Change Your Image
Tom_Benton
Reviews
Hellboy (2004)
One hell of a fun film, boy.
Seeing the trailers for the film, I decided that - while I am a big fan of comic book movies - HELLBOY looked like a bore. Boy, was I wrong. When I popped in the DVD of HELLBOY, from the first few minutes of the film, I loved it.
Hellboy is a demon who was brought out of a hell dimension by the Nazis in 1944. He was taken in by a paranormal specialist, who nicknamed him "Hellboy" and taught him the basics of demon life. I guess. How the hell he potty-trained him, I don't know. Cut to sixty years later - Hellboy is the FBI's top-secret tool to kick demon ass.
First of all, let's get down to the acting. Ron Perlman is a very gifted actor, and he has never been better than as the title character in this film. His portrayal of the cocky, sometimes reckless good-guy demon is absolutely flawless. The rest of the cast performs well, but Perlman completely and utterly steals the show.
The story of the film is what attracted me to it at first. The whole idea with the Nazis and such I find to be very interesting. The screenplay is absorbing, action-packed, and frequently funny, but I must admit that it lags a little towards the end.
Another fun part of the film is its atmosphere. It feels like it comes straight out of a comic book, with its dark subway stations and nighttime scenes with an orange haze.
The special effects are terrific. Abe Sapien is Hellboy's sometime companion, a sort of fishy character with psychic abilities; and then we have Liz, Hellboy's dream girl who just happens to have a little fire in her. That's a pun, by the way.
Just watch the movie.
What can I say to get you to watch it? It's one of the funnest films I've seen recently, and it completely and totally surpassed my expectations. I really wish we had more films like this.
I can't wait for HELLBOY 2.
HELLBOY by Guillermo del Toro. *** 1/2 out of ****.
Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
I think Ebert said it best.
Ah, friends. Come sit with me as we experience the Quickening. If we both stick our hands into a puddle of orange, shiny goo, we'll be shocked, and yet, united. Then we can battle the evil Katana and save Zeist from ... from what?
This is the effect of HIGHLANDER II.
HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING is set in the future. Well, at least, I think it is. The film begins on Earth in the year 1999. Then, it heads off to the planet Zeist 500 years before. Following that, we're back to Earth in the year 2024. I'd say the film is pretty much divided between being on Earth in 2024 and Zeist 500 years before, but I think it was meant to be on Earth in 2024.
Now that that's cleared up ...
Imagine, if you will, that most of what they told us in the original HIGHLANDER was crap. Immortals don't come from nowhere, they come from the planet Zeist. The entire original HIGHLANDER movie was lies! Lies! Lies!
And if you believe that, I've got some $200,000 property for you down in sunny North Carolina.
Connor MacLeod, the main character of the original film (played by Christopher Lambert), is old and dying. When, in 1999, the Earth's ozone layer was nearly completely gone, MacLeod created The Shield Corporation, which then created a shield which would protect the Earth from the sun's violent rays. But in 2024, the world is a dark dungheap, and MacLeod's pretty much to blame.
Now let's go back to the planet Zeist. General Katana (Michael Ironside) is pretty pissed. MacLeod's still alive. So he sends his two retarded minions to kill MacLeod. The extremely elderly MacLeod somehow starts dancing around like Dean Martin and beheads both of them. The power of their lifeforce makes him young once again and free to kiss terrorist Louise Marcus (Virginia Madsen) and then try to take down the world's anti-Ozone shield. Oh yeah, the ozone's healed, by the way.
So then Katana comes to Earth to kill MacLeod, who is suddenly super-cool and ready to kill Katana. But for some reason, he needs help. So the producers paid Sean Connery $3.5 million. Behold! Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez is resurrected from the dead and comes back (for nine minutes of screen time) to help MacLeod shut down the shield.
If you haven't figured it out by now, HIGHLANDER II is completely messed-up.
I haven't seen a sequel this bad in who knows how long. It contradicts the entire HIGHLANDER mythos, and thus was ignored in every other sequel and television series that followed.
But there is a good side to the film. I think Ebert said it best in his review of the film: he describes HIGHLANDER II as being "a movie almost awesome in its badness". How awesome do you hear that? But that's exactly what HIGHLANDER II is: almost awesome in its badness.
It may be one of the worst films ever made, and it may be the worst sequel, but it is also a very fun and frequently (unintentionally) funny film. In the words of the Immortal Ramirez, "If you can summon it all up, at one time, in one place, you can accomplish something glorious."
Whatever that means.
NOTE: There are two versions of the film. The theatrical version, called the Quickening, has just been reviewed here. The director's cut has been re-named the "Renegade Version" and changes much of the film's story. The film has also been completely re-edited. The Quickening version runs 89 minutes, while the Renegade version runs 109.
HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING by Russell Mulcahy. * 1/2 out of ****.
The Evil Dead (1981)
A horror landmark that spawned one of the most beloved trilogies ever ... essential for any casual horror viewer.
Join me, if you will, as we travel back to 1978. College buddies Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert, and Bruce Campbell are preparing to put their Super-8 days behind them and move on to The Big Time. But before they can enter the Land of Moviemaking, they have to decide what it is they're going to make. Deciding that a horror film would be most fun, they shoot "Within the Woods" as a way to raise funds for the production of their film. Soon, they have around $150,000 - little for a film, but they decide it'll be enough to get started. And so production on "Book of the Dead" begins.
Now, let's fast-forward to a time around late 1981 or early 1982. After about four years of torturous filming and production work, it seems that "Book of the Dead" is ready to be released. A test screening is performed, and it does very well. But producer Irvin Shapiro says, "Boys, you call it 'Book of the Dead' and they're gonna think they're gonna have to read for two hours." And so the production is re-named, released, and raved about by critics everywhere (including the Master himself, Stephen King). Congratulations, folks: you now have "The Evil Dead".
The film's shallow story deals with a group of five college students, who travel to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of good times and beer. At the cabin, however, they discover an odd-looking book and a tape, which they proceed to listen to. On it are Sumarian burial rites that, when said aloud, awakens evil flesh-possessive spirits from the woods. One by one the kids are picked off - until only Ash (Bruce Campbell) remains...
Sam Raimi, now at the peak of his career with the "Spider-Man" series, wrote and directed this low-budget horror thriller, which I believe I can safely call a "classic". The film is, for the most part, very original, and while its predictability may reduce the amount of scary scenes, its a non-stop rollercoaster ride of gore that horror films will likely love.
Bruce Campbell's character, Ash, is for the most part weak and nerdish through much of the film. Unlike its sequels, "Evil Dead" makes no attempt at being funny, but it makes a hell of a fine attempt at creeping us out.
"The Evil Dead" is a horror landmark that spawned one of the best-loved trilogies ever. Those with a very vulnerable stomach may want to steer clear of the film, which originally received an NC-17 rating but was released unrated for better box office sales. Simply put, "Evil Dead" is essential for any casual horror viewers.
THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi. *** out of ****.
The Evil Dead (1981)
A horror landmark that spawned one of the most beloved trilogies ever ... essential for any casual horror viewer.
Join me, if you will, as we travel back to 1978. College buddies Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert, and Bruce Campbell are preparing to put their Super-8 days behind them and move on to The Big Time. But before they can enter the Land of Moviemaking, they have to decide what it is they're going to make. Deciding that a horror film would be most fun, they shoot "Within the Woods" as a way to raise funds for the production of their film. Soon, they have around $150,000 - little for a film, but they decide it'll be enough to get started. And so production on "Book of the Dead" begins.
Now, let's fast-forward to a time around late 1981 or early 1982. After about four years of torturous filming and production work, it seems that "Book of the Dead" is ready to be released. A test screening is performed, and it does very well. But producer Irvin Shapiro says, "Boys, you call it 'Book of the Dead' and they're gonna think they're gonna have to read for two hours." And so the production is re-named, released, and raved about by critics everywhere (including the Master himself, Stephen King). Congratulations, folks: you now have "The Evil Dead".
The film's shallow story deals with a group of five college students, who travel to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of good times and beer. At the cabin, however, they discover an odd-looking book and a tape, which they proceed to listen to. On it are Sumarian burial rites that, when said aloud, awakens evil flesh-possessive spirits from the woods. One by one the kids are picked off - until only Ash (Bruce Campbell) remains...
Sam Raimi, now at the peak of his career with the "Spider-Man" series, wrote and directed this low-budget horror thriller, which I believe I can safely call a "classic". The film is, for the most part, very original, and while its predictability may reduce the amount of scary scenes, its a non-stop rollercoaster ride of gore that horror films will likely love.
Bruce Campbell's character, Ash, is for the most part weak and nerdish through much of the film. Unlike its sequels, "Evil Dead" makes no attempt at being funny, but it makes a hell of a fine attempt at creeping us out.
"The Evil Dead" is a horror landmark that spawned one of the best-loved trilogies ever. Those with a very vulnerable stomach may want to steer clear of the film, which originally received an NC-17 rating but was released unrated for better box office sales. Simply put, "Evil Dead" is essential for any casual horror viewers.
THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi. *** out of ****.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
... One of the greatest things I've ever seen, and undoubtedly the best documentary ... simply unbelievable.
It's only been out for less than a month, and already this film has created an uproar the film industry rarely sees. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is writer/director Michael Moore's (he also produces) second megahit documentary. Last time, in "Bowling for Columbine", he examined the gun-associated violence that America seems so addicted to. Now he takes it a few stories higher with this poke at "President" George W. Bush's time as president.
NOTE: If you didn't notice, I put "President" in quotation marks because I cannot see why anyone would consider Bush and actual president. I am a Democrat and complete anti-Bush. Anyone who can't stand to see Bush made fun of should stop reading this right now.
I walked into "Fahrenheit 9/11" with doubts about a few things. First, I wasn't sure about going to see a documentary in a theater. I live in a small town in an extremely small state, so seeing a documentary at the movies is pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Second, as much as I completely despise our current so-called "president", I had by doubts about Moore. It sounded to me like he was taking it way too far.
When I came out of the theater, I was pretty much speechless, and unfortunately, I still am. The film was unbelievable. I've seen some very fine documentaries, but none compare to this film.
Michael Moore is the type of filmmaker than can keep anyone with an open mind (or a Democrat with a closed mind) glued to the screen for as long as he wants. I was completely glued for the entire two hours and two minutes. Moore has the footage, and explains the events to us in a way that any dimwit can understand. He can be witty and hilarious, and yet also make us extremely thoughtful. To add to this, he throws in a soundtrack that will sometimes make you laugh out loud at the irony of some of these songs.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is one of the greatest things I've ever seen, and undoubtedly the best documentary. Sometimes funny, sometimes tear-jerking, and always thought-provoking, Michael Moore has made a masterpiece that is simply unbelievable.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 by Michael Moore. **** out of ****.
The Thing (1982)
Underrated horror masterpiece. John Carpenter's finest.
An alien theme plays as a helicopter flies across the South Pole landscape. Below it is a wolf dog, running through the snow. Apparently, the helicopter is chasing the dog. The pilot emerges with a gun and begins firing at the creature as it runs towards a base of American scientists.
Soon, this doesn't sound as strange as it seems. Kurt Russell stars as the American scientist who learns the secret of the creature: it's over 100,000 years old, frozen beneath the ice, and p***ed off. We also learn that if it reaches civilization, within 27,000 hours the entire planet would be run by this creature - an alien lifeform that imitates whatever it kills. Dogs, spiders, grandma - this thing can do it. It's up to old Russell to save the day and destroy everything in sight in a blind rage.
When first released in 1982, The Thing met with mixed critical acclaim - most of it bad. It was either 'not scary' or 'relies on special effects', but rarely would you find a positive review. Now, in the new millennium, the film is finally getting the recognition it deserves. The Thing has deservedly joined the ranks of the most famous horror films of all-time. It is even arguably more popular than it's basis, the 1951 sci-fi classic The Thing from Another World.
First we'll cover the more commonly debated aspects of the film. One is the acting. I felt the acting was excellent, especially Russell as the determined chosen leader of the team. Moffat is the only other actor in the crew who is somewhat popular, but that has no affect whatsoever on the cast. The acting might actually give this film a documentary feeling to it...
Carpenter is probably the movie's second most important aspect. His direction is eerie and suspenseful - this movie helped elevate him to his current position of horror/thriller wonder. If you truly look at this film, you can tell Carpenter wasn't trying to make it scary - he wanted to make it suspenseful, although there are a few jumpy moments in the film.
There's also a fitting and chilling score by Ennio Morricone. It definitely doesn't rank among the master composer's greatest scores, but it works well on the mood of the film.
The most important, and no doubt the greatest, aspect of the film is Rob Bottin's special effects. They are extraordinary. Every scene involving the alien parasite is completely convincing. Whether it's a gruesome alien bursting from a dog's body, or a severed head sprouting spider-like legs and walking around the room, the effects are outstanding. Bottin proves himself to be a make-up genius.
It's no wonder The Thing is a classic. It's documentary-like feel and it's creepy atmosphere are perfect. Carpenter has succeeded in making a thrilling wonder that may even surpass it's aforementioned story source. No horror, sci-fi or thriller fan should go without at least taking a look at this masterpiece chiller.
Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Lots of romantic, British fun!
"Four Weddings and a Funeral" is of major importance for being two things: 1) the first collaboration (of many) between Hugh Grant and screenwriter Richard Curtis, and 2) Hugh Grant's first major hit film. It was, in fact, for a long time, the highest-grossing British film ever.
"Four Weddings and a Funeral" centers around Charles (Grant) and his group of friends. It seems every weekend Charles has a wedding to attend, and now he's beginning to wonder when it'll be his own. It seems he's found true love when he meets an attractive American girl (Andie MacDowell) ... but has he?
Hugh Grant is terrific, and MacDowell is great as well. In fact, the whole cast is wonderful in keeping the film flowing. Then there's Richard Curtis' clever, very funny script, without which the film would be nothing.
"Four Weddings in a Funeral", while quite different from later Curtis projects like "Bridget Jones's Diary" or "Love Actually", is loaded with lots of romantic, British fun that anyone can and will enjoy.
Highlander: Endgame (2000)
$5,000,000 of potential down the drain.
By 2000, the "Highlander" franchise was approaching the peak of its popularity. When it was announced that a fourth film, uniting Christopher Lambert (of the film series) and Adrian Paul (of the television series) would be released, it sounded like a dream come true. Finally, the "Highlander" film series had a chance for redemption.
And what's the result? $5,000,000 worth of potential thrown down the drain.
Instead, we are given the darkest and most unsatisfactory film in the entire series. The story involves Duncan MacLeod (Paul) looking for kinsman Connor (Lambert), to aid him in his fight against an evil immortal (Bruce Payne) who has become too powerful to face alone.
First of all, the acting. The acting is pretty good, and all our favorite characters are here: not only both MacLeods, but also Joe Dawson (Jim Byrnes, of the TV show) and fan favorite Methos (Peter Wingfield). Duncan is as he should be, but Connor MacLeod has been re-designed as an insanely depressed old man. Dawson has some fine scenes, but there was much more potential for Methos. And the baddie? Jacob Kell is the most uninteresting evildoer I've ever seen. No one cares, and he's so emotionless as to make him completely ignorable. Duncan MacLeod's "ex-wife" (Lisa Barbuscia) would have made a better baddie than him!
The direction is good, especially for the sword-fighting scenes. The script is very weak, and weak and boring attempt to bring the television series to the screen. In fact, the whole film feels like one, big, very bad two-parter of the TV show. The score is pretty good (by Nick Glennie-Smith and Stephen Graziano).
All in all, I was extremely disappointed with this fourth entry in the "Highlander" series. It had everything you needed to make a great film, and instead we have this depressing trash.
Here's to the hope that "Highlander: The Source" shall redeem our beloved, lost "Highlander" film franchise.
Pride and Prejudice (1995)
Quite simply the most flawless thing I've ever seen.
Much had I heard of Jane Austen's legendary classic, "Pride and Prejudice", and so to kick off my summer I set about reading it. It was possibly the greatest book I'd ever read. I looked up the different screen adaptations of it, and found that Colin Firth had starred in one (I previously enjoyed him in "Bridget Jones's Diary" - which is, in fact, a semi-remake of Austen's tale - and "Love Actually"). So I traveled to my handy-dandy Borders store and picked up a DVD copy. As I walked out of the store, I hoped that I hadn't wasted $40 for this thing. And you know what?
It was worth every last penny.
"Pride and Prejudice" is quite simply the most flawless thing I've ever seen. The story involves Elizabeth Bennet (Jennifer Ehle), who's opinion changes greatly of a seemingly very proud, rude man that moves into town. To sum up the whole story would be impossible, as there isn't really a simple lot.
First of all, let's examine the overall look of the thing. Simon Langton's direction is excellent, and he succeeds in getting the most breathtaking views of everything and anything. The production design and costuming is perfect, capturing the time without error, and the locations are simply gorgeous. Carl Davis' score is terrific and fitting (also to the times). Andrew Davies' script brings every last scene from the book and then pops in some new, being as absolutely faithful to the book as anyone could hope to be.
But now on to the casting. The cast is outstanding, although the film's one problem (albeit a very slight one) is the role of Mrs. Bennet, who - although wacky in the book - is completely over-the-top here and quite frequently even annoying. But the stars of the film couldn't be better. Jennifer Ehle is absolutely wonderful as Lizzy Bennet, and her eyes are so dazzling that they mesmerized me throughout the whole 300 minutes!
The show is completely stolen, however, by Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Colin Firth is not just playing Mr. Darcy; Colin Firth IS Mr. Darcy. He was born to play this role, and plays it so flawlessly, that it deserves to be considered one of the best performances any actor has ever given. Words cannot describe Firth's perfection as Darcy.
All in all, "Pride and Prejudice" is the greatest thing ever to air on television, and were it a film, it would be the greatest film of all-time. Those of you who have read the book shouldn't worry a bit about the long running time of the mini-series; as impossible as it seems, you shan't even notice. When I finished the series, I had such a feeling of satisfaction as no entertainment has ever before granted me.
This is perfection.
Manhunter (1986)
Flawed, occasionally boring, and yet ... excellent.
Michael Mann took a break from "Miami Vice" in 1986 to produce this cult classic. "Manhunter" has been unfairly dismissed as "that film with the other Hannibal Lecter", while it is in fact so much more. Adapted from Thomas Harris' first Hannibal Lecter novel, "Red Dragon", "Manhunter" involves Will Graham (played by "C.S.I."'s Will Petersen), an FBI agent, who is called out of retirement to help track down a mysterious serial killer nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy" (Tom Noonan).
First, the cast. Will Petersen is a perfect Will Graham. Dennis Farina is also an excellent Jack Crawford. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is not so good. While Noonan makes "The Tooth Fairy" pretty creepy, the rest of the cast (including Brian Cox, who plays imprisoned cannibal Hannibal "Lecktor") brings out some horrible acting.
One of the reasons "Manhunter" is so cool is its close resemblance to "Miami Vice". The production design has a trademark "Vice" glitter to it, and the soundtrack is outstanding - also a "Vice" trademark. Mann takes what would normally be a dark crime-thriller and turns it into a shining thriller.
Michael Mann's direction is probably the best part of the film. He has the techniques and he knows how to use them, long before making hits like "Heat". Without Mann, the film would likely not have been made, and if so, would have much less cult status.
"Manhunter" is flawed. Occasionally, it's boring, and it has a very unsatisfying feel to it. And yet, somehow, unexplainably, and going against everything I've just said - it's excellent. Dated, and very "Miami Vice"-ish - but we love it.
"It's just you and me now, sport."