Reviews

I'm not a big anime fan, and I only put this on my watchlist because YouTube randomly recommended me a video list of gritty/gory anime featuring mechs, and this was on it. So it seemed like it was worth checking out.

The first two or three episodes were really good, and set the tone of how dreadful the world is within this anime series, but the entire middle section of the series has way too many filler episodes. Even then, I could have tolerated that had the continuity of the series been much better.

In some episodes vehicles and mechs were heavily damaged, but in the next episode (or even later in the same episode) the vehicles and mechs were restored. Later in the series they were better about the continuity, but early on there were a ton of issues like this, which made it hard to get immersed in the series, since moments that should have and could have had more impact were lessened due to immersion-breaking incongruities.

A good example is that characters seem to have infinite amounts of ammo just until the story doesn't need them to have infinite amounts of ammo. Mechs are highly capable just until they're not, and they become cannon fodder for the bugs.

I didn't have any problems with the over-arching story and what the series was trying to get across (even though it was wrong in its assessment of what's happening on the planet). But the continuity didn't improve until the second half of the series.

I think from episode 14 or 15 onward things really ramped up and improved greatly. Also there's a much stronger focus on the consistency of the characters, battle damage, and the war effort. So it made it feel much more grounded in its depiction of the world and battles.

Characters regularly repairing their mechs, and the damage they encounter makes more sense later in the series, which, again, makes the story flow and action scenes mean a lot more.

For this reason it's a difficult series to judge. A lot of the filler episodes are insufferable and mostly pointless, and some episodes seem to be filled with the two leads constantly just yelling out each other's names (especially on the space station).

But the back-half of the series really picks it up and is quite impressive. You can tell a large portion of the budget was put into the first half of the final episode with the big battle scene, which was really well done. And again, there was consistency with the way the battle played out. It's just a shame that there were so many wasteful episodes getting to that point, as well as a lot of ridiculous plot contrivances for certain characters as well. I think if the first half flowed better and they weren't so quick to kill off certain characters within the first handful of episodes, it could have been a much better series.

Still, the premise is awesome. The first two episodes are intense, and the back-half of the series really improves the flow and storytelling pacing. It's just a shame that there is a lot of filler getting to that point.

I used to have this on VHS and always remembered the parts where Payday offed the first cop and the Nasty Boys were getting equipped for their raids, but I could never really recall much else about the movie or the series, since it was well over 30 years ago.

Finally returned to this hidden gem and it's much better than I originally thought. These weren't vigilante cops dispensing of justice Rambo-style; there's even a brief quip in the movie about them not being Rambo.

The title and box art might lead you to believe this is a run-and-gun style, off-the-wall, guns-a-blazin' cop caper, but it's actually not that at all. These guys sort-of do things by the books, and keep their bodycount extremely low, but mostly work outside the traditional boundaries of usual police enforcement.

The premise is that if things go wrong, their head of department gets the blame and they get disbanded, but if things go right, the politicians get all the credit. This is acted surprisingly well, especially by Boy Meets World's William Russ, who plays a no-nonsense Lt., heading up the Nasty Boys.

Despite some of the typical trappings of a late 80s early 90s aesthetic, Nasty Boys holds up surprisingly well. Each of the leads are confident and striking enough to be leads in their own shows, and each manage to capture the audience with their own unique sense of leading-man charisma, not unlike 21 Jump Street.

There isn't much in the way of shootouts or fist fights, but we do get treated to a bit more action meat and potatoes during the third act. As a TV movie it's definitely way above board from what you would typically expect on a channel like CBS, and it's obviously way more violent and gritty than what would be allowed on television today. I think with a slightly bigger budget and a few more gripping action scenes and this could have been a much bigger cult classic. But even still, for what it was and compared to what's available today, this is a pretty cool piece of entertainment well worth watching for those tired of today's trite and ESG-inspired fanfare.

This is one of those films where it's a slow burn without actually burning at any point. It simmers all the way to the end with zero pay off other than what pay-off you attribute to whatever meaning you glean from the scene before the credits roll.

The acting from the three major leads is top notch, especially the perpetually elusive Steven Yuen, who turns in a devilishly charismatic performance, but a performance that doesn't go anywhere near where it could have given the length and subject matter.

This is one of those films where you sit at the edge of your seat constantly waiting for something -- anything -- to happen, but unfortunately, nothing ever really does. You're left to make do with whatever you can piece together on your own. It's well done for what it is -- the cinematography is absolutely on point, and there is an eeriness to the atmosphere, but it doesn't really provide the viewers with any substantial payoff, and a very half-hearted resolution (if that).

As a mystery film there is definitely a lot of intrigue and lots to figure out, but it doesn't actually provide you any answers to whatever questions you may have.

As a thriller there are no actual thrills.

As a drama there is no immediate conflict nor any resolution to the rather non-existent conflict.

The problem is that this is more of an experimental character portrait than a traditional film. And for people who are enamoured with character portraits, they will absolutely love this, even if the portrait of the character -- played by Yoo Ah-in -- being depicted is aloof and rather uninteresting.

Again, it's a well constructed film as far as visual tone, character consistency, and cinematography is concerned, but it's a poorly constructed film as far as editing, thematic tone, and plot pacing are concerned.

If you're thinking this is like Memories of Murder or The Man from Nowhere, where they string you along and get you involved from start to finish with an unraveling plot, or slow-burn thrillers with amazing payoff like The Wailing, you will be sorely disappointed. If you're into Terence Malick films or Andrew Dominik films -- where it's more about character studies that are slow and atmospheric -- then you might like this film. But if you're looking for something a bit more substantial and with a little more meat on the bones, you would probably be better off with movies like Midnight Runners, Oldboy, No Mercy, The Yellow Sea, A Hard Day, or The Chaser if you want something gritty, grounded, but also mysterious and thrilling.

Still a 7 out of 10, because it's an original, unique, and awesome story about love and loss. Rio2096: A Story of Love & Fury is one of my most favorite films of all time, it's seductively intriguing and has such a great story.

The problem here is that The Immortal Warrior (released in 2020), states that this is an English-language sequel to Rio 2096, but actually it's not a sequel at all, it's literally just an English dubbing of the film that released in 2013.

The English dubbing isn't terrible or anything, but it certainly lacks the charm of the original film's language. There are always nuances and linguistical minutiae that seems lost when a film is re-dubbed, and in certain scenes throughout the three stories this is certainly present.

The thing is -- and the most important part about all of this -- is that....

THIS IS NOT A SEQUEL

If you were expecting a continuation of the events that happen in the last story, you're sorely mistaken.

This doesn't make the film bad, but basically it's just a redub of a great film with nothing new.

If you haven't already seen Rio 2096: A Story of Love and Fury, and you aren't fond of subtitles, then I suppose The Immortal Warrior makes sense to watch. But otherwise, it would probably be better to stick with the original 2013 film.

Just remember, this is not a sequel, it's the exact same film just in English.

If The Red Spectacles was a David Lynch film meets a George Orwell flick, then Stray Dog: Kerberos Panzer Cop is a Terrance Malick meets Beat Takeshi film.

While this might sound like some kind of glowing praise for both films, I have to say that the description and cover art for both films are terribly misleading. The "sci-fi" tag is more of a fleeting descriptor than anything, as there is little to no science fiction elements involved, save for the over-arching theme involving the Kerberos squad, whom only have the briefest of appearances at the very beginning of the film.

Someone compared this to Takeshi's Sonatine, and I think that's a very fair comparison. Only, it's far less somber, a lot more goofy in parts, and -- perhaps, to an extent -- less thoughtful.

Ultimately, the first half is like a road trip, and majority of the second half is a slice of life vacation film. There are some great shots, and excellent use of guerrilla filmmaking as much of the scenarios throughout the film are the complete opposite of the claustrophobic and highly contained surrealist set pieces used in The Red Spectacles.

Here, we get lots of wide open shots of the city, and fantastic, bustling moments throughout dense urban environments.

In many ways, Stray Dog is more of a film about a dedicated segment in the portrait of a life, rather than anything grand.

And again, this may sound really existential and artfully encompassing, but the problem is that despite this having a much shorter runtime than The Red Spectacles, it feels so much longer, mostly because at least The Red Spectacles attempts to keep moving, even while the main character keeps getting waylaid. His setbacks and frustrations are just part of his motivation to reach some kind of resolution.

Here, once the road trip aspects of the film conclude the film completely meanders, and not just meanders, but it becomes quite pointless. We have five minute segments of the characters just eating -- nothing significant really happens during this time. And there are a ton of aimless scenes that -- had they been cut -- would not have changed the overall plot of the film at all.

This is one of the biggest problems with the film. It meanders way too much. However, if you like Terrance Malick films for that exact reason, then I can easily see you taking a liking to this film.

The only reason I gave this a 5 out of 10, however, is because the ending sequence is absolutely awesome. It's one of the best filmed action scenes put to celluloid. I just wish we had a proper movie themed around that concept but in the way that Oshii envisioned it here in Stray Dog.

Yes, we get more of the action-oriented elements in Jin-Roh and the South Korean remake; and yes, Jin-Roh definitely captures more of the horror-elements that were briefly on display during Stray Dog's big third-act finale, but even Jin-Roh found itself being more akin to Ghost in the Shell with its existential framing rather than really indulging in the horror concepts that this property constantly puts forward through its imagery and themes.

It's a real shame, because even the masters of horror couldn't seem to really dig into the trenches of this franchise and bring out the scary prospect of an authoritarian, nearly indestructible police force used to suppress and squash. We only always get hints and glimpses of the dystopian horror that the Kerberos represent, but never the full-on thing. It's always undermined in some way.

In this case, we have a movie that spends its entire time setting up a plot point to coincide with its prequel-sequel (The Red Spectacles), while the rest of the film lingers along aimlessly for the most part. Very little dialogue is present, and what dialogue is present is mostly either difficult to parse for context unless you've already seen The Red Spectacles, or it leaves a bit confused about the character motivations until the next act.

That's probably the biggest difference between Oshii's films and Malick and Takeshi's films; the latter two at least know how to maintain consistency and interest, even while Malick is the master of meandering. Though his films can be boring, at least there is conviction in the performances he captures, and a sense of seriousness in how he approaches the subject matter.

Takeshi is one of my favorites because even in the somber and slow moments, his films are still highly thought provoking, well acted, and expertly paced. He manages to capture stillness without making it boring, and that's a real feat of an excellent auteur; something Oshii aimed for but didn't quite hit with The Red Spectacles nor Kerberos.

Unless you're just absolutely fascinated with the expanded lore of the Kerberos saga, the only two films really worth watching are the original Jin-Roh from 1999 and the live-action South Korean remake. I think Jin-Roh will stick with you more because it's a lot more brutal and unwavering, but the South Korean remake has its own stylistic charms.

As for Kerberos? I really wish it was a more focused film, and that the tone and depiction of the "Stray Dog" at the end was made more apparent and focused throughout the rest of the film. Some day hopefully there is a proper political-thriller framed within the lens of a horror film based on the Jin-Roh concept, because I still think it could work really well that way. But until then, we'll still have these films that give us some hope for a more expanded cinematic universe based on the property.

It's hard not to compare the original The Crazies from George A. Romero with Breck Eisner's 2010 remake. Both films share the same name, and similar plot structure, but the original is a far more ambitious, large-scale, and actually frightening experience.

You would never guess that this 1973 iteration of the film was a low-budget outing, but that's because it came from a time before all of the red tape and unionization that eventually halted a lot of the way films were made. So you end up with something small scale that feels absolutely mammoth. This is all thanks to Romero taking advantage of showcasing the event unfolding from multiple perspectives both on the ground level and all the way up to the executive level. It completely changes the feel of the film and gives you more a complete picture of just how dire everything is.

The newer film is more focused and scaled only to the experience of the "hero" characters -- and as things fall apart for them, it utilizes the typical horror-movie structure of dwindling the survivors down as the movie progresses. You could say the same about the original, but how it's done is far more effective because it's a completely unpredictable film -- and I mean that in a really good way.

Romero managed to capture and edit a film that feels more like the unfolding of a biological hazard that causes destabilization in more of a docu-thriller rather than just a straight-through action film or horror film.

Oftentimes the camera work feels like we're peeping into the lens of captured footage in a real-life event rather than just watching a movie unfold, and this is what adds to the gravitas and seriousness of the matter.

And while there could have been room for improvement with the acting, one thing worth noting that I thought Romero did an excellent job of doing was blurring the lines between panic and destabilization. With humans it's sometimes hard to tell which is which, and that's what makes the original film so effective. As the situation becomes more and more chaotic, some characters break down, but you question -- is it the effects of the bug or is the person just losing their wits due to stress/fear?

For some characters it's a little more obvious than others, but the movie does a fine job of threading the needle so you're never entirely sure until it makes it sure. This gives the film a highly unpredictable flavor you don't usually see in films like this, and it also makes for a gripping story.

Clank was easily my favorite character, he was one of the most self-aware and it made it easy to root for him, regardless of what happening. He was oftentimes more right than wrong, and as you watched the film you were always hoping for the best.

I suppose in many ways that's the biggest difference between the original and the remake: the remake had set characters on a linear path where you were pretty sure on who was going to live and who was going to die even before the halfway point. With the original, all bets were off right from the start and the twists and turns as things unfolded could be both unsettling and distressing.

I'm curious how the average moviegoer sitting in the theater back in the day absorbed this film? It's definitely not the sort of film where you get up and leave a dark, crowded room, and think to yourself "Boy jolly, what a fun movie!"

Now this is my kind of film! I love movies where you have villains taking on evil in some form or fashion or another, such as Versus, No One Lives, Freddy vs Jason, Dog Eat Dog, I Saw The Devil, The Gangster The Cop & The Devil or other such similar films.

Usually we have movies where there's a good guy vs bad guy, and those films are cool and all, but sometimes you want to see a really evil dude take on an equally evil person just to see what happens, and this film does just that.

I'm not going to spoil anything because it's well worth watching for the action and gore alone, but this film also takes a bunch of twists and turns, too. Usually films like this have a very basic premise and stick to it, but at just over 2 hours there are twists that open up to keep things fresh, keep you guessing, and all while keeping the action tight.

I had a ton of fun watching this film, and all of the practical gore effects were thoroughly appreciated. So many films rely on horrible looking CGI blood effects that it was really great to see squib work and buckets of fake blood here; it was all really well done.

Funnily enough, despite being ultra-violent and very gory, it's not like SAW films or Hostel. The action/violence makes sense and it's not about reveling in someone being tortured to death like in those other films.

If you enjoyed films like The Raid series, or Drug War, or the HKIII style films from the 1980s and early 1990s, but with a dash of sci-fi horror, then you'll definitely appreciate Project Wolf Hunting.

Exactly as the heading says. This movie had some cool set pieces for the telekinetic action sequences, with some pretty spiffy gore effects, but this low-budget sequel affair to one of the best sci-fi horror films of all time just doesn't live up to David Cronenberg's original.

For the most part, the first third of this film is excellent, but right after the quicky-mart scene everything slows down to a crawl... and it kind of stays there for a while. You can see the over-arching "twist" that isn't really a twist coming a mile away. And the entire middle section of the film just kind o drags as you're waiting for the movie to pick up again.

The finale does deliver, but certainly no where near as impactful as the original showdown in the first Scanners. It's still pretty cool for what limited budget the production crew had to work with.

I think the main issue was pacing and story beats. The film dragged trying to get to the good parts and seemed to languish doing so.

Most iconic action-horror/sci-fi films have cool action pieces in the beginning, a good hook in the middle, and then a memorable showdown. You had the attempted Predator capture in the first Predator; you had the penthouse massacre in Predator II; you had the base defense sequence in Aliens; you had those awesome fight montages in Bloodsport; you had mall fight and chase scene in Commando; the prisoner escape in Rambo II; the children rescue and carnival ninja fight in Dolph Lundgren's Punisher; etc., etc., etc.

Basically, most good action/sci-fi films keep the pace moving with a good middle-section action beat. Something memorable and engrossing. Here? That doesn't really happen. So between the awesome first act and the showdown at the end, there's hardly anything memorable or noteworthy that happens that keeps you as engaged. Heck, even in the first Scanners there was that awesome raid on the scanner hideout to keep the action movie during the middle of the film, leading up to the big finale.

All that being said, there were still some cool Scanner sequences here, and if you really enjoyed the first film, it's not like there's no entertainment value here. You can still enjoy what the film has to offer, even if it is somewhat limited and doesn't quite measure up to the brutal original. I think also, better cinematography, lighting, and mood could have helped a lot, especially given how the main Scanner villain was chewing up the scenes and could have used more moody set pieces to help accentuate his performance.

The Neverending Story is an interesting film. When I first saw it when I was younger, the sphinx statues and the wolf were frightening images -- the knight scene in particular. When you're young the film has this whimsical, very foreboding air about it that permeates the entire runtime. It's more like fantasy-horror in many ways.

What's interesting is that as an adult the film has a completely different tone to it, and its message is very different as well.

Instead of the imagery being distracting, the story stands out more, and the theme of the story -- as told in the film -- is about how people, as they grow older, lose hope, embrace despair, and eventually give in to the nothingness.

G'mork gives a short speech about this phenomena that not only ties the whole film together, but also resonates differently when you look at how that concept applies in real life.

It kind of gets the brain train running when you think about that overarching concept: an agent of chaos feeding hopeless people full of despair to the nothingness.

It's kind of a grim and depressing reality when you look at the way a lot of aspects of society are mirroring G'mork's intentions.

But that's all beyond the fact that the film is perfect for what it is. I recently rewatched the German version with Klaus Doldinger's soundtrack, and it's definitely far more grim and somber than the U. S., cut with Giorgio Moroder's score.

In any case, it's well worth a watch for the fantasy set pieces, the unique story, and the cool costumes and effects for the time. It reminds me a lot of the Dark Crystal and other such similar films. So if you're into dark fantasy films, this is well worth the watch.

This gets a reluctant 6 out of 10 that borders very close on a 7 out of 10.

So why the reluctance? Because this is a film that deserved better editing to service the award-winning performances put on by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis. My goodness, they really were a tour de force here.

The problem is that the spastic and surrealistic editing made it impossible to really sink into the film; it always felt like it was trying to throw a thousand things at you all at once while trying to unfold these very complex and disturbed characters.

In some ways, I kind of get it -- the story itself is way too ridiculous to be told through traditional story linearity; it's not that kind of film. But at the same time, the over-abundance of quick-cuts, flashing lights, and over-the-top camera angles and performances by everybody else in the film just made it... weird.

Apart from Woody and Lewis putting on appropriately show-stealing, endearing, crazy, and hypnotic performances, Tom Sizemore does a fine job of pushing right up to the edge of zany but still manages to reel it in and scale it back so you get this kind of, sleazy, scumbag cop character who you could almost... almost see being real. He reminded me a lot of a character out of Sin City -- particularly Benecio Del Toro's character.

But therein lies the problem with this film -- Woody and Juliette turn in very realistic portrayals of these disturbed killers. You could see them being real; they aren't too far removed from the couple in Kalifornia. But there's -- and maybe this is the wrong word for it -- a sense of groundedness to their characters. I believed they were real in a surreal world crafted by Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino.

The over-the-top cartoon caricatures portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones -- who I usually adore in just about every role he's in -- and Robert Downey Jr. -- who I also usually adore in just about every role he's in -- really took me out of the film. It was just... it was too much.

I don't know if the actors decided to push it over the line or if Oliver Stone told them to push it over the line, but it was just too much. I think someone like Rob Lowe may have been a better choice for Robert Downey Jr's role. I don't think Lowe would have been quite as over-the-top, because once again, it took me out of the film with the zaniness of it all.

In some ways, the film played out more like a comedy than a crime-drama. And it was all because of the zaniness and wacky editing.

I kind of would have liked to have seen this film done better justice with more naturalized performances and less over-the-top editing and skit pieces.

In some ways I now -- upon reflection -- understand all the crazy press this film received when it first released. I originally thought it was because it was like Silence of the Lambs, or The Onion Field, or Lumet's Q&A -- something so grounded and realistic that it made people recoil. But that wasn't the case at all. This film had a lot of brutal but over-the-top violence, which made it difficult to take seriously, and the set-pieces and surrealism really dampened the more controversial subject matter that the movie inferred through flashbacks and quick-cuts.

Interestingly enough, if this film had been released today it would hardly garner a peep from most people because it likely would have ended up on a streaming service and then become quickly forgotten. Back when movies were either in theaters or went straight to video, there was a lot to talk about with this film, but not all of it in a good way, and mostly in good part to the fact that not all of it is entertaining.

I will say, though, that it didn't feel like a two-hour film. It's a gripping film, no doubt. The third act kind of whizzes by due to a lot going on, even if the whole thing becomes so ridiculous it borders on parody. I just have a hard time completely disliking this film because Woody and Juliette were star-stealers in this one, but man... I wish the editing, the script, the storyboarding, and the rest of the cast were working on the same wavelength as the two leads.

They really don't make 'em like they used to.

A. P. E. X., is a masculine, no-frills, mostly-thrills, sci-fi action film. Tons of explosions, lots of shoot-outs, and some pretty cool characters. It doesn't over-stay its welcome, and even despite having some slow parts, always manages to stay interesting.

I remember always going into the video store and seeing this film's box and thinking about how cool it looked; it was usually next to or on the shelf with movies like The Eliminators, The Vindicator, RoboCop, Terminator, Robot Jox and Gunhead.

I remember always looking at the back of the box and thinking that Mitchell Cox looked like a dead ringer for Duke Nukem (and I do wonder if 3D Realms took inspiration from Mitchell Cox' Shepherd for Duke's design in Duke Nukem 3D? Because Duke sure did look very different in Duke Nukem 2 compared to Duke Nukem 3D; but I digress).

Anyway, the highlight of the film is the ragtag group of soldiers led by the truly kick-butt Shepherd, played by Mitchell Cox. The guy basically embodied masculine bad@$$ to a T. And while Shepherd wasn't the main character, he really did steal the show with his look and no-nonsense personality. It's just a reminder of how far removed today's movies are from the classics of yesteryear.

There's some decent'ish quips and one-liners from the squad that made me chuckle out loud, specially from Taylor, who had some great comebacks that just wouldn't fly in today's very flaky media environment.

In any case, you could tell the production crew did a LOT with a very little budget. The cinematographer did his best to imitate Terminator 1, and the costume designer tried making the equipment look futuristic and cool but also functional, which I think they mostly succeeded in doing.

I had fun watching this film, and even though the dialogue was stilted in many places, and it had some slow parts where it desperately tried to establish character development, the brisk pacing and action scenes were well shot, and Mitchell Cox really did look like he could have been a big action star in some cool low-budget B-movies.

This is certainly a better film than The Eliminators (which I finally got around to watching recently, having confused it with A. P. E. X.). Eliminators just didn't know what it wanted to be, and didn't make the best use of its low budget. But A. P. E. X., is a satisfying enough film, and it's a great piece of companion media alongside the dystopian cyberpunk film Gunhed. Well worth a watch if you're into schlocky action films with masculine heroes doing hero stuff.

This film had several different names whenever it came on television, and usually when I would watch it, it was titled RoboMan or something to such effect. I always loved the movie but whenever I would go looking for it, I could never find it because it wasn't actually called RoboMan (Not in the U. S., anyway).

I went on a deep search for the film one day looking for sci-fi movies by year and finally found it, and wondered if it was as good as I remembered it from all those years ago. And...

It was actually better than what I remembered. This film has awesome special effects, some gnarly gore and some cool action sequences. Also, unlike a lot of other low-budget fanfare from that era this film actually manages a very crisp pace so there's never a dull moment. It's superbly edited to manage a brisk runtime, all while still being able to tell an interesting story with some memorable action scenes accompanied by competent special effects.

I used to love this movie from way back when, and I was glad that it held up and I wasn't just remembering it through rose tinted glasses. It's well worth a watch if you're into films like a knockoff of RoboCop meets Toxic Avenger with a dash of Terminator.

If you asked someone to break down to you what makes this film brilliant outside of the acting, they would have to struggle to find an answer. Sure, the cinematography could be considered brilliant, and the one slow motion shooting sequence could be considered brilliant, but it takes a lot more than that to make the overall film brilliant, and that's the problem with hyperbole surrounding this film. There's a bit too much of said hyperbole and not enough substance in the film itself to back it up.

With a rather modest runtime, one would think this movie would move along at a hastened pace, yet it does not.

The setup for the film and first third could be considered brilliant, but what should have been a steadily escalating crime thriller is more like a slow boil drama.

If you're expecting escalation or some sort of payoff, you won't get it here. The movie maintains its tonal pace practically from start to finish. Constructed almost like a dramatic monotone depiction of low-level gang life in a barely there city.

As mentioned, the setup and the gist of the film seems cool, but as it trudges along majority of the film is composed of long winded dialogues that go absolutely nowhere or have nothing to do with anything.

Whereas films like The Yellow Sea continually escalated into a thrill-ride, or films like Before The Devil Knows Your Dead at least maintained enough moving parts to keep you interested to see how things would turn out, Killing Them Softly just kind of chugs along, does its thing, and then ends.

In some ways it reminds me of a more coherent version of the 2007 film Weapons, but in ways it feels far less engaging. Maybe because in Weapons we know how it ends and then discover -- throughout the film -- how it starts.

But here, there's little to discover, almost no one to root for, and nothing to consider when the film ends.

What really makes it bad is that it's not an action film, so don't hold your breath for any cool action sequences. It's not particularly dramatic, so don't hold your breath for anything truly character driven (though Ben Mendelson really steals the show here as a try-hard, barely efficient heroin addict). And it's not really philosophical, so it's not like you're left pondering anything by the time the credits roll. In fact, you may walk away from this film going "That's it?!"

If you want a intense thriller or a dramatic crime-drama try something like 2014's A Hard Day, or 2017's Midnight Runners. Blue Ruin is still probably closer in tone to Killing Them Softly, but a far superior film, along with 2019's Uncut Gems, 2018's extremely well crafted Calibre, or one of the most underrated crime-dramas out there, 2017's Bad Day For The Cut. Unlike Killing Them Softly, you won't be disappointed or left feeling empty after watching any of the other aforementioned titles, or at the very least you will be thoroughly entertained (especially with Calibre and Bad Day For The Cut).

Even still, Killing Them Softly is filmed well, and the actors do a fine enough job. I just wish there was more to the film instead of the very long-winded monologues that didn't quite follow through with the payoff(s) as expected (or possibly intended?).

Tom Burlinson kind of went a bit beyond the quality of this film's script and budget to turn in a fairly kick butt performance for the character of Ballard. He seemed like he came out of a much higher quality film, in fact, the character felt like he was plucked right out of the first Terminator film.

Burlinson was definitely in the moment during the first battle sequence where they attempted to secure the city's pillar. I also like that he maintained a fairly hard edge throughout.

It's funny how he completely reproached Fisher's character early on and never really backed down or entirely eased up. A character like that can't exist in today's cinema, else he be classified as "toxic".

But it's just a stark reminder that the quality of media today is so awful that I had to give this film a 5 out of 10 only because it was more entertaining than a lot of the schlock released today.

To the film's credit, some of the scenes are structured pretty cool. In the night time lighting and with the right camera angles, the enemies actually sometimes look imposing, but they never get the proper screen time to be as menacing as they should be.

A few things that could have seriously helped this film is a re-edit and some serious tightening up of the entire middle section.

Having the evil cyborgs attack the town during the middle of the film in a horror-esque sequence would have gone a long ways to make the film a lot more enjoyable.

Also, a proper, dark-synth soundtrack would have added tons to the movie's atmosphere as opposed to the cheap made-for-TV soundtrack it was saddled with. It was like the film was its own biggest enemy when so much could have been done with what they already had.

Even still, Carrie Fisher and Nikki Coghill are both extremely easy-on-the-eyes, and despite not having much material to work with, they both do what they can with the material. I'm kind of shocked that Fisher didn't entirely sleep walk through her performance, but she came awfully close.

If you want a decent 80s sci-fi action flick, this certainly isn't the best of them, but Burlinson is a legit action hero in this film, and carries it on his shoulders somewhat proudly. It's not the worst way to spend an hour and half on a weekend or so.

The Awakener (or The Night Watcher) is an interesting film. It reminds me a bit of the 1990s comic book films, where they attempt to squeeze two movies' worth of storytelling into an hour and a half film. This isn't a knock against the film, though, because it has a lot of characters, content, and interesting socio-political commentary to dispense within its runtime, and do so while still maintaining an emotional baseline for people to follow.

This is one-part The Punisher, one-part John Doe: The Vigilante, and one part Elite Squad. It manages to combine some interesting themes without really venturing too far away from either of its predecessors.

Unlike John Doe, though, the film has a more emotional hook, as Kiko Pissolato does a fantastic job portraying an emotionally distraught Miguel. He's really the anchor of the film, as he manages to convey a very hurt and fractured father who is also resolute in his mission. It's a tough role to nail down -- being both filled with rageful vengeance but also an understanding, understated, emotional vulnerability that fuels that rage. Not many actors can pull that off with saying as few words as Kiko was given to flesh out Miguel; it was all about stature, body language, and physical expression. And Kiko nailed it 100%.

Also, this guy looked like a super hero, which hearkens back to the old days of the 1980s, where you could just look at an actor on-screen and tell he was larger than life. Kiko manages to embody that for Miguel, which really helps sell the physical prowess and capabilities of the character.

However, there are some downsides, mostly -- and obviously -- due to budget constraints. You can tell that the film wasn't given a lot of room to maneuver when it came to shootouts, and there's not a lot of squibbing going on. The action beats are also fairly minimal, and the fight scenes are just passable enough. In this regard, its peers -- John Wick, Extremo, or Extraction -- all do the action beats better.

Then again, unlike its peers The Awakener has a bit more meat to its bones when it comes to characterization and plot. This isn't just a straightforward action film, and it has to latch the action onto a story-driven vehicle rather than the story being centered around the action.

I almost want to give it a 6 out of 10 for good effort, acting, and a brisk pace -- knocking off points for the lack of memorable action scenes, and the budget limiting the film when it came to chase sequences, fights, or even shootouts. However, the movie's message and themes reminded me a lot of Elite Squad, but instead of it being nihilistic it's more optimistic, feeding people some hope that if just one person attempts to curtail the corruption, maybe a difference can be made. And in a world filled with nihilism and hopelessness, I suppose I'm in a forgiving mood and tacking on one extra star because of that.

I used to watch this film ALL the time after it came out. It was such an anxiety-ridden experience because the lead protagonist, Jerry, is such an average, straight-laced, middling but studious student. He's not quite the pocket-protector geek/nerd, but he's certainly not a jock.

It's easy to root for Jerry because he's, well, average.

It makes it all the more striking when poor Jerry runs afoul of the new kid at school, Buddy. The guy has a reputation that precedes him, and the guy very well could have walked right out of a typical bad-action movie from the 1980s, yet... he's in high-school.

Jerry inadvertently finds himself in a predicament where he's faced with fighting Buddy at Three O'Clock, hence the eponymous title.

Jerry then spends the remainder of the film doing what most people in his position (and with his stature) would do: try to duck and dodge out of the fight by any means possible.

The film is hilariously tedious in all the best ways. It mostly all takes place on the school grounds but never feels closed in or closed off, and that's all thanks to the cinematography and set designs looking like an actual school, with plenty of extras filling out every hallway and classroom. So the movie has this larger than life appeal to it, but never feels fantastical, cheap, barren, or lifeless like a lot of other movies today.

The reason for the 10/10 score is because this film is frenetic and yet perfectly paced. The 90 minutes run through very quickly, and it never feels like it overstays its welcome. It's superbly edited so that it moves along with never a dull moment, but at the same time it never rushes anything; quiet moments have room to breathe; comedy bits leave room for laughter. And the final fight scene -- while obviously not choreographed to give Jean-Claude or Steven Seagal a run for their money -- is perfectly structured to encapsulate the persona of both Buddy and Jerry in ways that doesn't undermine either.

Films like this are a rarity, where you can return to them and not really find fault with them. It's a perfectly entertaining film, and it's not trying to win an Oscar, or set the world ablaze with some kind of over-the-top special effect or filming technique. You can tell the filmmakers wanted to make something endearing, funny, and a bit over-the-top while still making it enjoyable.

The constant ticking of the clock will probably remind a lot of people of 24: The Series, only there are no shootouts or political espionage afoot. The various classes and machinations that Jerry and his friends get up to also create more problems each step of the way, and in turn creates more anxiety and headaches for Jerry.

In the end, the film basically makes it clear that sometimes addressing problems head-on are a heck of a lot easier and less stress-inducing than trying to complicate things by trying to strategically avoid them. And in the end, the film manages to get this message across in a comically intense 90 minutes that's quite the thrill-ride even by today's standards.

There are few films where you don't just want to see the villain get arrested, jailed, or killed, you literally want to see him get the crap beat out of him. You want a lesson taught to him, and for him to get the exact kind of abuse he dished out throughout the film, and the entirety of The Roundup makes you feel like you're eventually going to get that payoff.

The Outlaws definitely swelled toward a similar confrontation between Ma Dong-Seok and the main villain, but the main villain in The Outlaws was more of an anti-villain, mostly preying on other villains. Here, Kang, played with perfect villainy by Son Seok-koo, is a criminal of a completely different breed.

Kang has no qualms about hurting anyone; has no conscience and practically no fear. He's also a real physical specimen and willing to dish out as much as he can take. This makes him an extremely formidable foe for Ma Dong-Seok's "beast cop", and it also gives the film a serious motivating factor with an unrelenting force in Kang.

But the film really shines with its unpredictable nature. You won't be able to easily pinpoint what will happen next or why. This film is loosely inspired by real-life events that occurred during the time period in which the film is set, but it's actually fleshed out much more than the real life story, and has a more streamlined viewing experience. The real story very well could have been a horror film with the way things turned out, but thankfully Lee Sang-yong ensured that the film maintained a steady pace, plenty of humor, and just enough grit to keep it all grounded.

It's a fantastic film, not overly long like some other pictures out there, and the fight scenes are both hard-hitting and very realistic. I also feel it's a bit less gory than The Outlaws, but maybe that's all subjective.

In any case, this is an extremely satisfying action crime-comedy, and it's a couple of hours well spent for anyone who wants to watch something entertaining that isn't insulting. Plus, you will absolutely be rooting the entire time for Ma Dong-Seok to dish out the punishment to a villain who you will easily believe absolutely deserves everything that comes his way.

There are a lot of reviews here defending this film, calling it the "Second best Predator film!" in the franchise, and throwing around a lot of buzzwords for anyone who doesn't like the film. There are also an incalculable amount of individuals defending the main character, Naru, saying she relied on her wits and tactics to win fights, and that's what makes her believable. That's only partially true.

See, Naru literally has the strength of three men (if you watch the film you'll know what I mean). Can survive physical traumas no other character in the Predator franchise was able to survive, and can move as fast as a small sedan. She does use some tactics, but most of all her feats are of the physical variety, and literally in the realm of being a super human the likes of which would make Captain America jealous.

Without spoiling anything, it's simply that Naru survives things she shouldn't survive, and can do things multiple times outside her weight class to the point where the suspension of disbelief is not only shattered but grounded into dust and scattered among the four corners of the wind. For everyone who defends Naru as a character, just ask them some simple questions: how did she recover so quickly? How did she manage to out-power men? And why was she able to survive things nothing else in the film could survive?

The responses will be a smattering of equivocation and justifications that don't hold up under scrutiny, and that's where this film's biggest problem comes in: it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Another big problem is that no one seems to be properly afraid of the Predator, even during an era where superstitions were mightily high. Naru shows no fear of anything, even in many life-threatening situations, which seems completely opposite of someone her age. I'm sure someone will justify why, but I would instead point out that this just pulls you out of the film as being nonsensical and unrealistic. Why does this teenage girl have a deathwish and fears nothing? Constantly trying to engage in situations where things are purposely trying to kill her?

A good counterbalance to Naru is the daughter from Shawn Linden's film Hunter Hunter. I didn't like the second half of that film but the first half was brilliant. Why? Because it was grounded, realistic, and intriguing. Also, it was completely believable that the daughter was that good a hunter; we saw how she trained with her father, in a realistic manner. We saw that even with all her training since a small child, she was still prone to mistakes, and how the fight/flight/freeze mechanism came into play when her wits and abilities were put to the test. That's how you pull the audience in and keep them rooting for the character; when they're grounded in realism.

The problem here is that Prey is rife with anachronisms from the modern era. How Naru behaves, how she talks back to everyone, and even how she's depicted in never being afraid of anything (although, to that end, almost no one in the film seems to properly show a realistic kind of fear given their circumstances).

The anachronisms combined with the super-human abilities just takes away from the film, and that's a real shame because if this film was grounded in realism, it actually WOULD be the second best Predator film. Why? Because it's filmed quite well; Trachtenberg knows his way around a lens, and he makes Canada actually look like a pristine northern forest from 18th century North America. Lots of fantastic wide-angle shots and great color composition help give the film a nice, authentic look. Sound design is absolutely on-point, and the score isn't over-done or too nostalgic.

Unfortunately, the film is plagued by too many problems. They should have committed to having the Comanche speaking Comanche throughout the film (as this would have brought the film to another level of quality and authenticity, much like Mel Gibson's Apocalyptico), they should not have had modern-day behaviors that seem mirrored after social media expectations of characterizations, and they should have given Naru realistic feats appropriate for her age, height, and weight, as that would have done wonders.

For me, I was willing to give this film a shot, but the more I watched, and the more I thought about it after watching, the lower the score became. It's essentially a good film marred by its own undoing. A lead character who is depicted as always being right (even the film manages to retroactively throw that in as it progresses), and having her depicted as having super-human abilities, while outmatched and out-manned, just took me completely out of the film. Also in the original Predator, Arnold's character Dutch did ZERO damage to the Predator in their hand-to-hand fight, and Dutch was at the brink of death in just a few hits from his over-sized foe. And none of Dutch's traps worked against the Predator save for a contingency trap that he used after another trap failed. Keep that in mind when watching the final showdown in Prey.

The biggest problem I've always had with French films is that they sometimes propose some really outrageous and thought-provoking ideas, but then they get hampered down in self-indulgence and pretentiousness.

Bunker Palace Hotel is one such film.

The first 15 minutes starts REALLY strong, and it's a captivating, visually engrossing setup with almost no dialogue. You just have to watch, pay attention, and attempt to understand what's unfolding. The unmatched cinematography and top-notch composition sets the mood with an almost steampunk-Gothic aesthetic.

It's truly remarkable, and it's not something you see in films often (save for maybe the similarities found in the Goth diesel-punk aesthetic of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, which came out the same year as this film).

In any case, once the remarkable visuals and architecture of the story begin to wear off, you find that the actual plot of the film meanders -- nay! It grinds to an actual halt about halfway through. A story that could have been told in half the time is stretched out to pad the runtime until we get to a philosophically intriguing, yet deflated ending.

If judging the film on the merits of the first half and the last ten minutes or so, I would give it an easy 8. However, the film is more than just the parts, but the sum of its parts and unfortunately the middle section just didn't do anything or go anywhere.

Neat ideas about automatons, deceit, elites hiding away while the world crumbles, and lots of political intrigue are kind of swept all by the wayside for pretension. It kind of vacuums all of the tension and interest out of the film because not only does nothing really happen, but the characters don't really say anything important, either.

If maybe the second half was filled with more exposition about how and why the world got to the way it was, and having characters argue their stances on which way was the right way, it could have padded out the runtime and also given viewers more insight into what was happening.

Instead, there's just a lot of circular banter that goes nowhere, and unfortunately Clara has almost no initiative nor agency to drive the plot forward. Worse yet is that she's not that interesting a character, yet most of the events revolve around her.

There's another character that is also introduced with a much more intriguing backstory but we don't get to learn much about him, and the way the whole thing resolves itself is kind of... disappointing, to say the least.

In any case, it's still an intriguing film with a fascinating premise and a lot of interesting sci-fi elements. The ups and downs make it difficult to rate evenly, and I imagine the score it has is due to the people who love it giving it a 10 and the people who hate it something under a 5. I feel I'm generous and evenhanded enough to give it a 6.

Still, when it comes to French sci-fi, Immortal (2004) is still my number one pick. It contains a lot of the typical French self-indulgence, but has a plot that scurries along at a quickened pace despite the lengthy runtime, and has lots of action, intrigue and twists and turns you don't see coming. Even still, if you've already seen Immortal and need more retro French sci-fi in your life, Bunker Palace Hotel isn't a bad way to spend 90 minutes or so.

This is not a film for the feint of heart, the light of mind, or the easily queasy. This film is as grotesque as the trailer(s) depict.

It's an amalgamation of lots of depraved symbolism and concepts of idolatry combined into a loosely connected story about an assassin (though, I would probably think of him more as a mercenary) attempting to carry out a relatively righteous mission (heavy emphasis on "relatively").

It's a disheartening, disgusting film, to say the least. More-so because of the way it depicts what a living hell would be like in the worst ways imaginable.

The film takes no short cuts in dissecting and outlining what the worst possible outcome could be for those unfortunate enough to be trapped in said hellscape, and it's every bit as horrifying as your imagination may (or may not) be able to conjure up.

It's also a hard film to rate -- amidst the mortifying displays of disturbing viscera, there's an obvious tale here, if not a blatant warning message in some sense.

Though I get the impression that the people who should be watching a film like this to get the wake up call, aren't going to be the people who are drawn to this film, so it's likely only going to be preaching to the choir.

Even still, it's a tour de force in stop-motion animation. There isn't another stop-motion project out there that really compares in terms of depth and scope. I wasn't the biggest fan of the minor live-action integration in some segments, but for the most part it all worked quite well.

But don't go into this thinking there are rainbows and lily-pads about. A fair bit of warning: all ye who enter, abandon all hope.

A lot of people love Christopher Nolan's Inception, but my biggest criticism of that film was that nothing in that movie looked or felt like a dream. Everything was way too literal, too concrete, too symmetrical, and too mechanical. Dreams aren't like that.

Dreams are fluid; ephemeral; harmonic; discordant; whimsical; garish; frightening; fun; flighty; and most importantly, abstract.

I'll be the first to say that a movie attempting to capture the unorthodox and incorporeal nature of dreams is no easy feat, yet Dreamscape is one of the few films to do it and do it well. The ever-changing scenarios, the nightmare sequences, the distortions, the dead-ends, and the lucid aspects of dreams that allow you to sometimes take control are all present in the film.

But before going further, I should point out that this movie isn't really about dreams so much as it is about how dreams -- or rather, connections to the mind -- can be utilized for good or nefarious means.

Dreams are just a conduit for this interesting plot point about government utilization of individuals with special abilities.

This isn't X-Men or Scanners or Firestarter, though. There's nothing particularly sci-fi about Dreamscape at all, and it is in-fact very grounded for the most part. In fact, you can see how it's basically the exact same plot basis for the cult-class Jennifer Lopez flick, The Cell.

I think The Cell had more interesting topical matter covered within the context of the film's story, and that gave leeway for a lot of awesome visual sequences, but Dreamscape works in a more practical, mystery-thriller way, where the dreams are some of the least used elements in the film.

However, when the dream sequences do appear, they're treated very much like dream sequences. Much like The Cell, director Jason Ruben has a really good concept of how dreams should be portrayed on film, inconsistencies, bewilderment, craziness and all.

You don't need to be a cognoscenti when it comes to the subject matter of dreams to depict it in a film that seems true to how they are in real-life, but at least attempting to capture the abstract nature of dreams goes a long way in making the on-screen depiction feel like a dream, and I think Ruben did just that with Dreamscape.

In many ways, I kind of wish Nolan had a less methodical, less mathematical approach to how Inception was constructed, and incorporated more of the fleeting and wispy moments of a dream throughout the film to remind viewers that it's actually a dream they're watching. I know in many ways he wanted a level of aesthetic consistency so that in the final shot it would leave viewers guessing if they had really escaped the dream or not, but I think that level of intrigue could have been retained while still making the meat of middle portion very dream-like.

With films like Dreamscape and The Cell, among others, you never stop to question if or when they're dreaming. And when they are, I feel like the director and production department did a fine job of capturing the sometimes ridiculous nature of dreams, especially the distortions, mischaracterizations of real people, the nonsensical elements of how we project real life situations, traumas and events in our minds, and how we deal with them when we're in there.

Of course, the movie is still very much a product of its age, and some of the special effects haven't aged very well, while others look pretty cool (especially the zombie train segment, which was done really, really well). There's a bit of a horror element to the film, too, especially when the dreams take on the nightmarish aspects, which I think was executed superbly.

Also, the whole plot involving the President is a bit over the top, but again, this is a film of the 1980s (also the subplot about nuclear war is very.... interesting, and obviously a topic related to the Cold War era in which the film was made).

Anyway, this is a film well worth a watch, especially if you like psychological adventure thrillers. It's kind of a rare breed as far as sub-genres are concerned but it's a cool film nonetheless.

When you go back over the history of films themed around cyber-punk dramas or thrillers, you'll find that the list is criminally short.

Nirvana is a bizarre little flick that is quintessentially 1990s-cyberpunk fanfare. It's low-budget but you really wouldn't think much of it given the way Gabriele Salvatores makes superb use of camera, lighting, and really fantastic set dressing and effects.

The action is limited but reasonable for the story being told. This isn't some world-ending, world-saving, earth-shattering, cataclysmic event unfolding here, the story is small, personal, and very contained, for the most part.

The adventure and thrills begin to ramp up as more information related to what's unfolding gets unfurled by the protagonists, a trio of unlikely heroes. However, what really makes Nirvana work is Lambert's dedication to the role; he's sincere and serious here, taking the material in stride as if he believes it, and that's about 50% of the believability right there, in conjunction with the set designs and scenarios.

The movie does a fine job of making it seem like a crummy, over-bearing, authoritarian, electronic dystopia. People are poor and yet overwhelmed with technology; slums are rampant yet there's a computer everywhere. Cash is a rarity and digital tracking allows everyone to keep track of everyone... especially corporations.

Like most dystopian cyberpunk films, the corporatocracy rules all, and you get a real sense of dread in terms of how little freedom there is in that world, which mirrors a parallel story unfolding (and overlapping) with Lambert's quest about a virus that injects corruptive awareness to the artificial intelligence in a popular online video game.

As the film progresses we see how both the main character in the game and Lambert's character are trying to escape from overbearing authority figures.

There's a lot more write about regarding this film, from the awesome weapon designs that look like they borrow from Blade Runner and Nemesis, to the hodge-podge of culture clashing in the various environments they visit, to the seedy depiction of a society on the brink of implosion.

Overall, though, this is a great little philosophically-themed existential adventure into a cyberpunk world one would probably expect from a French director rather than an Italian one. However, it's much easier to access than most French existentialists films, and doesn't worry itself with trying to be pretentious.

Instead it's authentic to its story and characters and follows through with events to a logical conclusion. It reminded me a lot of David Cronenberg's eXistenZ fused with Enki Bilal's Immortal, with a fine dose of Johnny Mnemonic, Strange Days, and The Matrix tossed in for good measure.

Well worth checking out for those who enjoy grungy-1990s cyberpunk fanfare with a bit of a philosophical twist tossed in.

We don't get many medieval-fantasy films these days, especially ones with beautiful women, gore, realistic fight scenes, and some of the best crafted armor from the dark ages.

The glorious part about Hearts and Armor is that it absolutely does live up to its name. The tale is themed around love, but the most visually striking thing about the film is the awesome armor.

I know I'm throwing around the word "awesome" a lot, but that's because there's really nothing like this film out there. I don't even remember how I came across it but I'm glad I did and it was well worth the watch.

Keep in mind that this isn't a fancy Hollywood flick, so the choreography is perfectly applicable to the period and fairly realistic in the tactics the combatants use to fight.

One thing I really like about the film is that unarmored foes are dispatched pretty easily here. Piercing, slashing, and thrusting attacks result in usually fairly quick and gory results. Even with armor it's not always a safe bet the combatants will escape unscathed.

The thing that impressed me the most was how throughout the film (and the fights) the armor gets dinged, dented, and systematically destroyed. This film is kind of bizarre insofar that it has some fantasy elements but also tries to keep a lot of the combat encounters grounded and fairly realistic.

It's a difficult movie to rate, because the plot is a little incoherent, or rather non-linear. It doesn't have a typical Point-A to Point-B plot line, but the theme stays consistent and that's part of what helps draw viewers in.

It's also somewhat unpredictable in a way. You can't always tell how the fights will go. The thing that impressed me most, though, was HOW the weapons were used. They have a lot of clever but realistic weapons from that era and you get to see how clawed weapons are used to strip away armor, how ridged weapons are used to break swords, and how long weapons can be used to dismount horse riders. I was really impressed with the broad range of weapons on display. Also, the fact they included hammers as being used to break bones and disable limbs of foes was quite unique, given that we rarely ever actually see that in films.

It's not perfect, and you probably won't be able to get your hands on a quality HD print, but my gosh any fan of medieval-fantasy films owe it to themselves to give this one a watch. Absolutely fantastic entertainment.

Judging the film away from the merits of expectations or comparisons to other films (not that I can think of any other films to compare this to), Billy Jack really is a rare gem.

9 out of 10 might seem high for a low-budget, not-quite-a-revenge flick like this one, but a lot of it has to do with how this whole film plays out.

The characters aren't quite two-dimensional here; yes, you have the "racist" townsfolk, but there's a bit more to it than that. Not all the townsfolk are actually racist against the multi-cultural, "progressive" school on the outskirts of a Native American reservation (which many see as fostering bad habits and dangerous ways within the youth that attend the school).

The issue is that there's a culture clash, and some people take that to heart more seriously than others... there's also the growing animosity between what certain individuals would like to do on the land (i.e., mustang hunting) and what lone vigilantes and watchful guardians like Billy Jack won't allow them to do.

The tensions build and mount with increasing violence based on a number of issues and fiery confrontations.

The lonesome and often quiet but stern Billy Jack isn't quite blameless when it comes to ratcheting up tensions, but most viewers will probably feel his actions are justified.

What I found most impressive was how Tom Laughlin looked very comfortable and intimidating with his display of martial arts. Had this franchise not been Laughlin's baby, ten years later and I could have easily seen Chuck Norris donning the role of Billy Jack (although, given Norris' politics, I doubt things would have turned out the way they did in this film, as the closest to bucking the system Norris came was with the film Code of Silence).

In any case, Billy Jack has some odd and slow parts here and there (mostly with the improvised theater sections), but the action is handled well (if sparse) and the resolutions and outcomes are fairly realistic.

The main reason I gave this film a 9/10 is because it doesn't go for a traditional Hollywood approach to solving problems. How things play out are the complete opposite of what you would expect from typical Hollywood action films of this nature. It also doesn't attempt to beat you over the head with enforced-sympathetic melodrama in films like John Q, Man on a Ledge, or The Negotiator.

Billy Jack is both understandable and complex. His reasoning isn't unreasonable, and his intentions are admirable. We really don't get heroes quite like this in today's cinema anymore.

I was unaware that this is part of a franchise of films, but the low ratings make me think the other films might best be avoided. In any case, I really liked the avant garde approach to this film, the conflict, and the conflict resolution.

The acting here isn't really typical Hollywood caliber. Only Laughlin and the couple of the villain characters turn in performances that are more traditional. Most of the other performances (with the exception of the sheriff) feel more off the cuff, and somewhat improvisational, especially during the town committee hearing (which I thought actually played up well to the realism of how a situation like that would probably play out, instead of typical over-acting Hollywood theatrics).

It's really a shame we don't get more films like this and more heroes like Billy Jack during this particular era of cinema.

Thankfully, the 1970s and 1980s were filled with believably larger-than-life characters like this, and they really helped pave the way for cementing a certain kind of machismo in the world of cinema during that era.

This is a hard film to stop thinking about.

Unlike some of the more erudite members of IMDB, I haven't had the time nor opportunity to read the original book or watch the predecessor upon which this film was spawned. Even still, it left a lasting impression.

It's ironic because I originally saw this film close to 15 years ago at this point, but I'm just now writing a review. Why? Because as the heading states... it's a tough film to stop thinking about.

I only happened upon it after going through Theresa Russell's IMDB page after watching The Man Who Fell To Earth, and this popped up in the recommended and I instantly remembered it, yet somehow forgot to rate and review after having watched it. Maybe because at the time it was a film that required a lot of time to process?

It starts one way but ends up another and then completely finishes entirely different from what it was. Unpredictable is probably an easy qualifier for a simple description of the film, yet the film is anything but simple.

I haven't had the time to bother reading through the reviews, but I imagine there are a fair few amount who probably deem Bill Murray miscast for this film? I can definitely see why... his offbeat and wry humor seem anachronistic at times, and maybe even potentially emotionally inappropriate for what topic matter the film attempts to convey?

But at the same time, I think it helps add levity to what otherwise could have been an untimely morose or perpetually depressing film. In a way, the sardonic approach that Murray takes to what's otherwise hopeless situations gives viewers a vicarious injection of hope.

That's part of the recurring theme throughout the film... a guy who literally walks the razor's edge of hopelessness but doesn't quite tip the balance on the wrong end of the blade, even while others around him do.

Hopefully nothing I've written has spoiled the film for anyone who hasn't read the book or seen the film yet, but I did find it hard to stomach the outcome. It's not easy viewing depending on the state of mind you're in or if you're looking for a film that's "upbeat" (relative to what you consider upbeat, I suppose?).

In any case, it's a very introspective and philosophically poignant film. It doesn't let go of you easy and forces you to face the same difficult questions that Murray's character does. In a way, it's a bold film for that choice and equally as bold by not shying away from seemingly unavoidable tragedy. But it's not without merit, and anyone willing to be challenged in thought or principle will certainly find it in The Razor's Edge.

If for nothing else, it will at least help compel those who don't quite appreciate the (in)valuable intangibles of life to appreciate said intangibles a bit more after viewing. Short of that, I should suspect even the most callous and cold-hearted might warrant a re-evaluation of their priorities after viewing the film, even if for a sliver of a moment.

As I said, it's a tough film to stop thinking about.