Reviews

Well, to start off, I have to say that Biker Boyz isn't a good movie. However, it is better than the other recent bike movie, Torque, if only because it tries to do something with itself. But it fails none the less, perhaps for being too ambitious. The bike crowd watches the movie hoping to see realism and some good racing. Instead they get straight-shot drag style races, which in real life involve little to no actual talent on a machine. Also, they'll be racing 160 mph one minute, and dead stopped the next. It takes some time to come down from speeds like that. The movie also frequently ignores the force of wind that would be present at high speeds, with the racers hardly tucked in at all. The final race, much like many in Torque, takes place on a dirt road. Apparently they aren't aware that these high end bikes are often called street fighters.

Despite all that, there's actually an effort to tell a story. It's an admirable effort, but many of the parts just slow the movie down. It's often a painfully slow movie. Odd, since it's about a bunch of guys that race at speeds in excess of 100 mph. The story is a coming of age one, for both Kid and Smoke. They are both forced to confront issues, and in the end reconcile them. The biker clubs are set up to mirror, I think, a sort of community, and therefore Kid's efforts to rise in the clubs are supposed to represent his finding his place in society. The pieces are there, they were just poorly assembled. Folks most likely were expecting a quick, guilty pleasure like the Fast and Furious movies, and instead got a slow movie with mediocre action sequences.

The acting isn't nearly as bad as most are saying. It's not Fishburne's finest moment but it's not like it stained his reputation or ability, just look at his fine work in Mystic River. The writers made an effort to have three-dimensional characters. For example, After Dog's dirty racing forces Kid to drop his bike at the track, he lends him his own bike to take on Smoke. Granted, it's for his own reasons, but it's not like he's the evil villain parody going "mu-ah-ha-ha" off in the corner. I have to agree with another user that said it portrays black Americans in a positive way. They're not all stereotypes, they have their own personalities. Smoke is confident, but level headed. Soul Train seems the stereotype, but we see a totally different side of him when we find he's a lawyer.

So, it's not a good movie, but it makes an effort to be one, which counts for something. For all it's lack of realism, it gets points for not having the absurd stunts that Torque did, like flipping a huge street bike (with a helicopter jet engine, mind you) mid air, and riding on top and through the passenger sections of moving trains. Biker Boyz isn't good by any means, but it's not quite that bad.

This isn't the sort of movie I see too often, but I actually did enjoy it.

I saw David Duchovny on Letterman Thursday night, then on Conan on Friday night, and since I try to follow his career (big X-Files fan), I decided to go see it. I also think Nia Vardalos is pretty cool, and finding out she was Canadian was all the motivation, coupled with being a Duchovny fan, I needed to go see the movie.

Apparently it's somewhat of a remake of an old Jack Lemmon/Marylin Monroe film, Some Like it Hot, and while I've heard of it, I've never seen it. Why some are crying "rip-off," I have no idea. So it's a bit of a remake? What's the big deal? Everyone flocks to the other remakes, now it's suddenly a negative thing?

It hasn't been a big hit with the critics, and many fan reactions I read online haven't been exactly beaming either. I think it might be because it's a Musical/Comedy/Romance, and people aren't sure what to do with it. The only performance that occasionally bugged me was Toni Collette as Carla. She's just a little too over the top at times, even in the atmosphere that the movie creates.

I liked the subplot about Duchovny's character reuniting with his estranged brother, who is a drag queen. It gave a little depth to the movie, but it's not too heavy either.

Maybe I'm just getting soft, I don't know. It was just nice to sit down and relax to a good-hearted movie. I get bored with these R-rated movies that masquerade as PG-13 movies. Maybe you've noticed this too, the comedies that cram as much skin, swearing, and toilet humor into a PG-13 rating as they can, just barely staying on this side of the R-rated line. While those don't do too well critically either, most doofus movie goers enjoy them.

Many are saying that Connie and Carla is same-old-same-old, but because it isn't like most of those other comedies, I don't think it is. I don't think anyone could watch the movie and be offended (unless they've got issues with the underlying theme of accepting yourself and others for who they are), which is rather admirable, I think.

So, in the end, all I'm saying is that I enjoyed it! Take it or leave it!

James Dean: Race With Destiny (a.k.a James Dean: Live Fast, Die Young) is a terrible movie that disgraces a screen legend. The production values are painfully low, and coupled with the shoddy acting, the resulting feel is that you're watching a soap opera. And a bad one, at that.

Why anyone though Casper Van Dien could play James Dean evades me. He was fine in "Sleepy Hollow," and other films, but this is clearly not a role for him. To make matters worse, his performance is terrible. The film portrays Dean as a rude buffoon. Although I have seen "Rebel Without A Cause," I don't know much about Dean himself, but I've often heard he was actually quite shy. If this is in fact the case, the film severely misrepresents him.

The script is also poor, complete with ridiculous stereotypes such as Pier Angeli's mother saying "bonjourno," and "gratzi" every 25 seconds, as though the viewer needs to be reassured that she's Italian. There are also visual blunders. In the opening sequence, Dean is in the middle of a race, and happens to be sporting a modern racing helmet, instead of a 1950s one. Things like that might have been excusable if the overall production was better, but it isn't.

Instead of suffering through this terrible affair, check out "James Dean," starring James Franco. That film is great in its own right, but it's downright genius compared to this waste of time.

Kathryn Bigelow's The Weight of Water is a moody picture that employs the talents of Sean Penn to keep the viewer interested. The film's biggest failure come in Bigelow's incessant use of flashbacks. The flashbacks tell the story of a murder that took place more than a hundred years ago. While the past does have relevance to the present, the frequent flashing between the two time periods becomes tedious and annoying. The real tension is taking place in the present, and flashbacks feel like speedbumps in the development of the real story.

Perhaps if the flashbacks had been handled better, it would have worked. The viewer always realizes what's going on before the characters do, therefore it becomes boring to wait through the flashback scenes so we can get back to Penn and company in the present. As such, no matter how many thematic connections can be drawn between the two different stories, the juxtaposition fails, because the tension of the first story has not been duplicated in the flashbacks.

Even so, Sean Penn is engaging to watch, and Liz Hurley is well cast as a flirty seductress. I found The Weight of Water to be very different from Bigelow's other work that I've seen, Strange Days and K*19:The Widowmaker. Fans of Penn or Hurley will no doubt be entertained enough, but all others need not apply.

Crocodile Dundee In Los Angeles will probably be enjoyable for those of us that are old enough to remember when Crocodile Dundee was every bit as cool as any other 80's movie hero. In fact, I'd say that Paul Hogan has retained his on screen charm much better than his other 80's counterparts. The critics can say what they want- Croc Dundee in L.A. is a thoroughly enjoyable bit of nostalgia.

It's refreshing to see a good hearted movie sometimes, and that's just what this one is. It also takes a few pokes at certain aspects of Hollywood, and I even caught a thinly veiled crack at well known producer Joel Silver. The plot is fairly simple, but if you're perfectly honest with yourself, you know that's a fact that applies to nearly every movie. If you're a fan of Crocodile Dundee, check it out. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Sure, maybe we've seen it before, but a couple hours spent with Mick Dundee is time well spent in my opinion.

Red Planet is a good movie carried by Val Kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss. Robbie Gallagher is the most developed character in the movie and Kilmer plays him wonderfully as a quirky, likable guy. Moss' Commader Bowman and Stamp's Chantilas are the other interesting characters. Unfortunately, Chantilas is the first to die. Being a likeable character, a later death would have been more effective on the audience. The remaining crew members are all flawed or have annoying character traits, so we don't regret seeing them go at all.

The story itself suffers from the fact that they've tried to make it too dramatic. In the opening of the movie we learn that Earth is polluted and dying, resulting in our need to colonize Mars. If I recall correctly the movie is set in the 2020's. That's far to near the present time to be credible. There's no way that we're going to pollute the planet to that point in 20 years.

Once on Mars the team has trouble with their recon drone, AIMEE. When the drone reverts to military mode and starts killing the team, it's a little like every Alien rip off we've seen, but she does get rid of several of those annoying crew members, so it's all good in the end.

Whatever short comings Red Planet may have, it's an enjoyable Science Fiction movie that tries to keep grounded in reality. The technology presented in the film doesn't seem that different from what we have today, which helps our suspension of disbelief, which is having difficulty believing that Earth is dying 20 years from now. Val Kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss make a good duo, and the film may have benefitted from giving the two more screen time together. If you're a fan of Science Fiction, Kilmer or Moss, check out the movie.

Johnny Mnemonic could have been a wonderful movie, had William Gibson not strayed so far from his original story when writing the screenplay. Having painter Robert Longo direct the movie, the first and to this date only full length feature he has directed, was probably not the best idea either. While Longo may present the occasional intriguing image, his inexperience shows in other areas. The acting is terrible for the most part, with Henry Rollins taking the cake for worst performance. Reeves, contrary to popular opinion, is alright and has a few great scenes, most notably his angry breakdown on the pile of garbage under the bridge.

Having read Johnny Mnemonic several times the character of Jane is one of the most annoying factors of the movie. In the story the character is Molly Millions, a confident, tough as nails mercenary who sports several augmentations, most important being retractable blades under her fingernails. However, they had to change the character since Molly Millions is also a main character in Gibson's book Neuromancer, and another company owed the film production rights for that book, including the character of Molly. But they could have made Jane more like Molly. Instead, she's as insecure as Johnny, and he spends more time protecting her than she does him, which is supposed to be her job.

There are other little inaccuracies in the movie, such as the Magnetic Dog Sisters. In the story they are the door guards at the club and Johnny claims that they are "bad news in a tussle." In the movie they are Ralfi's bodyguards and portrayed as pathetic and outdated rather than dangerous. The story doesn't have anything about NAS, that's all a fabrication to fill space for the movie.

Gibson seems to try to shoehorn several of his concepts into the Johnny Mnemonic movie. Instead of living in the rafters high above the streets, as they do in the story, the Lo Teks live on an old bridge. Gibson has people living on the Golden Gate Bridge in his books Virtual Light and All Tomorrow's Parties. The bartender Hooky, at the club where Johnny meets Ralfi, is an approximation of Ratz, a bartender from the book Neuromancer. Johnny never accesses the matrix (the internet) in the story, but he does in the movie, for no apparent reason other than allowing director Longo to show off some CGI special effects.

Longo also chooses to mimic Blade Runner in the opening scenes, and later on one character tells another that it's "time to die", a famous line from BR. I thought this was unnecessary, and cheapens the movie, as blatantly ripping of Blade Runner, whether it's for the purpose of homage or not, is the signature of several B-Movies, which is sadly what Johnny Mnemonic ends up being anyway.

I still like the movie. It does have some good elements to it, and if you're a fan of Gibson, you should see it. It's better than Abel Ferrera's terrible adaptation of New Rose Hotel, because it at least portrays Gibsons technological world. I hope that Johnny Mnemonic is remade one day because it is a great story. I'd ask Reeves to play Johnny again, because I like him in the role. Gibson's writing is so descriptive, that a screenplay should follow the story as literally as possible. Ideally, I think that Johnny Mnemonic would work out as a short film, something no longer than an hour. It is a short story after all, and adding filler to extend the time certainly didn't work the first time.

I don't like fantasy movies and I don't like Dungeons and Dragons. In fact I've always held a vague annoyance with the D&D playing type. I felt that they propagated the stereotypical and negative geek-in-their-parents-basement image that seems to be assigned to anyone with an interest with comic books, even if they never touched a D&D card in their life. That said, I'm well aware that not every D&D player falls into the stereotype the collective has earned. So what possible reason would I have to check the Dungeons and Dragons movie?

One reason: Zoe McLellan. She's been a guest star on two of my favorite television shows-Star Trek: Voyager and The Invisible Man-and I wanted to see what other work she had done. After watching the movie I think I can safely say, bias or not, that Zoe gives the best performance of anyone in the film. Why was the movie hardly wonderful? The answer may lie in the fact that it was director Courtney Solomon's first film. The documentary on the making of the film featured on the DVD was very informative. Solomon basically says that he skiped film school and just went out and tried to make a movie. As someone who has an interest in film I respect and admire anyone who goes out and makes it happen for themselves, but it's not worth much if you shoot yourself in the foot on your first outing. Perhaps film school would not have been such a waste of time after all...

The film opens with a brief voice over which explains where we are and what's going on. Director Soloman calls this the "Star Wars approach" and feels that it was the best way to go. Let me tell you, the man wasn't kidding about taking a "Star Wars approach". When I first saw Ridley, Justin Whalin's character, I thought Han Solo. His get up looked suspiciously like that of a certain rebel smuggler. Ok, I though, maybe just a coincidence. After all, Marlon Wayans doesn't really fit the Chewbacca profile. But my suspicions quickly returned when Ridley began to interact with Zoe McLellan's Marina. Bickering reminiscent of that between Han and Leia. Or an attempt at it, at least.

Continuing with the Harrison Ford theme, Ridley finds himself at one point navigating a maze which is not much more than a combination of some famous obstacles once faced by a certain Indiana Jones. Specifically, the maze involves these scenarios: The first section has swinging axes that fall from the ceiling when you break a beam of light; Indy met a similar trap in the cave at the beginning of Raiders. Secondly is a room with tiles. Step on the wrong ones, and the walls emit huge plumes of fire. Indy nearly bit the dust in The Last Crusade when he forgot how to spell "Jehovah" and stepped on the wrong tile. After this, Ridley faces a room where spikes come down from above, threatening to impale him. Sound familiar? Yep, Indy and his pal Short Round were saved from a pointy death by Willie in Temple of Doom. When he successfully navigates these perils, Ridley enters the room that contains his prize sitting on a pedestal, just like the gold head statue at the beginning of Raiders.

Oh, but there's more. At one point in the maze a spike nearly impales Ridley. His reaction? A slant of the head and a lop-sided grin: pure Harrison Ford. Ridley later retrieves another artifact that is protected by an ages old being not unlike the saint guarding the Holy Grain in The Last Crusade.

If you're wondering how this happened, Solomon gives us the answer. The maze was designed by George Gibbs, who was the mechanical effects supervisor on Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. It would appear that Mr. Gibbs was feeling nostalgic.

The performances by the heros are not great by any means, but they do have their moments. I thought Marlon Wayans spent a lot of time sounding like Chris Tucker's character from The Fifth Element, all that high pitched screaming and squawking. The villains however were downright pathetic. Jeremy Irons portrays the worst evil wizard. He's like something out of an episode of the Power Rangers. Bruce Payne gets a demotion from main villain in Highlander: Endgame to the second in command lackey in Dungeons and Dragons. He was ok in Highlander, but his performance here is terrible. And he wears blue lipstick. Why? Who knows. Maybe he likes it.

Dungeons and Dragons never had a chance from the word go. A virgin director, too much so-so CGI (I'm of the opinion that if you can't afford it, don't try to use it at all), and a weak script that attempted to combine Star Wars and Indiana Jones with Dungeons and Dragons mixed in. After all, that's what the movie was supposed to be about. Whether I like fantasy or not, and my personal opinion about D&D gamers aside, this movie had much more potential, but it falls flat on its face, largely I suspect, because of the director.

Above all Cutthroat Island is a fun high-seas adventure. And I think that's what director Renny Harlin wanted it to be. Being very athletic Geena Davis is wonderful as a female pirate because she fits the part. It's much more convincing than having some Hollywood queen who is completely foreign to a little dirt, grime and action.

The fact that there isn't a wealth of recent pirate movies sits Cutthroat Island near the top of the heap, but I don't think it's unjustified. It really is a fun movie, and that's what a pirate movie should be. How can you have a completely serious pirate movie? It wouldn't be any fun. You have to have a guy with a wooden leg, some kind of pet-be it a parrot or a monkey, and guys that say "aye" and "arg".

The ship to ship cannon fight is amazing. The simple reminder that seaborne warfare was like that once is amazing enough. Just pull up and start blowing the trash out of each other at close range. A far cry from today, where we just fire missiles at targets dozens of miles away. Flintlock pistols and sword fights are always cool, and Cutthroat Island has its fair share of them.

I enjoyed Matthew Modine's character, but I admit at times his lines seemed an uncomfortable fit, as though they were shoehorned in. The rest of the supporting cast is effective, and Frank Langella as Morgan's despicable uncle is the typical bad pirate, but enjoyable none the less.

Pirates of the Carribean is coming out a few months from the time I am writing this, and it will be interesting to see if and how the two movies are compared. If you haven't seen Cutthroat Island, rent it and sit back and enjoy the action. As I've mentioned several times, it's a movie meant to be fun, and I believe it is.

As a fan of Tim Burton's Batman movies I naturally hold Joel Shumacher responsible for the current state of the franchise. However, I do feel that the blame falls more on Batman and Robin than on Batman Forever.

From the very start of Forever, we know that it's not going to be a Burton like outing for Bats. "Can I persuade you to take a lunch" asks Albert to Bats, as he prepares to go out for the night. "No thanks. I'll get drive thru" replies Bats.

The reason I can't bring myself to dislike Forever is the actors. Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, and Jim Carrey are guys that I love watching, and I still follow their careers by seeing their movies. The obvious question now arises: Why did a gang of such accomplished actors give us such sub par performances. The answer is equally obvious: Joel Shumacher.

The studio wanted a lighter Batman movie after Burton's dark Batman Returns, which I feel is the best film in the series. Therefore, Shumacher set out to make Forever as a hybrid of the campy 60's tv series and Burton's dark vision. I think he accomplishes it to some degree, but I can't help but think what could have been if it was Burton who had taken on the characters, specifically Two-Face. Face is a classic Batman villain in that he's a direct mirror Batman/Bruce Wayne. Unfortunately most of the significance of this is lost because of Shumacher's direction.

I enjoy Val Kilmer therefore I like him as Batman, but he would have been a much more worthy successor to Keaton had the direction of the movie been different. I can't stress this point enough: the actors are not at fault here. Other things I enjoy about the movie are Batman's vehicles. The Batmobile is beautiful and rivals the one from the first two movies as my favorite. The Batwing, while not exactly aerodynamically sound, is still a great visual, as is the Batboat.

Here is the inevitable "but". While I tolerate Shumacher in this, the first of his Batman ventures, there are things I won't forgive him for. Forever is the movie that gave us the nipple endowed Batsuit. Ridiculous. Burton made a wise move in Batman Returns in making the Batsuit more body armor-like and less of a muscle suit. Schumacher not only reverts to the muscle suit, but gives Bats and Robin nipples. Maybe Bats is attempting a new strategy: If the criminals are doubled over in laughter before I get to them, I don't have to beat them up. Other than the nipples, Bats and sidekick to have nice suits. The radar-modified suit at the end of the movie is also cool, but Shumacher unfortunately goes overboard with the custom costumes in the next film, Batman and Robin.

I don't have any major complaint about fights or stunts in the movie, save the outrageous scene where the Batmobile is driven up the side of a building. Flat out absurd. It's no wonder the scene changes so we never find out what Bats does when he gets to the top. Gotham City itself is tolerable, but nothing of the wonder that it is in Burton's movies. The attempt is made to meld Bo Welch's socialist-influenced design from Batman Returns with a typical movie futuristic city, but it's not very effective. Just the same, one of Forever's saving graces is that Gotham is not yet the absurd caricature that Shumacher and crew create in Batman and Robin.

A Batman movie seems equally empty without Danny Elfman but Elliot Goldenthal's score is wonderful, and in it's peak moments nothing short of spectacular. His themes really become part of the movie for me-I can't imagine watching the movie without the soundtrack to accompany it. At it's best moments the word I think describes the score best is "triumphant". An excellent word to be associated with Batman.

At one point in the movie the caped crusaders find themselves on an island of steel, at which point Robin remarks "Holy, rusted metal Batman!" Confused, Batman responds "What?" Of course, this exchange is a clear nod to the 60's tv show, but the fact that Batman has no idea what he is talking about carries a second message: this ain't your daddy's Batman. No, it's not. But it's not our brother's either. It's an amalgamation of both of them. The fact that Tim Burton was involved as a producer probably kept the movie from spiraling into the rubbish that Batman and Robin became. Batman Forever is nothing like the first two, which were dark, psychological and menacing. All that aside it is still entertaining.

I wasn't sure what to expect from Cradle 2 the Grave. A week before it came out I hit the official web page and was excited to learn that Mark Dacascos (The Crow: Stairway to Heaven, Brotherhood of the Wolf) and Kelly Hu (The Scorpion King, X-Men 2) were in the movie. The real reason I was waiting for the movie was of course Jet Li.

Over all, I have to say that the movie left me unimpressed. DMX gives a terrible performance. It's not consistently bad, but when he breaks out into highly emotional scenes he stinks.

Tom Arnold is also in this movie, and is funny in his Tom Arnold way. He's basically the comedic relief, exploiting his fish-out-of-water position (he's a middle age white guy who's main associates throughout the movie are young African-Americans) for laughs. And love or hate the guy, he will make you laugh. He's good in supporting roles, just think of him in True Lies. Similar effect here.

Bad dialogue and acting can be forgiven, but two things are unpardonable: Not giving Jet Li enough to do, and the misuse of Mark Dacascos and Kelly Hu. Apparently they forgot that Jet Li is an international star, and while DMX is known for his music he can't act to save his life. The primary focus of the story should have been on Jet Li's character, not DMX's. Simple common sense--use your star. The star of this movie ain't DMX, it's Jet Li.

Those who have seen Mark Dacascos in Brotherhood of the Wolf know that he can kick some serious tail. All that is wasted since his fight with Jet Li is a pathetically wasted effort, and his only fight in the movie. Kelly Hu, an emerging star soon to be seen in X-Men 2, should have been given more screen time. Sure, she has a fight, but one can't help but feel that she also was misused.

Kung-Fu and Hip-Hop are a bad mix. Producer Joel Silver can't seem to get that through his head, and I doubt he will anytime soon since Cradle 2 the Grave took the number one spot at the box office on it's opening weekend. The fact of the matter is Jet Li carries this mediocre effort all the way. That's a lot of weight for one man to carry, but he does it. Hopefully he'll get back to starring in movies that exhibit his abilities, not stick him in the passenger seat of a stinker driven up by a recording artist.

Black Mask 2: City of Masks is a sequel of the most unfortunate kind. It radically changes the concept of the original for the worse, ruining all the good things that the first movie created. The Black Mask in this movie isn't the Michael/Simon character that Jet Li portrayed in the first movie. Rather, Andy On plays Kang Fung. As in the original, Black Mask is a genetically enhanced super soldier who has abandoned his creator to become a protector of the people.

The creator in question is in fact a giant brain in a fish tank, or at least that's what he looks like. Where Black Mask used science fiction to a limited extent to explain and establish it's characters, Black Mask 2 abuses sci-fi to absurd ends. The plot involves Black Mask fighting corrupt scientists and promoters who have genetically altered wrestlers using animal DNA. The wrestlers then morph into some approximation of a human/animal hybrid. This means that Black Mask main opponents in the movie are a snake-man, a spider-man, a chamaeleon woman and a freaking wearwolf. I'm not kidding.

An exception to the morphing is the chamaeleon woman, who merely goes semi-invisible instead of sporting the physical looks of a chamaeleon. Apparently the film makers wanted to show off the human characteristics of the actress-none other than former porn starlet Traci Lords.

The film fails, plain and simple, because of Americans. There's essentially no Kung-Fu in this movie because all the opponents are American and don't know martial arts. At least if any of them do, it certainly isn't exhibited in this movie. Adding to the brain dead wrestling element of the movie are real wrestlers Rob Van Dam and Tyler Mane (who broke into the movie scene as Sabertooth in X-Men). Needless to say the acting from everyone is terrible, with the exception of Andy On and Teresa Herrera, who are fine.

The movie does take a few jabs at the absurdity of the wrestling phenomenon, but it's not enough to redeem the fact that they employed such a ridiculous plot in the first place. One entertaining visual gag is Jon Polito as Mr. King. Polito has a passing resemblance to real life wrestling icon Mean Gene Oakerland.

There's too many things wrong with Black Mask 2. The list could go on forever. The worst are the cheap CGI effects, lousy acting, lack of any real martial arts action and the fact that most of the lose ends remain totally unresolved at the end. No attempt is made to explain what happens to the characters who remain. It's an unfortunate sequel that could have been amazing, but suffers from the influence of second rate American movie makers. Wrestling? Half human, half animal bad guys? Terrible Special effects? This one looks more like an episode of Power Rangers than a Hong Kong action movie.

I first saw Black Mask when it was released on video in the U.S., after it's run in the theaters. At the time I was not very impressed. This probably had to do with the fact that I had seen very few, if any, Hong Kong movies prior to this. However, after recently viewing it for a second time my opinion has changed and I would now say that it is an excellent movie.

Black Mask is an action movie with a vengeance. I was surprised that I didn't remember how brutally violent it was. There is enough blood spewing, bullet wound gushing and severed parts in this film to fill up a few movies. Characters are shot, struck, exploded, impaled and burned just to name a few of the killing methods employed in the movie. This is not to say that the film is an incessant barrage of violence; there are also quiet character driven moments. I believe that these moments are particularly successful because they are a stark contrast to the furious action sequences.

These contrasts exist also in the main character, Simon. As Simon he is pacific but as the Black Mask he is aggressive. As the movie progresses, so does his personal journey to find balance between his two sides. I believe this journey is a theme that runs through the movie consistently, at times in a more subtle way, which lends to my opinion that the movie is a well made and strives to develop characters more than the standard action movie. This is apparent in the character of Rock, who comes to question his convictions and methods. In the end, his beliefs would seem to be confirmed rather than denied, but the character has made the journey to this discovery, and that is an important factor in giving the film depth.

The Black Mask character has more than a passing resemblance to Bruce Lee's character Kato from "The Green Hornet." I don't know if the Hong Kong version of the film gives a nod to this, but the english dub finds female characters commenting on his "retro" Kato look. I don't know anything about the development of the film in Hong Kong, but I think it's a safe assumption that the character is inspired by Kato. It's something I'll be looking in to. Speaking of the dub, I actually find that it is excellent. It's not rushed or over the top as many dubs are. The characters speak at normal rates are appropriately low key when they need to be. Naturally, this lends greatly to the end product of the english version of the film.

Black Mask is an excellent action movie that features great fight scenes with the amazing Jet Li. The supporting cast is also excellent. The lead villain walks the fine line between "credible bad guy" and "B-Movie megalomaniac" with marvelous results. He's just a little too weird to be real, but he's not over the top at all. All things considered, it's a great movie and I'd encourage you to check it out!

Directed by John Glen, best known for his work on the James Bond series, Iron Eagle III is a decent enough aviation-action-B-Movie. Louis Gossett Jr.'s Chappy is back in action, this time flying vintage World War Two aircraft instead of modern jet fighters. It's a good change of scenery, even if the German Me-109 and Japanese Zero are actually American aircraft in disguise: a P-51 B stands in for the Me-109, and a whitewashed Texan shemps it as a Zero.

The plot is all to familiar: A heroic group goes rogue to take on the drug cartel. Except this time the cartel happens to be under the command of an Ex-Nazi. John Glen is a competent action director and makes the most out of what was no doubt a budget considerably smaller than the typical 007 film. The acting is mixed, and we receive different levels of performance from the different actors. Gossett probably tuns in the best performance of the group.

Fans of aviation movies will no doubt find at least some elements of the movie pleasing. It does feature some beautiful aircraft, most notably the British Spitfire and American P-38 Lightning. An authentic Me-109 and Zero would have greatly added to the film, but at least the Spitfire and Lightning are the real deal. At one point the WWII planes take on some lower end jet fighters, and some humor and nostalgia ensue. As one pilot in the movie likes saying "technology is no match for seasoning." It's a fun concept to see the propeller driven dogfighters-which by the end of WWII were approaching their twilight, as electronic warfare began to develop- taking on that which made them obsolete, and defeating them.

Apart from Gossett, there are a few recognizable actors in the film. Sonny Chiba plays the pilot of the Zero. Mitch Ryan of "Dharma and Greg" fame plays General Simms. Tom Bower as DEA agent Crawford is also recognizable, as you've probably seen him in bit roles in other movies.

Second to Chappy, the most featured character in the movie is Rachel McLish's Anna. Her greatest asset is her physical presence on the screen. Her most remarkable scene is her first, when she escapes from her chains, muscles popping out everywhere. Her dialogue isn't the best to work with, and her delivery is adequate, nothing more. But that's not to say I didn't enjoy watching her. After all, this is an action movie, not a drama. The video cover box makes her out as Rambo with an X chromosome, but her character is more vulnerable than that, which I suppose is a good thing since it adds realism.

All things considered, Aces: Iron Eagle III is an enjoyable B-grade action movie. The producers were wise to change the scene for this movie, as Iron Eagle I and II featured F-16's. Iron Eagle III isn't perfect, but at least it's not a complete rehashing of the first two movies-a commendable effort.

The Living Daylights is my favourite Bond Movie. The elements that are often considered weaknesses in the film are the exact reasons why I like it. Following the over-the-top camp of the Moore years, Dalton steps into 007's shoes and brings an entirely different Bond to the screen. He's far from humourless as is often said, it's just not an obvious humour like that of Moore. The next largest complaint is that Bond's womanising is limited to one subject in the movie-two if you count the woman in the pre-credits bit. This is often attributed to the fact that The Living Daylights is a product of what we might call the `AIDS Awareness Era.' Contrary to popular opinion, I feel that his uncharacteristic monogamy lends greatly to the movie. It goes well with Dalton's serious, no nonsense portrayal of the super spy. The film also features the return of the Aston Martin, this time in the form of the gorgeous Vantage Volante v8. The villain isn't the strongest of all the 007 films, but must Bond fight a super villain in every film? Of course not, and it adds a little realism to the series after the many `way out there' Moore years. The Living Daylights is a wonderful Bond movie. It is unique and features an excellent portrayal of James Bond by Timothy Dalton. Many say that Dalton's Bond is truer to Flemming's character than any other of the on-screen portrayals. Watch it. It's well worth your time.

If you're a hard-line computer geek, you're probably not going to like hackers. You'll say it's unrealisitic, cheesy and doesn't give the hacker culture the respect it deserves. Or something like that. Now, if you're not one of those that needs absolute realism, love cyberpunk/computer movies and can enjoy a light-hearted approach to things, then Hackers is a must see. It's also one of Angelina Jolie's first movies, so if you're a fan of hers be sure to check it out. The soundtrack is also a great aspect of the film. Watch it, love it.

In 2000, with Hercules and Xena winding down, two new shows were created in an attempt to fill the void. One was the Bruce Campbell vehicle, Jack of all Trades, the other was Cleopatra 2525. The shows didn't attract the viewers that their predecessors had, and were cancelled after the first and second seasons, respectively.

I had never paid much attention to syndicated television shows. To me they had always been dumb, late night entertainment, something to watch when there's nothing to do, but you're not tired enough to go to bed yet. Then one day, while flipping through one dull show after another, I landed on Cleopatra 2525. I was hooked.

But why? I was above this mindless entertainment, wasn't I? What led me enjoy a series by the same people who spawned Hercules and Xena? First of all, to be honest, the fact that the show revolved around women in form-fitting suits didn't hurt initially. Secondly, the show was basically Science Fiction, a genre I love, as opposed to Fantasy, which I'm less receptive to. In addition, I found that the very reasons I had avoided such shows might have been one of their greatest qualities. The fact that they're not taken seriously allows them to slip many things in ‘under-the-radar', and most don't pick up on it because the figure it's just brain dead entertainment.

However, I didn't find it at brain dead all. There were, here and there, some wonderful and surprisingly original Sci-Fi elements and even, believe it or not, some good stories. Many of Cleo's writers have impressive resumes, and have worked shows such as ‘Buffy', ‘The Outer Limits', ‘The Pretender' and ‘Enterprise'. Remarkably well assembled for a syndicated show, I believe it had underlying themes and allusions that many failed to recognise. This is largely because they, as I had in the past, looked at these shows only superficially, not bothering to entertain the possibility that there was more going on.

The basic premise of the show is very interesting. Consider the fact that all three of the leading characters are women. Their unseen guide ‘voice' is, in fact, that of a female. Mauser, the one male in our group of heroes, seldom leaves the base of operations, and attends to many of the ‘housekeeping' duties, such as repairing equipment, etc. Another interesting note on Mauser is that he was formerly a Betrayer, a being who aids in the enslavement of the humans. Hel's personal arch-nemesis, Creegan, is also a male. There are some intriguing implications made here, and one can draw their own conclusions upon watching the show. Needless to say, the show examines gender roles and stereotypes.

All this serves as an example of the elements of the show that slip by, unnoticed by those who fail to examine the show beyond its surface. Cleo. 25 is very much a typical syndicated show superficially. Women in form fitting clothing, incessant comedic relief, and action strung along on a shoestring budget. Deceptively, under this lies some interesting concepts and enjoyable characters. The show does have it's fans, and you can running into them online is always a pleasure. Perhaps, by some strange twist of fate, we'll encounter Cleopatra 2525 again one day.

Simone, the tale of a down-and-out director (Pacino) who creates a synthetic actress, is a marvelous film. It's unfortunate that it slipped though the cracks of the late summer movie market, and failed to do well at the box office. The film is an examination of Hollywood, movie stars and the media. It fearlessly blasts the often stupid and excessive nature of the American film industry.

Al Pacino gives an excellent performance, and is supported by equally great work from Cathrine Keener, Evan Rachel Wood and Winona Ryder. Simone is certainly Oscar material, but don't expect to see any nominations, as the film also comments, briefly, on the absurdity of the annual ‘Oscar Buzz'.

A shining film about filmmaking, Simone will, in time, hopefully attain the recognition it deserves.

After the huge success of ‘Batman'-it was, untill ‘Jurrassic Park', THE definative blockbuster-WB couldn't wait for a sequel, but Tim Burton had other ideas. After ‘Edward Scissorhands' (distributed by Fox), Burton returned to Warner Bros. to direct the dark knight's second outing on the big screen. The fact that ‘Edward Scissorhands' did well told the studio that people would embrace a `Burton Movie', thus they gave him much more creative control than he had on 'Batman'.

The result, I feel, is the best of all the Batman movies. At the time of release, many people felt differently. Parents said it was too dark, and the studio was unhappy that it failed to duplicate the astronomical financial success of its predecessor.

The film does feel dark, but that's how Batman should feel-fans and critics now realize that after Joel Shumacher tried to lighten up the series with ‘Batman Forever' and ‘Batman and Robin'. Another complaint was that the film was too sexual for children. It's an odd claim, as Burton films are notorious for sidestepping sex. Sure, Catwoman has a ‘kinky' outfit, but is a child really going to pick up on that? To mirror Catwoman to the female characters of Shumacher's lighter Batman films, she is much more appropriate. For example, the scene in ‘Batman Forever' where Chase Miridian is naked in bed is much more visually provocative than Catwoman. Similarly, Poison Ivy in ‘Batman and Robin' struts her cleavage quite prominently, while Catwoman is completely covered.

‘Batman Returns' is a sequel to ‘Batman', but Burton creates an entirely different movie. It's his movie, and Batman has never been stronger. Even now, when polls are taken to determine which actor was the best Batman, Michael Keaton always wins-rightfully so. His portrayal of the Dark Knight is right on, has yet to be equaled, and never will be surpassed.

Much more well organized than 'Batman', featuring excellent characters, awesome sets and costumes, 'Batman Returns' represents the high point in the series so far. Hopefully, with the current popularity of superhero movies, Batman will crawl out of the dark and reign supreme once more.

After its release in 1997, 'Alien Resurrection' has become the victim of harsh criticism. The harshest comments often come from fans of the series-the same people one would expect to seek out the positive elements in the film.

Much of the blame has fallen-unjustly-on the shoulders of Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet. However, I must agree with those who fault Joss Whedon, who wrote the movie. While his style of writing might lend itself well to his 'Buffy' franchise, it is somewhat a misfit in our Alien environment.

As for those who voiced annoyance with the acting, specifically Winona Ryder's Annalee Call, all I can say is 'sorry'. Personally I enjoyed her character the most. Sigourney Weaver returns as Ripley. The fact that this incarnation of Ripley isn't Ellen Ripley at all is where a lot of the criticism stems from. I agree, this is not the Ripley of Aliens past, but I can appreciate the light hearted comments of one fan- `Well, at least she's got hair this time.' Bringing back Ripley as a human/alien clone was simply a big risk that didn't pay off. The supporting characters, like the movie, are enjoyed by some and hated by others. I enjoy them, although I'll be the first to admit they're a far cry from the supporting characters of Aliens, the tough, callous and humorous Colonial Marines.

Another large complaint was centred around the fact that the Aliens were over exposed, and this diminished their frightening aspect. I don't believe that the Alien has been scary since the first movie. In 'Aliens' the beasts receive much exposure, many of them being little more than fodder for the Marines. 'Alien 3' presents us with a lone monster, as the first, but by this time we're familiar with the Xenomorph anyway. Are we not all familiar with the alien? Its form has ascended into the sci-fi lexicon, a god among movie monsters. To claim that Jeunet has taken away from the horror of the creature by exposing it is absurd: There is nothing left to expose. Furthermore, the films attempt to create a new horrible creature-the alien/human hybrid -left most fans largely unimpressed. This tells us that they have come to the film with unrealistic demands: to be horrified by a creature that was terrible decades ago, but has been made harmless by years of mainstream exposure in the form of video games, action figures, novels, comics books and parodies.

'Alien' is a classic of suspense. 'Aliens' is Cameron at his best: loud, flashy, unforgettable. 'Alien 3' is a respectable effort to keep the series firmly grounded in reality-after all, the sequel to 'Aliens' could have easily attempted to be louder, faster and flashier, resulting in a battle of absurd proportions between Human and Alien. This is a fact overlooked by most fans, although, over time, David Fincher's vision is being accepted on a wider scale. Where to go from here? Fox decided Joss Whedon could write the story, after all, he was he was the man behind the success of televisions 'Buffy'. Working from this script is Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who crafts a film as visually pleasing as the others in the series. This, I feel, can not be denied. While I am forced to agree with certain grievances that many fans have, I hardly feel that the film deserves the reaction it has received. Fans should be pleased that every film in the series has been a theatrical release, and has not degenerated into the direct-to video market, as many sci-fi franchises do.

What does the future hold for the Aliens series? Time will tell. Whatever happens, I feel that it must include Ripley, however that need not mean Siggy Weaver. Personally, I think Hillary Swank would make an excellent Ellen Ripley. Hopefully the series will solidify it's reign at the top of sci-fi horror, and continue to make us scream into the vacuum of space with terror and delight.

New Rose Hotel is based on the short story of the same name by William Gibson. While the film is supposed to be set in the tech infested world of Gibson's stories it fails to convey this feeling, with only a few pieces of technology presented visually. More importantly, however, the film is terribly written and directed. It seems obvious that Gibson's story should have been followed in a more literal manner, as the story finds the narrator (Dafoe's character) reminiscing in his coffin in the New Rose Hotel, talking to Sandii as though she can hear him. Instead, we are subjected to the story twice, the second time around in the form of flashbacks. I imagine the flashbacks are supposed to clarify the disorganized mess that Ferrara weaves in the first half of the film. Perhaps the film appeals to the art crowd, but don't let them fool you. It's a terrible movie, putting to waste the incredible talents of Walken and Dafoe. Gibson's writing is densely descriptive and gritty. Ferrara attempts for the grit, but Gibson's worlds can't be created without a budget [and a competent director would help]. For example: Kill Switch, an episode of The X-Files that Gibson wrote, was the most expensive episode ever filmed during the time the show was filmed in Vancouver. And it's one of the best episodes in the show's history. Why? Because it constructed the visual aspect necessary to tell the story. The fact that New Rose Hotel fails to do this, coupled with Ferrara's horrendous storytelling, is what makes it an unworthy effort. If you're a fan of Gibson, then watch the film, but I doubt you'll enjoy it.

Jason X is the first Friday the 13th movie I've seen, so long time fans of the series will have to excuse my possible ignorance. The critics, for the most part, are having a grand time taking apart Jason X. I agree that the characters were underdeveloped and the story is predictable, etc, etc, but what did you expect? Nobody in their right mind goes into a slasher expecting great social commentary or Oscar winning performances. This is Friday the 13th, not Schindler's List, people.

The humor is overused, although I did roar laughing at Jason's solution to a certain problem involving sleeping bags- You'll know what I'm talking about once you see it. The major complaint I have is the women's costumes, or lack there of. They just aren't realistic for students and scientists. In addition, it seemed that Jason had landed on the Love Boat in space-- the students seemed to be just a little sex-crazed.

Kane Hodder is great as the silent Jason, and Lexa Doig does a good job in her role as well. The remainder of the cast isn't remarkable, but I guess they were working from a script. As another user commented, the script does go downhill a little, degrading into one-liners and hiding behind a lot of empty humor.

Will Jason X be enough to kick the series into some sort of resurrection? [Speaking of resurrections, be on the lookout for Halloween: Resurrection - I'm willing to bet critics will be equally unkind. Then again, critics are an inconsistent lot] Perhaps it will be. I've heard that Jason X's budget was in the area of 14 million, a rather conservative figure. As such, it won't be too difficult for the movie to turn a profit, unless it bombs miserably, which I doubt. That is to say, I'm certain that the movie will make over 14 million once it's been released world wide. How much it makes will determine the future of the franchise, and who knows...maybe fans will get the Jason V.S. Freddy movie they've been wishing for so long....but don't expect critics to be kind to that effort either.

I never saw The Mummy Returns last summer, but I did enjoy the first film as it resurrected a classic in an entertaining way. Scorpion King finds ‘The Rock' playing lead and WWF head Vince McMahon as one of the Executive Producers, and we are handed a movie with all the intellect and charm of McMahon's typical product.

Following are some of my main complaints with the movie. The dialog is far to modern for events that are supposed to take place sometime in the B.C. ages. Obviously we need to be able to understand it, but the characters speak as though the setting were the 21st century. I wasn't surprised at all to find that nearly every five minutes anywhere from 1 to 15 half naked women appeared on the screen, as any one familiar with the WWF's techniques knows that they sell sex like no other. Remember Rob Schneider's character in Judge Dredd? That's right, this movie has an annoying just-along-for-the-ride sidekick as well, who offers his apparently humorous commentary as the movie progresses, I imagine for ‘comic relief.'

The Scorpion King is a movie made solely for the purpose of bringing in loads of cash, and I'm certain that it will. After all, it's got millions of wrestling fans who will undoubtably adore it, and it will pull in fans of the Mummy films, who, by all rights, should be appalled. My friends and I noticed that the movie bore certain similarities to another movie: Kull the Conqueror. Both are about barbaric warrior types who ascend to rulership, and both involve a sorcerous. As for me, I'll take Kull. Comparing the two, KtC would have to rank higher than Scorp King in my book, as it accomplishes it's task with a much smaller budget, and Kull had neither an annoying sidekick or the need for the appearance of buxom women every few minutes to retain the viewers attention, and at least it attempted to take itself seriously, something Scorpion King can't do, as demonstrated by their contentious attempts at humor. As the film's promotional tag line said: Kull reigns. Kull rules. Kull rocks. Scorpion King merely falls to the side as an over-fed cash cow.