Reviews

I rented this movie yesterday and really didn't expect much to be honest. Many current horror titles are very uninspired and frankly rely too much on gore and not enough on story or atmosphere. I was surprised though, it was an engaging story, taking inspiration for Poe perhaps, Agento and others which isn't a bad thing, and actually keeping a sense of its own identity and style. I love horror movies, especially ones that rely more on imagination and atmosphere, this one does to an extent but then focuses on the human element and becomes more of a thriller, in this I felt a little cheated.

The building which is the object of the movie is simply a nice piece of Gothic, deco art. Sinister and yet elegant in its simplicity, huge and monstrous in its presence. The premise works in the beginning and the actors do not disappoint. It is suggestion that works here as well as a psychological drama that is as twisted as an abnormal Mother and son relationship and dark secrets of the past mingled with arcane knowledge of the architecture of forbidden temples. Sadly though, I wished for more emphasis on the later aspect, it held my interest and fascination, but it veered into a film about a demented teenage crush. If more time had been spent on the architect, his history and theories as well as the previous murders then the chill factor would have been amped up.

The building should have been the real star here and its creator and to a large extent it is, yet it slowly is pushed into the background and dwarfed by a teenager's obsession and some of the dwellings rather seemed to be almost inconsistent in their art direction. The inhabited dwellings almost seemed cheap, bland compared to the overall presence of the building. It caused a sense of confusion, perhaps intentional.

Enjoyable yet flawed and could have been developed into a much richer film. It is still a fun view. I hope the director continues with the genre, though this film has its flaws, the director has potential.

One thing that I have admired Blatty for in both Exorcist III and The Ninth Configuration, is his ability to bring a still, eerie atmosphere into vignettes that disturb some inner part of the viewer's psyche. His use of camera direction as well as snippets that he interjects here and there create a sense of disturbance that not all is as it seems. That takes talent. I wish he would have or would do more.

The Ninth Configuration has to be Stacy Keech's finest role. His portrayal of the psychiatrist emphasizing with his patients pain while under the surface something brews within him that lets the viewer know that there is something not right.

The Ninth Configuration, like Exorcist III has another Blatty trademark and that is snappy, witty dialog. Though you can tell this is Blatty's first movie and he is testing his muscles, he soon begins to build a foundation that leads us to a climax that is one of the best in movie history. I am still surprised at the amount of people who know nothing about this gem.

It does have flaws. Many in fact. But it is the attempt of a first time director. Production qualities seem tight on this film, but with superb editing, Blatty plays the magician and makes it seem a trifle.

The only other flaw, the opening score or song seemed out of place. But frankly these things are dwarfed by intense and humorous dialog and characterization. I found it also nice to see Neville Brand again as Roper as well as Jason Miller trying to direct Hamlet with dogs.

But it is Keech here, whom with stillness with a glimmer of psychotic turmoil brewing underneath that really captures our attention. "Does evil come out of madness or does madness come out of evil." The witty dialog, one scene in particular dealing a patient punishing atoms with a hammer because they will not let him pass through the wall is a freaking brilliant laugh out laugh moment but Blatty doesn't let you stay in the light zone of humor for long, it is a roller coasting from humor to human darkness and faith.

I highly recommend it.

Amid all the critical acclaim and unabashed praise that many gave this movie I had hopes. I love "No Country for Old Men" and "Miller's Crossing" to me are master works. "Fargo" retains its charm even when covered with blood or thrust into a wood chipper...but sadly "Burn" fails.

Why? The cast is superb, but they seem to be enjoying playing mockeries of their own screen persona than actually playing a character. There are exceptions to this such as J.K. Simmons, Swanson and Malkovich, but Pitt and Clooney seem more content on doing a parody of themselves than actually turning in a character performance. It sadly reeked of gimmick to me.

I wanted to emphasize with someone, but none of them had any redeeming values which is opposite most of the Cohen brothers' previous works. There is only one character that has any redeeming virtue about him and that was Richard Jenkins as the love lorn gym manager. Of course his demise is brutal, I suppose this is part of the Cohen joke. Now don't get me wrong, I am used to watching characters that you can emphasize with get killed in Cohen movies and still walk away saying it was a good story.

This was not. It was a very narcissistic movie. Which I suppose is the point that the Cohens were trying to make, narcissism pays off after all the self obsessed person is the one that wins in the end of this mess.

The humor is not well played and somehow the comedic timing was off in several scenes. Part was due to the fact that some of the actors seemed not even to take the movie itself seriously enough to make it funny, but like the Ocean 11 movies, seemed to be more interested in celebrity bonding. I just couldn't buy into it. A story about 2 dimensional characters that are vain and self seeking doesn't make a story. It doesn't even make a farce when the characters cannot draw you in.

It was bleh.

Sorry, can't recommend it, but I have hopes for future Cohen movies.

First off, I oppose whaling, but frankly if this troop of inexperienced sea crew were the ones out to save the whale, and I was a whale, I would beach myself. Not only are they inept, the last episode's staged gun shot to the captain was enough to set me over the edge and consider this nothing more than propaganda and trash. It is no wonder that Green Peace distanced themselves for the Captain and his lemmings. This show does more to hurt the anti-whaling movement than to help it. Not only is the crew inept, they have no integrity.

At first the show was humorous with its daily following of the inexperienced crew that is sailing out to Artic waters and we get to see that they are all environmentally conscious as well as "veggies". Their dedication to saving whales over rides their common sense as well as that as the Captain for obtaining such a crew of idealists that really don't know the aft from the stern. Here they are thrust into dangerous waters with nothing but the power of hope. Sounds suicidal doesn't it? You almost get the sense you are watching a crew lead by Jim Jones sailing only on ideals.

But with the last episode of the ship throwing bottles of acid at the deck of a Japanese Whaler in order to stink up the deck and spoil the whaling meat, the Captain fakes being shot by what he claims was one of the Japanese whaling ship's crew. It is so obviously staged that one cannot pretend that these people are not only misguided, but will lie to get attention to set themselves up as martyrs and victims of the Japanese Whaling Industry.

I opposed whaling, but I detest these people more and their Captain who will go to any length to bolster his ego as being the lone fighter against Whalers. I honestly think he probably doesn't even care about the Whales more than he does his image as their savior.

The Ugly works on a lot of levels and really is open to more than one interpretation. Personally I see it as a journey through Simon's psyche with the asylum, guards, doctor and fellow patient as all barriers that that Karen, the doctor who tries to uncover Simon's motivation.

The editing is very slickly done and for the budget of the movie highly impressive. This is a nice piece of work. Worth also several viewings to see the subtle hints littered throughout the movie. The film itself was a nice surprise, I heard about it from word of mouth and now include it in my library. It is a horror film a notch above the simple mindless gore feast's, though it does have its share, it has purpose and is story driven.

To those who think that Chaney was just an OK actor, sadly have no clue what they are talking about. To make a statement such as he let his makeup do his acting also do not know that one of his most famous roles as the drill Sergeant in "Tell It To The Marines".The role earned him a honorary status among the Corp. So not only was Chaney a master of make-up, earning him the title of a man of a thousand faces, but also that of an exceptional actor with a range of emotions that could flash across his face that would later inspire the likes of Burt Lancaster to state "one of the most compelling and emotionally exhausting scenes I have ever seen an actor do." Lancaster was referring to the scene from "the Unknown" in which Chaney portrayed an armless knife thrower in love with a young Joan Crawford.

To say make up was his "gimmick",is ignorant at best, it was more of an extension of the man and the actor. For Chaney didn't limit himself to just one area, physically he performed acts that would later bring him a place in film history such as the con artist that fakes being crippled to be healed by a charlatan in the "Miracle Man." The scene had people swearing that Chaney was a contortionist or double jointed, when in fact it is more a credit to his acting skills. Also in the "Penalty", he actually had a harness that he wore to bind his legs behind him and tucked into leather stubs. The pain allowed him only to wear the harness for fifteen minutes at a shoot, but Chaney insisted no trick photography be used. In "The Unknown", he had his arms bound up in a harness as well, you only have to watch the film to see not only the weird twist the movie takes, but also Chaney's cleverness.

Lon Chaney died at the age of 47. It is ironic that his last movie was a "talkie", a remake of the silent classic "The Unholy Three" in which he did more than one voice. That of an old woman, a parrot and a ventriloquist. He proved to audiences that he was more than capable of transcending silent to sound.

At his death production was stopped at Hollywood to observe a moment of silence, the Marine Corp flew their flag at half staff. Wallace Berry flew over his funeral and dropped wreaths of flowers. He said, "Lon Chaney was the one man I knew who could walk with kings and not lose the common touch."

If you are a fan of the Prophecy series, then you will recognizes the plot elements of Constantine. Angels and demons at war for the domination of human souls. Yet, there are enough differences between the two that it actually makes Constantine stand on its own. Also, if you are a fan of the Vertigo comic, you might be put off at it not being true to the source material. Especially after the fact that movies like Sin City and Batman Begins remained faithful to their comic origins and proved that it works, and works well. So that fact that Keanu Reeves does not support a British accent and blond locks might put you off. But don't let it. This movie is a gem on allot of levels.

First off the biggest obstacle one has to get over before they decide to watch this film, Keanu Reeves. It seems that critics like to destroy Reeves in print every chance they get. Calling him a "wooden actor" to labeling him just a "pretty face". Personally I think they protest too much. It is almost as if it putting Reeves in a disparaging light they elevate their status as a critic, maybe they think it gains them more credibility. Granted, some of it is warranted. In Coppala's Dracula, he really did seem out of place, being a last minute replacement for Johnny Depp, but that was long ago. Since then Reeves has evolved. You only have to see him in Sam Rami's Gift and read the praise Rami wrote about him to see that Reeves is really an in-depth, articulate person with allot of humility. So no, there is no Reeves bashing here. In fact, he portrays the essence of Constantine through personality alone without the props of blonde hair and British accent. That isn't easy.

World weary, self destructive and cancer ridden makes Constantine the epitome of the reluctant hero. Using his skill in the occult to send demon half breeds that break the rules back to hell so that he can buy himself a stairway to heaven. Suddenly the rules are changing, full breed demons are trying to cross over, all hell is breaking lose, literally. Throw in the Spear of Destiny, the spear that killed Christ on the cross, a pair of psychic twins, an androgynous Gabriel and an opportunistic half breed demon and you find yourself in the middle of a sulfur pit of a plot.

This movie is a visual feast pulling out allot of references to Bosh. Hell never looked more twisted. There is enough eye candy here to make you want to watch it again just for the effects alone, but if you do, you will miss smart story telling and an excellent performance by Reeves and crew. So watch it for the story as well.

Christopher Nolan has done what no other movie director has had the courage to do. Make a Batman film with such dedication to the character that it simply is the best comic book character adaptation I have yet to see.

If you are prone to reading attention disorders, you might has well skip this thread. I warn you up front it is a long on so you might move on, nothing for you to see here. If you are interested in an in-depth review which will contain some spoilers, then let's dance for a bit.

Christian Bale has hands down stole the mantle of the Batman and made it his own. Nolan was wise enough and also had the insight that the Batman is actually a hell of a lot more of an interesting character than the twisted villains that have stolen the limelight in the previous films. Bruce Wayne/Batman is a very complex multifaceted human being. Anyone who follows the comics knows that Batman is borderline psychotic. That is his appeal. Nolan knows this, uses it to the fullest and fleshes out the character from his comic book incarnation and makes him flesh and blood.

The development takes us back to the tragedy that spawned Bruce's thirst for validity. The child actor who played Bruce Wayne as a boy was for me the scariest choice that Nolan had to make. He chose wisely. We see Bruce's grief and isolation through this child as well as the surrogate father Alfred becomes. Yet even Alfred, played wonderfully by Michael Caine, cannot cross the threshold into Bruce's private hell. He can only stand back and be there for the young Wayne. We also see why Bruce Wayne chooses the bat as his symbol and his mantle. The scene when the adult Bruce meets his fear in the cave is truly inspiring.

So how did Bruce Wayne learn all his tricks of the trade? Nolan takes us somewhere to Tibet where Wayne gets introduced to the League of Shadows under the mysterious Decard.. Note here, Liam Neeson delivers the performance as a mentor far exceeds that of the one in Star Wars. Here given a choice at the height of his training, Wayne chooses different and departs the League that exists under the rule of Ra's Al Ghul. Then portrayed by Ken Watanbe.

Nolan doesn't want to candy coat Batman. He knows his source material which makes this film stand out and frankly shame all the ones that proceeded it. Yes, I said shame. Because that is exactly what the previous films did to Batman, especially the ones done under Joel Schumaker. Who not only nearly destroyed the Batman franchise for Warner Bros. but also tried his best to destroy Val Kilmer's career when Kilmer started to clash over creative differences.

This is the Batman that Miller wrote about. Obsessed, driven. It is also the first time that a director took the character from the ground up and using the source material bothered to explain just how Wayne got all those wonderful toys. Especially the Batmobile. I have read that many saw pictures of the Batmobile and wept. They wanted the Giger toy car from the previous flicks. This car is NO toy. It actually does what it does in the film This is a realistic piece of bad ass ed machinery that you definitely do NOT want on your tail. It is awesome and fear inspiring. The car itself should be considered part of the cast.

In fact another stroke of genius is that Nolan doesn't overplay the cast. Gordon is played just how I envisioned him from YEAR ONE. Oldman looks just like a Sgt. Gordon I loved the little homage scene where he is taking out the trash and you see inside his brownstone apartment spying his wife eating with a very young Babs .Trust me, it is all there. Nolan made the Batman's universe real and believable.

Also Nolan explains Wayne's world and shows its complication. From his drunken playboy routine that is his real mask, to the battle to get control back from the power mongrels at Wayne Enterprises. Like I said, Bruce Wayne has a complicated world. Here he has to hide his true self under the guise of a foppish Bruce Wayne. Bale displays the conflict here excellently. He has to play the buffoon so no one will know just exactly he is up to. This isolates him further limiting the number of friends within his circle. One friend, Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, who stated he took the role because Batman has always been his favorite character, supplies him with the beginnings of his arsenal. But his true confidant is Alfred, who has some of the best lines. The chemistry between Bale and Caine work so well that Alfred is actually a main player.

If you are looking for huge CGI effect, watch Spiderman again. This is more gritty, the only effects are the subtle ones and the insidious effects of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. Wait until you see Batman behind the eyes of the Scarecrow after Prof Crane has had a dose of his own medicine. "Dr Cane is not here anymore..." Note: Don't expect a Danny Elfman score either. This score his deep, brooding and ominous. There are no frills here...just base instinct rumbling through your psyche. Well done. Warner Bros wised up. They followed a fan site named www.batmanonfilm.com for sometime after the demise by Joel Schumaker. They realized that here was a sounding board for fans of the character and learned painfully that their marketing dept was wrong. Batman is not for kids and be warned, this really isn't a kid's movie. It is a grown up film aimed at the comic book audience that grew up ages ago.

I remember when I read my first Shadow novel. It was a reprint of the pulp series done by ballentine books long ago. I was enamored with the character, the Shadow written by Walter B. Gibson under the pen name Maxwell Grant. Gibson, by the way was a close friend of Houdini's and yes some of his "escape" methods were worked into the novels.

The movie though tends to lean too heavy on the radio series, which really wasn't the true Shadow. For instance the Shadow was not Lamount Cranston, he only masqueraded as Cranston when the millionaire was abroad. Mysterious stuff. Loved it. It only added to the enigma that was the Shadow. It wasn't until way deep in the series that you actually discovered who the Shadow was.

This is where, I, I suppose as a purist depart from the movie adaption. Margo Lane was a radio creation, later forced by the publishers into the pulps. Gibson didn't want anything to do with her, but he had to submit.

Also, there are some weak parts to the movie, the whole creation of the Shadows past is entirely a creation of the director. The Shadow of the pulps began long before his Shadow days as a WWI spy.

I did like the use of his agents. I wish Harry Vincent would have been included. But for what they did, the movie did hold what was true in the pulps that the Shadow had a network of agents.

Baldwin was very good in his role, though not a personal choice, also I found the "face changing" thing, another invention of the director, alittle too far fetched. Though in the pulps, the Shadow was a master of disguise and could almost be anyone...note here: Rami's DarkMan was actually supposed to be a Shadow movie but he never got the rights, so he took parts of the Shadow and worked them into his creation.

It is a fun flick, though often bordering on the silly...a must for Shadow fans and probably close as it comes concerning past Hollywood adapt ions.

..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.

This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.

The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.

I highly recommend this film