hatsunemiku-27340 Reviews

Godzilla 2000 (1999)

Not Enough Practical Effects

[6/10 · 15 September 2017]

One of the facets I enjoy about the Godzilla franchise is the campy practical effects. Miniatures abound; eventually exploding or crumbling in glorious fashion. In this film, what I recall was meant to be an apology for the American travesty of a film starring Matthew Broderick, JPEGs and green screens clash with terrible CG in one of the ugliest Godzilla productions I've ever seen. Godzilla faces off against a weird UFO very reminiscent of the T-1000 and the battle for Tokyo is pretty unenjoyable purely because of how dumb it looks, even for Godzilla. That doesn't make this a campy delight nonetheless. If only for the shock and schlock value of the special effects should you come to this film. The story is a mess, the villain is unmemorable, and you'll leave it thinking "eh, it was a Godzilla movie".

Run Lola Run (1998)

An Interesting Underground Title

[6/10 · 14 September 2017]

Run Lola Run is a quick paced, low budget film about a young woman trying to save her boyfriend who has lost the hundred thousand he was to deliver to a mob boss. She has twenty minutes to find a hundred grand and get to him before he robs a grocery store. As you can expect, the film moves extremely fast to give you a sort of adrenaline rush, quickly cutting to various angles and tracking shots, interspersing cartoons, throwing in small vignettes with no bearing on the story but interesting nonetheless. It's an entirely original film with a great soundtrack, a movie I don't think has been recreated since. The closest equivalent I could come up with are the Crank movies, though I think those are a little more crazy in how they build that bullet train pacing.

Lola is a pretty good movie all around though I didn't feel a real connection to it. The characters are built up a bit but ultimately didn't come across as three dimensional to me and the plot was only there to service the action. As an eighty minute film, you can't go wrong and it really is unique and fun. But despite all the originality of the direction and cinematography, I can't help but feel it's still a fairly hollow movie in the end.

The Evil Dead (1981)

Low Budget Classic

[7/10 · 13 September 2017]

While not possessing the humorous qualities that made Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness nerd culture classics, The Evil Dead is a great low budget, independent horror film from a small group of friends looking to make it in the harsh world of cinema. Filmed for dirt cheap, The Evil Dead had to come up with ways in which to take shortcuts that would make it look good and be scary without looking silly. Thus was the first person perspective Sam Raimi is known for invented. Claymation, cheesy blood hoses, and milk vomit add to the enjoyable inventiveness of this movie.

There's not much to say. The actors are all subpar, even Bruce Campbell is still gonna need a few years to iron himself out into a B-movie god. The story is weak and the script isn't particularly memorable, it'd only be with the next iterations we'd see the memorable parts. I feel that if this weren't attached to two other much better movies it'd have been lost, but despite that it's still an enjoyable cinematic treat and one of the most respectable horror films of the eighties.

Army of Darkness (1992)

A Schlock Masterpiece

[8/10 · 13 September 2017]

Watching Army of Darkness is basically a requirement for all geeks everywhere, on the same level as being able to quote Monty Python by my estimation. It's a film that is entirely enjoyable on the surface level as a low budget, easy to quote, fun film that's quick and painless. But from the filmmakers perspective, it's a lovable piece that wears its cheapness on its chest. That's a wire, there's a green screen, that's a voice over on a plaster skeleton standing in place. It's so endearing.

The cheapness isn't what makes this movie fun for me, it's how much fun the actors are having. Bruce Campbell is a joy to watch, spouting one liners and having plaster skeletons thrown at him from off-camera. The extras waving their swords haphazardly are having a blast, the director is, the stars are, and it translates to a big dumb smile on you, the viewers, face.

I don't have to explain this movie to you. Most likely, you've already seen it. If you haven't, you're missing one of the best B-movies of all time, a spoof of the sword and sorcery genre disguised as a silly horror movie disguised as an homage to the Three Stooges.

Symphogear G (2013)

An Entertaining Schlockfest

[7/10 · 12 September 2017]

The first season of Symphogear was a hodge podge of ideas and tones but came across as well-intentioned with a fun cast of heroes and some good action sequences. Symphogear G seems to fix a lot of the issues the first season had, providing a more consistent tone and a more focused story while also providing more entertaining characters and great action scenes.

This season finds heroes Hibiki, Chris, and Tsubasa facing off against an organization who have named themself "Fine", the name of the deity they battled in the first season. The goal of the organization is to bring about world peace, but the way they are going about it isn't real friendly. It doesn't help that organization has a walking mad scientist trope who wants to enslave humanity. With Hbiiki having health problems and Fine's Symphogear user Maria having second thoughts, the battle for world peace will be quite complicated.

The plot is, as I said, much more focused and feels like a cohesive arc with a beginning, middle, and end. It moves at a good pace and provides for a lot of exciting action scenes, as well as the requisite overlong and extremely over-the-top finale. While there were points of season one that took themselves way too seriously, this season feels more carefree. The danger is real but there is no unpleasantness to showcasing how bad the Noise are and the handling of killing, as far as Maria's character is concerned, is pretty decent. There's also a great sense of humor with one of my favorite anime moments ever being a montage sequence in which Hibiki and the girls train with their master while singing the theme song to Jackie Chan's Police Story. It's positively wonderful.

But the ending suffers from the same fate as the first season. This time, the final sequence of events is five episodes long and though it doesn't really feel stretched out, it still has an air of filler to it. The scientist, Dr. Ver, is the main antagonist here and he's so generically crazy and uninteresting as a villain that I didn't much care about seeing him get his come uppance. Some of the battles between characters had emotional stakes and I was invested in that, but the weakness of the main villain knocks the season down a few pegs (especially given the bad guy of the last season was also a scientist).

The characters are just as fun as they were last season. I love Chris, she's great and there's a modicum of a character arc going on there. Series newcomer Maria isn't all that interesting but some of the second-guessing she faces is. Kirika and Shirabe are the lolis. At first I felt like they were nothing more than the little girl fapbait. But as the show progresses, they flesh out and Kirika especially becomes one of the more interesting components of the cast.

Musically this season has a few songs I quite liked. The fact the beginning of the ending theme starts twenty seconds before the actual credits roll adds a really hype element to the end of each episode, making you excited to watch the next one and see a cliffhanger resolved. A real problem, though, is that this music-centric anime has so few interesting songs. Because of that, the music score is knocked down a peg.

The animation is slightly better from the first season but still cheap. Fight scenes look great but mundane scenes have the characters looking janky.

Symphogear G is a step up from the first season and works off everything that was enjoyable about its predecessor to make an even better product. It's full of holes and silliness but if you're looking for a good time, I think Symphogear is a series that knows itself well and knows how to provide for the fans exactly what they are looking for. I can't wait to see if the third season maintains or exceeds my expectations.

The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya (2010)

Padded Out but Entertaining

[8/10 · 12 September 2017]

First of all, this review comes from a person who hasn't seen the televised Haruhi series. I've read the light novels but I never got around to watching any of the anime for whatever reason. I recently purchased The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya from a used DVD store for a couple bucks which is probably the only reason I'll have ever watched this film.

One word to summarize my experience with Disappearance is "daunting". At 164 minutes, nearly three hours, this is the longest anime film I've ever sat through. Typically a movie that long, for me, requires two sittings unless I'm really into it. I watched Disappearance in one night, in one sitting, and I don't want to completely attest it to me being engaged because there were a lot of parts that I found boring.

The story is that one day series protagonist Kyon wakes up and everyone he knows is different. The stoic alien Nagato is now a shy, emotive girl. Time traveling Asahina Mikuru is the same but doesn't recognize him. And most of all, Haruhi Suzumiya isn't at Kyon's school any longer and attends a private academy. Why is the world this way and can Kyon return to his own reality? The story section is where the runtime becomes a problem. If I were to speed-read the light novel this is based on, I'd probably come out of the novel a half hour sooner than I would the film. The biggest problem with Disappearance is how much fluff I felt was attached. I had the distinct impression I was watching an uncut version of the film, one where an editor or the director didn't take the time to remove the extraneous scenes. It takes nearly a half an hour just to get to the actual story, the majority of the beginning of the movie is spent with slice-of-life and comedy bits that are good for introducing the characters to a new audience and giving a sense of comradeship, but nothing more really. Given the fact that the Christmas celebration isn't the focus of the finale and hardly plays into the story other than some minor motivation for Kyon, it's strange that the movie focuses so much on the minutiae of it all. Half the introductory scenes could have been cut.

The middle of the film drags as well though. There are quite a few scenes of nothing happening that are well directed and animated, sure, and also sometimes gives a glimpse into the character and his/her thoughts but I can't help but feel that much of it was pointless. While I was engaged in the mystery of what was happening and I do love the characters I was pulling my hair out at points wondering why in God's name certain scenes were drug out or even included in the final product.

The ending is abrupt. Like, really abrupt. It comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel satisfactory for the two plus hours you've had to trudge through to get to that point. And it leads to twenty-ish minutes of a conclusion that, again, is extended way beyond what it should have been.

This movie could have been two hours easily.

The animation and sound design are fantastic though. I love Kyo-Ani's animation and they're at the top of their game here. Everyone looks like human/bug hybrids but how can you not love those smug faces and want to protect those glowing smiles? The lack of music in certain scenes is a nice touch, it feels like the director understood using music for drama and not to fill dead air.

I feel that descriptions and analysis of Haruhi characters have been done to death so I'll slide by this. I love Haruhi as a character and I love the cast. I've spent years reading the light novels and some of the manga, they've been part of my anime conscience for nearly a decade. I don't feel that this movie had a lot of good development though alternate reality Nagato is amazing and I'm sad they bastardized her with that abomination of a spin-off. Nonetheless, memorable characters. Maybe not so much if you're just taking the film on its own, but definitely in the grand scheme of the franchise.

Disappearance isn't a bad movie in the least and has a lot of great merits. Everything about it screams quality but the amount of fluff and padding really weighs down what would otherwise have been an extremely worthwhile adventure. As it stands, I'd still recommend it but with the caveat that it may be best enjoyed in portions.

The Wicker Man (2006)

Some Studio Paid Money for This

[2/10 · 11 September 2017]

The Wicker Man stars Nic Cage in one of his most notorious roles, spewing some of the internet's favorite memes in what is, ultimately, a terrible film. I wouldn't say it's the worst movie I've ever seen by any stretch, but there are so few redeeming qualities to be found in The Wicker Man that it's hard to imagine anyone watching it and thinking it's even average.

The plot of a man flying off to find his daughter on a mysterious island full of pagan women could work. It did in the original film and it's a decent enough idea for a plot that could do all kinds of weird and mysterious things. What we get instead is a slow moving and absolutely boring slog with uninteresting characters portrayed by terrible actors, a script with some of the most stilted writing imaginable, underwhelming and extremely bland direction, and no hint of mystery, horror or suspense to be found. It fails as a horror movie, it fails as a mystery...it just fails.

The only redeeming quality is Nic Cage's awful performance does lead to some unintentionally funny moments. The final twenty minutes where he kicks and punches the women around and the infamous bee scene are worth a chuckle, but you've seen those scenes already and they aren't any funnier in the context of the film. So...there's really no reason whatsoever to watch this.

The Wicker Man is godawful and doesn't warrant your time.

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

An Anime Classic

[9/10 · 11 September 2017]

Masamune Shirow's Ghost in the Shell manga came near the end of the cyberpunk boom of the 80's. Focusing on the near future and questioning what it means to exist in a world where computerization was becoming more and more prevalent and capitalism was dominant, cyberpunk found its voice early with the works of Phillip K. Dick, but would really shine with the novels of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. Cyberpunk is a genre that is less explored than certain other "-punks" if only because the main themes have been done to death and the entire genre focuses on tropes that can go over the heads of the general movie-going populace. Smart science fiction isn't exactly what audiences are pining for so even when we are given a rare cyberpunk film in this modern age, they tend to be overblown blockbusters focusing more on action and style than actual commentary or philosophizing.

Ghost in the Shell is an animated film and one of a handful of anime films that have showcased that the medium is not just about the more sexually exploitative or comedic cartoons being released every year, but can also be used to produce high quality mature entertainment. It's a critical darling in the United States, something rare for a non-Ghibli release.

While the film gives in to philosophy and the plot is heavy on the technological mumbo-jumbo, at its core Ghost in the Shell is an action film. We are focused on Section 9, an elite group of counter-terrorism agents in Tokyo around the year 2030. The assault team is led by a fully cyberized woman named Motoko Kusanagi and she's backed up by a number of individuals of various levels of cyberization. She faces off against a mysterious hacker known as the Puppet Master, a person with the ability to erase the memories of cyberized people or even take over their bodies for himself.

The action is quick, fierce, and extremely well animated. The vast majority of the action comprises of shoot outs, with the final battle against a bipedal tank being the standout scene of the film. Through it all we're given moments of quiet reflection, long sequences of Motoko looking around the city or discussions about whether she died after she became a cyborg. The questions of who we are and when we cease to be human are poignant and add a psychological horror element to the affair. Toward the end of the movie, as Motoko battles the tank, there's a misstep, in my opinion, in the use of an genealogical tree motif on the wall of the battleground. I understand what they were going for in using this, but it feels quite overt in comparison to the rest of the philosophizing.

The final fifteen minutes are focused on Puppet Master and Motoko conversing, discussing becoming one and death. It's a fitting, thought provoking finale.

Of course, I've skipped over quite a bit of story elements. There's a departmental feud between Section 6 and Section 9 that plays a huge role, as well as some broader politics, all of which enhance the world-building. This is a meaty movie, and though I do categorize it as an action flick in many senses, it is action with a purpose. While this site will continue to showcase action films that are seemingly purposeless aside from displaying violence, Ghost in the Shell is one of the rare instances where both action and inaction work together to tell a story that all science fiction and action fans need to see.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

Disturbed Confusion

[6/10 · 11 September 2017]

My previous review, a discussion of the comic book film Logan, stated that Logan was indulgent in the violence it portrayed. But the violence worked with the theme and mood and never felt like it was going too far. It was indulgent to a point, in other words. Hobo with a Shotgun is the opposite: It's indulgent to the extreme but not in service of a story or mood. While Logan was a story and character dependent film, Hobo with a Shotgun depends entirely on grossing you out and making you feel uncomfortable.

The movie stars Rutger Hauer as the titular hobo, a Clint Eastwood-esque character who shows up in a crime laden town and decides to clean up the streets. The start of the film presents a retro, 70's vibe and the film stock adds to that nostalgiac feeling. We see a town where women are being raped, people are killed, children are abducted. It's a trope that has been used dozens of times before–the world being such a screwed up place that a man decides to give out his own brand of vigilante justice. The indulgent cursing, gore, and sexual innuendo (on top of a script full of ridiculous one-liners and actors who are as over-the-top as they come) give an early impression of a grindhouse B-movie.

As the movie moved forward I started questioning the tone. There's a lot of dark humor sprinkled in the dialogue that is funny ("I'm gonna wash my blood off with your blood") but it doesn't fit the rest of what is happening.

To elaborate I'm going to have to parallel this film with Troma's 1984 cult classic The Toxic Avenger. Both movies concern an unlikely hero picking up a weapon and doling out justice in a crime-laden city, both are gory and violent, and both are chock full of dark humor. The Toxic Avenger and its sequels are full of disturbing imagery and jokes, but the cartoonish quality of the pictures makes it easier to digest. I appreciate Troma films, especially those directed by Lloyd Kaufman, because they tend to balance between the disturbing and the absurd. They're, for me, live action cartoons for adults.

Hobo with a Shotgun doesn't have any cartoon qualities aside from some over-acting on the part of the villains. There are funny moments, as I've said, but there's not enough of an air of humor to the entire experience to buffer my brain from being disturbed by what I'm seeing.

An example is when the sons of the main villain step into a bus full of children with a flamethrower. They begin asking the kids questions in hilariously overacted fashion. But that joviality is cut short when the villains burn the children to death. And while this is used as the impetus for the hobo to fight even harder, the scene doesn't cut out early and goes for the more tasteless approach of showing one of the burning children beating against a window. It's a scene that sticks with you solely because of how, for lack of a better term, screwed up it is. It may make us want to see the villain get his comeuppance, but not showing anything would have been just as effective in my opinion.

So there's tension between whether Hobo with a Shotgun wants to be a Troma-style affair or extreme exploitation. Adding to that confusion is another question of what era this film is trying to emulate. While the credit sequences are definitely ripped from the '70s, the neon lighting and synth music that accompanies much of the movie are, obviously, of the '80s.

That lack of identity in tone and what era it's trying to be a part of make Hobo with a Shotgun a tough watch. And the very fact that it's so disturbingly violent without knowing how to take the edge off and remind us we're watching a silly, harmless joke proves that the filmmakers didn't know what they were doing for the most part.

But that's the critical side of me. That's the side that know this movie is not going to work for the vast majority of people solely because of those issues I stated. Hell, just the gore and wanton portrayal of atrocious murders will have most viewers turning off after a couple of minutes.

But there's a side of me that likes Hobo with a Shotgun and appreciates, at the very least, what it was attempting. I like the villains, I like the acting, I like the script, and I think the gore is fake enough to be funny at times. But moments like the bus scene showcase a tone deafness that is tough to defend given the subject matter and how easy it is to overdo it.

Hobo with a Shotgun is a mixed bag, one I am able to process and enjoy to a point but 95 percent of people will absolutely despise. It's memorable if only for the disturbing images it leaves you with. If that sells the flick to you, then by all means give it a shot. But to the 95 percent: stay far away.

Speed (1994)

A Ride Worth Taking

[7/10 · 11 September 2017]

A simple rule for action movies, especially of the Western variety: the more explosions the better. Everyone likes a good explosion and nothing draws the audience's attention from wandering more than a loud, colorful boom. This is most likely why action films have cars or buildings blow up for no obvious reason. A car crunches into another, boom. A car flips, boom. A car is shot, boom. It's a trope that has caused me to scratch my head many a time. But to take the majority of action cinema seriously is to miss the point. Heavily criticizing the cinematography or technical aspects of Commando would be a pointlessly stupid endeavor that would beg the question of why you wasted your time. The production knew they weren't making an Oscar worthy film, they were making entertainment.

Speed is entertainment, pure and simple. It's a film in three acts, all of which involve a means of transportation, with no fluff buffering the main sequences. We go quickly from being trapped on an elevator to the iconic bus scenes to the finale on a subway train. Who Keanu Reeves's character, Jack, is doesn't matter. We don't need to see him at home preparing for work or enjoying dinner with his fellow police officers. We are immediately introduced to the threat, an elevator full of people being held for ransom by a remote bomber, and the heroes, Jack and Harry, sent to save them. Everything we need to know about these two is told through action and organic dialogue. It's not enough to really flesh the characters out, but that's not the point. The point of the sequence is the end goal and the process of achieving said goal. How will Jack and Harry get these folks off the elevator and diffuse the bomb? The introduction of the villain, Howard, is another simplistic approach. He kills a guy and we know he's evil. Through the course of the movie we never exactly understand his full motives for what he's doing (money sure, but some movies would opt to elaborate) nor is he a particularly memorable baddie. He's the catalyst for what makes Speed memorable: the action sequences.

The elevator is a well executed scene but the true meat is in the bus sequence, introducing Sandra Bullock's character of Annie. Again, no real introduction, just organic storytelling. She boards a bus that has a bomb on it. Once the bus hits fifty miles an hour, it has to keep going over fifty or it'll explode. Jack learns of this plot directly from Howard and thus begins one of action cinema's most iconic rescues.

There's not a lot to say about it from a technical perspective. Speed is a well-directed affair and there's nothing awkward or bad to complain about. New obstacles are constantly thrown at the bus, almost to a comedic level. A woman with a baby stroller crosses the street in front of the bus, children cross, and eventually the overpass the bus gets on is incomplete, forcing a James Bond worthy flight over a fifty foot gap. None of this will wow you nor is it truly anything unique, but the rapidity of the obstacles combined with the tight direction and confident performances from Reeves and Bullock lead to an entertaining hour of high speed thrills.

The finale is pretty predictable at first (heck, the whole movie is formulaic to be honest). Bad guy disguises as good guys, takes an unsuspecting Annie hostage, and forces Jack into a final confrontation on a subway. Like the elevator, this is a good sequence but not memorable. We want to see the villain get his come-uppance and we want Jack and Annie to get together. And both happen with enough of the prerequisite destruction of property that you'll be glued.

So the question becomes: as formulaic as Speed is, as basic as the characters are, what makes it so good? The answer: everything stated above. It's a pure adrenaline rush film that's well-made and executed despite the shallowness. It's not a piece of art by any means and doesn't try to be. There are constant explosions, moments of excitement, and edge of your seat situations.It's a film that begs of you to sit back, shut off your brain, and enjoy the ride.

And that ride is well worth taking.

End of Watch (2012)

A New Police Drama

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

Police dramas are a dime-a-dozen in most entertainment mediums. Television is loaded with them and has been for thirty years. The New York Times Bestseller list is usually dominated by them. And, of course, cop films are a favorite of Hollywood. The popularity of the buddy cop genre, thanks to the Lethal Weapon films, has led to dozens of imitators to varying effect. Most of these glamorize the police lifestyle or throw aside reality to provide entertainment. Every once in a while, though, we see a movie like End of Watch that asks us to look at policemen from a variety of angles, not just a heroic lens.

Jake Gyllenhall plays Brian Taylor, a beat cop with the LAPD partnered with his best friend Mike Zavala (Michael Pena). The two wind up learning too much about a cartel and become the target of their viciousness.

Simple premise. And from the outset you can guess what is going to happen. But the movie isn't traditional in its storytelling. We see everything from body, dashboard, and hand-held camera perspectives giving an almost Cops (the television series) like feel to it all. We the viewers are a part of the action in a way I've never encountered before. Found footage horror films are a subgenre that we've all most likely encountered for good or ill. The idea of applying that to a police film is inventive and interesting, allowing for a close-up and realistic approach to telling what is an otherwise generic and by-the-numbers central plot.

What the found footage reveals are two cops who are best friends and brothers who joke around, tell stories, and are entirely human. They aren't portrayed as badass, cool, or any other convention. They're just two humans. And seeing them policing the streets we get a variety of situations that show how tough it is to be a cop. Typically a film like this would have the heroes be above the law or strictly apply it. Here they beat up supposed crooks, they get rowdy when they see something they dislike, they act like dicks. But we also see them heroically rescue children from a burning house and shoot the breeze with local hoods. That multi-dimensional aspect makes the characters interesting, human, and entirely lovable.

Add to that the non-cop footage of dates and weddings, major events in the duos life. It's an air of humanity that endears End of Watch and forces you to see the police in a different and more sympathetic light.

The acting here is one of the main reasons the film succeeds so well. Gyllenhaal and Pena have such great chemistry and are totally believable as best friends. Given the direction and style on top of the script, it's hard not to be fooled that the two aren't real cops and they aren't ad-libbing every conversation. It's masterful.

The ending, as I said at the beginning, is obvious, but it hurts still. That's the sign of a damn good film, when even with a conventional plot line and predictable finale, you still walk away feeling emotional. Because as conventional as the majority of the movie may be, it is entirely unconventional in presentation and delivery.

End of Watch is edge-of-your-seat action and drama from start to finish. Fast moving and full of stellar performances, it's the type of dark and unique cop film that breathes life into a tired genre and changes your perspective in unexpected ways. Definitely give this one a watch.

Akira (1988)

Anime for Adults

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

Akira. Every anime fan worth their salt knows the name, many have seen it, and some understand the legacy it has. Akira came out in 1988 to critical acclaim and may be considered one of the first truly mainstream anime successes. Its success was enough to open the gates to the golden age of cyberpunk anime, paving the way for Ghost in the Shell and a slew of mostly forgettable 90's OVA's. With the majority of anime of the period being cast aside or forgotten, especially by casual anime fans and mainstream audiences, Akira has had a stranglehold on pop culture for years. But nearly thirty years after its release does Akira hold up? The year is 2019, thirty years after a giant explosion wrecked Tokyo during the Third World War. Neo-Tokyo is now home to motorcycle gangs, such as the one led by the teenaged Kaneda. During a battle between his gang and an opposing group of clowns (seriously), Kaneda's friend/rival Tetsuo gets into a crash caused by contact with an escaped psychic child. Tetsuo is taken in by the government where it is discovered that he has powerful psychic abilities. From there, Tetsuo and Kaneda wind up meeting for a violent and disturbing fever dream of a confrontation.

The plot is very reminiscent of Philip K. Dick and the idea of using psychic children is interesting. The problem with the plot is that despite the iconic biker gangs and general scenario, the actual story we follow is not exceptional. The mean rival becoming super powerful and facing off against his former teammate has been done before and done a million times after. The story that we follow is bare-bones.

And the same can be said of the characters. Tetsuo and Kaneda have taken on a life of their own because of how iconic this film is but I can't help but feel they are pretty underwhelming as a pair. Neither gets a lot of development, something that makes the final scene less emotionally impactful than I thought it should be. There aren't any extraneous character moments to show the camaraderie between the two. Instead, we're tossed right into the story and denied any real depth.

The same can be said about the relationship between Kaneda and Kei. The implication is that they are in love or have some sort of romantic bonds growing, but the majority of their time together is in the heat of action. I understand that compressing a large manga into a two hour movie requires cutting away the fat and the director would rather have a comprehensive story than well-defined characters. That's fine. And truthfully, the lack of real character depth in no way detracts from this film since the story is interesting and the world and design are fantastic.

The art of Akira is what is, for me, the most memorable part of the movie. Painstakingly hand-drawn with multiple layers for even the most mundane of shots, Akira is gorgeous from start to finish. The city is dour but feels lived in and the movement is ridiculously smooth. The color scheme reminded me very much of The Watchmen. It wasn't very anime-y in palette. In fact, given the fact Watchmen and Akira share some themes and have a very similar ending, I wouldn't be surprised if that graphic novel influenced some of the design choices for the Akira film.

Adding to the ambiance is an absolutely stellar soundtrack that doesn't feel like background noise but integral to the entire design. The use of music and the sound effects on top of the cinematography and direction shows that the production team busted their asses to make as good looking and technical a product as humanly possible.

Akira has aged well. It's prettier than most of its contemporaries and the plot, characters, and especially the world are still engaging. Pulling out from the nonstop praise and love it receives and looking critically, you can see Akira's armor is fairly hollow. But that armor is way too beautiful to be left to rot and belongs in a display case and revered if not for its substance for its craftsmanship. Akira is a movie well worth your time and should be a must-watch for all anime fans. Even if you're not into it, you should still be able to appreciate what it brought to the table and how it evolved the medium, showing that anime wasn't just for kids and teens, but for adults as well.

The Terminator (1984)

Does the Future Hold Up?

[5/10 · 11 September 2017]

Candid admission time: despite selling myself as a fan of action cinema there are two classic genre films I've neglected my whole life. Predator is one, and The Terminator is another. Recently because of this blog I decided to watch both in the hopes of giving a fresh review from a new perspective. Alas, I couldn't finish Predator. I didn't think it was particularly entertaining in the action department, I cared little for the characters, the Predator itself was threatening but not enough for me to be glued. I considered it more a slasher film with buff men in lieu of stupid teens.

The Terminator falls into the same boat in a way. It's a horror film more so than action, a kind of slasher/chase movie where we follow our heroes in their escape from the monster. Unlike Predator which hides the creature from us, The Terminator focuses on the cyborg hit-man and makes sure we know what he looks like and how daunting he can be.

Sarah Connor is a waitress in Los Angeles when her life is shattered by the appearance of two men from the future, one a resistance fighter, another a Terminator, a cybernetic organism. The future is bleak with nuclear holocaust caused by the rise of the machines sending humans underground. With the machines ruling, a resistance fighter named John Connor has become a hero, throwing a monkey wrench into the inorganic creatures plans. Facing defeat thanks to this man, the machines send a Terminator into the past to eliminate Connor's mother and reset the timeline. Somehow one of the resistance managed to go through as well to protect Sarah Connor.

Despite the futuristic ideas and plot the movie itself is very light science fiction and operates more in the horror genre. Sarah Connor is completely unprepared for what she is about to face and Arnie's Terminator is like Friday the 13ths Jason, an unstoppable brute who is seemingly unkillable. It makes for some compelling sequences of destructive action, the Terminator shooting up a police station being a particular highlight.

As this is a site dedicated to action critique, I'd be remiss not to mention the editing making many action sequences quite awkward. The very first series of murders has the Terminator kill a trio of punks. What could have been a quick and effective assault is a jankily edited nightmare that hardly makes sense. As the movie progresses, I found the editing got increasingly better but overall it's another case of overediting ruining the effectiveness of action.

Another reason I wasn't as enthralled by the action as others is my disdain for what I call "Industrial Action". These movies are typically dark, ugly affairs that focus on abandoned places and industrial areas for settings. Cannon Films was a constant perpetrator of making films that felt inorganic purely because of the settings. Cobra is a prime example and even a film like Robocop, which I do quite enjoy, comes across as bland and uninteresting because of the setting. All of these films take place in metropolitan areas but nothing feels lived in or real. Even in Terminator, the chase sequences aren't as compelling as they could be purely because of how staged it all seems. I don't care how late at night it is, there would be a lot more cars on the streets than the movie portrays. It pulls me out of the action.

The other facets of The Terminator are just as artificial in my eyes. The plot is interesting as a concept but goes nowhere interesting. I'm sure T2 will expand upon the mythology built up in this first outing, but as a stand alone product The Terminator doesn't invest me in the film's world. The stakes feel nonexistent because Sarah Connor is so removed from the future war against the machines and there isn't enough of a connection thematically. We see the war and its effects, but they aren't tied into the events of 1984 enough.

What ties the past and future together is Kyle, the resistance fighter protecting Sarah. The problem here is that Kyle is a weak character and the romance that buds between himself and Sarah is poorly executed and extremely two-dimensional. Sarah, for her part, has some character development but she doesn't exactly feel well-rounded and isn't interesting either. When the artificial killing machine antagonist is the most compelling character in your film, you're missing the point.

I don't have a lot to say about The Terminator because I didn't feel it provided me with anything to really talk about. And that's the sign, to me, of an average film. I don't think The Terminator is bad but I do think it's two-dimensional and lacking in a lot of departments. I mentioned with Speed that you can turn your brain off and enjoy it. That was a fast paced, dumb action movie though. This is trying to have a little more gravitas and meat on the bones and I really do not think it works.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Action Classic

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

the first Terminator was a weird hybrid of action, horror, and sci-fi that did none of them right. The action sequences were poorly directed and edited and fell into that "Industrial Action" category I discussed. The horror was toned down by the over-the-top violence. There was scary imagery and ideas, but it wasn't quite scary enough to be memorable for that facet. And the sci-fi was there in the scenes of the war against the machines as well as the Terminator himself, but that was extremely subdued. Taking into account both the horror element and the sci-fi element: When I ask you to think of the Terminator, what do you think of? You think of Arnie. And that right there is a problem. You're thinking of a personality rather than a creature.

T2 fixes this. It's not a horror movie and it's not trying to be. While the film is about John and Sarah Connor being pursued by an even more powerful and bizarre Terminator while being defended by the original Terminator model (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) the T-1000 is not portrayed in a scary way. He's a terrible murderer and creepy in that regard, sure, but James Cameron does a better job of balancing the tone.

That tone allows for horror elements while not overplaying them. The real horror is the impending doom for humanity and the nightmares Sarah has. These aren't there for no reason; they build on Sarah's growing insanity and drive to save the world from SkyNet.

Thus we have the horror thrown to the side. This means that the sci-fi element is more at the forefront. In the first film the only real connection between 1984 and 2029 is Kyle and the Terminator. Because of that, the sci-fi didn't work for me. There was no immediate threat to humanity or something urgent that drew me in. The only real urgency was protecting Sarah from being killed.

In T2 the sci-fi is much more focused. While we do get a scene at the beginning of the machine wars, that's it. No resistance fighters, no reminders of the horrible future that's 45 years off. Instead we have the very real and scary possibility of nuclear holocaust in a few years and the events that will lead to it. Miles Dyson has begun work on what will eventually become SkyNet and lead to the end of humanity. Sarah can prevent this by killing him or destroying his research. It's more engaging because there are connections between Connor's present and the future that have actual foreseeable consequence. That's what the first film was missing.

And that leaves the action element. T1 had industrial action, bad editing, and there wasn't a real urgency to anything. T2 spits in the face of the industrial action title by providing lived in and organic settings for its action pieces. Car chases involve roads full of traffic and pedestrians. In the hospital scene, the staff get involved. And my favorite part is that while the film ends in an industrial setting, there are actual people working there. They run away, but at least Cameron puts them there to make the movie world feel like a real place, not a closed set.

And the action is much better directed and edited as well. The drastic difference in the competency of the production is prevalent from the earliest scenes. Heck, even the script, the acting, the effects (duh), the shot composition, the lighting…everything is ten times better than what you saw in T1.

What I really appreciated, aside from everything, was that Cameron got the characters right this time. Sarah Connor is interesting. She's a broken individual who wants to save the world from SkyNet and knows that Armageddon is coming, but nobody listens. The Terminator, this time, is not a killing machine but portrayed as a learning organism. He and John bond together, providing John a sort of father figure. It's an interesting dynamic that leads to some funny moments and ultimately makes the killing machine the most compelling character of the cast. The T-1000 serves its purpose, he doesn't necessarily need a character. And John Connor is…well, he's not interesting. He's kind of annoying. His voice cracks every other line.

It's interesting really. Almost as if Cameron himself sat down and watched his original Terminator, took notes, and looked at everything he could do to make his sequel not just a great successor but a great film by its own right, improving on what he made rather than stagnating.

T2 is one of the best sequels of all time and a great piece of cinema. It's an interesting look at the maturation of Cameron as a director, writer, and creator. While I wouldn't go so far as to say its in my top action movies, I can see why many would consider it to be one of the finest.

Baby Driver (2017)

An Instant Cult Classic

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

The summer blockbuster season is upon us which means it's the perfect time for studios to release loud, overproduced, underdeveloped action films to the waiting masses. Sitting in the theater as Baby Driver was screened I could hear the bass thump of Transformers in the theater next door, sounding as if World War III had broken out as a natural disaster took place. And I couldn't help but think if it's that annoying on our side of the dividing wall, how annoying is it inside? And then I stuffed that thought because I was watching Baby Driver and enjoying the hell out of myself.

Baby Driver is Edgar Wright's (director of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) latest film starring Ansel Elgort, Jon Hamm, Kevin Spacey, and Jamie Foxx. In it we follow a twenty-something year old getaway driver named Baby as he tackles his final jobs and begins to adjust to a normal life only to be pulled back.

I call Baby Driver a gem in a sea of turds and opened with a complaint about summer blockbusters because Baby Driver may be overlooked by the general movie-going crowd in lieu of Transformers or the upcoming Spider-Man film. It's had a relatively modest ad campaign, word-of-mouth discussion of the trailer and advanced screenings has garnered interest. But aside from perhaps being overlooked, it's also an action movie that isn't loud or full of CG, it has a competent script and involves you in a way that the vast majority of action films do not.

Case in point: The very opening scene. The scene tells us everything about the style of Baby Driver. First of all: the music. Baby Driver could arguably be considered a musical. Nearly every scene has background music and most of the action whether it is gun play, driving, or just mundane tasks matches the music. The sound of money being stacked on a table coincides with the beats of the song being played. Gunshots do the same in another sequence. It's a level of technical prowess that is jaw-dropping and left a smile on my face throughout.

Secondly: the action. The opening sequence bank getaway had me at the edge of my seat with adrenaline pumping. I haven't sat in a theater and felt that way since The Raid 2 three years ago. The direction is wonderful, the cuts are perfect, and the stunt work is stupendous. Add to that a good amount of humor and some intelligent situations and solutions and you have a short but sweet sequence that would make a James Bond film jealous.

The movie continues to have fantastic practical stunt work throughout, though after the initial robbery, things slow down. There is another robbery but otherwise you spend about sixty minutes watching Baby's life normalize. He meets a girl at a diner and they hook up, he lives with a mute elderly man and you see their relationship strengthen, he begins work as a pizza delivery guy. It's a very typical character arc and you know from the moment we get into the mundane that it's a precursor to things hitting the fan.

The unevenness of the middle portion might turn off some viewers. There's humor and good music but the promise of gripping car chase sequences is dashed by a human element that is somewhat unexpected given the over-the-top nature of the first twenty or thirty minutes. The romance is compelling if only because Baby is a tragic man who you can identify with and want to see escape the criminal life.

Once Baby is pulled back into criminality and the big job is planned, the film goes back to being fast-paced and action packed. The adrenaline is there, but so is a very dark dread and suspense. A lot of pretty obvious things happen that intermingle Baby's attempt at normal life with his criminal life and though a trope seen multiple times before, Edgar Wright manages to make it fresh and leave us at the edge of our seats. Will Baby escape this life? I won't spoil what happens but it's a hell of a ride through those final thirty minutes. Just when you think its over, it keeps going, ratcheting up the tension. It's immaculate execution.

And as the credits rolled and I stood up, a smile on my face, I watched the old people file out of the theater, frowning or talking about how bad the film was. I guess they expected Baby Driver to be like Baby's Day Out or something.

This Fourth of July weekend, go see Baby Driver. It's one of the tightest films I've seen in recent years with a great script, amazing action, a kick-ass soundtrack, interesting characters, and a director at the helm who knows how to make a beautiful and powerful piece of cinema. A definite action masterpiece and I'm sure an instant cult classic.

Fist of Legend (1994)

Hard-Hitting Perfection

[7/10 · 11 September 2017]

Before I became an action junkie I was an action fan. I especially have always found myself drawn to martial arts films. But there was a name I despised in my early days of action cinema critique: Jet Li. Jet Li is well known for his wirework sequences and most of his later projects depended entirely on wires. Li's Fearless is a well respected film in the martial arts scene but I found it to be not practical enough. Even today I don't think most of Li's later work is worth the time of day with the exception of Hero, which stands on its own merits as an artistic masterpiece.

My dislike for Jet Li has been quelled recently, as well as my distaste for wirework. Once Upon a Time in China is full of gravity and physics-defying stunts but those scenes are inventive and fun, especially the final ladder sequence. Tai-Chi Master, despite every wire being present in the frame (which is distracting) still provides some excellent displays of martial arts mastery. But in a filmography crammed with non-practical action films, it's nice to come across Fist of Legend.

Fist of Legend is an homage to Bruce Lee films, which could send us on a tangent about why I hate Bruce Lee movies and how overrated I think the majority of his work is…but let's stay focused. Li plays Chen Zhen, a Chinese student living in Japan during the late 1930s. With tensions between the two nations high, he faces a lot of adversity. Thankfully, he knows martial arts and is willing to break the bones of anyone who gets in his face.

Eventually he learns that his master in China has been killed by a Japanese martial artist, prompting Chen to go home and seek revenge.

Before discussing the fight sequences, let's discuss some of the drama. While I didn't think a lot of it was interesting or engaging, I liked the film's portrayal of the hate the Japanese and Chinese held for each other. Chen is in love with a Japanese girl, which leads to some obvious mistrust of his intentions and judgment among his fellow Chinese. Fist of Legend handles the relationship between Chen and Mitsuko quite well and doesn't devolve into racism or the kind of typical derision you see in a lot of Eastern period pieces. While the romance wasn't the crux of the movie and didn't play a major part, it was commendable nonetheless.

What is truly commendable, though, are the fight sequences. From the first battle between Chen and a hoard of Japanese students to the final fight where we see Li use a belt to face a man with a katana, this is a martial art fan's wet dream. Li proves he can be just as efficient at practical martial arts as he is with the impractical, showcasing a variety of styles in his battles with the Japanese occupiers. There is not a bad fight sequence to be found in this film, all of them edited pretty well and many lasting five-ish minutes, providing a lot of adrenaline and excitement. If I were to list my favorite martial arts films insofar as battles are concerned, Fist of Legend would be in the top five, maybe even the top three. The choreography and stunt work are that damn good.

I don't have too much to say or criticize. Fist of Legend doesn't provide a lot of thought-provoking material but does provide what you want: dozens of minutes of hard-hitting martial arts action. This is Jet Li's best showcase of skill and perhaps his best film overall. I implore you to find a way to watch Fist of Legend and give it a shot: it's worth your time.

La La Land (2016)

Subverting Expectations

[10/10 · 11 September 2017]

La La Land is, without a doubt, one of the best technical films I've ever seen. There's so much going on, minutiae you'd miss after three or four viewings. For instance, notice how Emma Stone's character is pretty much without make-up through the whole movie. It's jarring given we've seen her wearing make-up heavily through much of her career. Here we see her raw and clear until she becomes a movie star. Then, suddenly, it's the Emma we know, wearing makeup and more artificially beautiful because of it.

La La Land starts with a big happy musical number that doesn't fit in and I think is the weakest part of the whole film. It sets the optimistic and glamorous tone but has no bearing on the story. As it goes along through the first twenty or so minutes we see Mia (Emma Stone) living a fantasy life essentially, doing everything she can to make it big in Hollywood while making coffee for the stars. Everything is bright and colorful, the music is reminiscent of the golden age of Hollywood musicals. It's a fun time.

Cut to Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and his mundane, poor, uninteresting life. He's basically in the same boat as Mia. They're both struggling to make it in Hollywood, him in music, she in acting. But the colors of the film are more subdued here, there's not a bright palette and the scenery isn't dreamlike and fake. He lives in the real world.

It takes a little while before these two characters get together, but when they do the film is wonderfully whimsical and almost satirical. My favorite moment of the first half is when Emma Stone just happens to have tap dancing shoes in her bag for a big musical number. The movie knows the tropes and does everything it can to either subvert them, or make a joke of them.

The romance is wonderfully human, with great chemistry between Gosling and Stone. They're funny and likable, awkward and sweet.

And then the movie begins to turn.

La La Land's final act is not forcibly depressing but it does bring the fantastical down to the human level again. It goes from a tale of romance and chasing your dreams to how attaining your dreams mean giving up the things you love, selling out. The final montage, a beautifully realized and extremely effective culmination of every emotion in the movie, is a middle finger to convention as well as a reflection on all the choices we make in life that have left us in the predicaments we are in. Everyone has wondered what their life would be like had they done A, B, C, etc. It's a touching finish because it subverts our expectations for this type of movie while also applying that subversion to our own lives.

Another piece of the film I loved was the jazz storyline, how Sebastian was forced to sell out to the modern jazz he seems to have disdain for in order to make a living. It's an interesting case of selling out that's handled extremely well. Mia doesn't mind the music and I would go so far as to say that John Legend's song in the film, a modern jazz tune, is the best piece in the whole movie. But while the movie is celebrating classic jazz, it also celebrates the idea of metamorphosing jazz to fit with the modern day.

La La Land is actually my favorite movie of the year so far and I can't stop humming some of the music. It sticks with you long after watching and is so packed with exceptional technical prowess that you can't help but be enchanted by the films spell. The script, the music, the cinematography, the sets, the costume design, the acting; it all combines to create a movie that is both a throwback to classic Hollywood romance and musical films while subverting every expectation and bringing them to a human and realistic level. It's an absolute masterpiece of a film.

Watchmen (2009)

A Great Film Ruined by a Juvenile Director

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

Zack Snyder is arguably one of the consistently worst directors of big budget action films in the past century. There's Michael Bay, there's Roland Emmerich, and then there's Zack Snyder. He gained fame and popularity for his adaptation of 300, a film that's alright but nowhere near as good as most make it to be. His second major graphic novel/comic adaptation, Watchmen, is his best movie in my opinion. He would go on to direct the childish Sucker Punch, ridiculously edgy Man of Steel, and the horrendous Batman v Superman. He's a director directing what he loves but his attachment to the medium of comic books and film is of dubious nature. His interviews have had him discuss his love for violence and rape and edgier subject matter…he comes across as a fourteen year old in an adult body and his films reflect that constantly.

The problem with Snyder and the reason I despise him so much is the fact that he actually has a lot of talent and Watchmen showcases it immensely. The direction, shot composition, and comic book feel of the film is brilliant. It's a sublime piece of artistic film making and a wonderful adaptation of what was considered an unfilmable graphic novel. If not for some self-indulgence, this would probably be my favorite comic book film of all time.

Flubs in Watchmen come in the form of Snyder's more childish tendencies. The violence of the film, for instance, is entirely excessive. The graphic novel never reached the levels of gory viciousness portrayed here and while the violence of the comic was meant to be shocking and push a point, the violence of Snyder's film is over-the-top and shocking in how senseless it is. For instance, the prison scene. Night Owl and Silk Spectre want to break out Rorschach. In the comic, it's a quick couple of panels. In the film, Snyder has a drawn out action sequence for no reason. He's obsessed with the violence and while he does a great job crafting the characters and more mundane moments, the extravagance of the violence is off-putting.

The other thing I hate about this movie is the reliance on licensed music. The amount of music in the film is insane and so much of it feels entirely unnecessary. Playing Sound of Silence during The Comedians funeral is one such example. A solemn moment that leads to painful reflections for the characters should have been silent but for the sound of falling rain. Shoehorning Simon and Garfunkel in is tone deaf as you can get.

And then the Hallelujah scene. Silk Spectre and Night Owl have sex in his flying craft Archimedes. What should have been a quick fifteen second scene of passion with heavy breathing and other associated sounds becomes completely terrible with Hallelujah playing over the course of two-ish minutes of an awkward, voyeuristic sex sequence with a painful orgasm joke at the end. This one scene is enough to ruin the film overall for many viewers.

Despite the two issues above, issues that plague Snyder movies for his entire career, I still love Watchmen. The Director's Cut version or the 215 minute version are the ways to go as they flesh out the characters better and leave a lot more of the good parts of the movie. That's the problem: Snyder thinks the good parts are the sex and violence. He likes the dark stuff but doesn't understand the human elements. The audience thinks the good parts are the characters. This is a film propelled by a great script, good actors, and excellent directing in most respects. But it's also a film that shows a director who takes it upon himself to over-emphasize the wrong things.

It's too bad that the masterpiece of genre subversion and the deconstruction of comic books as a whole, Watchmen, has a film version with so many issues. Because, let's face it, Logan is by and large the better anti-conventions comic book film and will most likely have a much longer legacy than Watchmen ever did.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

For Schlock's Sake

[7/10 · 11 September 2017]

Clive Owen stars as a homeless man named Smith who goes to the aid of a mother being pursued by gun-wielding thugs. When the mom dies in the ensuing battle, Smith takes it upon himself to protect the baby from the army of killers after him. Along the way he enlists the help of Donna (Monica Bellucci), a hooker and eventual romantic interest. As the film progresses the plot gets more and more insane, eventually leading to the White House.

There are a couple of things that make Shoot 'Em Up great and a lot that holds it back. The negatives first: the settings are extremely ugly and dull, falling under the Industrial Action category I discussed with Terminator. Lots of abandoned warehouses and gray and brown cityscapes that leave little impression on you as a whole. Even if the action is inventive, I feel the movie loses a lot of memorability because of how bland the sets are. Another negative is that I felt the direction didn't go far enough to make the quick cut style work. It's very Crank-like in the careless and spastic direction but doesn't have Crank's style. Rather than add some unique camera-work or filters, something along those lines, it just goes for the quick cuts and heavy metal music. It works to a point but feels weak overall.

These two facets make it easy to understand why Shoot 'Em Up has been buried ten years later by action and exploitation/schlock aficionados. Despite Crank being on the dull side as far as sets go, it had that unique style that made even those locations interesting and fun. Even with action as entertaining and ridiculous as that of Shoot 'Em Up, it doesn't make up for the lack of character in other departments.

Speaking of action: the action is dynamite and never lets up. Eighty minutes of wall-to-wall shooting action is a rarity and a treat and Shoot 'Em Up does it with flair. Clive Owen jumps, slides, and rolls around in an obvious homage to John Woo. There's a shootout while he has sex with Donna, a playground sequence where he shoots a roundabout, and even a skydiving battle complete with awful green screen and CG effects. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the action is entirely memorable or brutal, there's enough of it and it's just stupid enough that it keeps you glued.

The main selling point of Shoot 'Em Up in my opinion is Paul Giamatti's absolutely brilliant performance. He plays one of the most memorable villains in action cinema history, a hilarious, weird, and completely uncouth baddie who says nursery rhymes, tries to decide what birthday card to give to his child during an action scene, molests a corpse, delivers the best lines of the film ("Guns don't kill people…but they sure help!"), all with this cartoonish tinge to his acting that you just have to see to understand. If Giamatti wasn't in this film, it would probably never have found a following. It's a rare case where a single actor carries a movie.

That leaves the movie with a real crisis. On one hand, I love it for Giamatti and the Looney Tunes-esque violence. On the other, it's an ugly film with little real personality outside of the intentional silliness. To me, it's a good time despite the issues. It's short, fast, and delivers where you want it to. It's a reliable choice for an action fix.

End of Days (1999)

Arnie's Horror Story

[6/10 · 11 September 2017]

Arnold Schwarzenegger's career path changed in the 90's. He began branching out into comedies as the era of macho action faded. His success in that endeavor is a matter of opinion (I think Jingle All the Way was the best comedy he did). But in his filmography of the time is a stand-out, an action/horror movie that was less Predator and more Exorcist. End of Days was the End of Days for Arnie's acting career for about a decade as he focused more on politics and the movie itself was so critically panned that you can see why Arnold may have disappeared from Hollywood for a while. Perhaps he saw that his time was up and he should move on to trying new things. After all, one of the reasons we love Arnold so much is that he will try anything and isn't afraid to fail.

And End of Days is a testament to that, I mishmash of genres and ideas that for all intents and purposes shouldn't work. There's a bit of The Exorcist mixed with Y2K conspiracies with a touch of The Mummy's brand of action/horror. There's a bizarre dynamic of typical cop films, Vatican drama, and over-the-top action. Arnold plays a sympathetic character,albeit a two dimensional one, who also happens to be a bad ass killing machine with little care for property damage or manslaughter charges. It's a film that is constantly morphing into something else, providing what turns out to be a good popcorn flick despite all the flaws.

Arnold plays Jericho, the typical washed up cop whose family was killed by robbers. During a routine job he is pulled into a world of demons and holy men, a war between good and evil to prevent the end of days. Satan walks the Earth to have a child with a young woman and herald in the apocalypse on Y2K. The Vatican wants to kill the girl to prevent this, Jericho decides he wants to defeat Satan and save her. Thus he faces off with Satanists, members of the Vatican, and eventually takes on Satan himself.

The movie is grungy and ugly in a way that compliments the plot. It reminded me a lot of the horror/action comic books of the time. The direction is pretty standard and to tell the truth, the majority of the film is pretty run-of-the-mill. The action is nonstop but none of it is original. The acting is typically pretty bad, though Arnie gives a decent performance by his standards and Gabriel Byrne is a ham as Satan. The only really bad performance was Robin Tunney as Christine, the woman meant to have the devil's child. She was a God-awful choice for a female co-star and even if Arnie isn't giving his charismatic best, he looks positively stellar beside Tunney.

What I liked about the movie pretty much comes down to subject matter. I'm a sucker for this kind of religious horror film, especially if done in a more urban fantasy type way. I liked all the ideas presented even if they weren't cohesive enough to make the movie anything less than awkward. But as the definition of a "turn off your brain" film, it works.

Another thing I want to point out is that the ending doesn't cop-out. With an ending like the one in the film most movies would go for some sort of ham-fisted plot device to present a happy ending. But instead, End of Days sticks to what happens and feels so much more refreshing for it.

End of Days isn't a memorable movie, it arguably isn't even good. But it's a ton of fun and propelled by some silly performances and a script that moves at a breakneck pace. It's formulaic and does nothing new, it's not even scary to tell the truth. But there's a lot of entertainment to be found in it and even if Jericho is two-dimensional, it's nice to see an Arnold Schwarzenegger character with a modicum of backstory, emotion, and motivation.

It (I) (2017)

A Shock to the System

[8/10 · 11 September 2017]

Modern horror films have never been my cup of tea, relying too much on low budgets, cheap scares, and uninteresting plots to make back dozens of times the cost of the film with little effort. It seems to have had a lot of time and love put into it, creating a sort of homage to horror films of the eighties while maintaining much of the modern staples we've come to expect.

The story of a bunch of misfits coming together to battle against a terrifying creature that predominantly takes on the guise of a clown is interesting in the contrast between the whimsical and lighthearted slice-of-life moments and the scenes of pure terror. What I felt was a good foundation for a much longer movie was sadly stripped down, leaving less development of the kids and a lot of missing exposition that could explain their fears better, and instead going straight for the scares. While I understand that the director and writers are giving the audience what they want, I feel that with twenty or thirty minutes more of development, I would have felt a deeper connection to the Losers.

The horror elements are good but I never found the movie particularly scary. A later scene in an obviously "haunted" house was very tense, but I wouldn't say it was terrifying. That's not to say that the imagery won't stick with you. Bill Skarsgard is wonderful as Pennywise and some of the visual scares (Pennywise in the meat processing plant, the scene where the kids watch the slides) are unique. But overall, I wouldn't call this movie scary in the practical sense, more in the fact that scares are accompanied with startling loud noises that are just annoyingly cheap at this point.

Despite the problems, I really enjoyed It. It's one of the best horror films I've seen in the past ten years with excellent acting, great visuals, well done cinematography, and a bit of heart that you wouldn't expect. It's also a film perfectly suited for a theater experience. Suggested!