J5iftY5iveXtreme

IMDb member since February 2005

HELLO

[popcorn]
[bold]~Favorite Movies~
(in no particular order) Matrix Trilogy LOTR Trilogy Star Wars Trilogy The Godfather Indiana Jones Trilogy First two Jurassic Park movies Ben-Hur First three Batman movies Austin Powers movies Mulan Braveheart Gladiator Mononoke hime (Princess Mononoke in English) The Lion King Aladdin

[trum]
~Top Musicians~
(Rap, in no particular order) Eminem Outkast Jay-Z Nas Tupac DMX Biggie Snoop Dogg Dr. Dre Run-DMC (mostly for that Aerosmith song, I dunno a lot of old school rap) Public Enemy (dunno a lot of old school rap but loved that "Fight the Power" song) The Game Jadakiss

[trum]
~Favorite Musicians~
(Rock, in no particular order) Linkin Park Queen Green Day Marilyn Manson Blink-182 Eagles Beatles (solo careers) Phil Collins Billy Joel Elton John Nirvana Nightwish Korn Evanescence Within Temptation Three Days Grace Breaking Benjamin Aerosmith And many more!

~Favorite US Cities~
[Blue]
NY
Yonkers
LA
Myrtle Beach
White Plains
San Francisco
Dan Diego

[popcorn]
[bold]~Fav. Directors~[/bold]
(in no particular order) Stephen Spielberg Martin Scorsese (sp.?) Francis Ford Coppolla Akira Kurosawa George Lucas (as producer) Peter Jackson James Cameron Clint Eastwood Mel Gibson David Lean Ron Howard Ridley Scott Kevin Coster (Dances W/ Wolves only)

See more▼See less▲

Lifetime Total

10+

IMDb Member

19 years

Reviews

Batman Returns (1992)

7.5/10 - Burton's imagination gone wild

28 August 2012 - 1 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

"Batman Returns" is a strange movie. It may not be a film for everyone. Back in its day, it caused such a fuss, and it's easy to see why. This is a very dark film, and twisted, too.

There's a scene where Selina Kyle falls from several stories, gets resurrected by cats, and goes bat-sh** crazy, stabbing her stuffed dolls with a knife.

The Penguin is such a creepy character. In one scene, he shakes another guy's hand with a dismembered man's hand, and in another, he bites another man's nose and leaves it bleeding.

Yes, this is a dark, twisted, bizarre film. In fact, more so than the first one.

Yet strangely, it manages to be a really fun film! Here is director Tim Burton at his whimsical best, creating a blend of playful imagination and dark fantasy, and he's doing it in that dark, playful way that only he can do. The scene where Batman takes on the Penguin's Red Circus Gang is a lot of fun to watch, with the different members of the Red Circus Gang appearing in many strange, bizarre forms, and Batman dispatching them with a variety of different methods, like rod that pop out of the Batmobile's wheels to trip them.

In fact, while being darker than the first "Batman," this also manages to be more cartoony. There's no forgetting the Penguin's army of rocket-launching, well, penguins, which look funny with those mind control devices on their heads. And, while being silly, it has charm, something lacking in the ridiculous scenes of "Batman & Robin." This is not a realistic film, and Burton makes no attempt to. After all, Selina Kyle is not only resurrected by cats, for some reason, she also gains the ability to fight and be adept with the whip. Are these magical cats? There's nothing to prepare the audience for these unexpected supernatural scenes. In fact, my only major gripe with the film may be the script: It's not exactly the most coherent in the world.

The first "Batman" movie was gritty and had the vibe of a crime/noir film. But "Batman Returns" throws away all that, and here instead is this Tim Burton world that is strange and dark, but what an enchanting world it is! It is so imaginative, with great-looking sets, like the Penguin's hideout, and great scenes, too.

The first "Batman" had a lot of great, spectacular scenes, and this sequel follows up with just as much spectacle, such as the scene where Batman destroys the Penguin's headquarters. Tim Burton is very creative with the scenes, and there are some memorable images, like when the Penguin takes his hands and forms the shadow of a bat on the ceiling.

The story is more complex than the first. The first film was mainly about Batman versus the Joker. Here, on the other hands, are several interlinking stories: The Penguin's attempt to get revenge on society, for it rejected him for being deformed; Selina's/Catwoman's desire for revenge against her boss; the evil Max Shreck's plot involving his nuclear power plant; and on top of it all is Batman's quest to stop them.

It is said that Batman is reduced to a mere supporting character in his own movie, and this is no exaggeration. The villains do, in fact, get a lot of screen time. But it is all these interlinking characters that make the movie. The point isn't so much about Batman undergoing a major character arc as it is about how he relates to the other characters.

Yet, in whatever scenes he has, the audience gets to know enough about Batman/Bruce Wayne. We first see him in a dark mansion, brooding alone in a dark room. This alone tells us that not only is he a recluse, he's lonely as well. In one scene, Alfred calls him a "lonely man-beast." But lonely as he may be, he may have perhaps found love in the form of Selina Kyle, whose alter-ego happens to be none other than Catwoman, one of Batman's enemies.

The romance here is perhaps more interesting than the first. Here, for the first time, is a love interest who is very much like Batman/Bruce—perhaps too much. Here are two people who dress up in costumes and live double lives, and the doubles lives is what makes the romance interesting: While in one form they romance each other, in the other, they fight. Both of them have "a dark side." As Batman says, they're "the same, split right down the middle." The film treats Batman as being essentially the same as his two villains. They're all freaks and misfits. All of them are seeking revenge, with Batman being the only one who's on the right side. The real villain in the story is Max Shreck, who just seeks power.

The film ends with a beautiful scene. Bruce/Batman has apparently lost Selina/Catwoman. He's in his car being driven by Alfred. All of a sudden, he sees a stray cat, and he decides to take it inside. Then he sees a silhouette of Catwoman, but it quickly vanishes. The car drives away, and above them, the Bat-signal looms in the sky. All of a sudden, the head of Catwoman appears, and she watches the car drive away. She's alive, but Selina and Bruce can't be together. "Batman Returns" is perhaps the most bittersweet in the series.

It's easy to get turned off by this movie. There are those weird, bizarre scenes, after all. The plot might not make a lot of sense to first-time viewers. For me, this is one of those films has to "grow on you." This may not be a film that's easy to get into. Some will probably never get into it at all. But for those who do, they'll be given a taste of Tim Burton's imagination at its fullest, as well as a beautiful, haunting experience.

See more▼See less▲

Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)

Pasolini! You oddball! What have you done?

19 April 2012 - 5 out of 7 users found this review helpful.

You've created one of the strangest yet most memorable films about Jesus Christ!

Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is an interesting film. A film based solely on the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, filmed using ancient ruins, and featuring a cast comprised entirely of the local townspeople--e.g., non-professionals (the director's own mother even plays the older Virgin Mary). Most intriguing of all, Pasolini himself was not only Marxist but an avowed atheist whose previous films had gotten him arrested on charges of blasphemy.

But whatever he may be, Pasolini did make this film--and it is a good thing he did.

This is considered one of the most accurate and reverential portrayals of Jesus Christ on screen. Personally, I think it's one of the strangest and most bizarre. Nevertheless, it's one of the most unique, interesting, and creative Jesus films ever!

It's not hard to tell that the budget wasn't that big. This film lacks the big, elaborate sets and costumes of many other Jesus movies. But this is the film's strength. In lacking any pomp or grandiosity that often afflicts many historical epics, Pasolini's "Matthew" is able to have a gritty realism that reminds us of the harsh realities of that time. One must remember that Jesus was not a rich man in fine clothes, and neither were most of the people of his time. They did not live in fine mansions of marble. They wore worn-out clothes and lived in worn-out hovels.

That's what we're seeing in this film. The people are the real peasants of southern Italy. Their faces are not pretty and some are seen with crooked teeth. Whereas many Hollywood epics use their big budget to turn hunks and glamor girls into homely peasants, this film has no need of such because the people being portrayed are the real deal.

That is not to say that this film is authentic. Some of the costumes look medieval, and some of the buildings look more Gothic than First-Century Judea. The men's hairstyles are obviously modern, and many of them are in need of more facial hair, especially the actor playing John the Baptist. The scene in which Herod's soldiers massacre the innocents of Bethlehem is rather silly. Nonetheless, this film is able to portray something, and that is the harsh reality of those times.

It's actually good that all of the actors are non-professionals. There are no big names. The viewer won't be bothered by the sight of an all-too-recognizable face pretending to be someone else. When it's Jesus or Mary that's supposed to be on the screen, it's Jesus and Mary and not the actors playing them.

Enrique Irazoqui was the perfect choice to play Jesus. Only 19 at that time he was chosen for the role, he looks much older than that. His Jesus is so dignified, so regal even through his peasant's clothing, so commanding of a presence. This portrayal of Jesus is often described as being of a "revolutionary." This is probably closer to how Jesus may have been like compared to many other movies. This was a man, after all, who championed the poor and weak and spoke out against the authorities of that time.

When he preaches, he's not some stoic, mild-mannered philosopher, he's impassioned, fiery, and forceful. He's almost shouting when he's declaring "Blessed are the poor in spirit." This is someone who's worth giving your attention to. For the most part, though, he is solemn and calm, with a kind of a quiet majesty that exudes wisdom. When he's with children or healing the sick, he radiates with so much warmth and compassion. When denouncing the Pharisees and other religious leaders, his condemnation is fierce and unflinching. And in the garden of Gethsemane praying for his Heavenly Father to take the cup away from him, he is calm and still, yet his eyes are teary. This is a beautifully subtle way of showing Jesus's internal torment at the prospect of death. Irazoqui's performances is one worth commending! This film has probably the most authentic Mary on screen, both young and old. The young one is a humble village girl, and the old one is clear an elderly lady. They are both earthly and unadorned.

No one should forget to mention the music used in this film. It is one of the most interesting aspects. The score relies on borrowed samples from several different artists. I thought that the use of Odetta's "Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child" was strange. What really worked were Sebastian Bach's "Mass In B Minor" and "St. Matthew Passion" as well as Missa Luba's "Gloria." It was a good choice to include Bach's music in the movie soundtrack as classical music is often associated with anything religious. When it plays during the Baptism scene, it it just beautiful. In the Crucifixion scene, it brings out a sweeping, majestic grandeur. It's powerful, just powerful. Adding just as much power to the film is the "Gloria" chorus by Missa Luba. Missa Luba, a Congolese version of the Latin mass, was quite a strange choice--yet it was a pleasant surprise. Using African tribal chants, it does make one think of African American Gospel choirs. And in its use for a movie such as this with a religious theme, it not only works well, it gives it an uniquely model twist! It was right for it to play during the Resurrection scene. It's upbeat, joyful, and glorious and triumphant.

"The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is an epic movie. It lacks a big budget, giant sets, fancy costumes, and endless crowds of thousands. But what it lacks in these aspects it more than makes up for in its sweeping feel and majesty that is as genuine as it is austere.

See more▼See less▲

The Last Airbender (2010)

Ehhh...could've been so much better

2 July 2010 - 3 out of 6 users found this review helpful.

Movies based on cartoon shows, like movies based on video games, don't exactly have a good reputation, as evidenced by last year's flop "Dragon Ball Evolution." Movies like LOTR and "Harry Potter" prove movies based on books can be classics. Why can't the same be for cartoons, such as this adaptation by M. Night Shyamalan of the popular animated show on Nickelodeon?

I won't have time to explain what show is about (a quick Google will do), but it's considered to be one of the best to come out of the program. With a source material like that, can "The Last Airbender" be the long-awaited Messiah of cartoon show-based live-action films?

It's hard not to compare this movie to the original cartoon. If anything, it's necessary: That will judge the film's value as an adaptation (and ultimately, as a movie). And for all you "Avatar" lovers out there (myself included), I'm pleased to say that this movie is basically faithful to the original series--events-wise, that is. There are some slight changes in this movie, which aren't too bad. The special effects really truly did show bending must be like had they been real. The costumes and sets really did bring the world of "Avatar" to life.

The basic events are pretty much true to the show despite some deviations. I have no doubt that Shyamalan is a genuine fan of the series. So this makes this a good adaptation, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, when trying to get the world and mythology of "Avatar" right, Shyamalan failed with the PRESENTATION of it. The original show had a story that was concise and made sense, but here, the pace is too fast, one suddenly jumps into another, and there is basically no flow. New characters (like the lemur-bat Momo) are introduced too quickly and almost never seen again. To someone who hasn't seen the show, I've no doubt that they'd find some scenes random and awkward. The movie acted more like a summary of the show rather than an adaptation. Scenes that were powerful and effective don't have the same effect here. Shyamalan got the story right, but he doesn't know how to tell it, and this affects the film's value as a stand-alone movie.

The characters in the show had so many interesting personalities that made them likable, but none of that is to be found here. In here, they are basically drones whose only purpose is to move the plot forward, but no attention is given to them as characters.

These characters weren't helped by the actors, whose performances are a mixed bag. I won't argue about the race of the actors, and heck, I won't even argue about the wrong pronunciation of the characters' names. But I do want good actors.

Perhaps it's too harsh to judge the young main actors, such as as Noah Ringer in the lead; for a first-timer, he's okay--but the school-play kind of okay. He has his share of cringe-worthy moments, as with Nicola Peltz. Jackson Rathborne, although not Oscar material, is okay, but seems somewhat amateurish. Now I loved Dev Patel in here, but this isn't his best performance. A really competent director (and script) could have really gotten phenomenal performances out of these young actors. The best performances, obviously, are from the adults, mainly Shaun Toub and Cliff Curtis as the villains, who are more menacing in the show.

The original show had wonderful dialogue and so many memorable quotes--unfortunately, none of them is in this movies. Instead, we get conversation that sound like lectures, some even preachy. I know that, being a long series, not everything can be included in the movie, and some parts have to be explained by the dialogue. But here, they either explain too little or too much. The story is spoon-fed to us without giving a chance to appreciate it. The narration made sense in the beginning, but in others, it was redundant, even unnecessary. We're told that they've arrived in the Northern Water Tribes when that's exactly what we're seeing. We're being told that they're learning bending, but we don't see their struggles. The story of Prince Zuko's disgrace and banishment (told in flashbacks like in the show) just happens to happen at the most random moment.

I know that adaptations can't always surpass their original source material. But they should at least be as good as the original, and if not, as I've said before, they should be good in their own right. Well, in the case of "The Last Airbender," the original show is superior. What's more, this movie can't stand on its own.

For fans, the only suspense that this movie has to offer is seeing your favorite characters and scene be reenacted in real-life, with the help of some really special SFX. I was really thrilled by the final battle scene in the end--but only because I knew what was going to happen, and the fact that all of this was happening on the big screen and in high def, and in 3D no less. In the end, why not stick with the show? Non-fans can get excited because this is a story they've never heard before, but this isn't the best telling of the story.

As a summer blockbuster, this is nothing special.

It's a shame, because this had so much potential. I give in 5 stars out of 10 though, and not a 1, because there were things I liked.

See more▼See less▲

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Better than what many would think

6 March 2010 - 7 out of 10 users found this review helpful.

Mention "Conan the Barbarian" and it isn't hard to conjure up a feeling of all muscles and no brains, and pure campiness. Given that several "barbarian" films of the 80s (and even today) are like that, such as 1987's "The Barbarians," one can be forgiven for thinking the same about this John Milius film. I too felt the same, and seeing the sequel "Conan the Destroyer," my notions seemed confirmed. Then I heard praising this film, even calling it one of their favorite movies. Naturally, I was curious, and I happened to catch this on TV.

I can say one thing: This is better than I expected.

This is by no means a film meant for the Oscars (although there are some Oscar-worthy elements). This is an action flick, and it doesn't try to be anything more than that. What it does try, though, is be an acceptable adaptation of the Robert E. Howard "Conan" stories as well as be decent entertainment in general. These efforts do however make this film more of a classic rather than just passable entertainment.

The story is simple: Conan's family is killed as a boy; he gets taken into slavery, becomes a gladiator, gets freed, and seeks revenge on the ones responsible for killing his family, eventually succeeding.

Okay -- maybe the story isn't so simple. The choice of the Friedrich Nietzsche quote in the beginning is interesting; it makes for a great story theme: strength. Conan, here, through suffering and toil, becomes strong. This is summarized in the concept of "The Riddle of Steel": Steel isn't strong -- flesh is stronger.

Like the original "Conan" pulp stories by Howard, this movie is a part of the "Low Fantasy" genre, having magic and sorcery but still taking place in the real world -- in Conan's case, a time period "between the time when the Oceans drank Atlantis and before the rise of the sons of Arias" -- so well-said by the narrator, the late Mako.

In keeping with this, there is an attempt at being realistic. There is magic and the supernatural, yes, but just enough. For the most part, it tries to portray civilizations and world that could have existed, from their clothing, weapons, architecture, to their way of life. The costumes and sets look great; they truly make the viewer believe he's/she's in some lost time period in our history -- a world so strange, yet so familiar.

There isn't a lot of special effects, though. But they are decent for the most part. The scene, though, when the villain Thulsa Doom turns into a snake is convincing, and the choice of back-and-forth shots to show his transformation is clever, avoiding cheesiness.

Arnold Swcharzenegger may not be the most phenomenal actor out there; he's no De Niro. But he does, however, have star power, and he has presence in this film. He is just perfect for the role of Conan. He has the right built, the right facial expression -- he truly does look intimidating as Conan. And the role isn't too demanding of his acting abilities.

The other principal actors, Gerry Lopez and Sandhal Bergman, are decent. Max Von Sydow is excellent in his brief appearance as King Orsic. Mako is compelling as the narrator and hilarious as the wizard. But the best performance is, without a done, from the legendary James Earl Jones, giving another great performance in just two years after "The Empire Strikes Back." His Thulsa Doom is a great villain. What's more, you can truly believe that he's a cult leader.

The music for this movie is done by Basil Poledouris.

And I. Simply. Have. No. Words. To. Say.

The music is just mind-blowing. It is deep, booming, heavy, and just fantastic. It truly does give the film an epic feel. The use of drums gives the film a primitive feel, which is perfect, considering that this is set in a prehistoric time. The use of booming brass instrument, as well as the choirs with their heavy chanting, is extraordinary, sounding aggressive and relentless, the way Conan should be. The softer instruments, such as harps and violins, give Conan a noble, heroic feel.

The music, combined with the excellent cinematography (filmed in Spain), creates really excellent results. There are some truly sweeping scenes, such as when the riders raid Conan's village, and his final battle with them. The scene when Conan stumbles upon the ancient tomb and finds the sword is made great because of the music. And the scene when Conan recovers and is practicing with his sword, combined with the softer part of "The Anvil of Crom" piece, is one that will linger in your head -- a truly iconic scene.

It is the music that truly elevates this movie from a mere action flick in a sea of many to a truly epic film. A classic.

This may not be a perfect film (no film is), but compare this to many other 80s fantasy films, and you'll know what I mean.

See more▼See less▲

Death Note: Desu nôto (2006)

Acceptable and enjoyable adaptation of an excellent anime/manga

10 August 2009

Rarely do live-action adaptations of cartoons do justice to the original source. This 2006 version of the hit series "Death Note" is one of those rare ones.

The original "Death Note" is undoubtedly one of the most unique and original animes/mangas out there. It has a very interesting concept: Boy finds a notebook that can kill anybody in mind just by writing down that person's name; the said-boy attempt to put the notebook into good use by eliminating all of the world's most dreaded criminals, thus earning him notoriety and admiration from world, and catching the attention of his most formidable opponent: a mysterious detective bend on discovering his true identity and putting him to justice. That series is not never lacks clever situations, great suspense, and interesting characters, it also compels the viewer to ask a very poignant question: What is justice? What would you do if you were God?

This live-action movie does a decent job of adapting the original series (at least the first half of it) within a two-hour frame. It keeps the basic and most important scenes from the original series as well as the themes of justice and the ability to kill. That should make this film enjoyable for fans of the original series and those who have never heard of it.

There are some notable departures from the original series, but none of them are bad - and in fact, they are actually really great! The character Shiori is a rather nice creation, and she becomes an interesting plot device. The death of the character Naomi Misora was cleverly-done. The climax was very well-done, and the ending is perhaps one of the most exciting in all cinema: The final scene in which the protagonist/anti-hero Light Yagami meets face-to-face with the detective "L" will send shivers down audiences' spines.

Ken'ichi Matsuyama is literally L brought to life: His appearance, his mannerisms, everything are straight from the book. For those unfamiliar with the series, and this is their first time watching this film, the live-action L makes for an excellent introduction to the most interesting character in the series (and thus the film).

This film however, does not have the complexity of the original series. While the original "Death Note" is filled with suspense-filled scenarios that have the viewer guessing and thinking, this live-action movie is pretty simple and straight-forward; clearly it is meant to be just entertainment, and that's it. There are moments of campiness here however. The special effects used for the Japanese Death Gods ("shinigami") are not only blatantly CGI, they are cartoony-looking as well. Clearly, this is a B-movie.

But there's nothing wrong with that. This movie never tries to be anything more than that. It's not meant for the Oscars or anything of the matter. It's an entertaining flick, and for what it is, it does a good job. And as an adaptation of a cartoon/comic book, it's one of the those films that actually does a decent job of adapting.

Definitely one of my favorites.

See more▼See less▲

Religulous (2008)

Funny, witty, provocative

22 July 2009 - 4 out of 6 users found this review helpful.

2008 brought us two documentaries dealing with religion. One was pro-religion "Expelled" by Ben Stein; the other is this polemic by Bill Maher. I saw both films this year, 2009, in the same week. "Expelled" I thought to be okay, no where near as bad as its reputation. But "Religulous"...this is the better of the two.

For those familiar with Bill Maher, it should be no secret that he's not exactly a friend of religion. If anything, he's anti. And REALLY. Many times on his shows he's criticized it, but "Religulous" truly shows the full extend of his views.

This film has been criticized for being biased and all that stuff, focusing on the nitwits of religion rather than the smartest and most dignified of it. Yes it's true that this film does focus on the likes of Ted Haggard rather than the more sophisticated theologians. But the thing is, there's probably nothing wrong with that. This film is called "Religulous," a combination of "religion" and "ridiculous." From that title, it should be clear what this film is about: it's about the ridiculous side of religion, and it focuses only on that. It should be noted that this is less of a documentary than a *mockumentary* -- while it documents about religion, it's also a comedy and satire about it. And as a satire, it's just so darn funny.

Bill Maher is just so entertaining to watch. His quips are really witty and genuinely funny. But most of all, they illustrate a point. Maher does not hold back. His opinion on organized religion is clear, and he does a heck of a job commenting on it. This film targets Christians, from the Evangelicals in Middle America, including an appearance by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, to that scene in the Vatican. Orthodox Jews, moderate and extremist Muslims, Mormons, and scientologists are also not spared.

In the style of "Borat" (and even having the same director), this movie features live interviews with actual people in actual places. In fact, it's this realism that makes it so good. The people being interviewed are portrayed as they are, and that includes the whackos of religion. This movie is candid. In fact, too candid. "Religious" isn't afraid to show the awkwardness of the scene. In the scene showing the crucifixion reenactment in the Holy Land Experience theme park, there is the sound of a jet airplane, and the camera immediately takes a shot of it in the sky. In the scene in the Dome of the Rock, the camera takes a shot of people vacuum cleaning he place. This adds a lot of the mockery of the scene, and the hilarity of it all. Heck, this film even shows people in opposition to Maher and his crew filming them, like the scene in the Mormon Temple where they get kicked out!

Maher's interactions with the people are casual, upbeat, and playful, with a controlled mockery. The use of subtitles (speaking for Maher when he actually could not), an extra-commentary on the scene, was rather unexpected, and thus funny. The use of footage, from many different films, also adds a lot and do carry Maher's point even farther.

If there's any problem in this movie, it's probably the end scene. Showing all the religious turmoil in the world, and the dramatic music playing in the background, and with Maher calling all unbelievers to come out, make this some sort of anti-religion propaganda. It's almost like a rant, and Maher is merely preaching to the already converted. It takes away this film's purpose as a satire. For that, I deduct a few stars.

But overall, "Religulous" is a enlightening look at the crazy side of faith and a creative, witty, and genuinely funny comedy. It's a splendid mockery of what Maher considers laughable, in this case, organized religion.

See more▼See less▲

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Trying to be objective

22 July 2009 - 2 out of 14 users found this review helpful.

A lot has been said about Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." A lot of criticism has been thrown at this too. Many of them are right. Okay, so maybe this film is biased. Maybe it is one-sided. Maybe it is dishonest, telling half-truths and twisting the facts to better suit its agenda. Maybe this film is in fact propaganda.

And yes, this *is* propaganda. Therefore, I will review this as such, because after all, that's what it's probably meant to be.

By now, everyone who's heard of this film should have a good idea of its topic is: intelligent design and all that, teachers being "expelled" from their jobs for teaching it, the connection between Darwinism and the Holocaust, etc. There's probably no need to go over those topics, so say what you will about the them, but I'll skim over them.

So ignoring this film's themes, the real question is, what about the film quality? As far as documentaries go, this one doesn't seem so bad. It's actually pretty typical of films of this genre. The production values are pretty acceptable. The use of black and white footage does in fact help illustrate and enhances the points being made. The music is acceptable; although the choice of the Killers' "All These Things That I've Done" in the end does seem odd. The photography and cinematography, though, are good, and there is use of the typical "fast-moving images" technique (for lack of a better term) used is many documentaries.

The scene at the concentration camp may be a tad long in that they spend time explaining how the tortures and carried out and such, and Ben Stein's questions on why these prisoners were treated so is rather unnecessary because the audience already knows why. Nevertheless, it is probable that this scene was created for the sole purpose of inciting an emotional response from the viewer.

And that perhaps this film's strength as a propaganda. And for Creationists, anti-Darwinists, or pro-ID people, they will most especially feel this film. The linking of Darwinism with Hitler and all the atrocities out there, the scenes in the end, with all that talk of academic freedom and freedom general (and the use of the Berlin Wall to illustrate this), and Ben Stein's speech in the end (combined with shots of Ronald Reagan's anti-Communist speech) and his final narration, combined with the triumphant music, will be nonetheless powerful to the people this film is trying to connect to. For those who aren't any of the people mentioned, they may not feel an emotional connection to this film whatsoever.

The biggest flaw of this film is probably the Richard Dawkins scene near the end. While it does do a good job at being the "big climactic scene" a.k.a. the showdown or final battle between good and evil (at least for the intended viewer) its main purpose seemed to be get Professor Dawkins to say that aliens quote. Other than these reasons, it seems unnecessary, and seems to be nothing more than an ad hominem argument against Darwinists and advocates of Panspermia. It becomes a personal attack against Dawkins when Steins asks him questions about his beliefs. This scene does not contribute to the film's point about ID, the teachers getting expelled, and the Hitler-Darwin connection.

Before I saw this film, I had already heard a lot about it, many of them negative. Then I decided to see it myself and make up my own mind on it. I saw decent documentary (not the best, but not the worst either) and a well-made propaganda piece. For all its flaws, it will nonetheless serve its purpose well to the audience it's trying to reach. And while I am not a part of that audience, I'm at least trying to get it that credit.

See more▼See less▲

Batman & Robin (1997)

My favorite guilty pleasure film!

4 July 2009 - 3 out of 6 users found this review helpful.

Joel Schumacher's "Batman & Robin" -- the bane of Batman (and movie-going) fans everywhere. Lambasted upon its released, it is undoubtedly the worst Batman movie ever made and is widely considered to be one of the worst films in the comic-book/superhero genre and one of the worst films ever.

This is probably true. Objectively speaking, this is quite a silly film. I used to really love this as a kid (and this is perhaps best for *really* audiences), but now I see what it is.

Behold now the wonders of this film:

*Batman and Robin playing ice-hockey with Mr. Freeze's thugs, complete with ice skates (!) that pop out of their shoes -- talk about being prepared!

*Batman and Robin surfing (!!) out of Freeze's phallic-shaped rocket ship in a scene that defies every law of physics and gravity.

*Not only do the Batman and Robin suits come complete with rubber nipples, but there are (unnecessary) shots of the heroes' buttocks and other private areas!

*And who can forget Arnold Schwarzenegger's (spelling?) *really terrific* performance as the tormented Victor Fries, a.k.a. the villainous Mr. Freeze? He's supposed to be cold and cruel, and yet he seems to be having a ball throughout this movie, with all his countless ice/snow/winter/cold jokes, puns, one-liners, etc.

Adding to all this are the (melo)dramatic story lines of the movie: Alfred dying of a (totally fictional) illness and Batman and Robin's relationship in trouble because of their quarrels. Too bad the rest of this movie's silly. At least the Adam West was entirely goofy. It would've made more sense if the filmmakers made this film a complete comedy, but it's not.

And George Clooney is widely considered to be the worst Batman actor ever. This may be true. He's hard to take seriously at the Dark Knight. His Batman is laid-back and casual -- spouting some really cheesy one-liners and quips. Not only does he look ridiculous in the Bat-suit, he doesn't seem to be trying at all.

This movie is loud, it's over-the-top, it's bombastic, and it insults viewers' intelligence. The costumes and gadgets and gaudy and meant to sell toys, and there's a homoerotic undertone in this movie. Schumacher has a strange vision of Gotham -- neon lights, colossal statues of naked, muscular men, and the streets are littered with ridiculous neon gangs.

But is all this necessarily a bad thing?

Even if this is a bad film, I just couldn't bring myself to hate it. I saw it recently, and I still couldn't hate it. Truth is, I personally ENJOYED this movie! I loved Mr. Freeze's cheesy lines. I can both laugh at (and laugh with) him. In fact, today, I laugh at and laugh with this film! Strangely enough, this movie is enjoyable in a really weird way. Today, this remains to be my favorite guilty pleasure film.

It's for that reason that I gave this film a five out of ten and not a one.

In short, if you are with friends and you're all bored, and you're all in the mood for messing around, it might be the perfect choice to watch this film -- you'll be laughing (and groaning).

See more▼See less▲

Batman (1989)

Still good after all these years

3 July 2009

Nowadays, all talk is centered around Christopher Nolan and his cinematic interpretation of the "Batman" comics. This is perhaps well-warranted; Nolan not only captures the essence of the Dark Knight as his world, he also reinterprets it for a new generation. Does the success of the Nolan films "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" mean that we should forget about this 1989 film by Tim Burton? Not at all.

This film still holds up after twenty years. There's no wonder why we still watch "The Wizard of Oz" or "Star Wars"; some films are just timeless. And while this film may start becoming outdated (in terms of special effects, etc.), it shouldn't be forgotten that when it was first released, it was simply revolutionary. Before this film's release, the general public's view of Batman was Adam West -- he's fun, he's adventures, but he's still goofy. This was a far cry from the comic books of Frank Miller and Denny O'Neal, who sought to return the Caped Crusader to his dark roots. But Tim Burton's "Batman" changed all this by introducing to the general public the idea of a Darker Knight. And boy is this film influential! This started the trend of making dark Batman films. A popular cartoon ("Batman: The Animated Series") was created because of this. This movie also introduced the all-black, rubber suit (instead of using gray and blue/black tights), something used by prospective films, and is still used today with "The Dark Knight." Burton added darkness into Batman cinema; Nolan took it a step further. Without Burton, there'd be no Batman films today.

Burton has an interesting vision of Gotham. While not as realistic as Nolan's, Burton's Gotham is still gritty. Here you have street gangs, corrupt cops, and lowly street thugs. There's even some profanity here. Adding to this is a mixture of 1980s clothing and technology with 40s/50s fashions lifestyles. The Art Deco buildings blend well with the Gothic architecture. Here you have an atmospheric feel, a dark, brooding mood, a mixture of realism and surrealism. It's like you're in a comic book brought to life...yet at the same time, you're in real-life.

Michael Keaton is still great as Batman. He has presence, capturing the brooding nature and elegant style of the Dark Knight. While I'm not a big fan of his socially awkward Bruce Wayne, Keaton truly makes you believe he's Batman. He uses two distinct voice for Batman and Bruce Wayne, and he still delivers shivers at the "I'm Batman" scene in the beginning with the quiet, raspy, and simply haunting voice of his.

Some may have complained that Batman is underdeveloped as a character in this film, and not much attention is focused on him. While this may be true, the film actually benefits from this. Batman is mysterious, lurking in the shadows, the way he should be, and the decision to limit his scenes perfectly captures this. And besides, this is supposed to be Batman's first appearance, and the mysteriosity works very well. I especially loved portrayal of Batman as a urban legend -- a great introduction indeed!

Jack Nicholson is still a great Joker. While not as frightening as Heath Ledger, Nicholson's Joker was very evil and very twisted for that time. Here's somebody who turns his assistant into a living work of art, causing her to commit suicide later on, shoots his boss fanatically while enjoying every minute of it, and tries to kills everyone is Gotham; this is something that no pre-Nicholson Joker would ever do! And boy does Jack steal the show. His tone of speaking and mannerism and a joy to watch, and he has some of the best lines in the movie -- just as delightful to listen to as Ledger's.

And who can forget that iconic score by Danny Elfman? It is simply beautiful. It was nice to listen during that scene with Batman and Vicky Vale on the Batmobile as he drives through the night, and the finale in the end is an even greater joy to listen to, with Batman perched on a rooftop with the Bat signal in the sky. That is a scene that gets stuck in your head, and there are perhaps many more in this film. Tim Burton is a master of visuals, and that is clearly shown in this film.

"Batman '89" was one of the biggest-selling films of that year, and today it's one of the most successful films of all time. It and "Superman '78" helped shaped the superhero movie genre we know today.

See more▼See less▲

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Pro's and con's

11 June 2009 - 0 out of 1 users found this review helpful.

Ahhh, "The Phantom Menace" -- the scourge of "Star Wars" and movie-going fans everything. Notorious for Jar-Jar Binks and others, there was a lot of hype over this long-awaited prequel to the ultra-popular "Star Wars" trilogy. This is one of the most backlashed films of all time, and even today it's considered a great disappointment.

In a couple of ways, this disappointment is understandable. This is, in fact, a flawed filmed. An obvious problem, of course, is Jar-Jar, and stuff like him can get annoying. The concept of Midiclorians may not be too bad, but the Force is much more awesome and powerful when it is mystical and mysterious. The political ramblings in this film aren't that bad either, but the use of stereotypical accents -- the Jamaican Gungans, the Jewish-like salesman Watto, and the Asian-esquire Trade Federation villains -- are unnecessary.

But the biggest problem with this film is that it pales in comparison to the original "Star Wars" films. The original films had great characters and great personalities, from the naive but courageous Luke Skywalker, to the arrogant, self-centered, but lovable Han Solo, to the sarcastic and spunky Princess Leia. Here, the characters don't live up to their sequel counterparts. This is not to say they are bad -- Qui-Gon Jinn is a pretty likable character -- but Queen Amidala/Padme is no Priness Leia, and Anakin Skywalker is no Luke. "The Phantom Menace" also lacks a Han Solo-like characters to entertain us.

The original films had a simple storyline that was easy to understand, thus making it easy to enjoy them. They never took themselves serious, and that was their charm. Here, you need to be a fan of the originals to get it. There's no explanation of "the Force" concept, so complete newcomers, who lack any experience with the "Star Wars" universe, might end up asking more questions than actually enjoying it.

This film does try to pay homage to the original films by bringing over R2-D2 and C-3PO, but this seems to be more like fan service, and the part about Anakin creating 3PO sounds like something found in fan fiction.

Problems aside, there are things to like about "The Phantom Menace."

The actors generally aren't bad. Many may have criticized Jake Lloyd for his portrayal for Anakin, but I actually found his portrayal fitting of what Lucas meant Anakin to be -- an innocent, naive, and caring young boy; he is not yet the hardcore villain he soon will be. If anything, the fault lies with Lucas. It is true that the original trilogy had better acting overall, and nothing here is Oscar-material, but again, they're not too bad. There are some acting gems here: Liam Neeson captures the wisdom and radiance of Qui-Gon Jinn, Terrence Stamp is effective as the incompetent Chancellor Valorum, and Ian McDiarmind is awesome in a dual role; he makes a benevolent Senator Palpatine and a deliciously wicked Darth Sidious -- perhaps on of the most evil, and enjoyable, foes in cinema. The biggest treat here is probably Ewan McGregor, you nails his imitation of a young Alec Guinness to a perfection.

This movie has a lot of creativity. The filmmakers did a great job creating the extraordinary worlds of the pre-Empire universe, from the majestic palaces and gardens of Naboo, to the extraordinary Gungan city (which could only exist in a dream), to the desert earthliness of Tatooine, to the mechanical Trade Federation ships. The Naboo ships and weapons are elegant and beautiful, perfectly capturing what kind of a world Naboo is. I enjoyed the fact that Lucas was able to create worlds, civilizations and cultures so like and unlike ours, that he was able to transport the audience into an alien yet familiar world, just like historical epics do. And obviously, this movie is more recent, so the special effects, of course, are going to be better than the originals. While they may not be revolutionary for their time like the originals, they are actually the norm for films of the late 90s, not bad at all.

The Podrace scene is actually pretty exciting (never mind being borrowed from "Ben-Hur"). This film is a visual feast.

Of course, who can forget that final fight between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul? It is just so exhilarating, so edge-of-your-seat, so suspenseful. This is a spectacle to behold most especially in theaters. It is very creative, and the choreography is right. If there's anything in this movie worth giving credit for, it's this scene. It's the best redeeming feature, and it's for this reason alone that this movie is worth watching at least once. Hands down, this is one of the greatest climaxes in movie history, and it was the best lightsaber fight in all of the "Star Wars" movies -- until "Revenge of the Sith" came out.

Darth Maul is one of the coolest villains in the "Star Wars" universe and in cinema. He has a cool design, and he has one of the coolest weapons ever. True, he has little of a backstory, but maybe this is what makes him interesting -- he's mysterious. It's shocking to see just how evenly matched he is against two Jedi, one of them being a master. Ray Park is a real athlete; he does a great job of giving Maul his excellent moves, and kudos to Peter Serafinowicz for giving him his sinister voice (although Maul would probably be more effective if he didn't speak).

"The Phantom Menace" may not live up to the glory of the original trilogy, but it's not too bad. The dialogue here is actually decent (there's no "I hate sand, it's not soft like you, Padme," "I'm only beautiful because I'm in love" or "Anakin, you're breaking my heart," or anything like that). This is actually a fairly enjoyable flick.

See more▼See less▲

Jurassic Park (1993)

Revolutionary. Still one my favorites.

7 June 2009 - 2 out of 4 users found this review helpful.

Imagine witnessing one of humanity's biggest dreams -- seeing creatures long gone walk this earth again. Imagine dinosaurs and man side-by-side. And all this is made possible through the miracles of science. That's what happened in Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park," where dinosaurs are genetically recreated from ancient DNA, to be put on display in a theme park, and people are invited to be the first visitors -- all for a terrible price.

In this 1993 adaptation of the bestselling novel, the terrible lizards are indeed brought to life -- using the latest state-of-the-art movie-making magic. This is the film that really revolutionized the use of the special effects we use today, most notably, CGI. Before 1993, CGI made been put to use in a few films, but it is this film that made it the norm for special effects. Computer generated figures when far away, and animatronics when close-by, dinosaurs once again roam the earth, looking as real as ever. This is a special effects technique that has been used, and abused, ever since. But the dinosaurs in this film, even today, still look fabulously -- and scarily -- real.

This film was fortunate that have ILM working on it -- the very team that made a name making the ground-breaking effects for "Star Wars," and "Jurassic Park" is another on of their triumphs. Helming this film is none other Steven Spielberg, who already had several big films -- "Close Encounters," "Jaws," "ET" -- on his resume, and this film was destined to ranked among his most famous films. Adding to this is the wonderful score by John Williams, no stranger to Spielberg films.

This movie has many things moviegoers crave for. It's got intense, pulse-pounding action. It's a got a great adventure. It's got entertaining one-liners, and likable characters. To top it all are the innovative special effects. And there is the "Frankenstein" message of the power to create life, and the misuse of it. This movie is the ideal adventure flick, a real blockbuster.

"An adventure 65 million years in the making." Indeed!

See more▼See less▲

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Undoubtedly, one of the best Disney films out here

7 June 2009 - 4 out of 6 users found this review helpful.

There are just no words capable of expressing how about feel about this great film. This is one of the best Disney films of the 90s, one of the best films in Disney's 70+ years of film-making, and possibly one of the best films ever.

It was bizarre move when Disney choose Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris" (Notre Dame of Paris), otherwise known internationally as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," as the basis for their 34th full-length animated feature. The original novel isn't something that is normally thought of as being something for children: such a dark and depressing tale. But in the 90s, Disney were pioneers and innovators, and it was a bold move when they decided to make this film.

And it all worked. Here is perhaps one of the beautiful animations Disney has produced (heck, this is from the same guys who brought us "Beauty and the Beast"), featuring excellent artwork and stunning scenes. The animators actually went to Paris and made sketches of the actual Notre Dame cathedral to ensure accuracy. And what efforts! Fifteenth Century Paris is brought to life -- full of laughter and festivity...poverty and injustice. You will marvel at the Gothic splendor of Notre Dame cathedral, which is very detailed.

But at the heart of all this is good story. Here is one of the most tender tales out there. Hugo enthusiasts have cringed at the changes Disney has made from the original novel. But this movie has the spirit of Hugo. The original novel was about social issues, about injustice and religion. And Disney does a great job of addressing these themes, yet making this movie tolerable for family viewing. Added to the movie are the themes of about looking part appearances in favor of what lies inside. This "Man vs. Monster" theme is embodied in the hideous but kind-hearted and courageous Quasimodo.

Quasimodo is a not so typical hero, and he and a cast of memorable characters are the players in this powerful, moving tale. You will be shocked by the crowd's treatment of Quasimodo during the Feast of Fools scene. Entertained by the brave antics of Phoebus, captain of the guards. Amazed by the courage of the beautiful Gypsy Esmarelda to help him. You will also be repulsed by the villainous Claude Frollo -- perhaps the most frightening, and more complex, foe in any Disney movie. There has never been a foe like him before -- so cruel, so pitiless, so obsessively lustful to the point of wanting to destroy someone -- and yet so devout and religious. You will be overwhelmed at the final fight scene near the end. And you will be touched by the ending, in which a young girl approaches the monstrous-looking hunchback and gives him her hand, and inspired and uplifted when he is carried away by a joyous, cheering crowd -- the crowd that once rejected him.

The music plays a vital role in telling the story. Before he gave us "Wicked," Stephen Swartz lovingly composed these amazing songs. "The Bells of Notre Dame" is subtle and haunting, "Topsy Turvy" is upbeat, and "Heaven's Light" and "Children of God" are tender and touching. In this film is also "Hellfire" -- so intense, so heart-pounding, dark, mature, and yet so powerful, the best Disney villain song ever. Adding to the songs is Alan Menken's beautiful score, which makes good use of classic choirs; from the haunting, mysterious Gregorian chants in the beginning, to the glorious chorus in the end.

This movie is dark, it's mature. It's inspiring and it's powerful. It is simply a beautiful film.

See more▼See less▲

Alexander (2004)

Pro's and con's

7 June 2009 - 1 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

Alexander the Great is perhaps one of the most well-known historical figures. His life has been recorded in detail by so many historians, and his exploits legendary. Considered divine during his lifetime, conquering a vast territory unrivaled until the Roman Empire...living a life reckless life...dying under mysterious circumstances -- a larger than life character.

Sounds like it would make a really epic movie, don't it? A perfect addition to the line of big-budget epics so prevalent in the early 2000s. Filmed in locations spanning three continents, featuring a cast that includes Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Plummer, costing over $155 million to make, and with the acclaimed director of "JFK" and "Platoon" -- it seemed like this would be the perfect film, a return to the glory of films like "Ben-Hur."

And yet it was a critical and commercial failure upon release.

What went wrong?

One problem is perhaps the use of accents. They range from the Irish/Scottish accents of Colin Farrell and other actors playing Macedonians to the most lambasted of all -- the pseudo-Eastern European accent of Angelina Jolie. I understand that this is a technique by Oliver Stone to distinguish each culture. The problem is, it can be quite distracting. The accents perhaps aren't TOO bad as to ruin the whole movie, and can be ignored.

Then there's the narration. Now, Anthony Hopkins is an excellent actor, and he is superb as an elderly Ptolemy narrating events from Alexander's life. His voice can be heard in this film a lot. However, ***perhaps too much***. There are some scenes where the narration is just not necessary or would be more effective without it. The old saying is, "Show...don't tell." This is a drama, not a documentary.

Another problem is the way Alexander's story is told. It does resemble a cliché melodrama, from the gay romance between Alexander and Hephaestion to the soap-opera family relationship between Alexander, his parents -- these should have been handled more carefully. A primary antagonist would have helped. Some characters are worth expanding upon (Darius, Roxanne). I personally didn't feel for any of the characters in this film -- whether to root for them or not.

And this brings us to another major problem in the film -- the portrayal of the main character, Alexander himself.

This film does attempt to make him into an complex, three-dimensional character. One can admire the filmmakers for doing that. Here, he is portrayed as an idealist, seeking to unite all the peoples and cultures of the world under a reign of tolerance and diversity. In the scene where he conquers Babylon, Alexander benevolently shows mercy to Darius' daughter ("that's how you'll be treated - a princess"). He is actually likable in that scene.

However, in trying to portray Alexander as complex, the filmmakers do go overboard with the soap-opera aspects. Alexander does seem like a wuss in some scenes. When he's criticized by one of his men, he goes into a temper tantrum ("Arrest him! Arrest him!"). Surely, a person of Alexander's reputation and esteem would sound more intimidating and commanding, not whiny. Such whininess reaches its peak during the death of Hephaestion scene. Alexander resembles a modern-day drama queen or emo kid.

Based on what historians say about the real Alexander, this movie counterpart should have been portrayed more as a modern-day jock. There should have should more scenes that show just what made him Alexander the GREAT.

These are what are perhaps the major flaws of "Alexander". But flaws aside, there is much to love (okay, LIKE) about this movie.

The actors are generally good, even Angelina (never mind the accent). It was nice to see Christopher Plummer as Aristole. And even Colin Farrell himself is actually decent. He may not be Oscar-material like some of the older actors, and he may not be the best choice to play Alexander, but he is adequate enough in the lead role (never mind the blonde wig).

There is some nice scenery in this film, like the majestic deserts of Asia lush jungles of India (actually, Thailand posing as India). The sets are nice, too. While the buildings in the Babylon scenes are clearly GCI and do look superficial, this movie has some excellent sets. The interiors of the Macedonian and Alexandrian palaces are beautiful, and the wall painting and mosaics are accurate. The sets and buildings in the Bactria and India, with their brown, earth walls and pillars, invoke the feel of that time and place.

The costumes are also nice, and they seem authentic. The armor, helmets, and equipment of Macedian/Greek and Persian soldiers during the Gaugamela Battle are elaborate and colorful. This movie shows many cultures, from the Macedonians, Greeks, Persians, etc., and numerous customs from these cultures -- from the dance of Alexander's future wife Roxanne and their wedding scene, the viewer is truly transported into a different time and place.

The battle scenes are very intense and pulse-pounding. Never mind that there are only TWO battle scenes, compared to the many battles fought by the real Alexander. The first battle depicted in this film, in Gaugamela, is very chaotic and confusing, and it has nice aerial shots. The battle in India is just as chaotic (even if the final confrontation between Alexander and the elephant may be bizarre and ridiculous).

There's also the score by Vangelis, which (despite maybe sounding a little formulatic) does sound nice.

In all, I was surprised to find out that I actually enjoyed "Alexander". Obviously, this is a flawed. Then again, it's not absolute trash either.

See more▼See less▲

Eiga Inuyasha Tenka Hadô no Ken (2003)

My favorite Inuyasha movie

18 August 2006 - 2 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

May contain spoilers

Intro

Once upon a time in Japan, a great demon fell in love with a beautiful (but mortal) woman. This love affair led to the birth of a very unique creature - not a human being, yet not fully demon either. His name...Inuyasha (literraly, "dog demon").

Rumiko Takahashi's "Inuyasha" (named after its central character) is one of the most popular mangas of all time. It has inspired a popular anime series and several movies. Among these movies is this one, titled "Swords of an Honorable Ruler."

Story

The "Swords of an Honorable Ruler" referred to in the title are swords that once belonged toInuyasha's father - the Tetsuiga of Earth (wielded by none other than our hero), the Tensaiga of Heaven (wielded by Inuyasha's full demon older bro Sesshomaru), and a third one - Sounga of Hell, a sword so powerful that it can cause great destruction and open the door to the Netherworld.

Now, it so happens that this Sounga sword finds its way into Inuyasha's possession and it starts wrecking havoc everywhere. To stop this evil sword from causing destruction, Inuyasha must combine his Wind Scar (his sword's special attack) with Sesshomaru's sword attack. But can these two brothers who are completely different from each other (one is a haughty full demon, the other a stubborn half-demon) cooperate to stop this evil?

Comments

This third "Inuyasha" movie is perhaps the best one I've seen so far. It's got better (achingly beautiful) animation and there's so much action. The music by Kaoru Wada also keeps getting better.

Like all "Inuyasha" movie, this one includes the main cast of characters - Inuyasha, the hero himself and Kagome, the human girl from the future who travels back in time via an enchanted well. Other famous characters include the lecherous yet lovable monk Miroku and the feisty demon slayer Sango. It was too bad that they didn't have other well-loved characters such as Kikyo or Kagura. But does that really matter?

An addition to the cast of characters is Takemaru, a samurai lord who loved Inuyasha's mother and died in battle with Inuyasha's father. He has just been resurrected by the Sounga and, with that demonic sword having taken possession of his body, he's out to get Inuyasha and Sesshomaru. He's an interesting character and great addition to the cast.

Sesshomaru, our hero's older bro, plays a major role in this movie and he's the one who really steals the show. Furthermore, we get to see Inuyasha's mother (last seen in the first season of the anime) and (finally) his father, the Great Dog Demon. This film delves into Inuyasha's family history and explores his relationship with his haughtily full demon older brother, who looks down on Inuyasha for being only a half-demon.

"Swords of an Honorable Ruler" is also packed with powerful, moving scenes. Gotta love that scene where Sesshomaru is asked by his father whether he has someone to protect and year later sternly replies that he has no one to protect but later save Rin and Jaken. Such a perfect blend of Sesshomaru's haughty arrogance and his caring, fatherly side.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, this is one of the best "Inuyasha" movies, if not the very best.

See more▼See less▲

Samurai Chanpurû (2004)

masterpiece

12 October 2005 - 26 out of 31 users found this review helpful.

"Samurai Champloo" is perhaps one of the best shows in the animé genre that I've ever seen. It is the masterpiece born from the artistic mind of Shinichirô Watanabe (famous for his work in "Cowboy Beepbop"), Kazuto Nakazawa, and Mahiro Maeda.

Set in Japan's Samurai Era (1200's-1800's), this show tells the tale of three people: Jin, Mugen, and Fuu. Jin is a ronin (wandering samurai). Calm, cool, and skilled in the art of the sword. Mugen is hot-tempered and has a short temper, the exact opposite of Jin. When these two warriors are nearly executed, they are saved by a tea shop waitress named Fuu. In return for her help, the two warriors promise to help her find "the samurai with the smell of sunflowers." The two agree with Fuu, and they go on this journey, beginning an exciting adventure as well as long and fateful friendship.

"Samurai Camploo" is one of the best animations taking place in Japan of olden times, not to mention among the best in its genre. The animation is gorgeous. The lightning and shading is mesmerizing. Also, the painted backgrounds are lush and draws the viewer in. Watanabe really shows his skill as an animator in this one. The animation is one of the best features in this show. It has one of the best stylizations in anime. The atmosphere rocks.

The story lines, too, are great. Set in feudal Japan, this show does a great job of showing the life and times of ronin samurai at that time. From the the peasants, to the prostitutes, to the gangsters, to just about everyone, this show has a graphic depiction of Japan during its Samurai Era, when the warrior was the dominant force in everyone's lives. The show even goes to show what type of clothes they wore, what houses they lived in, and what food they all -- all accurately. Only the Japanese know how to portray their history graphically.

Speaking of graphic, this show in realistic in terms of real. It includes some profanity (although minor) and goes deep into the underground world of the brothels. In Japan, animation is for everyone, not just kids, and this show in very mature. Its story lines are very complicated. Its issues are deep and meaningful. At times, some episodes are dark, even showing death scenes and bloodshed, but this is exactly what makes this show cool.

Now, the soundtrack. "Samurai Champloo" features a hip hop and RnB soundtrack and incorporates some traditional songs. What makes "Champloo" so unique in anime is that it combines the modern with the olden, and this is why the show is cool. The hip hop beats in this period piece are nice to listen to and blends in with the Fuedal Japan setting. The word "Champloo" means mix, and this anime mixes the modern with the olden, from Jin having glasses, to the language of the characters; the people here (in the English version) speak in modern American slang and vernacular. And rather than downplaying the ancient feel of this show, this show still retains its olden times aspects.

"Samurai Champloo" is a must-see for all fans of this genre and animation in general.

See more▼See less▲

Rome (2005)

a feast for the eyes!

21 September 2005 - 365 out of 396 users found this review helpful.

HBO's "Rome" is perhaps one of the best historical TV shows there ever was and one of the best HBO has ever produced.

Set during the first century B.C., this TV show tells the tale of two Romans serving in the army, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pollo. Vorenus in a strict, humorless and hard-working centurion, expecting his troops to obey him and is a loyal citizen of Rome. Pollo is muscular, carefree, party-loving, and womanizing, yet he is also a faithful, trustworthy friend, loyal companion, and overall lovable character. These two military men serve in Julius Caesar's army and live during a time of turmoil in Rome.

Originally planned as a TV miniseries, "Rome" has become an actual TV show. This TV show is mostly fictional, but it incorporates historical characters like Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Mark Anthony, and Atia, the most of Octavian, soon to become Rome's first emperor, Augustus. It is a time when the Roman Republic is corrupt, and high-ranking Romans like Julius Caesar and Pompey fight for power. The historical events in Rome are told thru the eyes of Vorenus and Pollo.

The script is intelligent and realistic, with some profanity, violence, and decadence. Unlike most portrayals of Rome, which tend to be clean and sanitize things, this is a graphic portrayal of Ancient Rome, complete with drunkards, brawlers, womanizers, prostitutes, adulterers, fornication, and loads of sexual acts. This TV series do not attempt to hide the dirty aspects of the Roman Empire. Rather, it is a honest depiction of the Empire, portraying its decadence and wickedness.

As for the production, one word - great! The sets are huge and realistic, with the viewer feeling as if he/she is in the middle of the scene. The costumes, too, are realistic and accurate. The sets, props, and costumes, etc. show signs of research. The actors and actresses did a great job, too, portraying their characters realistically.

Overall, this is a great series. I will be expecting more seasons of this.

See more▼See less▲

Troy (2004)

Underrated film

31 August 2005 - 15 out of 30 users found this review helpful.

"Troy," as we all know, is an adaptation of Homer's classic poem, "The Iliad." It tells the tale of Paris, the prince of the Kingdom of Troy, who falls in love with Helen, the wife of King Menelaus of Sparta, and kidnaps her. This outrages Menelaus, and he begs his brother, Agamemnon, for help. Agamemnon sees this as an opportunity to make war on Troy, and he gathers all the kingdoms of Greece in a war against Troy. Warriors from every Greek kingdom is present at the war; among these warriors is Achilles, one of the most famous figures in Greek mythology. And thus begins the tale of the Trojan War.

The story of the Trojan war is, perhaps, one of the most popular myths is human history. It has had several film adaptations, including the 1950's "Helen of Troy," a 2003 film of the same name, and, of course, 2004's "Troy," released after the success of epic films like "Gladiator" and "LOTR."

David Benioff, using "The Ilaid" as a primary guide, writes the screen play and retells many of the most famous events in the myth. Of course, every adaptation of a literary work has some changes to the original tale, and "Troy" is no exception. It is filled with many changes to the "Iliad" in the name of artistic licensing. Example of changes include:

-The Death of Menelaus under Paris even though he's supposed to survive the war and reclaim Helen as his wife again

-The death of Agamemnon under Brisies even though his wife is supposed to kill him when he comes home from the war

-The fact that Achilles is on board the Trojan Horse even though he's supposed to die even before it was built

-Paris living in the end even though he's supposed to die during the war

-And, perhaps the biggest change in the original story are the omission of the Greek gods, who play a major role in the story.

But despite these changes to the original tale, "Troy" is a fair adaptation of the Greek myth. The omission of the gods is tolerable and makes the story realistic; "Troy" is an attempt to tale the tale from a realistic point of view, excluding many of the supernatural elements. There is no mention of Achilles' immortality (unless he's struck in the heel) and it takes several arrows to kill him. But this does not mean that "Troy" is an unfaithful adaptation, since it has the basics. The war, like in the original tale, in this film, is triggered by the abduction of Helen by Paris, and this film also has the famous Trojan Horse.

With an acceptable script to work with, "Troy" fell under the direction of Wolfgang Petersen, famous for his work in "Das Boots."

This movie includes an all-star cast, a cast headed by Brat Pitt as Achilles. Gaining muscle for his role, Pitt portrays Achilles as a strong warrior. But even though he is the star of the film, the real star is Eric Bana as Hector, the Trojan prince and hero of his people who comes face-to-face with the mighty Achilles. Bana portrays a noble warrior like Hector and makes him a person you'd want to root for. The best performance in this movie goes to Peter O'Tool as King Priam of Troy, a loving father and wise ruler. Other stars include Brian Cox as a believably vile Agamemnon, Brian Gleeson as Menelaus (angry that his wife left him for the pretty boy prince of Troy), and, of course, Orlando Bloom and Diane Kruger as puny Paris and beautiful Helen, the two lovers who started the Trojan War.

Now, for the technical parts of the film, one word - impressive. The sets are realistic, and so are the costumes. The cinematography is breathtaking (this film was filmed in Mexico and Malta). And, of course, no film is complete with a score. Originally, Gabriel Yared's music was supposed to be on this film, but it was deemed too "classical" a replaced with James Horner's music that he made in less than two weeks, a score that is considered inferior to Yared's, but I still found it tolerable. This movie also includes Josh Groban's "Remember" in the ending credits.

When "Troy" premiered, it receive mixed reviews from critics and the public. The criticism was based on its changes to the "Iliad," while others blasted others like Orlando Bloom's portraying of Paris as a weakling (even though he's supposed to be) and several others. However, despite criticism, this movie still manages to get a 7.0 rating on the IMDb and has some decent reviews.

Overall, "Troy" is a fair adaptation of the Iliad and a good epic film.

163 minutes Rated R for graphic violence and some sexuality/nudity

See more▼See less▲

Ying xiong (2002)

Beautiful

25 August 2005 - 1 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

After the success of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," 2004 saw the release of Zhang Yimou's martial arts epic "Hero." It is set during the reign of Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of China, who founded the Qin dynasty. The Emperor (Doaming Chen) built the Great Wall and unified his empire, yet he still has won lots of would-be assassins, the deadliest of which include Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung), Broken Sword (Tony Leung), and Sky (Donnie Yen). The king cannot get any sleep at night because of those assassins. Then, one day, a nameless warrior (martial arts legend Jet Li) comes to the King and presents to him the weapons of those three deadly assassins, claiming that he killed them all and seeks a reward.

The King is baffled on how the nameless hero is able to defeat those three deadly assassins, and he asks him to tell how exactly did he achieve this feat. And thus begins "Hero," told in flashbacks, showing the nameless hero's defeat of Broken Sword, Flying Snow, and Sky, all of which are told from the nameless hero's point of view. (spoilers ahead!) But is the nameless hero indeed telling the truth? Or it could be he is, in fact, an assassin himself! "Hero" is an interesting film, complete with an interesting script and complex, well-told story that's full of surprises. Like the King of Qin, the viewer, too, makes guesses on whether the nameless hero did, indeed, kill the assassins as he claimed or he is simply one of them. The viewer is made to speculate, and there are many guesses. The story makes the viewer think and make decisions.

"Hero," like "Crouching Tiger," is part of the wuxia genre, which is set in Ancient China and usually tells tales about swordsmen. The word wuxia means "swordsman," and there is a lot of swordplay in this genre. "Hero" is packed with lots of swordplay, all well-choreographed and have lots of complex, elaborate moves. It is a pleasure to watch this film's eye-candy fights. Like most films in this genre, "Hero" has supernatural elements in it, such as fighters defying gravity and flying (a trademark in this genre). The flying scenes are breathtaking and fun to look at.

Other than the fight scene, this film is beautiful. The cinematography is gorgeous, taking place in exotic places in Asia such as the forest, lakeside, and desert. Christoper Doyle has some great scenery here. The sets are realistic and accurate, not to mention to costumes. You can feel as if you're in that time. Plus, the score by Tan Dun (who previously worked in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") (using traditional Chinese flutes and violins, Japanese drums, and some Western classic music) captures the mood of the story.

"Hero" was made in mainland China, unlike "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", which was made in Taiwan or most Kung Fu flicks, mostly made in Hong Kong. "Hero," released in 2003, was nominated for the Oscar for best foreign film but lost to "The Barbarian Invasions." But nevertheless, it was a success at the US box office and received generally good reviews from most critics on its 2004 US release. It was followed later by another Chinese film, "House of Flying Daggers," also by Zhang Yimou and stars Zhang Ziyi, who plays Moon in this film.

"Hero" is one of the best Asian films I've seen.

See more▼See less▲

The Godfather (1972)

Classic film

18 August 2005 - 0 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

This film, without a doubt, is one of the most popular films in history.

"The Godfather," as we all know, is based on an early 70's novel by Italian author Mario Puzo. It tells the tale of one family and it's destiny...the Corleones. Don Vito Corleone (the Godfather) is the head of the Corleone family and runs his 1940's New York empire with Mafia justice. The story begins with the wedding of Vito's daughter, Connie, to Carlo Rizzi. Present in the wedding include Vito's sons and heirs, Sanito ("Sonny"), Fredo, and, most famous of all, Michael, the reluctant heir to his father's business.

While the Corleone family is wealthy and fortunate, they also have some rival Mafia families, such as the Tattaglia, Sollozzo, Brasi, and son on and so forth. Tragedy occurs when Vito is injured by the gun of one of the rivals, and thus, a tale of the mafia, bloodshed, and family takes place. "The Godfather" chronicles the story of a family trying to stay on top during a dog-eat-dog era, revenge and murder, family and trust, as well as the rise of Michael Corleone as the don (head) of his family and how he avenged his entire family from all rivals.

Puzo's novel was brought to the screen by legendary director Francis Ford Coppolla, whose daughter, Sophia, is now following his footsteps and unleashing her directional legacy with films like "Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation." F.F. Coppolla uses his talents to tell Puzo's story through actors and actresses.

Al Pacino plays Michael Corleone and brings a fine Michael Corleone, portraying the his character well. Pacino shows the evolution of Michael from the reluctant young man to this ruthless don and willing godfather like his dad. Diane Keaton also stars in this movie, playing Michael's non-Italian wife, Kay Adams. But, of course, the title role (the Godfather) is given to the recently-deceased legend Marlon Brando. Brando is truly Vito Corleone, bar none, and you better respect him or else.

Other than the actors and actresses, the sets are good, too. This is not a cheery and bright film but a dark and gloomy epic. The grim and gritty 40's-50's NYC sets reflect the brutality of that time, when gangs were the rulers of New York's streets. However, the Corleone family's Italian heritage is also reflected, and who's better in making Italian music than Italian composer, Nino Rota? The Godfather theme song ("Speak Softly, Love") is just as classic as the film.

"The Godfather" was released in 1972. It was a critical and commercial success, winning several Oscars, even, best of all, Best Picture. It was followed by 1974's "Godfather, Part II," and 1990's "Part III." The first sequel was just as acclaimed as the first while the latter had mixed reviews. But still, all of these films are regardless as classics by critics and the movie-going public. Many consider this film to be the greatest film of all time.

Runningtime 175 mins. (2 hrs. 57 mins.) Rated R for graphic violence

See more▼See less▲

Mononoke-hime (1997)

Beautiful animated film!

17 August 2005 - 1 out of 2 users found this review helpful.

From acclaimed animator Hayao Miyazaki ("Kiki's Delivery Service," "Castle in the Sky," "Porco Rosso," 2002's "Spirited Away," the recent "Howl's Moving Castle," etc., etc.) comes one of the late 90's most acclaimed films - "Mononoke hime" (better known by its English title, "Princess Mononoke"). Taking place in Japan somewhere in the late medieval times to the early Renaissance in Europe (you can tell its time period since you see guns), this animated epic tells the tale of Ashi-taka, the young prince of a lost Emishi Tribe.

The tale begins when Ashi-taka slays a boar demon and saves his village from that monster. But in slaying the beast, he gets cursed, and a wound appears on his right arm. In search for a cure, he journeys, with his "red elk" Yarraku, out from his village, never to return.

He eventually comes upon Irontown, led by the feisty Lady Eboshi. He is welcomed in that town, and meets several people including Gozo, Eboshi's brute henchman, Toki, a feisty woman worker (like all the women in town, formerly a prostitute until Eboshi bought her freedom), and Toki's husband whom Ashitaka saved, Kohroku. It is in Irontown that Ashitaka learns that Eboshi was was the one who accidentally caused the boar demon to attack his village, since she shot the former animal god and caused it to become angry.

Irontown is a modern town and its inhabitants produce rifles, cannons, and other modern weapons introduced to Japan by Westerners. Irontown, a symbol of machinery and metal, sits near an old forest inhabited by spirits and animal spirits, who constantly wage war against Irontown, whose citizens are constantly destroying the forest. It is in this forest that Ashitaka meets San, or, as the rest of Irontown calls her, Princess Mononoke. San was abandoned in the forest and raised by wolves, under the guidance of Moro, the wolf spirit of the forest. San hates human beings (even though she is one), and is determined, under the point of death, to protect the forest from human beings, who are constantly destroying it in an attempt to modernize Japan.

San and her fellow nature-loving animals are at war with humanity. Amidst a series of events and many characters, lovable and loathsome, Ashitaka develops a close friendship with San and attempts to bring peace between man and nature.

"Mononoke hime" is a very complex film. Its script, handwritten by Miyazaki using his storytelling talent, is filled with many issues, mostly concerning the role of man in protecting and defiling nature. Although "Mononoke" may seem like a simple environmentalist film, its issues are actually deeper than that. The cast of characters is great, filled with lovable (and loathsome) people, all of which are three-dimensional. It's great that Miyazaki chooses to make his characters complex. There are no true good or bad guys in this story. Even the "bad guys" are have redeeming qualities. Eboshi, the leading antagonist of this tale, is actually a caring person and houses detested lepers, even giving them a life in Irontown.

"Mononoke" is a very fine film. The animation is gorgeous and beautiful to look at. While in the West, animators are resorting to CGI (i.e. Pixar films, and I love Pixar), Japan retains a traditional method of hand-drawn animation, and thank God for Miyazaki's genius! The score, too, is excellent, and the composer, Joe Hisaishi, is a genius. Combine the score with breath-taking cinematography, gorgeous hand-drawn figures, stylized action scenes, and a powerful story complete with memorable characters, "Mononoke hime" is a treat for every movie-goer. This is a mature film in terms of story and content. It even has a few (non graphic) be-headings and dismemberment's, earning it its PG-13 rating in the US.

Originally released in Japan, this film featured Yôji Matsuda as the Ashitaka and Yuriko Ishida as the title character (Mononoke/San). It was translated into English, featuring the voices of Billy Crudup as Ashitaka, Claire Danes as San, Minnie Driver (in one of her few notable voice performances alongside Disney's "Tarzan") as Eboshi, Gillian Anderson (X-Files) as Moro, Billy Bob Thorton as greedy monk Jigo, and a large cast of English-speaking actors. This English version, alongside the Jap version, was a success. It remains today as one of the best animated features.

Miyazaki, we salute you!

134 minutes Rated PG-13 for images for violence and gore

See more▼See less▲

Braveheart (1995)

Great epic film!

17 August 2005 - 4 out of 8 users found this review helpful.

Mel Gibson shows his true talents in 1995's "Braveheart." He acts, produces, and directs.

"Braveheart" tells the tale of Scottish hero, William Wallace, who led his people in a revolt against England in the 13th century. He wins many battles, wins enemies and alleys, and is feared and revered. Until his capture and execution. Wallace remains as Scotland's national hero and this film glorifies him as well as the human concepts of freedom and liberty.

Little is known about William Wallace. The major source of this film was Blind Harry's poem, which is debated for historical accuracy. Well, this film is a Hollywood film, and as we all know, Hollywood cares little about history. Inaccuries are many, including the first battle being fought on Sterling ground whereas sources say it was fought on a bridge and the use of kilts for men (the clothing didn't exist at the time). But the most inaccurate is the romance between Wallace and the French-born princess of England, who was a little girl at that time.

Historical inaccuracies aside, this a great action-packed film that can be enjoyed by anyone old enough to swallow it. It's a raw film, featuring tons of violence, ranging from really bloody battles, as so on and so forth (this was, after all, a violent time). Gibson, known for violence issues, such as in "Lethal Weapon," portrays the battles realistically with no remorse. He brings us to the reality of that harsh time. He manages to make the battles very violent yet emotional. Viewers can feel as if they're not watching a re-enactment of the battle but in the actual battleground itself.

"Braveheart" is a beauty to watch. Other than providing lost of gut-wrenching action, it also has some lovely cinematography. Filmed in Ireland (though not in Scotland, where it takes place in), it offers lots of gorgeous scenery thanks to cinematographer John Toll. There's also great music from James Horner, who uses the most of Scotland's instruments, including bagpipes and flutes. The music is emotional and the mood is perfect. The script fares well under the writing of screen writer Randall Wallace. Although having no relation to the film's protagonist, Randall Wallace shares the same last name with William Wallance and this coincidence inspired him to write the script. Under his storytelling skills, the script tells the story of the struggle to win freedom from a tyrannical power.

The direction is great. Mel Gibson not only is a good actor but talented producer and director as well. This film was not Gibson's directional debut, however, since his first directing experience was during "The Man Without a Face," but he is talented, nevertheless, and his skills are even featured on his third directional attempt, "The Passion of the Christ." The directing makes this films good. In this film, Gibson, as the protagonist, battles the English, an attempt later repeated in "The Patriot." Of course, no film would be good with its cast of characters and the talented actors and actresses to portray them. Mel Gibson stars as Wallance, alongside Patrick McGoohan as a great antagonist Edward I "Longshanks" of England, Catherine McCormick as Wallace's tragic bride, Sophie Marceau as the French-born English princess, Brian Cox as Wallace's uncle, Brendan Gleesan as Wallace's childhood friend, as the list goes on.

Released in 1995, "Braveheart" has gone to win 5 Oscars even Best Picture. It revived the epic film genre that was later done in 2000's Gladiator. Today, this film is remembered as an great epic tale of the strong will of an oppressed people to win a deserved freedom from a tyrannical power.

See more▼See less▲

See all 21 reviews »

Change Your Image

Upload An Image

Crop And Save

J5iftY5iveXtreme

Reviews

Batman Returns (1992)

7.5/10 - Burton's imagination gone wild

Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)

Pasolini! You oddball! What have you done?

The Last Airbender (2010)

Ehhh...could've been so much better

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Better than what many would think

Death Note: Desu nôto (2006)

Acceptable and enjoyable adaptation of an excellent anime/manga

Religulous (2008)

Funny, witty, provocative

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Trying to be objective

Batman & Robin (1997)

My favorite guilty pleasure film!

Batman (1989)

Still good after all these years

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Pro's and con's

Jurassic Park (1993)

Revolutionary. Still one my favorites.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Undoubtedly, one of the best Disney films out here

Alexander (2004)

Pro's and con's

Eiga Inuyasha Tenka Hadô no Ken (2003)

My favorite Inuyasha movie

Samurai Chanpurû (2004)

masterpiece

Rome (2005)

a feast for the eyes!

Troy (2004)

Underrated film

Ying xiong (2002)

Beautiful

The Godfather (1972)

Classic film

Mononoke-hime (1997)

Beautiful animated film!

Braveheart (1995)

Great epic film!

Quick Links

Recently Viewed