning. What I found interesting is the fact that the director left certain details for the viewer's own interpretation. It is one of those films that require multiple viewings in order for the viewer to fully understand what is going on. The film has a slow pace at times, probably to emphasize on the beautiful black and white cinematography. Jim Jarmusch's movie almost has a surreal feeling to it due to the way it is photographed, the lines exchanged between the characters as well as the actions they undertake.

The movie's style is the one that makes it unique, but that may also be its weakness. There are several scenes that are perhaps a bit slow and there are moments when I felt that the director threw in too many symbols. As for the music, while I generally liked Neil Young's score, I thought that it was overused at times and it distracted the viewer from the rest of the film.

Leading man Johnny Depp is good here as usual and this is the kind of role that defined his career in the 90's. Even though Depp plays the lead here, it is Gary Farmer's Indian Nobody who acts as the defining character of the movie. It is he who acts as a guide to Blake and prepares him for his journey to the underworld. The film features many big names that make a brief appearance (Robert Mitchum, Gabriel Byrne and John Hurt to mention some), but their characters are developed well enough and fit perfectly into the general atmosphere of the movie.

"Dead Man" is also an initiation movie, an initiation into death. This is an artsy film, filled with symbols, a film that requires patience from the viewer and its style may not suit every taste. It is one of those movies that need to be watched with an open mind.

My rating: 7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dark Angel (1990)

6/10

An entertaining B movie

29 June 2011

"Dark Angel" is an entertaining B movie that never takes itself too seriously. The plot revolves around an alien outlaw (Matthias Hues) that comes to Earth in order to supply himself with a rare drug. Tough cop Jack Caine (Dolph Lundgren) finds out about his plans and it's up to him and an FBI agent to put an end to the alien's actions.

While this is not the most original of movies, it is still very enjoyable. The dialogue is filled with funny one liners and there are plenty of action scenes that compensate for the inferior production values. The acting is also what you would expect from a B movie. The film may seem silly at times, but it also has some cool elements that make it entertaining.

This is one of Dolph Lundgren's best movies and his fans will not be disappointed because he is in good form here. In spite of all its flaws, "Dark Angel" is a decent action flick that is a lot of fun to watch and I highly recommend it if you are into 80's action movies.

My rating: 6/10

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Paris, Texas (1984)

8/10

A movie unique in its own way

28 June 2011

Warning: Spoilers

From the first minutes of "Paris, Texas" you realize that this film is a little different from the others of its kind. Starring Harry Dean Stanton as Travis Henderson, a man who suffered a nervous breakdown and estranged himself from his family as a result, the film is both a deep character study and an effective family drama in the same time.

The movie begins with some beautiful images of the desert, vast and desolate. We are then introduced to Travis (Stanton) a man wandering through the desert for reasons unknown to the viewer. As he enters a bar, he collapses due to dehydration and is taken to a doctor by the bar owner. He is later reunited with his brother Walt (Dean Stockwell), who came from California to his aid and had not seen him for 4 years. We know little about Travis' character and the fact that he initially refuses to speak to anyone only adds up to this mystery. As the story progresses, we slowly find out more about his background, we find out that he has a son named Hunter who is in the care of Walt and his wife, Ann (Aurore Clement).

Harry Dean Stanton plays the main character and this is probably his best role. His best moment in the film is his conversation with Jane (Nastassja Kinski), a scene in which he showcases his whole talent. His performance is all the more impressive as he is supposed to express a full range of emotions in the beginning of the movie when his character is not speaking. I also thought that Nastassja Kinski was good in her role, despite the fact that she had quite a short amount of screen time.

The film is character driven and we are interested in Travis' actions because we really care about him. Wim Wenders manages to direct the movie with precision and manages to keep the viewer connected. We want to find out why Travis wants to go to Paris, Texas, or why he was wandering through the desert in the first place. What I liked about this film is that you don't know how it's going to end, there are actually moments when you don't know what the main character is going to do next. This is probably the merit of writer Sam Shepard, who is probably better known to the public as an actor. I also found the movie's score to be great. Far from being very elaborate, it manages to bring the audience to where the action takes place. As a downside, the film might seem a little slow at times, but this is necessary for the build up.

"Paris, Texas" is an art-house film that presents a realistic story. I believe Wenders was just a little short of creating a masterpiece here. Nevertheless, this is a great movie and I think that it deserves more recognition.

My rating: 8/10

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

8/10

Sean Connery and Michael Caine make a great couple in one of Huston's best movies

24 June 2011

Warning: Spoilers

"The Man Who Would Be King" is a great adventure film from director John Huston. An adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's short story, the film stars Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot and Michael Caine as Peachy Carnehan, two ex-soldiers that seeking fortune and glory decide to embark on a journey to the remote province of Kafiristan in order to become the rulers of the land.

In order for their plan to work, the two need to blackmail a local governor so that he would provide them with money to buy rifles. Their scheme nearly falls apart, but they are given an unexpected help from Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer), a writer for the Northern Star whom Peachy had earlier met in the train. Along their way to Kafiristan the two encounter many perils and are nearly forced to give up when the difficulty of the terrain renders them unable to continue. Through either pure luck or divine intervention, they manage to make it to Kafiristan where they pose as Englishmen, "the next best thing" after gods.

The film is beautifully shot and John Huston manages to create the right atmosphere and give the viewer the impression that the action really takes place in a land forgotten by time, with its own rules and values. The movie has the right amount of drama and action and the chemistry between Sean Connery and Michael Caine is nearly perfect. The two are at their very best here and one can tell that they had a great time filming this. The supporting cast is also good: Christopher Plummer gives a decent performance as Rudyard Kipling while the rest of the supporting actors are equally good in their roles.

This definitely ranks among John Huston's greatest work, but I would not consider it to be his best movie ("The Maltese Falcon" would probably deserve this honor). "The Man Who Would Be King" is nonetheless a highly entertaining tale of friendship and loyalty that manages to stand the test of time.

My rating: 8/10

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lonely Are the Brave (1962)

7/10

The Last Cowboy

23 June 2011

"Lonely Are the Brave" is a western from 1962, an era when this genre was suffering changes. If you are to judge the movie from the plot outline you might consider it to be an old fashioned western, but this is not the case here. This aspect can be noticed from the beginning, when the character of Jack Burns (Kirk Douglas) is introduced. He is a lone cowboy, traveling across the land on his horse, caring little about tomorrow. He seems to be out of place in the modern world and this modern world is hostile to him and his old ways.

One of the strengths of the movie is that it has a well developed central character. Kirk Douglas manages to create a believable cowboy, one that is stuck in the past refusing to acknowledge that the world has changed and he needs to adapt. Jack Burns is indeed a lonely cowboy because his way of seeing things is not shared by the others. The film also has the advantage of having a good screenplay, written by Dalton Trumbo ("Spartacus", "Papillon"), one of the best screenwriters of his time.

This was Kirk Douglas' favorite movie of his own and you can surely tell that because he gives here one of his best performances. The acting is generally good, the roles of Walter Matthau and Gena Rowlands being worth mentioning. You can also check out George Kennedy in one of his early roles, as the brutish deputy Guttierez.

The movie may have its flaws, but it is definitely worth seeing by everyone. Due to its style and content the film also marks a transition from classical westerns to modern ones, so fans of the genre should not miss it.

My rating: 7,5/10

16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

RokurotaMakabe

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed