The Killer Shrews

1959
Staring: James Best, Ingrid Goude, Ken Curtis
Director: Ray Kellogg

This is one of the great examples of classic B-movie cinema.

The film takes place on a near deserted island that just has the vibe of “get out of there right now you morons” – yet no one listens. No one ever listens. Good for us, bad for them. The plot entails scientific experiments – which result in ravenous, blood thirsty creatures called “shrews.” Personally I think they would have been better off doing what Captain Nemo did in Mysterious Island, because at least you can eat a giant crab, but I digress.

The “shrews” are hilarious, something of a cross between a dog and some sort of rat, and it makes me think that the people who made Christopher Lloyd’s pet in Star Trek III watched this film and used them as inspiration.

One of the conversations near the end of the film with the professor makes me wonder why they just didn’t camp out on the roof of the house overnight and then deal with the problem – which would apparently would be greatly reduced by that point.

For the most part you can see the deaths coming from a mile away. Some of the characters become completely irrational for no apparent reason, and it makes you wonder if they would have snapped regardless of the “killer shrews” running around the island. The brilliant idea that the main character comes up with towards the end of the film sounds like a decent idea, but frankly, how could the honestly move those things with little problem? Either the writing staff had never tried it themselves or they didn’t care. I’m going for the latter in this case.

** /*****

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

2007

Staring: Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis, Julian McMahon, Laurence Fishburne
Director: Tim Story

Okay, well I meant to do this review a while ago, but I really just needed to put it off. I was disappointed by the film, I really was. They had the perfect opportunity to pull themselves out of the whole they started to dig and make this a truly amazing experience on the level of X2.

They failed.

As a film on its own, it was decent. What was not good was the direction and editing, the two biggest things that needed to go for it this time around. As I stated a few reviews back, I was really looking forward to this film. The advertisements for it were spot on, and it looked like it could be a very serious film. Then I found out it was PG (the original was PG-13 and mostly harmless), and then soon afterward I found out that it clocked in at 92 minutes (about 87 when you take away the credits at the end of the film).

So my buddy Matt and myself get to the theater. The tickets are outrageous for the theater we’re in (they were kind of retro looking seats that weren’t even stadium seating), and the screen was kind of tiny. Damn I thought, we’ve blown the movie experience. In the meantime we’re joking on this poor guy who is “counting down” the time before the film starts by introducing some flavorless band-of-the-week or crappy straight-to-DVD show (since it wasn’t the late summer they couldn’t plug some show that would be cancelled 2 months before they stopped airing the promos in the theaters). Poor guy.

Thankfully the screen had a digital projector, and the size of the screen increased right after the trailers. Good. Then there were… what? Opening credits… for a film that has less than 90 minutes of scenes? Scratch that, more like 84 minute long film. Regardless of my feeling the graphics were pretty decent for the opening montage.

The story opens with Sue and Reed getting ready for their wedding. Reed is approached by some military suit who the audience has no set up for, so they give him outrageous and out of line dialogue to make him look like a complete jerk. The rest of the film is pretty much Johnny being relatively cocky and completely reckless, like an adult version of Bart Simpson character that sleeps with every attractive lady he comes across and a small, and almost useless return of Dr. Doom, who is greeted with open arms because it’s convenient for story purposes.

The film is pretty much aimed directly at the kiddies. The “jokes” – if you can call them that – are lame. The film has no urgency throughout, and only marginally gets close in the last 2 minutes – far too late to really care by that point. A kid might be frightened or worried, but no one over the age of 10.

The only decent scene is the end fight with Doom – who surprisingly just disappears for the last 10 or so minutes of the film without any real trace of where he is or why he’s gone. Jessica Alba is bleached completely – a striking difference between her in the first film where she just looked like she had a tan. Her contacts are absolutely terrible, and her glasses and hair make her look like the makeup and hair person was a fan of pornstar Nina Hartley.

I said this of the first film when it was released – there will be an extended cut of the film adding in at least 20-30 minutes of footage to bring it to a reasonable and logical length that actually allows the story to make sense.

Verdict: ** ½ /*****

Comic book extravaganza #1: X2

2003
Staring: Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Famke Janssen, Brian Cox
Director: Bryan Singer

If there is any comic book film to aspire to, it’s this one. X2 is just about the perfect comic book film that has ever been made. Only building on the first films success, this film takes the characters and the plot to an entirely new level.

The first film, compared to this one, is terrible. And frankly, the first film is still pretty amazing.

Of course, like the other X-men Films, McKellen and Stewart shine. They’re easily the best of the cast, and best acted people in this film. Hugh Jackman surprisingly does a fantastic job, even if you start to realize he probably doesn’t want to be there for many more films.

It might have the presence of a “typical” Hollywood present-day empty-headed film, with absolutely nothing going for it, but that simply isn’t’ the case, especially when you attempt to compare it to other superhero films, there is simply no comparison, that is, if you have taste.

The film deserves all the hype it has received since it was released. If you’re a comic book fan/super hero fan and you’re sorry you spent money on this film you’re a complete moron and without a doubt have the worst taste in cinema. That means you probably liked Hulk or Elektra.

One of the best aspects of the film is that it’s an absolutely serious rendition of the X-Men story, without any of the camp that is thrown in so many other comic book films. When will producers realize that that isn’t the way of doing things?

And with that I’m finally done counting down the top 10 of these films. If not for actually having a real job to go to, it would have been done in exactly 10 days. There are some things that just have to be dealt with. Also, please remember to actually publish posts instead of just saving them, they'll actually display that way. Enjoy!

***** / *****

Comic book extravaganza #2: Batman Begins

2005
Staring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy
Director: Christopher Nolan

Pretty much liking this films is based on how much you remain faithful to the comic book origins. Burton Fans (I capitalized both, for a reason), and others might not be such huge fans of this down to earth, realistic, and TRULY dark version of the Dark Knight.

The best part of Bamtna has always been the story of Bruce Wayne, and how he has to deal with his alter-ego persona. This was the first film to really dive into this portion of his psyche, and explore realistically who he is and how he became Batman. Previous films delved too much into what made the villains more so than what made Bruce become the Batman.

The fundamentally changed the character of Bruce in this film. While on one hand he’s just “starting out”, he’s also a deeply disturbed soul, out for revenge against the scum that made him the way he is today. He’s really smart (the other versions also portrayed this), but he’s sophisticated, and not just “acting” sophisticated. Christian Bale actually brings this through without having to resort to a huge party to “prove” he’s rich. You can just feel it. Bruce is a character that is supposed to be full of anger and rage. He’s supposed to be seething, and he’s supposed to use those not as a crutch, but as support to continue the fight he’s part of.

The world, is real, and honestly would have been beyond the imagination of anyone making these films in the 80s and 90s. This was truly like watching Blade Runner. The atmosphere, the color, the lighting, everything about it was perfect for this film. It wasn’t “gothic” for gothic’s sake (the previous two films played this up to the point where characters were having races hundreds of feet above the ground crossing huge monolithic statues. For no apparent reason other than the fact that the budget could call for it.

Even with Katie Holmes the film isn’t bad. And that’s saying something. The new costume, the new batmobile, and the fact that the batwing doesn’t show up only make the film even better. Batman has a armored suit, not some rubber getup. Believability? Who would have thought?

**** ½ /*****

Comic book extravaganza #3: Batman

1989
Staring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough, Jack Palance
Director: Tim Burton

For the most part, this film holds up over the years as a pretty solid comic book film. For the most part it shows a good understanding of the entire Batman universe, at least for the time. Batman Begins has greatly diminished the “universe” that is the first two Batman films in recent years. In recent years this film has gotten the short end of the stick, mainly because in a sense, the film has been ret-coned out of the fan’s minds due to both a superior film – Batman Begins – and extremely poor sequels done by Joel Schumacher. When viewing the film it does respect most of the source material – honestly few films are capable of it, especially nowadays.

The design of the film was top-notch, bringing the right “otherworldliness” to it that few other people honestly could have done at the time. Personally I can just imagine Batman being made by someone else and ending up like a really horrible late 80s action film, or one of the mediocre early comic book films that followed in this films wake (The Shadow, The Phantom). After coming off of two wonder films, “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” and “Bettlejuice”, it’s honestly hard to imagine he made such a serious film (okay, a serious film filled with a lot of camp).

Michael Keaton gets a lot of flack, but honestly Bob Kane thought the casting was adequate – if not good. That tells you something right there. There sure could have been better actors, but one in particular didn’t get the role until 16 year after the fact. When compared to other people who were considered for the role - Alec Baldwin and Charlie Sheen – they made the right choice.

Oh no! Batman isn’t supposed to kill anyone!!!!! Quiet fools.

The highlight of the film is the final chase scene with Nicholson. And speaking of Nicholson, his role in this film I believe is the highest paid salary ever in the history of cinema. They were short on cash when they hired him so they offered him a piece of the gross. Great deal from Nicholson, the film made huge bucks.

The downside to the film is that there is practically more Joker in the film than Batman, a trend that doesn’t end until the series was reborn just a few years ago.

Verdict: ****/*****

Comic book extravaganza #4: Sin City

2005
Staring: Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Michael Clarke Duncan, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Brittany Murphy, Nick Stahl, Powers Boothe
Director: Robert Rodriguez

This is one of the best adaptations of a comic book to film ever made. However, unlike many films that are based on source material that spans multiple decades, for something like X-men or Fantastic Four you’re looking at 40+ years, and with Batman or Superman you’re fast approaching 70 years.

The style is there, in all its noir-ish quality. The use of the monochrome, with just a hint of color once in a while establishes a great mood and atmosphere. The cinematography (mostly taken directly from the original work) is amazing to say the least.

Sure a lot of it is form over substance, but that’s the way the original was like too. One only has to look at the number of pulp films that came out in the 30s and 40s to see that the dialogue isn’t really silted, as much as it’s playing to the specific genre.

Not only that but it was one of the first times that the technology to make an actual fictional comic world, actually worked. Previous attempts made the visual hell that was in the Schumacher Batman films. This is far more “innovative” than even the most recent attempt at mixing up a comic book film. Look at the heinous attempt in “Hulk” to make actual comic book frames in the middle of the film. Great idea, extremely poor execution.

While generally I detest people who say this, but frankly, a lot of the naysayers just didn’t get the film. The best part is they’re either complaining about the lack of originality (that you may as well read it – that is, when they’re not claiming it is ripping off dozens of unrelated films), that the film’s cinematography is terrible and that it should have been filmed exactly like a regular movie would (real sets, 100% color), that the dialogue is “bad” (forgetting the noir-type style), or that it’s too cartoonish.

I’d like to hone in on the last point. This is really the first comic book film that has unrealistic that I actually accepted the lack of realisim. I don’t mean unrealistic like “mutants aren’t real” kind of unrealistic, but that a regular person can get shot multiple times and be fine, or that people can jump down 3 stories and land perfectly fine. It’s cartoonish, but that’s okay. Try to pull this in a Batman film, Superman film, or X-men film, and you’ll get a stern objection from me.

Now please note, a lot of the naysayers also claim that this film is actually film-noir, and thus fails completely because it does not live up to film-noir standards. I don’t believe many people who like the film have actually claimed this to be a valid point. I certainly see the elements, but it is not a noir film. I’d probably give a handful of films made in the last 40 years that title (Chinatown, Blade Runner, and Dark City are just three). It's just a blatant attempt at a cheapshot complaint. If you don't like the film fine, but blame it on the "over the top violence" or some such thing.

In the end the film was extremely popular, and I personally can’t wait till Rodriguez dumps the DOA Barbarella remake and gets on to making the friggin’ sequel.

****/*****

Comic book extravaganza #5: X-Men

2000.
Staring: Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Famke Janssen, Anna Paquin.
Director: Bryan Singer.

I really do love this film. It’s not my favorite of the bunch, but this is what really legitimized comic book films of the recent decade. Sure there was Superman in the 70s, and then Batman in the late 80s and early 90s, but both ended up bringing nothing but cheap knockoffs and sequels to plate. While Blade made Marvel big, X-Men secured Marvel’s future in the business and the future for all good modern comic book films.

I’m a longtime fan of X-men, not such a huge comic book reader – I had other interests before comic books quickly faded from my life in the early 90s – I loved the mid-90s X-men show. Needless to say, my expectations were high. I still remember the excitement I had seeing this film in the theaters all those years ago (well, 7 at least…). The film quickly blew past the “comic book” feel, adopting a much more realistic view of the universe – anything less would have made it far too corny for the quality of movie they were pushing. There was very little suspension of disbelief needed – believing that genetic mutations are real is about it – since the viewer is actually presented with a universe that could take place right now. And, no yellow spandex.

Sure Jackman is tall (too tall for some people), but he carried the film extraordinarily well. But come on, size isn’t everything people. He ends up being the focus of the film because he’s the most popular of the characters. One of the few missteps in the film was Rogue, though Anna Paquin does carry the role as well as she could. Much of the focus is on them, which frankly is fine as they are just introducing the characters to us.

The best casting of the film was undeniably Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Ian McKellen as Magneto.

So people were mad because Gambit was not in the film. Nightcrawler, not in the film. Iceman, Pyro, and Jubilee are reduced to background characters in just about one or two scenes.

Small price to pay for what we get in X2.

****/*****

Comic book extravaganza #6: Daredevil – Director’s Cut

Staring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau, Colin Farrell, Joe Pantoliano
Director: Mark Steven Johnson


So how do you take a sub-average film and make is brilliant? Take the version of the film from just before it was submitted to butchering by the producers and suits. The problem with the film was not with director Mark Steven Johnson, especially if you've seen the Director's Cut. I mean, dear Lord this version is spectacular, especially compared to the butchered theatrical version.

Many of the problems stem directly from one of the producers of the film, Gary Foster, who has been put on record about how the Director’s Cut pretty much “doesn’t exist”. You can see the frustration of director Mark Steven Johnson can be seen in the cutting room during various behind-the-scene specials by his meddling.

The new version is undeniably superior. In addition to including a very crucial and, quite frankly, necessary subplot where Matt and Foggy defend an innocent convict (played by Coolio – you might have caught him in the early trailers before his role was cut), it removes one of the most forced - and to put it bluntly, poor - scenes of the film where Daredevil and Elektra kiss on the rooftop.

Ignoring the shouts of a child in danger, just to get some action speaks pretty low for the character, and completely against what is set up beforehand, and after in the film. It was completely out of character for him. He’s a hero. Brutal, but still a hero. It also keeps the story from falling into the melodramatic “extreme love story” angle that they pushed on us. Their relationship is now more of a tantalizing friends-but-could-be-more storyline – which if they hadn’t screwed up the first time – could have come up in a sequel.

Not only that, but the resolution of the film makes sense. In the theatrical version – the resolution seems to happen not because of any logical reason – but because Murdoch said so. Poor.

Additional violence and language can’t hurt – especially with it being rated-R - not that bogus “unrated” garbage that tricks idiots into buying films. They actually had the dignity to submit it to the MPAA for a new rating. Completely re-edited and leaps and bounds better.

****/*****

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

Staring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, Bill Nighy
Director: Gore Verbinski

So I took the plunge and finally saw the film. I’m glad I went in with low expectations – considering how much of a mess the second film was – it was to be expected.

I enjoyed the first film. I thought, while not incredibly deep (not that films need to be as this is another topic for another day) the film creates a pretty competent pirate tale which was actually exciting. The simple plot allows for a pretty easy to follow narrative. The only thing that still really bugs me is why Gibbs is so fearful of pirates at the start of the first film, yet ends up being one just less than 40 minutes later!

Dead Man’s Chest was one of the biggest cinematic disappointments I’ve experienced. While not as bad as the experiences I’ve had with the Star Wars prequels, the film was a victim of the first film’s success.

The mistakes that occurred in the first film only became worse come the second. Plot mishaps, “twists”, and various other poor examples of writing infect the entire film. Without Johnny Depp (or the first film) it would have been a complete disaster. In many cases the examples of “themes” they tried to shoehorn into the film felt like poor attempts at homage. You don’t try to copy practically everything “funny” from the first film in a sequel that is released no more than 3 years later. You just don’t.

At World’s End didn’t learn a single thing from the second film – nor did I expect them to since they were already well into production when the first film was released.

Gone is any semblance of coherent plot that even the second film had a slight grip on. Every character has their own agenda – and most of the time they seem to be in conflict for no reason other than because that’s how it was written. The film opens in what really could be compared directly to a Return of the Jedi type opening where they good guys need to get the “villain” to help them out.

What makes up the first 40 or so minutes of the film is a confusing eclectic collection of sequences – in some cases either severely truncated or separated by other scenes to the point that you’ve either lost interest or you’re left completely confused because they never bothered to explain it.

The dead “world” isn’t very exciting – a flat desert and a beach. Aside from the floating bodies and the sea of boats – nothing seems out the ordinary until they leave. I suppose they didn’t either want to spend any of their 300 million dollar budget on making it look more sinister – like the dream world in The Cell – or crazy like the no so great film What Dreams May Come. It was boring – and a complete waste when you can almost consider the winter wasteland they sail through before reaching the “edge of the world” more interesting than the land of the dead.

The characters were almost caricatures compared to what they were in the first film. Jack does his “Jack” stuff – and is mostly uninspired – especially since they don’t address why all of the sudden Jack’s gone completely insane, seeing multiple versions of himself at various points of the film. Was he always crazy (I mean real crazy – not “Jack” crazy)? Or was this just some plot contrivance to get multiple Jacks on screen at once?

Keira Knightly proves again that she can only play two different characters: The “tough” girl and a damsel in distress. Unfortunately for a character like she was in the first one she makes a huge and quite unrealistic jump into her Elizabeth 2.0 version by the second film. Smart (as in “smart mouth” not intelligence) and extremely grating. Now she’s a pirate. Oh, very logical.

Orlando Bloom? I hope he’s proud of his career because it’s deader than Brendan Fraser’s was. The difference is it’ll stay dead and buried baring any cameo in the Hobbit in a couple years.

Bill Nighy is completely wasted in the film. Whatever respect or sympathy you might have had for Davy Jones in the second film is gone – because there’s literally nothing there to care about in this one.

In the end Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa is about the only character that is remotely interesting in the entire film.

The character of Tia Dalma is one of the best examples of the script becoming bloated and completely out of control. The Calypso/Bretheren Court plotline felt shoehorned (a term I keep using because that’s what they did!) into the plot at the very last minute, leading to a confused: “what?” coming from the audience that hasn’t invested hours each day of their life to memorize every aspect of the Pirates films. Personally they’re starting to give Star Trek and Star Wars a run for their money for “waste of time” memorization of pointless trivia and facts – and this series has only been around for 4 years!

In the end I’ll have to say that because of my low expectations and my general happy attitude coming into the film, it wasn’t half as bad as I expected.

*** / *****

Comic book extravaganza: #7: Superman 2

1980
Staring: Gene Hackman, Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Terence Stamp, Jackie Cooper, Sarah Douglas, Jack O'Halloran
Director: Richard Lester (Richard Donner uncredited)

While there seems to b e some historical revisionism at work, the second Superman film made was actually received quite well in the box office. This was, however, before the Richard Pryor comedy vehicle - erm - I mean "Superman III" and the absolutely mind boggling "Superman IV"

Sure there are some flubs, flukes, and other problems with the plotting of the story, but that is to be expected. Richard Donner filmed half the movie before being replaced by Richard Lester. Almost the entire film was filmed almost 2 years before the rest was due to doubling up on filming with the first film was being made. Some of this brings about continuity gaffs. Some scenes “feel” weird whenever Gene Hackman is on screen because he refused to re-shoot any of his scenes when asked to come back to finish the production.

The story picks up with all the characters from the first film and deepens the relationship between Clark/Lois/Superman and finally reveals the fate of the Kryptonian criminals seen in the first film.

In some ways the story of the film is more tragic than any of the occurrences within the film because it had so much more potential. Last November an attempt at bringing a “Donner” cut was presented to the general audience. Many found it to be “superior” – albeit probably because “Donner” was the “Director” instead of Lester. To be honest I was disappointed. Not just because they actually had the gall to use test footage in the middle of the film but that the entire ending to the movie was made completely null and void because they reused the same tired “Superman can do anything” plot device that was used in the first film – then he goes and beats the crap out of someone who doesn’t even remember attacking Superman-as-Clark back before said plot device. Super-kiss implausible, but turning back time-okay?

Oh well. Aside from the “British accent” kid in the Texas town – some of the more “joke” sequences with the Zod and the other Kryptonian criminals (see “Planet Huston” – frying the snake) the film somehow stands better almost 30 years later than Superman Returns did.

*** ½ / *****