Betelgeuse-19 Reviews

Fire and Ice (1983)

Neglected gem

[10/10 · 10 July 2002]

I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape.

Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.)

The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her.

Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds.

As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending!

The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves.

The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK.

Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical "entertainment". 10/10

The Looney, Looney, Looney Bugs Bunny Movie (1981)

Competent

[7/10 · 7 July 2002]

The second film for "The 80s Freling Compilations of Looney Tunes," I will start by saying that reviewing a part of this dusty trilogy that sports a bad idea and overall mixed results; The Looney, Looney, Looney Bugs Bunny Movie is kind of a hard film to review it. Alas, I will review it.

I will be serious about reviewing it, because there is really nothing funny to say while reviewing this film. Just to tell ya.

Well first of all, it doesn't keep up to my attention well. I mean, there is nothing majorly wrong with the way it keeps with your attention span, but it is almost boring because of it. I think it is because the plot is a bit weak. I mean, most of the movie takes place in a ceremony were Looney Tunes characters are honored, or something. I kind of forgot the plot, I haven't seen the film for a couple of years.

Well, as much as I remember, it starts off with a 10 minute short, which ends with a brief narration by Bugs Bunny (the voice of Mel Blanc, of couse) which went by the lines of "..he got an Oscar, but as for me, I got a carrot."

It then fades out to a flashy looking theater where the aforementioned ceremony is to be held. It cleverly looks like some spoof of Oscar night. All the Looney Tunes characters (well, almost all) walk out of their sleek, huge limos and walk around in pianist-esque tuxedos.

Now with the film ceremony beginning, the old shorts start to reel. Trouble happens. The awards for the ceremony start.

Yes it sounds like a troubled plot, right? It partially is to begin with, but not remembering 50% of it doesn't help at all, actually it kinda subtracts the quality. Man do I need to see it again, if only I could find my copy of it.

Well, the old shorts are pretty good, and without a single doubt the best part of the film. They aren't up to the classic material of something like What's Opera, Doc? or Duck Amuck, but they are competent and amusing. I mean, this one has the Oscar-winning Birds Anonymous, the amusing Hare Trimmed, and the fairly well known High Diving Hare. Very good batch, and adds high points for me.

Since the shorts are good, what else is good? Well, the humor is good, of course; so let's skip that. The editing. The editing is some of the best in the whole trilogy of these Friz Freling films, which still isn't saying much, as it always was good in these films. And Freling manages to keep the spirit of the old shorts alive.

So it is a film with plenty of good points but still includes a few points that kind of hurt the quality. It is overall a competent film and highly watchable. Taking away the Looney Tunes shorts however, and replace them with anything else, the film is nothing. It really more focuses on showing competent Looney Tunes shorts than anything else, and that is why it would be nothing without them.

Plot-5/10, Shorts-8/10, Idea-4/10, Editing-10/10, Directing-7/10, Humor-8/10, New bits-6/10. Overall-7/10

It could have a better plot and more new scenes, but it gives what is needed. Just make sure you have a very good attention span.

Lilo & Stitch (2002)

The best Animated film of the year, the Oscars should take note!

[10/10 · 24 June 2002]

I just sat through a matinee of Lilo & Stitch, a movie I really have been anticipating to see; being the cartoon freak I am.

If you like Spirit, you'll hate this, because it is a lot more weird, hip, slightly more violent, and has more heart. Why? Well, it makes you laugh as well as get to your heart more than Spirit probably would; but without turning the film into a piece of sentimental fluff.

The animation is also cool as well. Finally, an 2D animated film that uses CGI as a supplement for a couple of shots rather than unnecessarily using it. It blends together with the 2D animation really well, the backgrounds look nice and lush, and the designs look simple enough but likeable because they don't try to look really slick.

The characters are for once fresh. They aren't generic characters, they are likeable developed characters, they aren't characters that are cloying comic reliefs that we all have seen before in other films, they are NEW! Oh yeah, and Stitch kicks @$$.

And the humor. Well, it's funny! This movie really doesn't depend on humor most of the time, but when it comes in, it really does! It isn't from comic reliefs, not from one-liners, but sight gags and physical humor. The running gags with the Elvis tunes and guy with the ice cream cone are simply cool!

And plus, the sound and music! The Dolby Digital sound in the theater was set up very nicely, with the revving-at-times sound effects of blasts, ambiance, and dialogue simply pumped. You could almost feel it! As for the music, nobody bursts into a song! It's mostly cool Elvis tunes (yay!) and some Hawaiian tunes.

It is very rare when a animated film nowadays hits the spot that Lilo and Stitch does: masterpiece! Classic! Brilliant! These films only come around every 10 or so years, the last being Nightmare Before Christmas. Between this and NBC, there are many excellent near-classics that came around (mostly from Pixar) that get a 10/10 in my book; but they really aren't able to reach this level of genius. 11/10. Oh yeah, I'll say it again: Stitch kicks @$$! Oh, and make sure you catch this in the theater on the VERY next screening of it if you have yet to see it. Do it now! The DVD will be great but it won't have the theatrical impact it did on me and many others. Come on you guys who have yet to see it, you got to bump up more ratings on the masterpiece so it can get on the Top 250. You don't know when the next animated masterpiece of the decade will come! This film needs more than the current 341 votes it has, it needs at least a few thousand to get the recognition it deserves, and maybe a bit more than 8.2.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Return of the Jedi was bad enough

[1/10 · 19 June 2002]

1/10

There might be some spoilers, I said "might".

I said "might".

Miiiiiiiiight.

OK, I'll start.

Well, Jar Jar Stinks. This highly annoying character is not only an unfunny comic relief, he's an insult to Star Wars humor as well. I mean, in the first films, C3PO the Droid was the comic relief. He was funny. Why? He was intelligent, when he was threatened he woudl have witty one-liners, he had funny lines when he was letting R2-D2 rot and malfunction on Tatoonie in the first film. "Fine. Malfunction out there." Jar-Jar would only appeal to anyone under age 10. He acts clumsy, his attempts at slapstick look like rejected ideas from Home Alone 3, and his lines are some of the dumbest @ss-$hit I have heard in a long time, @ss-$hit such as "Exqueeze me," and "Humph! How wude!" insulted my mind. All I have to say to Jar-Jar: "Woid to vu mutha!"

Character development is non-existent.

Plot is non-existent.

Plus, they turned the Mystery of Star Wars and and gave it away.

The actors look bored.

The CGI effects make the effects in Bad Taste look like The Matrix.

I only narrowed it down to this because if I posted it all here, it would break the 1,000 word limit.

PS: May the farce be with you.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Can action/adventure films get any better?

[10/10 · 19 June 2002]

No. This is THE action/adventure film. If entertainment can get better when it comes to action, this film would run a close second. The action is non-stop, the beginning is classic, and the plot is great.

10/10

What's Opera, Doc? (1957)

Brilliant!

[10/10 · 19 June 2002]

One of the greatest animated shorts ever made, WOD has brilliant animation, a good story, hilarious gags, fine music and yet the Oscars snubbed it for Best Animated Short. Required viewing for cartoon and cinema buffs.

10/10.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

When the series went downhill

[4/10 · 2 June 2002]

Ok, strike me down with a lightsabre, Jedi-freaks, but I could barely watch this. Why? Spoiler Alert! First of all, EWOKS! Brr...they certainly aren't as bad as Jar-Jar Binks but close enough. I personally think they were created to appeal to girls because Star Wars is more of a guy trilogy. I mean, Princess Leai is in some wooded area on some planet or whatever, and she sees these oversized teddy bears running around in what appears to be bandanas and sling-shots. What? Where? Who? But what really insulted my mind about the Ewoks was that they were able to kill Vaders henchmen (what were they again?) with stones and arrows while the henchmen are wearing hard plastic and metal. What?

Oh yeah, and the ending. Vader supposedly becomes a good guy. What? And his face is powder white as I remember it. So, going to the Dark Side pales your face? Was that caused from the lack of light in his helmet or was that supposed to be suspicion of disbelief, or the mystery of science in Star Wars? Well you tell me, how could something like that be Mystery of Science in Star Wars? It isn't even in the same theme as the other MOSISWs, nor even in suspicion of disbelief. It's just idiocy that Lucas thinks the fans will call a MOSISW. Why? Because MOSISWs are words like midicholorines (sp?) or what's going on, they aren't supposed to be of your skin going pale. Or can they be? I dunno. Big hole there.

Yoda dies. C'mon, Lucas, he has only been friends with Luke for half an episode, you should have made Episodes 7-9 where he would have been a more devolped friend/Jedi-instructor for Luke. Hell, Luke didn't even finish his Jedi training by this episode well enough to really call him a Jedi. Show Luke as a full experienced Jedi for more than a quarter episode, and Yoda needed to be more devolped in the originals.

I could go on but I'll stop here.

Nice effects though.

4/10

Batman Forever (1995)

Schumaltzer should stay away from the Batman films...

[1/10 · 1 June 2002]

...Because they sure aren't anything he's good at. I mean, Schumaltzer is capable of creating decent films (8mm, Tigerland, The Lost Boys) but here, blah. I had to force myself to see the whole thing.

Alright, first of all, guess what they have on the Batsuits. NIPPLES! Holy crap, Batman! Is this a porno? As what one guys said on eFilmcritic, "if they wanted nipples, Showgirls was still playing." Indeed!

Second of all, there is neon flashing everywhere. Was the cinematographer high on drugs while designing this? Also, how the hell could the Oscars actually nominate the cinematography? Did they see the original film? I mean, I know the original film won a few Oscars, but that doesn't mean they watch every film they are sent to, they basically only nominate (and choose winners) by doing what's expected of them.

Third of all, I'll stop here and say I hate nearly everything else of this pale imatation of the Adam West series with neon.

1/10

Rabbit Rampage (1955)

Bugs Bunnys "Duck Amuck"

[8/10 · 1 June 2002]

If you have seen both this and "Duck Amuck," you'll probably say that they are basically cousins. At that point you're correct.

I'll start off by telling you that this is _NOT_ superior or equal to "Duck Amuck" in any way or form, but still manages to hit the nail on the head pretty well despite a few flaws. Although the jokes aren't the same, their theme is identical in some ways. For example: in "Duck Amuck," Daffy Duck is crudely painted by his animator, and later on is redrawn to wearing a baby's garnet, having a flag for a tail that shows a screw and a ball, and walks on his arms and legs; while in "Rabbit Rampage," Bugs Bunny has his ears redrawn into a humans and later on the ears are redrawn into very long, dragging ears. What I mean is: character doctoring, but here, it still manages to give some laughs.

Overall, despite over-copying themes to jokes from its superior cousin, "Rabbit Rampage" still holds up as a good package.

8/10

Batman Returns (1992)

Just as good as the original

[10/10 · 30 May 2002]

10/10 After the sucess of the Oscar-winning Batman (1989), some dude named Tim Burton and his pal Michael Keaton team up for the next Batman film in 1991.

What comes in return?

A sequel. But a rare one.

What's so rare about it?

It's just as good as the original.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

A bit improved

[9/10 · 30 May 2002]

The Empire Strikes Back is a bit more improved from the original.

First, the writing. The writing in A New Hope really needed a polish, but it really is pretty good here, though nothing Oscar-calibar. Also we get to see the great Yoda here, which he was absent in A New Hope.

Second, the acting. Mark Hamill is better here than he was in A New Hope, probably because he is in more dangerous situations than he was in A New Hope. I think this is because in the original and ROTJ, Hamill was pretty bland and flat unless if he was in a real turning point or in danger, which was pretty scarce in those films except when he found his aunt and uncle dead, or a couple of other situations I forget. Carrie Fisher isn't as semi-wooden here either, she is actually quite good.

Thridly, the effects look more polished. In the original they looked cheesy at best, but here, they look more smooth and real, except for the creatures at the beginning of the film were Luke was stranded. But the lightsabres look better, the sound effects are smoother, and is more pleasing.

Fourthly, the plot is more devolped. The plot in the original felt like it was stolen from a medival fairy tale with princesses, here, it shows more of The Dark Side, the characters are more devolped, the suspence is better, and the events are more layered.

Overall, this is great polish-up from A New Hope. One gripe though would have to be how the irony from the original lacks here, but it is still a great film.

9/10

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Cheesy fun

[8/10 · 30 May 2002]

This film is not a classic as some people would claim, but it still holds up as being cheesy fun, especially if you want to laugh at the light-sabres in the non-special edition releases.

The plot is simple. A bored-with-life farm boy named Luke is picked up by a Jedi named Obi-Wan Kenobi and sets off with a smuggler named Han Solo, two Droids, Obi-Wan, and a Wookie to rescue a Princess named Leia.

OK, so what's the main element of this film?

Fun.

The movie wants to take you to a galaxy, far, far away, thrill you with the action scenes, amuse you with the one-liners, and praise the fairy tale-like plot. And at that point, it suceeds.

But the film has it's flaws.

The effects look cheesy. I'd let it slide if it was intentional or the budget was under $1 million, but with an $11 million budget, they could have looked more polished, even though it was 1977. And yes, I do know that $11 million is still low-budget; but it is still enough money to fit in good special effects. But some of the effects look good. The effects used to transmit pictoral and sound messages to one or the other look very good, the scenes in space look good too, and R2-D2s effects look fine.

And the acting and writing is a bit hammy. Some of the one-liners are funny and some of the supporting cast is good, but still hammy. I think decent actors would be avaliable on a low budget.

But let the flaws aside, this is a fun movie to watch. I give it an 8.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

On of the greatest gangster films of all time

[10/10 · 30 May 2002]

Although not as good as the original film, TG:P2 is still an excellent piece of work in all aspects of cinema.

Plot: Takes place years before the original, the film shows the early years of Vito Corleone and shows how his son gets into crime.

Overall: Brilliant cinema. If the film doesn't show you how great cinema can get, you must see this film more and more until you see its brilliance.

It is also a very classy film that doesn't show itself off but rather pulls the viewer in the film to show how good it can be. And that, my friends, is very rare in film. Most films nowadays like to brag how good they think they are while they are really wastes of time and money; and others, though great films, just like to carry it on how great they are, by giving off hidden boasting in the film. But this film is just a humble masterpiece that doesn't say that it's good or not, but shows you what it's decent at.

It shows drama in ways that are very hard to do in other films. Although most of the characters are obviously gangsters, you could feel their pain in hard situations. Like Al Pacinos character struggling to have the family completley legit in one scene with his wife. Other scenes are even more powerful.

The acting? Also excellent. Al Pacino is as always great as Michael, Robert Duvall is at his highest mark in his career, and Robert De Niro, though he has limited screen time, is excellent.

When I look at other films today, barely any of them can match the sheer drama, the brilliant direction, the impeccable acting, and rare humblity of The Godfather: Part Two.

Overall, this is a classic piece of cinema that everyone should see. It's a brave, different, and rare film. Best watched after The Godfather though.

10/10

Bad Taste (1987)

Ha ha ha

[10/10 · 29 May 2002]

Gore: Oh yeah. Acting: Who cares? Action: Sure. Humor: What's funnier than life-sized Sgt. Pepper cut-outs of the Beatles in a car? Nuff said. 10/10

Batman & Robin (1997)

The worst film ever made

[1/10 · 27 May 2002]

1/10 "Plot": Batman and Robin battle Mr. Freeze, who is fighting becuase his wife is struggling for life, joins up with Poison Ivy later on, who while Mr. Freeze basically wants to turn the world into a giant ice ball, Ivy wants to turn the world into a big jungle!? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Propaganda or flaming: Flaming. By far the worst film ever made. I mean people, get this as a plot: this scientist falls into a vat of freezing chemicals while trying to scientifically cure his wife, and then he wants to turn the whole world into a @#$!ing ice cube? Jeez, what did the world do to him? Poison Ivy had a pretty dumb MO too (if she even had one). I mean, her lunatic lab partener pushes her into a bunch of poisonous chemicals, then she comes up three days later, kills him, and looks at a test tube that has a Gotham City label on it, and then she goes to Gotham City wanting to destroy it and Batman? What did they do to her? I mean, sure, she thinks mankind has been cruel to plant life, but has everyone been cruel to it? God, I wonder if anyone besides Goldsman revised the script. Also, at the end of the picture, Mr. Freeze is now a good guy, gives Batman two mini-test tubes full of lightening-blue liquid, that is to cure Alfred of his sickness, which by coincidence, is the same as Mr. Freezes wife! If this is so, then why didn't Freeze use the damn liquid on his wife in the first place? And that sound track is so overbearing it makes my head hurt. Plus, what's with all the gay undertones? I mean, they have these naked 100-foot statues of men holding a ball over their men nearly everywhere you go, heighways, roads, buildings, it's sicking. Not the shock value, but the fact that they'd reduce Batman into something like this. Plus, there are all these flashing close-ups of Batmans or Robins or Batgirls asses flying around every time they dress into their capes and cowls. What the hell? Plus, what are those nipples doing on the suits? Overall, ditch this movie, ditch Batman Forever, and watch the first two.

Rabbit Fire (1951)

The beginning to the greatest trilogy ever made

[10/10 · 22 May 2002]

10/10 It is hard to say what is the best trilogy ever made. Some would say Star Wars, others The Godfather, some Die Hard, and a few would say Evil Dead. Oh, and the Tim Burton Batman trilogy. You know what? None of them reach the height of the shorts Rabbit Fire, Rabbit Seasoning, and Duck! Rabbit! Duck!; aka The Hunting Trilogy. If more people watched these shorts, they would agree, but so far, I'm lonely in this compartment. If you liked this one, Rabbit Seasoning and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! are even better. Watch, and enjoy.

The Ripping Friends (2001–2002)

The creator of the mega-hit "Ren and Stimpy" 10 years later

[8/10 · 10 May 2002]

If you are a teenager, you probabley grew into a pre-teen with Ren and Stimpy. I was a pre-schooler at the time Ren and Stimpy was popular, and to this day I watch the Spumco episodes of it religiously. Fast foward ten years. The original creators of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi and Spumco, have decided to come back on TV with a sucessful show after the diasater relationship they had with Nickeldeon a decade ago. Now they are with Fox Kids, with The Ripping Friends. I saw most of the first season, and is it as good as any Spumco product they made from R&S to present? Close. The animation: Now this is my least favorite part of the show. It really feels flat and two dimentional, almost like a 60s Hanna Barbera show, but slightly cleaner. There are still some good drawings, and based on the budget and the fact that it's a Saturday Morning Cartoon (which normal have limited animation), it's still OK. But check out the designs and the storyboards by Jim Smith, they look excellent, as always. I just wish they'd hire some close-up animators from Ren and Stimpy. ***/***** The plot: Intresting. According to Kricfalusi, it's supposed to be a spoof on manly men, any type of men before political correctness or the 70s. Their mission: to rip, or destroy anyone or thing that stands in the way of justice. ****/*****

The humor: Hilarious. A couple jokes are a little flat, but you'll forgive those jokes instantly when other jokes come in the line. Ren and Stimpy-ish, and politically satire-ish most of the time. I won't spoil any here. See for yourself. ****1/2/*****.

Bottom line: It's no Ren and Stimpy, and the animation needs a bit of clean-up, but watch it for the humor, and how unusual it is. ****/*****.

Let It Be (1970)

I'm lucky to own this little movie

[10/10 · 20 February 2002]

3 years ago, considering I was a Beatles-freak back then (and still now), my dad by coincidence stumbled into a "Let it Be" VHS at a music convention for 30 bucks and picked it up immeaditley. Once he got home, I was excited about what he had: the most sought-after VHS tape of the Beatles: "Let it Be." I popped it in immeaditley. Considering the look of the cover and the fact that they recorded it on a TDK viedotape, I was concerned that it was a bootleg, and did I mention the price? No matter. I liked the film, and until the company loosens up and releases it on DVD, I'll watch this copy. You'll ignore the dark, faded colors; shaking close-ups; and excessive grain in the studio session scenes and watch this movie. It is a good movie, but it's certainly not enjoyable, for it's depicted on the worlds most famous band gone to bust. 10/10

Magical Mystery Tour (1967 TV Movie)

Sub-par

[10/10 · 20 February 2002]

6.9/10 First off, there is a great lack of humor. I know the Beatles are VERY capable of making humor in their movies, but I'm pretty suprised that a movie that has no script (hence the Beatles have control on what they say/do) by the Beatles has this lack, especially for it being a comedy. Still there is a great soundtrack, and you can't deny that. "Penny Lane," "Blue Jay Way*," "Flying*," "I am the Walrus*", etc. Some of the music videos are good too (those marked with an asterisk [*]). Otherwise it's a flawed mixed bag.

A Day in the Life of Ranger Smith (1999 TV Short)

Short but Great

[10/10 · 18 February 2002]

10/10 There are very few reasons to hate John K.'s makeovers on Yogi Bear. One reason is that it's a make over. But...it's John K.'s vision of Yogi, not HB. After repeated viewings, I have concured many opinions on it: boring; slow; intresting; hilarious. Out of all of those, I've been able to get interesting out more. No, this is not as good "Boo-Boo Runs Wild". Not by a long chalk. This one is more about about Ranger Smith's obsession with disipline, because, this is his life. Disipline. He wants disipline to those who don't abide park rules. If you look closley at the original episodes, this is his hidden personality.

Batman (1989)

A classic Fantasy/Crime/Action/Thriller!

[10/10 · 28 January 2002]

10/10 Everyone I know has at least heard of the Batman franchise. It's just something that happens witn trilogies if they are original enough. This is. Directed excellently by Tim Burton, starring the Great Nicholson and Keaton, this film patches together better than high quality silk. The plot is basically when Batman has a relationship with journalist Vicki Vale and at the same time battles hitman-cum-psychoclown "Joker". That's all, but if you look at better plots (I write mediocre plots) you will find it more likeable. The acting is terrific. Nicholson, well, He plays a great role as the Joker and film students should take notice on his sadistic humor/laughs; Keaton plays Batman/Bruce Wayne superbly unlike what some peoplethought of This comedic actor at the time. Basinger plays a good role as Vicki Vale, a photographer journalist; and Michael Gough does a fine job as the butler of Bruce Wayne. The soundtrack, done enterily by Prince, goes off fine. Songs like "Batdance", "Trust", "Scandalous" are held off on repeated listenings for myself. Actually the whole soundtrack. It's slick, ultra-fast, dark, and excellent. The music score, done entirely by Danny Elfman, is just as good. Much more darker really. This is probabley better than his work in "Nightmare Before Christmas", but that's a different story. The writing is fantastic. A lot of sadistic humor by the Joker is added by the one and only Sam Hamm. Examples (with spoilers, do not read this list if you wanna be suprised): -The Joker laughing menacingly while running in his ex-boss' (from his hitman days) office shooting the life out of him. -Reading a blood-stained newspaper on the desk of his dead boss after killing him -The Joker taking a quill and darting it into an orator's throat during an outdoors press confrense with mimes all over the place and suddenly a shoot-out -The Joker using clownish balloons to gas off the crowd -Creating a killing chemical-ish substance that kills off a TV news reporter on camera with a smile on her dead body -After the substance kills the reporter, a commercial to buy Joker's killing product cuts in from unknown sources starting with Joker's ex-boss' dead body tied up to a chair ("He's been using spandex!") and then having the Joker on a beach with women saying "Love that Joker!" while saying "And remember, put on a happy face!" while at the same time laughing wickedly with an animated head of his spinning slowly on a purple and yellow bullseye trying to hypnotize who is watching the commercial -Entering Vicki Vales apartment with a present (which she opens later and faints to find them dead flowers), putting his ex-lovers porcelin mask on the top of a fireplace, saying what happened to her then shattering it intensionally by quick-jabbing it trying to make it look like an accident -Killing almost an entire restarant's worth of people with a purple gas (and one of the elderly couples there die with their face smeared in their pie), and playing a lively Prince song after so ("Partyman") -Vicki Vale throwing a shot glass full of wine into Joker's face with him hopping from his seat screaming "God! I'm melting" until fianally revealing his face, with all the makeup dissolved to Vicki, she lets out a scream, and Joker says "Boo! Hahahaha!" -The Joker having a noisemaker (psuedo-Joker laughs) in his breastpocket go off automatically after plummeting to his death from the churchtower (OK, you could look now) The directing is dark, and atmosphere, and atmosphere. Unlike the sequels which got progressively worse this had ATMOSPHERE. Thank you Tim. It's also well shot. Believe it or not, it was shot in a single studio in the UK. Don't ask me how they fit all those sets into one studio though.

Duck! Rabbit, Duck! (1953)

In the depths of Chuck's waters

[10/10 · 26 January 2002]

...lies a 10/10 classic. Do you recall watching shorts like this? I still do, and so do most of you. This is basically in the woods where Elmer is hunting and threatens Bugs with his "elephant gun" until Daffy comes along and Elmer is too dazed to decide who to shoot and come home with. Simple but effective.

Rabbit Seasoning (1952)

"Shoot him! Shoot him!"

[10/10 · 26 January 2002]

Strange enough, shorts like this get a 10. Why? They are hilarious. This is hilarious. Notice a lot of the quirky humor. Dated and childish to toon naysayers, but they don't know what they're talking about. They got to know that cartoons aren't just for kids. The art in this is probabley the best non-Road Runner art of the 1950's Looney Tunes shorts. It's hard to come across something better than the art in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery", although nothing ever will. This probabley runs a close 3rd or 2nd. Shorts like this one might have spawned witless LT rip-offs like Tiny Toons Adventures to try to squeeze out all the old comedy out over and over again, like how great movies like Scream spawned crap like I Know... which was released just to squeeze out all the old horror from Scream, but like Scream, this is great alone. Chuck Jones has had his faults with shorts once in a while but he does make up for them. Take Hopper for example. Few people like Hopper but it never ruined the LT reputation, but I'm sure this was his make up on things as such. Bottom line: This is not as good as "Duck! Rabbit! Duck!", but close. Catch it on Cartoon Network frequently.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

A Beautiful Movie

[10/10 · 19 January 2002]

Rating: 10/10, A film with no flaw. Classic, smooth work with a shine The acting is unexplaiable. Perfect. Crowe gives off so much emotion it's unbelievable. Towards the middle it strengthens. Weaves. The writing wasn't ameateur street at all, but basically what would someone say if this where happening in the film. No offense to old Lord of the Rings fans (I like Tolkien, Jackson, and LOTR myself) but this should be at #2, at least. Actually, #1.

The Godfather (1972)

Classic

[10/10 · 19 January 2002]

10/10 Yeah, I'll admit it. I worship movies like these. Star Wars, Dr. Strangelove, you name it. Performances: A+ Directing: A Filming: A- Writing: A+ Actors: A+ Everything else: A+