Reviews

I've loved Godzilla for as long as I can remember, but "Godzilla vs. Hedorah" (or "Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster", the original U.S. release title) has always been my least favorite - until the last time I saw it.

The 70's produced the worst of the Godzilla flicks - a series of dark, hokey, and dull films which ultimately caused the end of the Godzilla film line (until the beginning of a new series in 1984). Executive producer Tomoyuki Tanaka was in the hospital for much of the time while the film was being made, so he didn't see the different direction which "Godzilla vs. Hedorah" took. For the first time since 1964, the film had a strong social message: stop the pollution! A series of grim, grungy images show the pollution which is seeping into the air and the sea. From it rises Hedorah, the smog monster, intent on gobbling down the world's smog and pollution whilst killing off Earth's people. Bullets go through it, knives do nothing to it. Who will stop this "demon of drudge"? Why, Godzilla, of course! Yoshimitsu Banno pointed the series in a different direction (which enraged producer Tanaka upon his release from the hospital), inserting funky tunes, a scene in a revolting dance club, and entirely unnecessary animations. Then there's the creepy-looking Hedorah, which actually becomes quite scary when you see it's glowing eyes in the dark gray night sky, while the eerie bass guitar plays quietly amongst the soundtrack's instruments. This is certainly the weirdest, creepiest Godzilla flick of 'em all.

A sequel to this film was planned, hence the "And yet another one?" title at the end of the film. In it, Godzilla would travel to Africa and battle another smog monster. But the project was shelved when Tomoyuki Tanaka banned director Banno from ever coming near a Godzilla film again, claiming that Banno had ruined the series. I can't really say that I'm sorry for that decision.

"Godzilla vs. Hedorah" is one of the most unique of the Godzilla films, and because of that, it's one of my favorites. It's a weird, creepy film, that becomes much more fun (and funny) when you watch it with the terrible English dubbing.

The 'Millennium' series, the third Godzilla film series, began in 1999 with "Godzilla 2000: Millennium". It was followed by this film - "Godzilla vs. Megaguirus". The premise involves a seemingly crazy idea: launch a black hole on to Godzilla, absorbing and containing him so he can't stomp on Japan anymore. The idea turns out to be not so crazy after all, and so a test firing is done. Unfortunately, while the test seems successful, it creates a wormhole, mutating a dragonfly and creating a horde of vicious, large dragonflies.

"Godzilla 2000", while fun, was not a spectacular movie. "Megaguirus" is a considerable improvement. Although it has its share of hokey moments (not the least of which is Godzilla leaping four-hundred feet into the air), it features an interesting storyline and a good script, not to mention a terrific score (by Michiru Oshima). The highlight of the film is the opening sequence, in which the story of the original 1954 Godzilla film is re-created using the new suit.

While "Godzilla vs. Megaguirus" can't compare to some later entries in the 'Millennium' series - namely "Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah" - it's a fine Godzilla movie that should please fans. Be sure to stick around after the credits ...

Not surprisingly, "The Dukes of Hazzard" bears little resemblance to the classic TV series on which it's based. Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville play cousins Bo and Luke Duke, who lose their brains from the TV show and become crazy young-'uns with raging hormones. The plot of this film involves Bo and Luke out to stop Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds) from strip-mining Hazzard. Also, Bo wants to win the Hazzard Racing Tournament for the 4th year, but faces tough competition from Billy Prickett (James Roday).

Let me start off by saying that fans of the TV show will no doubt be disappointed. The characters in this film bear little resemblance to those of the series. In the last few years, many TV shows have been remade as movies (namely "Charlie's Angels" and "Starsky & Hutch"), and while these remakes may have been entertaining, there's little resemblance to the series that they are based on. The key to enjoying these films is to separate them from the TV series. I did that for "Dukes of Hazzard", and I had a great time.

The film has a great cast. Scott is very funny as Bo Duke. Michael Weston makes a very likable Enos. Burt Reynolds is enjoyable as Boss Hogg. Jessica Simpson is actually pretty good as Daisy Duke. Then we have the great Willie Nelson as Uncle Jessie, who is very funny in many of his scenes. Lynda Carter has a small part as a friend of the Duke family.

The script isn't top-notch, but who'd expect it to be? For that matter, who'd WANT it to be? This film can be summed up in three words: simple, silly fun. The script is fun. The cast is funny. There's a great soundtrack, including the classic "Good Ol' Boys" theme. And there's the General Lee.

If you're looking for a bright film, this would probably not be a wise choice. But if you're looking for a simple, fun film, this might be a good choice.

To me, the greatest thing about the Coen brothers is how vastly different each of their films is. For example, after making the dark, dramatic "Fargo", they made this film - "The Big Lebowski", a comedy about a stoner who gets his rug stolen. What other filmmakers would make such a leap from film to film, and continuing doing so through all of their films? Only the Coen brothers.

"The Big Lebowski" stars Jeff Bridges as Jeffrey Lebowski, an unemployed man known to everyone as "The Dude". His life revolves around the nights spent bowling with his buddies Donny (Steve Buscemi) and Walter (John Goodman), the latter of which is an easily upset Vietnam vet. Life is good for The Dude - until two thugs beat him up and pee on his rug, mistaking him for a different Jeffrey Lebowski. The Dude goes to visit "the Big Lebowski" (David Huddleston) and tells him about it. Shortly thereafter, The Dude is beat up by three people he's never met, then ordered by the Big Lebowski to be the courier in an exchange - the Big Lebowski's wife, Bunny (a young Tara Reid) has just been kidnapped. From there on, things get worse and worse for The Dude. How he's gonna get himself out of it is anyone's guess.

"The Big Lebowski" is really a fantastic film. There is a well-written, clever, and funny script - which isn't really a surprise from the Coen brothers. Great directing and cinematography (the latter by Roger Deakins), particularly during some wonderfully quirky dream sequences. There's also a really cool soundtrack, featuring Bob Dylan, CCR, and more.

But what would the film be without the cast? Jeff Bridges is really great and funny as The Dude. The real highlight of the cast is probably John Goodman, who is absolutely hilarious as The Dude's over-the-top best friend. There's also good performances from Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, David Huddleston, and Sam Elliott. Coen brothers favorites Steve Buscemi, John Turturro, and Peter Stormmare also appear.

As I've said, the thing that is most appealing about the Coen brothers are the differences between each of their films. "The Big Lebowski" is one of their very best. It's a stoner movie - and it's one of the best movies ever made. Watch it, dude. You won't regret it.

"Gojira: Fainaru Uôzu" - a.k.a. "Godzilla: Final Wars" - can be summed up in one word: 'different'. Actually, make that two words: 'very different'. In 2004, the 50th anniversary of the original 1954 classic "Gojira", Toho announced that they would be making the final Godzilla movie for a period of at least a decade. The film would feature many - most, in fact - of Godzilla's classic friends and foes, to celebrate the anniversary, as well as the end of the "Millennium" series of G-films.

So how does "Final Wars" do as a finale to the latest and, arguably, greatest of the Godzilla series? Well ... read on.

The premise of "Final Wars" is far more complex than that of any other Godzilla movie. It's the near future. Godzilla has been imprisoned in ice for about forty or fifty years. Other monsters have remained hidden in the darkest corners of the Earth. A race of superhuman mutants have been created and used by the government to battle crime; the group has been named "M-Unit". Suddenly, the Secretary General of the United Nations (Akira Takarada) disappears. When he returns about a day later, he presents to Earth an alien race called Xilians. The race seems peaceful as they warn Earth about an asteroid heading towards the planet which will destroy it upon impact. They suggest that we unite and form the Space Nations. But a group of government workers suspect that all is not as it seems ...

"Godzilla: Final Wars" is directed by Ryuhei Kitamura, an apparently skilled director who also directed the popular cult film "Versus". Kitamura also contributes to the script, which is for the most part well-written, though it features some definite weak parts (most notably when a character makes a miraculous, seemingly impossible escape from imprisonment, and then explains it with "I managed to escape somehow"). The storyline is basically a re-working of "Monster Zero"'s story, with certain new elements added. The film starts off well and continues along well until the action really gets started; at this point, the train goes flying off the tracks and then keeps going. What I'm trying to say is that this film eventually becomes way too wacky and it keeps getting wackier. Towards the end of the film, the movie becomes an obvious rip-off of "The Matrix".

The greatest part of the film is the monsters. We see many monsters which we haven't seen since the original series, including Angilas, Gigan, Kumonga, Ebirah, and even Hedorah and King Shisa! Unfortunately, we also see Minilla, who really does nothing for the film at all. The monsters look cool and the special effects are very good. Unfortunately, the monsters get very little screen time; even Godzilla is in the film for a grand total of about ten minutes. A very interesting thing about the film is that it features the American Godzilla - here called "Zilla" - as one of the monsters! He is eliminated very quickly by Godzilla, though. It's a wonderful way for the Japanese to show Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin that their Godzilla is still the King of the Monsters.

The only other high point of the film which I can recall is the score, which includes new music by Keith Emerson. Very little of Akira Ifukube's classic music is used. There is quite a bit of American music used in the film, including a song by Sum 41.

"Godzilla: Final Wars" is a bizarre film. It feels more like some weird Japanese "Matrix" rip-off than a Godzilla film, primarily because the monsters have little screen time and are not essential to the storyline. It's a unique and interesting film to be sure, but it's flaws and the near-absence of anything we've come to love in the Godzilla films makes this a less-than-spectacular way to close of the "Millennium" series. Had this been just another entry in the series, I might like it more. And had the series closed with the fantastic "Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah", all the fans would be much happier.

As both a fan of Frank Herbert's novel "Dune" and of David Lynch's work, I enjoyed the 1984 adaptation of "Dune". When I was younger, I enjoyed this mini-series far more, but having re-watched it over the last few nights, I find that this adaptation is far more flawed than I recalled.

The major flaws of this mini-series are weak performances by the actors, poor directing, and some less than amazing special effects (not to mention some unusual costume design). The performances in this, combined with the often dull cinematography, made me feel more like I was watching a play than an epic mini-series. The worst performance came from William Hurt, who seems as though he may fall asleep at any moment. Matt Keeslar makes a very weak Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen when compared with Sting's portrayal from the 1984 film. There are some good performances, though. Ian McNeice is terrific and often funny as the scheming Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Saskia Reeves brings some life to the character of Jessica Atreides. P.H. Moriarty is great as Gurney Halleck, as is Karel Dobry as Dr. Kynes.

John Harrison, a former music video director, takes 265 minutes to (loosely) adapt Frank Herbert's novel to the small screen, and even then cannot capture the brilliance of Herbert's work. Most of the time the actors seem to have little clue what they should be doing. Most of the events depicted in the novel occur in the film, however they are often out of order.

The production design for the film is colorful, but perhaps a little too much so. The costume design is at once creative and perhaps a little silly. The special effects are often weak, though the sandworm effects turned out rather well. It's obvious that this was filmed on a stage rather than on location (you can tell that the background is made up of matte paintings).

Graeme Revell's score is very good, though occasionally I thought I heard tunes borrowed from Toto's score for the '84 movie.

This mini-series is at times dull, and at a few occasions very good, but all in all it fails to successfully adapt Frank Herbert's novel for the small screen. Interestingly, it helps accentuate the good points of David Lynch's adaptation, which I must say that I prefer to this. Fans of "Dune" should certainly check this out; I leave it up to them to decide which version they prefer.

"The Interpreter" has an interesting story: an interpreter for the United Nations, played by Nicole Kidman, overhears an assassination plot spoken in a language she and very few other people understand. Sean Penn plays the U.S. Secret Service agent assigned to investigate the interpreter and see if she did hear what she says she did.

"The Interpreter" is Sydney Pollack's first film since 1999's flop "Random Hearts". Pollack's directing is one of the two high points of the film. The other is the cast. Kidman and Penn are both very good and, paired with Pollack's directing, they keep the film going.

Other than those points mentioned above, the film has little going for it. About fifty minutes through the film I was sick of it. There's very little originality in the film; it's clichéd and predictable. I felt like I was watching another dumb thriller.

I don't have much to say about this film. I thought it was a dull, clichéd thriller, simple as that.

I'll be frank: SUPERMAN III is NOT a good film. Having heard both from people who loved the movie and hated the movie, I watched it with an open mind, but in the end it was clear to me that this movie is weak. Very weak.

Half of the movie revolves around Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor!), a dim-witted computer programmer who becomes involved in crime when he begins working for millionaire Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). The other half of the film revolves around Superman (Christopher Reeve), as he is reunited with high school sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) and becomes evil when exposed to synthetic kryptonite.

One can't help but wonder what David and Leslie Newman, who co-wrote the previous two SUPERMAN films, were thinking when they wrote this film. It opens with a cringe-worthy slapstick sequence, and gets worse from there. Any and all scenes involving Richard Pryor are completely out of place in this film, making it seem more like an unfunny comedy than a superhero film. Director Richard Lester tries his best to make the movie work, but ultimately, it doesn't, thanks in part to the absence of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and the near-absence of Margot Kidder as Lois Lane (Kidder has a total of about three minutes on-screen). Christopher Reeve, however, is excellent as always, and Annette O'Toole is a good fit for the part of Lana Lang; interestingly, she portrayed Clark's mother, Martha Kent, on the hit Superman TV series SMALLVILLE.

SUPERMAN III is mediocre at best, a failed attempt to continue an excellent series. While it couldn't hold my attention for the 125 minute runtime, I can think of worse movies to watch late at night with a bowl of popcorn and a Coke. Superman fans may want to check it out; all others, steer clear.

When I was in second and third grade, I was OBSESSED with werewolves. I loved "The Wolf Man" when I watched it, and when I finally saw "An American Werewolf in London" in fourth grade, it became one of my favorite films. There was only one werewolf movie I'd never seen: "The Howling".

I could have watched it, mind you. But I put it off. Because although I am fascinated with the werewolf legend, it just so happens that the animal I fear the most ... is wolves. I thought "The Howling" looked extremely scary, so I put off watching - until this Halloween, when I received it for a gift. So, at last, I sat down and watched the last major werewolf film I needed to see.

The film stars Dee Wallace as a popular Los Angeles newswoman who is involved in a near-fatal incident with a serial killer (Robert Picardo). A respected psychiatrist (Robert Macnee) sends her to a rehabilitation center called "The Colony", located in the Californian forest. Wallace believes there's something weird about the place as soon as she arrives - but once she begins to hear the howling, she believes there may be something deadly lurking in the forest ...

The only Joe Dante films I'd seen before watching this were "Gremlins" and "Gremlins 2: The New Batch", both of which I enjoyed very much. Dante directs this film with an obvious love of the genre and of the classic horror films. It really enhances the movie. The cast is good, but the only two performances which really stuck out to me were that of Patrick Macnee and particularly John Carradine. I thought it would've been nice to see Carradine's part expanded. I also thought it was good to see Dick Miller, though I couldn't place what else I'd seen him in at first.

I thought that half of the time, Pino Donaggio's soundtrack was good, and the other half of the time I thought they made the film seem hokey. I loved the film's ending tune, though.

The highlight of the film is indisputably the spectacular special effects by Rob Bottin. The scene where Robert Picardo transforms into a werewolf has been rivaled only by the transformation in "An American Werewolf in London", and "The Howling"'s transformation may be even better. The effects really made the film for me.

The film's script was nothing really original, and the movie was at times quite clichéd. But that's part of the fun of it. All in all, "The Howling" was not as scary as I expected it to be, but I enjoyed it very much and would gladly watch it again, if only for the special effects. Werewolf aficionados and horror movie lovers will have a howlin' good time.

Recently, I decided to rent all of Cameron Crowe's films and watch them. I already owned "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" (okay, he didn't direct it, but he wrote it) and "Jerry Maguire", so next I rented "Say Anything ...".

"Say Anything ..." begins with Lloyd Dobler, a kind, well-liked underachiever who falls in love with Diane Court, a straight-A student who has just been accepted into a college in England. Lloyd wins Diane's affections after he takes her to a late-night party - but winning the approval of her father is a completely different matter.

Cameron Crowe is certainly a talented filmmaker. "Say Anything ..." was his directorial debut and third screenplay. It's one of those special 80's teen romantic comedies that is even more magical today than it was back in '89. As is typical with Cameron Crowe's films, "Say Anything" has a terrific soundtrack. The film also has a sort of laid-back, observational style of directing, with mixes well with the intelligent, funny script.

The casting is superb. John Cusack is - well, awesome as Lloyd Dobler. Ione Skye does a fine job of showing the confliction that Diane feels. And John Mahoney is perfect as Diane's loving, protective father.

The film has some great scenes. The second "In Your Eyes" scene is definitely one of the movie's greatest and most famous moments. Anyone who's seen the film will attest to the fact that it's a very memorable movie. And it has a great ending too! "Say Anything ..." is a marvelous movie, and definitely one of my favorites. It's well-written, -acted and -directed. It's moving, dramatic, and very funny. If you're searching for a sweet, well-made, romantic comedy, look no further than "Say Anything ...".

(NOTE: My family recently purchased a Surround system, and "Say Anything ..." was one of the first films I watched with it. The movie sounds FANTASTIC. If you have a Surround system, prepare for a great experience.)

At the time of this writing, the film has been out for about two weeks. Half of the reviewers praise the film as another Spielberg masterpiece; half the reviewers say that there's no heart to the film, and that it's just another simple thriller. I'm somewhere inbetween those two opinions, but if I had to pick one I would choose the first.

Loosely adapted from H.G. Wells' novel, Tom Cruise stars as slacker divorced dad Ray Ferrier. He's spending a weekend with his young daughter (Dakota Fanning) and teenage son (Justin Chatwin), neither of whom are very happy to be with him. Watching a storm brewing with his daughter outside his house, Ray sees a bolt of lightning strike in the same place - twenty-six times. Within the next forty minutes, the world is under attack by aliens who are considerably less friendly than those depicted in director Steven Spielberg's "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".

Tom Cruise gives one of his best performances, really bringing the character of Ray Ferrier to life and making him someone we can sympathize with. Dakota Fanning is outstanding, as always. Tim Robbins has a brief, but enjoyable part. Though the kids really drove me up the wall for the first part of the film, about halfway through you start to feel for them.

One the film's highlights (no surprise here) is Steven Spielberg's directing. With anyone else, this film would be quite a bit lesser. There are some examples of truly masterful directing in this film. Fans of Spielberg's other movies will likely notice a few of his trademark moves, particularly in a scene somewhat reminiscent of "Jurassic Park".

David Koepp's script is well-written, despite little or no relation to the novel which it takes its name from. Interestingly, one of the film's lesser points is John Williams' score! The usually extraordinary composer has come up with nothing especially exciting or original. Something which is exciting and original is the special effects, which are some of the very best to appear on-screen for a while.

One of the things which makes this film so great is how terrifyingly realistic it is. As I was watching this film, I was thinking, "This is creepy - this is exactly how humans would react if this actually happened." Another interesting point of the film is the eerie similarity between the events of this film and the events of the Holocaust. Spielberg has said that this is intentional.

All in all, I think "War of the Worlds" is a fine effort from Spielberg, though unshockingly not on par with many of his other projects. You'll have to see the film for yourself to decide what you think.

Let me begin by saying that "Closer" is the kind of film that you've gotta see for yourself to decide if you like it. Half the time I see reviews by people who loved the film, and half the time I see reviews by people who absolutely despised it. I, myself, loved it.

"Closer" is the story of four individuals: obituary writer and struggling author Dan (Jude Law), waitress and ex-stripper Alice (Natalie Portman), popular photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) and dermatologist Larry (Clive Owen). Dan and Alice meet in London after Alice is hit by a car. A few months later, Dan is being photographed for his novel by Anna, and the two fall in love - but only Dan will admit it. Trying to get back at Anna, he pretends to be her on an Internet sex chat and tells Larry to meet her at an aquarium for sex. By chance, the real Anna is at the aquarium; she meets Larry and the two fall in love.

Eventually, Alice leaves Dan and Anna leaves Larry. By the end of the film, each man has had sex with each woman and vice versa; they seem to love whomever they're with, but in reality they only love their original partner.

I'd heard good things about this film before watching it, but after watching it the first time I was disappointed. While it was no doubt a fine film, there was more sexual dialog than I could have ever imagined! Now I can tolerate sexuality in a movie just as much as the next guy, but when the film becomes unrealistically sexual than I become fed up with it. And "Closer" seemed to be just that. But now, having watched the movie numerous more times, I realize that the film is abnormally sexual, but not necessarily overly sexual. Would it have been better without so much sexuality? Yes. But the rest of the film makes up for it. Oh yes, does it ever.

Patrick Marber's script is adapted from Marber's popular, award-winning play. The script is witty, intelligent and original. There are some great lines, which come from characters who seem very real.

The acting is one of the film's high points. Jude Law is terrific as Dan, who tries to be mean but just can't pull it off. He makes the character a target for sympathy from the audience. Natalie Portman is, as always, very good, as Alice. Julia Roberts, while good, doesn't give the best performance of her career; it feels like she's not putting in a huge amount of effort. Clive Owen is outstanding as always; Owen's performance has made Larry my favorite character in the film. He really brings out the bad side of Larry, but he's likable at the same time. There's a certain air of mysticism around Larry, like you never know what he's going to do next. Interestingly, Owen played Law's part in the original stage play.

Mike Nichols proves that his directorial talent hasn't faded one bit since he made the 1967 classic "The Graduate" - in fact, Nichols seems better than ever. He gives the film a cold, hard feeling, but at times he seems to loosen up - much like the characters themselves. He really captures the darkness of Patrick Marber's script.

The few songs on the soundtrack are excellent, but the one that really stands out is "The Blower's Daughter" by Damien Rice. It's used for the film's theme, and there isn't another song in the world that is so perfect for this movie as "Blower's Daughter". The song is absolutely beautiful; the sad, determined strength found in the lyrics matches the film well.

"Closer" is closer to perfection than any romantic-drama has ever come. If you're looking for a soft romance like "Sleepless in Seattle" or "Notting Hill", then this is probably not the movie for you. This is a mature, dark, grim look at romance, and I love it. "Closer" has become one of my favorite films. If you feel like watching the film and deciding for yourself how you feel, and you keep an open mind, then I applaud you.

Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

"Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.

Shortly after beginning work on the TV show "Twin Peaks", David Lynch made "Wild at Heart", an adaptation of Barry Gifford's novel. Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern play Sailor and Lula, two lovers who are driving cross-country to escape from Lula's mother, Marietta (played by Diane Ladd, Dern's real-life mother). Marietta goes insane at the thought of any boys going near her daughter, but Sailor Ripley especially, because she suspects that he saw her murder her husband years ago.

Marietta has half the country out looking for Sailor and Lula, including the murderer duo of Reggie (Calvin Lockhart) and Juana (Grace Zabriskie); the bizarre hit-man Bobby Peru (Willem Dafoe), and his partner, the beautiful Perdita Durango (Isabella Rossellini); and Marietta's ex-lover, the murderous Santos (J.E. Freeman). The only sane person searching for the lovers is Johnnie Farragut (Harry Dean Stanton), a level-headed man completely dedicated to Marietta.

David Lynch is famous for his weird movies, which are often incomprehensible during the first viewing. "Wild at Heart" is considerably less weird than Lynch's other movies, but that doesn't mean it isn't weirder than most movies. It also happens to be funny in many scenes. Of course, it can also be disturbing; there are many scenes of violence.

The cast is great. Cage is very funny with his Elvis-style accent. Dafoe is great. Harry Dean Stanton is very fine and quite likable as Johnnie Farragut. Diane Ladd is wonderful as Lula's mother.

Interestingly, there are numerous references to "The Wizard of Oz" in here; what made Lynch think of Oz is anyone's guess. "Twin Peaks" fans will notice many cast members from the show, including Zabriskie, Sherilyn Fenn, and Sheryl Lee.

The film features a very good soundtrack, a combination of country, Angelo Badalamenti's easygoing score and the occasional heavy metal.

All in all, I think "Wild at Heart" is an underrated movie that, while far from Lynch's best, is very enjoyable. It is well-filmed and -directed, and there is a feeling of strength and energy that makes the film even more appealing. Not everyone will enjoy the movie, but I sure as hell did.

Recently, while browsing the horror section of my local video store, I discovered the new Special Edition DVD release of "The Lost Boys" - which, by the way, I had been meaning to see for some time now, as I am a fan of vampire movies. As soon as the film began, I knew I was gonna love it.

"The Lost Boys" involves a family - ex-hippie mother Lucy Emerson (Dianne West), tough-guy big brother Michael (Jason Patric), imaginative little brother Sam (Corey Haim) - which moves into Santa Carla, reportedly the murder capital of the world. At first, it seems like a cool town - Sam is pleased to discover a comic book store - but then things start to get weird.

Sam teams up with two wacky young vampire slayers (Jamison Newlander and - ta-daa! - Corey Feldman) and begins to suspect his mom is dating a vampire (Edward Herrman); meanwhile, Michael becomes a half-vampire with his mysterious new lover (Jami Gertz). Can the Emerson family survive a week in this city of death? Whether they can or not, I sure as hell loved surviving the 97 minutes of this film. "The Lost Boys" is an 80's classic. The stars, the filming style, and the soundtrack all help to make it so. Joel Schumacher - recently made notorious for ruining the "Batman" film franchise - gives some fine direction from a terrific script by Jeffrey Boam, Janice Fischer, and James Jeremias.

One of the highlights of the film is its excellent cast. Corey Haim, 80's fave Corey Feldman (who's hilarious, by the way), Jason Patric, and Kiefer Sutherland. Sutherland's performance is classic and among his best as the leader of a young vampire gang.

The soundtrack is excellent, including the score by Thomas Newman. The film's theme, "Cry Little Sister" by Gerard McMann, is perfect. In a way, it completes the film, wrapping around the film in a blanket which gives the film's message: "It wasn't their fault, they were just young".

One of the greatest parts of the film is the vampire effects, which includes those perceptive, reddish eyes. Greg Cannom's special effects were ahead of their time, and help make some dark scenes truly creepy.

I find "The Lost Boys" to be quite underrated. Most people say it was dumb, childish, or not scary. What they don't understand is that for the most part, the film's not trying to be scary. It is a COMEDY. Even the extremely bloody final fight isn't really scary (by the way, the film is worth seeing if just for this scene).

"The Lost Boys" is a classic of the eighties, and I think we can call it a horror classic as well. It has everything a film should have - great acting (and cast!), fine direction, an original script, terrific effects, and a fitting soundtrack. "The Lost Boys" is quite possibly the best vampire movie ever and is essential for horror fans.

Look up the word "disgusting" in the unwritten Book Of The Cinema and you'll find that the definition is "Peter Jackson's 'Braindead'". I don't know how else to introduce the picture other than to say that it is believed to be the goriest film ever made, and that it is considered by many to be the best zombie (and even horror in general) film ever made.

The film revolves around Lionel (Timothy Balme), a kind-hearted and loyal young man forced to take care of his wicked old mother (Elizabeth Moody). When Lionel meets Paquita (Diana Penalver), a girl working at a local shop (who has been foretold that Lionel is her destined love), a romance blooms - angering Lionel's mum, who proceeds to follow the couple on a trip to the zoo. The story goes from sunny romance to pitch-black horror in an instant when Lionel and Paquita stumble across a bizarre creature in the zoo: the rare Sumatran rat monkey, a vicious little beast with taste for flesh. In the film's first bloody scene - enough to get the film an "R" rating already - Lionel's mum is bitten by the rat monkey.

Naturally, being the very loving son he is, Lionel takes his sick mother home and gives her his undivided attention. That night Lionel is visited by Paquita, and for a while Lionel forgets about his mum or anything else.

From then on Lionel's life becomes a living hell. First, his mother dies. Then, she is resurrected as a zombie and begins losing clumps of skin and an ear. This doesn't seem good, especially when a respected couple arrive for dinner. Soon, friends of the family are bitten, or just nibbled on by Lionel's mum - and so they find themselves brainless, undead creatures as well. Then some of the kind local citizens - including a priest who "kicks ass for the Lord" - are zombied. Finally, most of the town has become zombies. Things aren't looking good for Lionel, who's trying to keep the whole thing under wraps - pretty much literally.

How much gore could a horror film have if a horror film could have gore? I don't know, but I'd say "Braindead" is about the limit. People whose stomachs aren't made of rock should steer clear of this film, or any of Jackson's earlier pieces for that matter. Luckily, I was prepared for the gory festivities after watching "Bad Taste", but even then I was surprised when - three minutes into the film - a man finds both his arms and, ultimately, his head cut off in an unflinching scene which gives you no time to blink. If there ever has been a more gory, disgusting, sick film that "Braindead" (or "Dead Alive", whichever you prefer), I've yet to see it.

For example, in one scene, Paquita and Lionel hear Paquita's dog bark and attack Lionel's mum. Rushing upstairs, they find Lionel's mum looking sick. Lionel goes to her and removes one of the dog's legs from her throat. (In case you haven't noticed, this is one of the most disturbing scenes in the film) "Your mother ate my dog!" Paquita screams. "There's still some left," Lionel replies. We pull back and find the room splattered in blood, with hairy remains on the bed.

Ugh.

"Braindead" is rated highly most everywhere I've seen it reviewed, hailed by horror fans as a masterpiece. It is constantly competing with films like "Evil Dead II", "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" for superiority in the "Best Zombie Movie Ever" category. I'd say it comes pretty close too. The film's nightmarish, unflinching atmosphere is something entirely unique to Peter Jackson. The acting is terrific - you feel exactly what you're supposed to feel when you're supposed to feel it. The score, by Peter Dasent, is also very fine, and gives the film a mischievous, comedic mood.

"Braindead" is Peter Jackson's pre-"Rings" masterpiece, and one of the greatest horror films ever made. If you, a) have a very endurant stomach, b) call yourself a horror fan, and c) haven't a fear of rat monkeys, then this is the film for you. No horror moviegoer should go without seeing it at least once.

Sometimes eerie, frequently funny, and always gory as hell, "Braindead" is one sick film.

They live! They breath! They look like your cousin! Who are they? And what do they want? Well, they want you. They're the aliens of John Carpenter's They Live.

Wrestler Roddy Piper plays a homeless construction worker who finds himself and his home of lowlifes being run down by police officers late one night. The next day, Roddy decides to take a walk and finds himself in the church across the street. Using his supa-wrestla-kick, he knocks down a section of wall and - voila! - he finds a few dozen boxes of sunglasses. Big deal, right? Wrong. When old Roddy here puts on them sunglasses, he sees the world as it really is - about 40% of our population are otherwordly invaders intent on conquering our earth. Through the media, stock market, and billboards, of course. They don't wanna kill us! They just wanna wipe us all out non-violently. Of course, wrestler Roddy doesn't care. He teams up with his buddie, grabs a few machine guns, and sets out to blow 'em all to hell.

This is "They Live", a minor yet popular film in horror master John Carpenter's career. While no where near as good as hits like The Thing or Halloween, They Live is one of Carpenter's most entertaining and simple films ever. It's also one of my favorites. It features fine acting thrown into some completely unbelievable situations; nice direction, but nothing special; and some very cool creature effects.

Don't rent the film expecting any horror masterpiece. With lines like "Life's a bitch, and she's back in heat!" or "You look like your face fell in the cheese dip back in 1956", you know you aren't going to find the greatest sci-fi thriller you've ever seen. If you keep that in mind, I think you'll find a fun albeit plain film.

Overall, I liked They Live, but at the end you can't help wanting more than you got. Although, I must admit, the final minute is outrageous. They Live, that we know. The question is - will you live? (Yes, I realize that was almost as bad as Roddy's bubble gum speech)

I avoided seeing "Good Will Hunting" for years due to its reputation as a "bad pic disguised as an Indie flick". Then, one night, I decided to try it. How bad could it be? If it was awful, I figured, at least with Affleck it oughta be funny (in an unintentional way).

But guess what? It wasn't funny. It wasn't bad. In fact, it was pretty near great.

The story has been done before, albeit in slightly different form, so don't look for anything too special here. Young Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is, secretly, a mathematical genius, who puts out a rebellious attitude to disguise this. While working as a janitor, his talent is discovered by a college professor (Stellan Skarsgard), and from there Will's life is changed forever. He meets his dream girl (Minnie Driver) and undergoes psychological therapy in an attempt to fix up his attitude. The only shrink who has any chance with Will, however, is another college professor: Sean Maguire, played by Robin Williams. Along with his best friend Chuckie (Ben Affleck), Will embarks on a journey that will change his life forever.

Damon and Affleck, at the time relatively new to film-making, grabbed an Academy Award for "Best Original Screenplay" for writing the tale of "Good Will Hunting". Williams also received an Academy Award for "Best Supporting Actor", and the film was nominated for seven other awards including "Best Picture". The cast is terrific here - even Affleck isn't horrible - but it's Damon and Williams whose performances really reach out and grab you.

Someone who should have won an Oscar was director Gus Van Sant. His unique directing style gets moving performances from the entire cast and really brings to life Damon and Affleck's otherwise ordinary script. There's also a not-so-remarkable score by Danny Elfman.

I find this film to be severely underrated. If you give it a small chance, it will really have an effect on you. "Good Will Hunting" is one of the best films of the year, a shlock flick turned into a touching wonder. This movie really deserves much more credit than it gets.

Ever since I began watching the original "Re-Animator", I loved it. Soon it became one of my favorite films, and I watched "Bride of Re-Animator", which was a horrible sequel. With average expectations I rented "Beyond Re-Animator", and let me say I was blown away.

It's been thirteen years since Herbert West's former assistant turned state's evidence against him, and sent the doctor to state prison. Now, an eager young doctor wants West as his assistant in the prison after seeing West's work during the final Miskatonic misexperiment. Soon, the doctor is the assistant and West is the doctor as he continues experimentation into re-animation of the dead: only this time, it's one step higher ...

Jeffrey Combs is better than ever as the mad West, giving us a terrific performance. The rest of the cast is very good as well; Brian Yuzna's direction has improved, and the script is great; there's also a cool score by Xavier Cappellas.

"Beyond Re-Animator" is one of my favorite films, and one of the best horror films of 2003. It features some quite funny comedy, mixed with great, gory horror in the tradition of the first film. It is completely entertaining and features some very nice story ideas. Think of it as "Shawshank Redemption" with re-animation and Dr. West - oh, forget it. I found that the film was almost as good as the first "Re-Animator", and way above the "Bride". It's great to have West back again. And the ending is terrific - fans of the first film can sit back and smile with satisfaction ...

I would highly recommend "Beyond Re-Animator" to any horror fan, and it is essential for fans of the first film. Easily one of my favorite horror films. Be sure to stick around to see the hilarious end fight between a rat and the warden's severed ... thing.

With the success of the inevitable success of the first Scooby-Doo, it was predictable a sequel would follow. Unpredictably, however, the sequel is better than the original.

The film begins with the gang attending the opening of a museum featuring the costumes of Mystery Inc.'s old enemies. The opening is soon shattered when one of the costumes comes to life and begins destroying the exhibit. To add to the ruination of the museum opening, the Gang's reputation soon begins spiraling downwards. It's up to frustrated Fed, doubtful Daphne, love-filled Velma and disheartened Shaggy and Scooby to save the day - and Mystery Inc.! I myself had seen low ratings for the film, and therefor hadn't much interest in seeing it. The family went, though, and so did I. As the film began, I was expecting a film pretty much like the first, possibly slightly worse. As it turns out, Scooby-Doo 2 is the opposite of that.

The part of the film I enjoyed the most was Matthew Lillard's performance as Shaggy (he also stole my attention in the original movie). Lillard is perfect and frequently funny. The animated Scooby-Doo is particularly enjoyable as well; bite me if you will, but I found the "Conclusion: Bunny" sequence pretty funny.

The rest of the cast is fine, although SD2 is probably not the highest point in their careers. I found Sarah Michelle Gellar's rendition of Daphne boring - and I'm a SMG fan! The humor was pretty low, and generally unfunny, although the film does have its moments. The direction is fine, and the special effects are pleasing. The creatures will be enjoyed by the younger audience.

Speaking of younger audience, SD2 is clearly aimed at a younger age range than the first film. The soundtrack was fine, and David Newman's score was very nice. It created a mysterious and kookily fun mood for the film.

Is Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed better than the original film? In some ways, yes. It has more entertainment value, that's for sure. Will kids like it? Yes, they'll definitely like more than the first. But will you like it? That's something only you can answer.

"I will not be shackled by the failures of your God." Thus says mad genius Dr. Herbert West, who is back along with partner Dan Cain - only this time, they're creating life.

The story involves West (Jeffrey Combs) and Cain (Bruce Abbott) returning from war in Peru. After much research, West has finally discovered the secret to creating human life, and using Cain's lust for a mate as motivation, he proceeds to attempt to make Dan a bride from dead tissue. Naturally, there's also a few re-animated freaks who survived the first film, along with a suspicious detective (Claude Earl Jones) and West's nemesis, Dr. Carl Hill (David Gale), who's still a no-body. Get it? A-ha-ha-ha...

First of all, let me say I was a serious fan of the original "Re-Animator", thus I had no problem with buying a sequel that has a very bad reputation. Well, I can only say "Bride" lives up to its reputation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of H.P. Lovecraft's works, however it does borrow a few elements from his tale "Herbert West -- Re-Animator" which weren't used in the first film.

The acting is fine, the effects are fine, the music is fine. The direction is okay, although it can't match Stuart Gordon's. There are a few funny moments in the film, but overall it has a very, very unpleasant feeling about it - which the first film did not have.

Overall, this is only for serious "Re-Animator"/horror fans. Rent the first one instead. "Bride of Re-Animator" is nothing more than a failed re-animation.

Never before has there been a film like "Starship Troopers". I remember watching this movie years ago and enjoying it, and, watching it now, I love it even more.

Extremely loosely adapted from Robert A. Heinlein's sci-fi classic, the film details the futuristic adventures of marine Johnny Rico (Casper Van Dien) and his platoon of "starship troopers" as they wage war against an army of deadly, gigantic bugs. Sound simple? It is. But that's all part of the fun.

Paul Verhoeven brings something to this film that only he could bring: a feeling of utter and completely enjoyability. There's your typical Verhoeven sex and outrageous violence/bloodiness - which just helps add to the film's black comedy feeling.

Speaking of which, the film is hilarious. Depending on what you expect from the film - if you're expecting "Platoon" in the future, you're apt to be disappointed. Sci-fi fans will feel like they're in heaven, while laughing their - cicadas - off at the same time.

The cast is terrific. Casper Van Dien plays Rico with determined perfection; Denise Richards and Dina Meyer are Rico's babes; Jake Busey is Rico's frequently troublesome/annoying pal; Clancy Brown is a flawless Sgt. Zim and Michael Ironside is a great Rasczak.

Edward Neumeier's outrageous script is a major improvement over frequently master author Heinlein's depressing, pointless novel. Basil Poledouris also provides an energetic, adventurous, and heroic score.

Also worth mentioning is the outstanding special effects, by master Phil Tippett. The bugs are almost always extremely realistic and expertly designed. Excellent.

There has never been and likely will never again be a film like "Starship Troopers". With Paul Verhoeven's trademark direction, the cast's fitting performances, Edward Neumeier's flawlessly entertaining script and Phil Tippett's outstanding special effects, what more could you want?

In 1995, with the enormous international success of the "Highlander" TV series, producers Bill Panzer and Pete Davis once again teamed up to unleash another "Highlander" sequel upon us. This time, it's "Highlander III: The Sorcerer" or, as it was known in the U.S., "Highlander: The Final Dimension". (Don't ask me where the hell that came from) The film finds Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) enjoying a peaceful life with his adopted son, deceived that he has won the Prize. However, the evil sorcerer Kane (Mario Van Peebles) has broken free from the Japanese mountain he was entombed in, and now he wants the Highlander's head.

One of the parts of the film I enjoyed the most was Christopher Lambert's portrayal of Connor. For once the character isn't a severely depressed maniac, and in fact, he's better in this film than any other. Mario Van Peebles makes a good, if not unbelievable villain, with Deborah Unger as the sexy Highlander girl.

Andy Morahan's direction is good. The script is good and very entertaining, but the film's problem is this: although it has all the right materials to make a good film, they are either wasted, put in the wrong place or dropped quickly. It makes you wonder if the franchise is cursed.

The film's score, by J. Peter Robinson, was very nice as well. Loreena McKennit's "Bonny Portmore", featured twice in the film, is a beautiful and outstanding song that has now become the theme for the series.

All in all, while "Highlander III" (Sorcerer/Final Dimension) is an entertaining film, it can't come anywhere near comparing to the original film, although it is a major improvement over "Highlander II".

Second to the original film, "Highlander: Endgame" is the most popular and biggest hit in the "Highlander" movie series. Part of this was, no doubt, the fact that the star of the "Highlander" films, Christopher Lambert, was united with the star of the "Highlander" series, Adrian Paul.

The story involves immortal Duncan MacLeod (Paul) investigating the disappearance of his friend, mentor, and kinsman, Connor MacLeod (Lambert). Along the way he meets up with his ex-wife, Kate (Lisa Barbuscia). When Connor is finally discovered, the two must unite to battle an immortal no one can destroy alone - yet in the end, there can be only one.

First of all, let me say that this film will make much more sense and be more enjoyable for "Highlander" fans. Had I not been a fan, I think I would've completely ignored the film.

The cast isn't exactly extraordinary. Adrian Paul is great; it's nice to see Joe Dawson (Jim Byrnes) and Methos (Peter Wingfield) turn up as well, although in dastardly short performances. Bruce Payne as Kell is pitiful, making Kell the most dull, uninteresting villain in the "Highlander" universe; Barbuscia is fine in an unbelievable role. Christopher Lambert's performance is good, but the way the character is depicted - suicidal, old, feeble, insanely depressed - is horrible.

Douglas Aarniokoski's direction is fine, with a very nice score by Nick Glennie-Smith and Stephen Graziano. It's great to have "Bonny Portmore" back as well.

The film has two major problems. First of all, the movie plays out much more like one of the episodes of the "Highlander" TV series than a motion picture. Second, the film is a major disappointment. The potential for this film was enormous, and yet it wastes almost all of it. It is a very dark, gloomy picture.

In closing, "Highlander: Endgame" is hardly enjoyable, and nowhere near as good as it could be. As far as the "Highlander" films go, the rule still applies: in the end, there can be only one.

Many people think that Mel Gibson is the man that made "Mad Max". In fact, it is the contrary: "Mad Max" made Mel Gibson. Without the 1979 Aussie hit, the world would never have heard of Mel Gibson. And that would be a bad thing.

"Mad Max" is set on the Australian highways, which, in the not-so-far future, is the primary mode of transportation. The highways are ruled by vicious biker gangs that will stop at nothing to get a thrill. This time, however, they picked the wrong guy: Max Rockatansky (Gibson). First they take out his best friend. Next up, they pursue his wife and child, eventually ending up in the death of his family. This is when Max gets mad. You just made "Mad" Max's fight with you personal, biker gang. Bad move.

"Mad Max" is a cult classic, but no one really knows how important it is. It was nominated for eight awards (including Best Film) at the Australian Film Institute awards and won three. It, naturally, introduced Mel Gibson to the world. And it has the highest cost-to-profit ratio of any film ever made.

George Miller's directing is good, and teamed with composer Brian May (NOT of Queen), he creates a film that feels very much like a "Flash Gordon" epic. Gibson is terrific, and the cast performs pretty well for a film like this. When I say "like this", I mean a low-budget film - and I mean low budget. Occasionally, the budget does show - but hey, that's part of the fun of it! One of the greatest parts of the film is the car chases. "Mad Max"'s car chase sequences have been rivaled by none and surpassed only by its first sequel, "The Road Warrior". The chases are intense, high-powered, and extremely realistic.

"Mad Max" is a landmark in Australian cinema, and very important to sci-fi cinema as well as cinema in general. It is the rare type of film that isn't afraid to be unique. "Mad Max" is history.