willy2004 Reviews

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Way better than I expected...

[9 June 2009]

Before I begin, let me just say, Harry Knowles can go suck a fat one. Hollywood needs to stop giving that obese orangutan any perks, kickbacks and set visits because his disgusting review of Terminator Salvation was not only wrong, but completely atrocious. Who the hell talks like that? He not only gives fandom a bad name, he's also well past his used by date.

And after reading the ridiculous flaming and trolling by people on this board, I went into Terminator Salvation expecting something between Aliens Vs Predator 2: Requiem and a Uwe Boll movie. Fortunately, I was wrong. And quite frankly, I fail to understand why so many people on this board hate it so much. Actually, I suspect it's a select handful of people who are giving this film a bad wrap. It's also a built in disposition about McG - which I think has no base in reality, considering this was a very competent film. I think if anything, McG proved he can make a decent action film.

While far from perfect, what Terminator Salvation lacks in depth, it makes up for in heart. People complaining about lack of character development on John Connor seem to have missed the point. We don't need character development on Connor - because we already know him. We already know what and who he is. This film shows us the very early days in the war against Skynet. Connor is a resistance leader, but he's not the savior of humanity. At least not when the film begins. We've seen the great John Connor in previous films, but Connor does not just become humanity's Savior overnight. He needs to earn that right. He needs to earn that respect.

What I found refreshing was Marcus' arc. Basically, he arced more than Connor in this film. He found redemption - he saved Connors life, which I thought was a nice reversal at the end. Connor being saved by the very thing that tried to kill him for so many years. Now Connor has a heart which is only part human. It was a nice thematic touch.

In a lot of ways,this was Marcus' film. We see the events mainly from his perspective.We see this post apocalyptic world through his eyes. Aussie newcomer Sam Worthington definitely showed why James Cameron loves him so much. He has the depth and the brawn to be a top class movie star. He played the role of Marcus very well, and more often than not, out shined Bale.

The film looked absolutely gorgeous. Everything had the appearance of being dipped in ash. The robots were grimy, greasy and tattered. Connor and his troops were battle weary and ragged, stained with blood and sweat. And all the left-over weapons and military equipment were scorched and grimy. I loved the look of this film. It was very realistic.

There were some questionable parts which had me wondering what McG and the screenwriters were thinking – but for the most part, this payed nice homage to the original films, and the action was very well choreographed. The special effects, sound design and CGI were top-notch, as expected from ILM, and the Terminator Endoskeletons looked great. Especially the Arnhuld cameo. He looked rubbery because he was one of the first to come off the Skynet assembly line – and to my surprise they made Arnie look exactly like he did in the first film. I thought that was a great little touch.

One of the only real concerns I had with the film was Danny Elfman's score. At times it was brilliant. It suited the film – but the signature theme from Brad Fidel was only audible on 2-3 occasions. I would have loved it if they kept Fidel's original score. But never the less, McG did a solid job at adding to the franchise.

I'll be anxious to see where they go with Terminator 5. McG did hint at the London premiere last week that T5 may see John Connor travel back to present day to warn the military about Skynet and Judgement Day.

I for one can't wait. And I hope Bale and McG... Oh to hell with it, will be back.

Rogue (2007)

CRIKEY!!! -- This Croc has bite!

[16 November 2007]

Granted, it's not perfect, and the idea is not 100% original (from a cinematic point of view) but one thing I love about Greg McLean's films is that he takes what are essentially Australian icons and flips them totally askew. For instance in Wolf Creek the films brutal killer - Mick Taylor is basically Mick Dundee turned psycho. And in Rogue, he yet again takes a well known Australian reptile and sets it loose on some unsuspecting tourists.

There's no denying McLean can shoot a beautiful movie, and some of the wonderful scenes of the Australian top-end are simply stunning. The characters all portray strong performances, especially when the pressure sets in and they begin to crack. McLean also does a good job at drip feeding the dread and teasing the audience with nothing but growls, grunts and slippery tails. It's an age old formula where directors don't show the full extent of the threat till the end - well, thankfully we don't have to wait that long, as when the croc does reveal itself - we see that it is frickin'MASSIVE! And what's even more scary is that these thing's actually exist up there.

The croc itself is naturally CGI with some animatronics, and it's a relief to see that it looks "real". The movement and animation is authentic and the sound design is also effective in giving the audience that jolted feeling a 3 tonne croc would give.

It's a tense, taught and well directed film, and the only gripe I have about it is that it seems a little short - maybe that was put down the fact that I was so immersed into the film? But it did feel a little short. It also lacked the brutal punch Wolf Creek gave us back in 2005, but never the less, it's a cute little Aussie horror thriller where McLean pays sound homage to classics like Jaws and Aliens. And it's also good to see more "genre" films like this coming out of Australia, and it's also good to know people like the Weinsteins and Warner Brothers are backing horror films from Australia for international releases and distribution.

For anyone into their Reptillian chills and thrills - I highly recommend ROGUE.

30 Days of Night (2007)

A horror film that is actually quite frightening

[15 October 2007]

30 Days of Night is the latest entry in a long line of vampire horror movies. Vampires have sort of gone out of vogue in the horror world recently, replaced by decomposing, lumbering zombies. Director David Slade's movie tries to get vampires back in the thick of the scare business, and he has a gimmick. 30 Days of Night takes place in an isolated Alaskan town which, since it's so far north, spends 30 days of the year in complete darkness.

As gimmick's go, it's a good one. As the sun sinks toward the horizon for the last time, most of the tiny town's 500 or so residents leave, preferring migration south rather than 30 days without sun. Some however, always choose to remain and the small town's sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) marks the beginning of their 30 days of dark by adjusting their population sign to reflect its 152 remaining residents. Meanwhile, the vampires are already plotting. Someone has begun vandalizing key areas of the little village's infrastructure. Satellite phones are stolen, and burned. The town's helicopter is mysteriously damaged beyond compare. Something is afoot, but before Oleson can figure it out, the sun is gone and it's game over.

The vampires come on the town suddenly, and in force. The power goes out, the phones go down, the internet is gone. The nearest town is 80 miles away, there is no sun, there is no hope, no chance of defense, no semblance of order. This isn't a siege movie where the brave sheriff holes up in a police station with a group of survivors and defends them against an attacking evil. With the disappearance of light, the handful of residents left in the dark become rabbits, helpless scared creatures whose only hope is a quick death.

Except it takes them a few hours to figure this out. Meanwhile, the vampires' attack is an orgy of brutal violence and blood spatter as humans run out into the street brandishing weapons, mistakenly thinking they can actually fight. Each attempt at self-defense is marked by a red stain on the snow, and soon the defenders are gone and the vampires move on to crashing through houses and killing everyone else. By then Sheriff Oleson and the few people he has running with him have started to realize out they have no hope, and like the prey they are, go to ground praying that they can wait for the sun's return.

They can't. The vampires keep coming, keep killing, keep hunting. They're an unstoppable force and Slade never makes the mistake of letting you think his human characters have a chance. He's so good at it, that when something does go right for them you're surprised. Even then, there's always a horrible price.

The film goes extremely heavy on the gore; heads are brutally severed in extreme close-ups, blood drips through the snow leaving stains of death everywhere the camera goes. There's an aerial shot in the middle of the film which will simply blow the mind of gore-hounds, as a camera sweeps over the town in the midst of the vampires' most vicious, massive, killing frenzy. But what's amazing is that gore isn't what the movie is about. It's intense and gripping, so intense that even though you're watching one of the goriest movies you've ever seen, you may not even notice. You're too caught up in what's going to happen next. Are the vampires coming? Will they run? Will they hide? Will anyone make it out alive? If there's anything wrong with 30 Day of Night, it's only in the final act when the movie's dwindling supply of heroes make one of those truly bizarre decisions that people only seem to make in movies. And perhaps you'll walk out feeling a little indifferent to Josh Hartnett, who's not ineffective as the movie's primary protagonist, but it's clear that bringing heat to the cold just isn't his thing.

Ben Foster however, shows up early in the movie to turn in his second great villain performance of the year. In 3:10 to Yuma he stole the film as a perfectly groomed uber-murderer, here does a 180 and plays a grungy, slimy, stranger who wanders into town and causes trouble. As he did in Yuma, he slips completely into the character until he's almost unrecognizable. It's unfortunate that they didn't find a way for him to figure more prominently into the script. He leaves an impression.

Most of all though, see 30 Days of Night if you want to be scared. It's so rare that a modern horror movie actually delivers that. Most seem to boil down to buckets of gore or cheap, easily spotted scares. 30 Days of Night brings the gore, but mixes it with a brutal, vicious, nail biting intensity that grabs you by the hair, drags you through the street, and cuts off your head when you least expect it. David Slade hasn't revolutionized the vampire genre, but he may make you wet your pants.

Grindhouse (2007)

Sleazy, gory, tacky ...and I loved every minute!

[27 May 2007]

One thing about Rodriguez and Tarrantino - they know films. And both films in their Grindhouse double-feature wear their homages on their sleeves. Both are balls out sleazfest extravaganzas, and both deserve their rightful place as some of the best work by both directors.

Planet Terror may arguably be one of the greatest zombie schlock fests ever conceived on celluloid, and Death Proof may be one of the sickest "slasher" films ever made? It also shows you just how mental Tarratino really is - the guys a nut, yet also a film genius.

The problem with the poor Box Office performance earnings has nothing to do with the films themselves, its because the films "target" audience got the film - but no one outside of the perceived target audience did. And unfortunately that is not mainstream America. But I'm hoping DVD sales will be strong with a slew of extra content, because both films really deserve success.

Why?

Because both films are the freshest concept to hit cinemas in many years, even if they were homages to the sleazy Grindhouse shows of the 70's. Where else can you go watch trailers about a guy named "Machette" or an upcoming Eli Roth slasher movie called "Thanksgiving"? I mean these films just tilt their hats to all the genres that made the Grindhouse so much fun.

I think anyone who enjoys film in general, would find something in both Planet Terror and Death Proof. They are immensely entertaining, right from the opening zombie attack to the final car chase.

Go watch it, and experience the sleazy side of cinema. You know you want to!

28 Weeks Later (2007)

An entertaining and worthy sequel

[27 May 2007]

Many zombie purists will argue that 28 Days Later was NOT a zombie film. And in a way they're right, Danny Boyle first showed us the rage virus as being something that does not kill you, but turns you into a blood-thirsty maniac...in a matter of seconds. Not a slow walking, moaning, rotting corpse which wanders aimlessly looking for brains.

In many ways the human who is infected with the rage virus is a far, far more terrifying adversary. Mainly because when they spot you, they instantly run full pelt at you, and don't let up. They infect you by either biting or beating the crap out of you and then vomiting blood in your face. Not a nice way to go.

28 days later, was really a social commentary that hinted to the fact that millions and millions of people die from infectious diseases each year around the globe, and that we really don't know what's next on the natural disease list. Mother nature could finally figure out a way to tell us Homo Sapiens to "get lost" once and for all - and that was what made 28 days later so scary, so real, and so brutal.

So fast forward 28 weeks later, and what so we get, we get a ravaged England that is now under US military control and has been sectioned off. We get thousands of refugees streaming in from the countryside, to start all over again. People from all walks of life, who are trying to make a life again for themselves.

Yet there's a problem.

No one knows where the virus has gone. Has it evolved, has it a new carrier? Understandably tensions are still among the people. It only takes one outbreak to start the chaos - and, well...I think you know what happens from here.

But 28 weeks later is a very simple story, its a very straightforward and in many ways short plot line, but effective none the less. Its a lot more intense and violent that the original, and there are some scenes where you'll laugh out loud as the director clearly pays homage to the zombie genre - with plenty of gory head-shots! Its a well acted film, and the actors all play their roles convincingly - even the infected. For people wanting a deeper meaning to their horror, it won't deliver on that level. But for people wanting a good scare at the Friday night cinema, you'll get what's expected.

28 weeks later does what its supposed to do - and that is scare you, not necessarily with cheap scares, but the good old "base under siege" and the "will they make it" plot line.

Its a good horror film, and deserves to be watched in a packed cinema.

Sunshine (2007)

A gorgeous Science Fiction film...

[27 May 2007]

...but one that's not without its fair share of plot holes and WTF moments. The fact that Danny Boyle made this film for $14 million US is testament to his craftmanship and technical efficency as a film maker.

This has the gloss of Solaris, the realistic and scientific elements of 2001: A space Oddessy and the shocking terror of Event Horizon. The film just looks amazing, and the CGI which ILM had nothing to do with is almost seamless, and is also proof that the Brits know how to make a decent flick.

Its really a film for sci-fi lovers, and understandably not everyone will get it. Its pretty much a relentless ride from the opening scene, and the pressure of the Icarus II crew is felt from the get-go. You can really see the emotional fatigue from the crew members, as the weight of the entire human race is resting on their shoulders.

The last half of the film, literally flips from one genre to the next and in some ways feels like it was thrown in there as a last minute descion. But I guess they were taking a risk, and some will think it was pulled off, others will not understand what Boyle and writer Alex Garland were trying to accomplish.

I'd say overall its a great take on the sc-fi genre, and it deserves to be watched. But like all films, it ain't perfect.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Good, but deserves to be a better film.

[27 May 2007]

I'll be honest - I couldn't wait for War Of The Worlds to come out. I was always a fan of the original book by H.G Wells, mainly for its sheer imagination and scope for a book that was scribed in late 19th Century England. Now to finally see it in its full glory was something I eagerly anticipated. And the fact that Spielberg was directing was just a nice sweetener (although this would have been a great project for James Cameron).

So did the film deliver? Yes and no. One would expect from Spielberg a focus on character more then anything else, and this is exactly what War of the Worlds does. It primarily focuses on one man, and his ability to deal with the situation that is unfolding before him. We, the audience go along for the ride, and see the events from a very close and personal perspective. Anyone looking for an Independence Day type film is ultimately going to be disappointed, because this is not that kind of film.

Apart from the Alien Invaders, what makes this film so frightening is that we see it from a point of view that this could happen anytime tomorrow or the next day. Spielberg injects a healthy dose of realism into the film that makes it really believable. Mankind going about his daily business without even knowing or slightly aware that another race of beings has been watching us evolve and has been studying us, and ultimately wants our planet, and sometime TODAY they plan to launch their worldwide invasion.

What about the aliens? Who are they? And where do they come from? In the original book, we know quite early on that they are from Mars, and have planned an Earth invasion because of the unlivable conditions on Mars. What's great about this is that Wells even talked about the moral and philosophical aspects of an alien invasion.

Spielberg symbolically hints that the invaders might be from Mars, but you never actually know where they are from. Unfortunately there are also some major gaps and plot holes regarding the invasion, and it would have been nice to have been told some more detail about our new alien friends. Various points are briefly mentioned about their technology and their method of attack, but once you start thinking about it, it actually raises more questions. And you quickly realize that Spielberg decided to leave out, what could have been some very satisfying points to the overall plot. I won't mention any spoilers here, but you will eventually figure out what I'm referencing to. Of course once you start to think about these plot holes you must also remember that Spielberg was really trying to make a human story here, not an alien one. The attack on earth and the Tripod machines are simply a backdrop to the story.

What about those Tripods? Do we get to see what the aliens look like? The answer is a resounding yes! In fact the aliens don't look CGI at all, which is a nice relief, even though they are totally CGI, and it's clear that their technology and weapons reflects their evolution as a species. This is one area that Spielberg (with the help of visual effects juggernaut ILM) really excels.

The Tripods are menacing and otherworldly, yet it's clearly shown that they're machines, and wait till you see what comes out of these machines. Occasionally you can catch glimpses of what appears to be alien glyphs engraved on the side of the tripods, symbolizing a registration mark of some kind or maybe a trademark? It's little details like this that make Spielberg such a master filmmaker, his attention to detail.

You've probably heard by now in other reviews or from family and friends about people's dissatisfaction with the ending? Well, without giving too much away, it does explain what happens from a narrative point of view. So to the average moviegoer looking for a good popcorn flick, they'll walk away with a brief but clear understanding of how they aliens fail. Yet to people who know the story, it appears Spielberg rushed the ending, with a very generalized description of what happened.

Either Spielberg was trying to crunch this down into a 2-hour movie or he ran out of money. Neither are probably the answers, as the special effects alone would have cost more than the national debt, but at times you feel like it was rushed. If War of the Worlds was much more grander and epic than this really could have been one of the greatest Science Fiction movies ever made, but as it stands it's just a very good movie, and nothing much more than that. Unfortunately the ending is also were the typical Spielberg cheese starts to slip in, although It's not enough to totally offend, but it can make you cringe at times.

Keep in mind these are really all trivial points I've highlighted as no movie is perfect, and it's always going to happen when you've got such a loved and revered topic such as this. It happened with Star Wars, and War of the Worlds is really no different. There's always going to be fans that don't appreciate what Spielberg was trying to convey. At the end of the day, these will not take anything away from the movie.

War of the Worlds is still a lot of fun, visually stunning and a truly frightening tale delivered to us by one of the greatest film makers of our time...it just could have been a lot better.

Dark Fields (2006 Video)

Z- Grade Horror !!!

[20 November 2006]

This film looked like it had the production budget of about 3 bags of weed. It almost looks like a student film. Bad lighting, bad soundtrack, bad plot, shallow characters and even badder acting.

I laughed out aloud at some of the bad dialogue and the main character "Taylor" who was more concerned about flicking her long hair and looking sexy than actually trying to act.

Given the obvious lack of funding, the badly written script and the amateur actors - the director than likely did the best they could - under the circumstances.

But there are a lot better Slasher style pics out there which have been made on a similar budgets and still retain a good story with lots of good chills. The indie horror film "Malevolence" is a prime example.

Wold Creek had a budget of $1 Million US - and it was one of the scariest and brutal films ever made in the slasher genre.

Granted this was an amateur effort, but that's still no excuse. An original idea may have been all that was needed to elevate this film above the level of "absurd".