Change Your Image
bilromultimedia
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Drive Angry (2011)
Derivative - But Cool
This is "Ghost Rider" with a classic muscle car instead of an awesomely cool bike. A pretty standard plot template for a recent Nicholas Cage flick. Despite the fact that I think that Cage took the script because he must've been too lazy at the time for a departure, and that this film uses the tired, worn out, used up, redundant, off the shelf "Bad guy wants to do satanic ritual that somehow involves human sacrifice to rule the world" standardized premise - I gave this puppy seven out of ten stars anyway, because it is a lot more fun to watch than a lot of the dreck that's floating around out there passing as entertainment.
First of all - the special effects had me torn. A lot of the special effects sequences in this movie were pretty eye tickling, but there were a few technical abortions in there as well. All in all - it's not really that bad though. I figure that somebody either got rushed in post production, or the budget started thinning out a little somewhere in the production pipeline. I was mildly amused - hence - minor fudges forgiven (more or less).
William Fichtner's "The Accountant" character was probably one of the most interesting people in this movie. He was certainly a "mostly" unique entity - in that he was really neither villain nor hero to me, just a guy who was more or less trying to do a job - and do it well with ferocious focus, motivation, and dead pan veracity. There are moments in the story that you get the clear impression that there's actually a pretty cool and level dude somewhere under that qausi-corporate, three piece yes man suit that he's wearing like a Merryl Lynch broker (a nice touch by the way). I kind of resented the coin flipping habit though, as it seemed somehow borrowed from the Batman "Two Face" villain sketch work. Maybe one of the script folks had just watched "Batman Forever" or something - who knows.
The arch villain "Jonah King" was - to me anyway - a little bit too far fetched to rate as having the same status as other more memorable movie villains. He seems to represent the redneck, inbred, bastard offspring of a 1970s disco pimp, and "cousin Eddie" from the Nation Lampoon Vacation Movies. He doesn't strike me as having the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between a vowel and a consonant, let alone the ability to comprehend arcane languages and the complex nuances of sorcery. I couldn't buy it.
The action in this movie is great, sometimes clever, and seldom disappointing. The story is derivative in places, but you do have moments of emotional engagement - which is a tolerable trade off. There are about ten million other movies that have - more or less - the same or similar plot structure, but this one is not a bad way to kill off a little dab of your never again retrievable life time. Letter grade wise - it's between a "C+" and a solid "B".
A very watchable flick with some worthy high points.
Naked and Afraid (2013)
Seems More Like Gender Politics Than A Survival Experiment.
I gave this series 6 / 10 stars because the basic premise is fascinating ; "Let's see if modern humans can survive under precisely the same conditions that our prehistoric ancestors faced" - and also - because I really do think that it is useful in educating others on the importance of learning how to survive and make it in the absence of a grocery store or an iphone. After watching nearly all of the episodes in the series (because it clearly "seems" to have more redeeming social and academic value than CBS television's "Survivor" reality game show, and because a certain measure of voyeurism is completely natural) - I have noticed a rather statistically unacceptable trend in this exercise. Of all of the "Adams and Eves" that they have released nude into harshness, so far - ALL of the men have been failures at this exercise - as well as occasionally behaving in ways reminiscent of wimps, cry babies, klutzes, pompous braggers, and dullards - where - despite supposedly having extensive survival training and experience - they have nonetheless been totally faced, owned, out survived, and left behind by their female counterparts.
Although obviously there are vast numbers of strong, powerful women out there who could probably survive in a jungle as successfully as Donald Trump can turn over real estate - I find it hard to believe - given human history, that they (men) could come out looking this pathetic - this often - in comparison to their female counterparts. Don't get me wrong - I am, in fact, NOT a Neanderthal - but with apologies to all radical, militant, man hating, ultrafeminist, penis envying neurotics out there - history didn't turn out this way. Sorry to some of you ladies (and some of you gentlemen as well - sadly) if I have offended you personally by being a tad bit factual.
This seems to me to be yet another male bashing campaign, like the animated works of Seth Mcfarlane and Matt Groenig (who are ironically men - go figure - their shows are still funny though), and almost every situation comedy made after the close of the Norman Lear era of Television. This "experiment" seems so totally rigged and stacked - that it feels like loaded dice in a back alley craps game. As a male - I can't help but feel like I'm watching my gender get slammed yet again.
This program seems like militant feminist propaganda. It reinforces a viewpoint that we men are all childish idiots - or at least weaker and less capable, therefore inferior. Either that - or casting must be getting their male participants from areas where no one's ever heard of a football, or the ground water is seriously tainted.
Maybe future episodes will be more even keeled and balanced - but in a way - I seriously doubt it.
The Thing (1982)
The Icon Of A Perfect Horror Film
I remember seeing this at the drive in (now you know that I'm old), when it first came out - and it was sweet! This is actually one of the very best horror films that I have ever seen. John Carpenter did well.
I also remember that even before that I had seen the original old 1950s version on T.V., and that one even holds up pretty good today. Overall - it seems that the basic, original story plot and premise is so good that it works almost completely on it's own merit - so far - every time it's made (or more accurately "remade"). The original story that both films are based upon - entitled "Who Goes There?" - by John Campbell, seems to have been a literal magic formula for the perfect model of horror. It seems to press just the right buttons in our brains to reliably work.
The core premise to the 1980s version is terrifying to contemplate. Imagine a compound creature that can infect you with tiny, microbial versions of itself like a virus just by physically touching you even briefly - and then slowly eat you from the inside out while it replicates and grows, and perfectly copies every cell, every organ, every tissue it consumes ruthlessly - until all that is left of you is an imitation. A creature that can just "absorb" you by touching you - or infect you with itself by spraying you with it's bodily fluids. The absolute definition of a "monster". A trail blazing - red letter concept, and a ground breaker for the Sci Fi and Horror genres.
I have seen this film about a hundred times, and it's still creepy and blood curdling every time I see it. If you can get a Blue Ray, DVD, or digital downloaded copy of this movie - then I strongly recommend establishing viewing it as an annual Halloween night ritual. It goes great with dim or no lights, popcorn or T.V. dinners, soda pop, a comfy sofa, and a friend or family member - especially if they are easily spooked!
The Crow: City of Angels (1996)
Not Great - But Sufficiently Entertaining...
I gave this sequel seven stars because, despite the fact that this film has some problems, it's still a good popcorn pusher - and there are worse ways to waste over an hour of your precious mortal life span. It's not Oscar material - but it's OK. Some parts were even emotionally satisfying.
I liked Vincent Perez in the title role. He brought an interesting level of maturity to the character, and the fact that he was not playing a natively born American Crow gave a new sense of cosmic universality to the concept of the possessing avenging spirit that is the Crow character essentially. Although I liked the plot twist that the Crow was avenging his child as opposed to a wife or lover because it gave the film somewhat of a different, more "across the board" emotional relatability, I still felt that about 70% of the film was a template derivative of the original, with far too many common elements to fully assert it's expectations to truly stand on it's own.
Richard Brooks made an interesting arch nemesis, but the character of Judah Earl I found to be a little too self absorbed and narcissistic to really invest a great deal of focus on. Brooks's character was more interested in complete personal exaltation and fulfillment and less interested in a grander ethos, which made his motivations too one dimensional and cliché for me to be interested in. Brooks however did do well with the predictable character profile that he was provided by the writers - and I think that he pushed it as far as he could as a gifted actor.
Mia Kirshner's character of Sarah, apparently the little girl from the original Crow film, was disappointing. The character of the child Sarah from the original Brandon Lee film was a tough kid that was practical, down to Earth, and that had a more pragmatic, everyday way of looking at things - while Mia Kirshner's Sarah was too vulnerable, creepy, and far too "witchy" to be believed as the adult extension of the original. Kirshner's character in this film would have been the last place that you would have expected the original character of Sarah to have ended up. It seemed to be a device created by the writers to over accentuate the occultism of the film - which was overkill and over saturating. My problem is not with Kirshner's performance, it was splendid - it was with the revised "update" of her character that deviated far too much from the personality of the original Sarah character that it undermined the character's continuity from the first film.
All in all - not a bad film, but it could have been a lot better, had the film makers been more attentive to the defining elements of the original film, yet had taken the time to develop some of the characters better - and had deleted a few of the more derivative cliché character types and elements.
Kick-Ass (2010)
Awesome!!!!
This is by far one of the coolest flicks I have ever seen. It's well written, well acted, superbly done, and totally fun!!! Hit girl is like the "Anti Robin", totally sweet plot and background data. Big Daddy (a parody of the D.C. "Batman" character), was a perfect contrast to Hit Girl's persona, and to be honest - I liked Nick Cage better as Big Daddy, than I did as the "Ghost Rider", although I enjoyed that film as well (I actually liked "Kick Ass" a lot more than Ghost Rider - but I generally liked both films).
I recommend this movie 130%!!! You do not have to be a comic book Geek, or a veteran of many basement sessions of classic table top Dungeons & Dragons to be totally into this super hero flick. It should appeal to almost anybody. This film is a perfect blend of action, comedy, and drama - and despite managing to somehow pull off being a simultaneous parody of both Batman and Spiderman (i.e. "Kick Ass"), it is an extremely original film, and thoroughly enjoyable to boot!
The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005)
A True Cinematic Mistake - UUUGH!!!
The title of this atrocity should have been "The Movie That Killed A Franchise"! Are you kidding me? One great movie - and then a pretty good sequel - and then a not so good, but still interesting second sequel - and then finally - this vile thing? REALLY??? Devolution at it's absolute worst...
David Boreanaz as the arch villain in a Crow movie? That's about as logical as casting Jack Black as James Bond. Talk about attempting an "oil and water" mixture. Also, Tera Reid had absolutely no business being in a movie like this, after all - it's devoid of cheerleaders - and there are no Frat houses full of drunken National Lampoon extras. A genuine "Fish out of water" type of situation to be sure.
The casting on this toilet flush must have been suggested by somebody who was deliberately bent on ruining a movie before it was even entirely off of the drawing board - no doubt a desperate act of revenge more gruesome than any Crow movie could ever have portrayed to begin with. At least somebody could have been merciful enough to have taught Danny Trejo how to do a half way decent native American dance for crying out loud - instead of looking as if he were attempting an Orangutan impersonation. This traffic accident was to the memory of Brandon Lee - as burning the U.S. flag is to the Veterans of Foreign Wars association.
This film was not in keeping with the "Crow tradition", in that it was not at least a marginally well done, moody, atmospheric, eerie tale of an otherworldly instrument of karmatic payback - but was instead written as if it were a story made up by third graders over a cafeteria table at lunch. it was childish and silly - not moving and involving. I've seen deeper, more exciting Burger King commercials.
Edward Furlong was actually creepy and passively interesting enough to have made a pretty good "Crow", but unfortunately he was far too bogged down by idiotic writing, poor direction, lousy stunt choreography, derivative costuming, horrible production values, and a sheepish budget to have effectively gotten any revision of the character properly off of the ground. A very sad thing. I think that he may have been able to go places with this character - had his creative vehicle been slightly better than a rusted out junker with four flat tires.
The entire movie seemed like it was written and shot in a single afternoon. A real disappointment - and a bad way to end a running theme. The funding for this movie would have better been spent if it were used for building a Putt Putt golf course. To call this movie merely "silly", is to give it far too much credit.
Mountain Monsters (2013)
Not real documentary research - phony, fake, staged!
I checked out these guy's personal web site at "www.aimsa.org" (the one apparently not related to the "Destination America" channel), - and as an experiment to see if "A.I.M.S." (The Appalachian Investigators of Mysterious Sightings)actually even existed - I sent "Trapper", the leader of this gaggle of semi-pro actors, a personal email - giving him a little additional data that I had sought out about the "Devil Dog" of Logan County after I had done some armchair research, and my email came back "Return to sender - address unknown". Suspicions confirmed! An obvious bogus dummy site! I won't lie and say this show is not entertaining, it is, especially if your Ten years old. My issue mainly is that it pretends to be something that it's not (much like Pro-Wrestling and American politics). It will insult your intelligence brutally if you are actually watching it for real information or actual journalistic truth - and not merely as a diversion in order to surrender your higher brain functions to a nice catatonic stare, and a greater appreciation of the merciless butchering of the "Blair Witch Methodology" of media production.
Several of the gang seem to me to be vaguely recognizable as both bit part actors in other things that I may have seen them in over the years - and various cameos as other people here and there throughout the universe of premium / pay T.V. past times. Especially "Trapper", and the "Youngster" (The young fat guy whose habitually clumsy, and that wears painfully cliché red neck Bandannas) - both of which I feel like I have seen before in some other programming somewhere. It doesn't really matter though because it's obvious from the bad acting, the CGI "Witness Videos", the "over the top" characterizations, the Saturday morning cartoon / Three stooges delivery, and the obvious lack of real knowledge that any of the characters have over the core subject matter and background histology - that this show is a complete farce.
Look at this this way, it takes a little more than just a talent for "scarin up possums and coons" to catch something that has evaded people with PHDs and decades of serious zoological / expeditionary field research under their belts. And the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach does not bode well with a potentially endangered species that may technically be federally protected defacto.
Watch it if your desperate for low brow entertainment - just don't be gullible or stupid enough to buy it.
Brake (2012)
Great Ride - Lousy Finish. ANTICLIMAX WARNING!!!
"I gave this flick a one out of ten not because it was a bad movie - it was in fact great - it was terrific - right on up until the ending when the audience get's kicked mercilessly in the gut." I didn't really mind the fact that this movie seemed a tad bit formula, with it's barely subliminal references to the "done to death" concepts from other recently past films and TV shows of like genre (too numerous to mention here), as the action and suspense was right on the money - and I love a good theatrical thrill ride. This movie does not disappoint in that regard.
What I do resent - is that after this exhausting trip - the viewer is finally denied the courtesy of a satisfying closure - and instead is given a double whammy plot twist that basically speaks to the viewer in such a way as to say "You see - all those emotional ups and downs that you've just went through were completely pointless - April fools!" "Brake" fails to follow through on it's promise, and if this film were shown in theaters, I would guess that more than a handful of patrons would be walking out grumbling - resenting the unfair theft of their twelve dollars, and feeling as if they were the brunt of a low brow practical joke.
This movie had a bad ending where the trials of the hero, although exciting, was completely meaningless and without sufficient payoff. The bad guys end up not only winning - which is not really bad in and of itself - but winning in such a way that translates to a "cheap shot" to the viewer. In short - this film is a major let down. Don't waste your money on something that will just make you walk away feeling cheated and abused.