keuhkokala

Ask any horror fan and they will damn all the modern horror remakes. For a really, really good remake one needs to go as far back as 1982 to John Carpenter's re-imagining of a 50's B-film. But just because Carpenter chose to take huge creative choices, his The Thing really was nothing like the previous one in the first place.

So, inevitably his masterpiece would in turn be remade. There isn't any need to, as everything in the original film, from Ennio Morricone's score to Rob Bottin's amazing special effects to Carpenter's confident direction still work. But the new remake really isn't as bad as it could have been. For the makers of the remake respect Carpenter's vision so much that rather than going out their way to replicate every character and scene, they rather choose to do their own narrative. I would wish more remakers would be as considerate.

Taking place before the events of Carpenter's film, The New Thing takes place in 1982 at a Norwegian outpost in the Antarctica. They discover an ancient spaceship on ice, and call a handful of American researchers to study it, including grad student Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). The creature they discover turns up to be very much alive, and capable of both killing off the entire crew, as well as inhabiting their bodies, creating perfect replicas.

Every reviewer inevitably will compare this to Carpenter's film, which is a little unfair, although by tying the story lines together the filmmakers have really asked for it. Director Matthijs van Hejiningen, Jr. uses considerable time to build up tension and characters before they start to fight for their lives. Again, it really isn't that necessary as everyone who's seen the original knows how this will end for them, but it is nevertheless a nice gesture. There are too many characters to keep track of, but some that do grow a little close, so when they die, one isn't totally indifferent. Kate herself is a nice strong female character, if one doesn't actually expect that to mean her to be a multidimensional character as well. Winstead still does her best in the role.

As for the creature itself, it is now made primarily with (of course) CGI effects. And they aren't as scary, either, but still rather impressive-looking at least. Also his behavior isn't very logical, but that may be because he's just been thawed. The sense of paranoia is back, but of course this works the best in scenes that are almost carbon-copies of Carpenter's scenes.

I wouldn't go as far as to recommend this, but it does have several scenes that work and it really makes me want to see The Thing again. So as an appetizer or a companion piece, this gets a pass.

http://fastmovieblog.blogspot.com

Having grown up with the Tintin comic books, I was doubtful of this project. I'm not a fan of the motion-capture technology and I feared the world created by Hergé would be sanitized for American audiences. But there was no need to worry. Tintin is a funny, exciting and tremendously entertaining adventure movie. It's also Spielberg's most entertaining film since Jurassic Park.

Tintin (Jamie Bell) is a young reporter who gets tangled in the affairs of smugglers when he buys a model ship from a scrap meet. When he gets kidnapped to the smugglers' ship, he meets Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). He's a pure-hearted old drunk, who has information on a great treasure, told as a legend in his family for generations. He just needs to get sober enough to remember it. The adventure takes the pair to the Atlantic, Sahara, Morocco and finally back home. Tintin lives in an unmentioned European city that could be Brussels, London or any other one that has a sea port, really.

True to the comics, Tintin himself doesn't really have any strong characteristics. So it stands to reason that the minor characters steal the film again and again. Captain Haddock's alcoholism may not be suitable for the younger children, but it provides some of the film's most hilarious jokes. Almost as good are Nick Frost and Simon Pegg as bumbling Interpol detectives Thompson and Thomson. Familiar faces from the comics pop up now and then, but don't overcrowd the film. The focus is still on the main characters.

Even the 3D isn't just a distraction, as Spielberg has truly gone off his way to make use for the technology. Action scenes are shot with a long single shot, where the camera goes around to wild angles. There's a strong sense of being in on the action and forgetting you even are wearing a pair of painful glasses. The film takes a while to pick off steam at first, but after that the action varies from pirate battles to crane fights. The most outstanding scene is the motorcycle chase near the end, which would give Indiana Jones a run for his money.

The film's story is faithful to the comic book, and thus ends promising more. I hope there will be, because I was willing to follow Tintin and Haddock on new adventures straight away! I'd say it's among the best, the most innovative comic-book films with Sin City and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The film is excellent escapism from the dreary day-to-day life and it made me smile for the rest of the day.

Who doesn't love a good road trip movie? Todd Phillips, the director of Road Trip, returns to the genre with a dream pairing of Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Galifianakis. Both are considered some of the funniest actors in Hollywood today. It is mostly thanks to its leading men that the viewer keeps up with the story. The crazy hijinks of the film are usually not particularly funny and sometimes outright annoying. Not to mention obvious at certain points. For instance, who among the audience doesn't get what is going to happen to a coffee jar full of a dead man's ashes the minute the topic is discussed? A couple of rewrites should've worked wonders. Particularly Galifianakis's character is close to being so utterly, life-threateningly moronic that it's nearly impossible to like him. The actor saves what he can, but is still not my favorite comic sidekick. Downey Jr.'s character's rage towards him is meant to show the character to have some anger issues, even though he's acting mostly pretty reasonable given the circumstances. Towards the end the hijinks get so crazy, this overplayed comedy works better. Actually Due Date is one of those comedies like Knocked Up that's about the main character growing up and adapting to boring mediocre family life. At the beginning RDJ is shown to not get along with children and even though his methods of handling a problem child are hilarious, they are hardly good parental advices. But during the road-trip with a huge man-child he learns to suppress his anger towards simpler people and thus is allowed to enter the family life. How sweet, but the film is no match for The Hangover. ** / *****

RED is a big ensemble action movie, and thus must be compared to the recent The Expendables. RED is better. But it is by no means a perfect movie either.

Like The Expendables, your enjoyment of RED depends largely of how much you get a kick out of the actors on screen. And I for one love more old, crazy character actors than wrestlers and other muscle stars, even though I love 80's action films with all my heart. In addition to leading Bruce Willis, you'll get John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, Morgan Freeman, and a couple of smaller parts I don't care to reveal yet, even though they are found on the cast list. And all these actors seem to have a genuinely good time - for once they get to shoot guns instead of doing boring drama. Except for Bruce who has a boring romantic subplot - that at least happens among all the action and not bizarrelly stopping it a'la The E-movie. Without the cast, or even with just Bruce, the film would be sort of a lacklustre spy thriller, even if it has a few truly kick-ass sequences (most of them are found in the trailer). But Malkovich and Cox in particular always bring a smile to my face, even with some lesser material.

One thing that really bugged me about this film was the use of music. It was way too generic and comedic and always too loud. I get that RED is supposed to be an action comedy, but the makers should take a page from the ZAZ filmmaking: Everything is much funnier when done with a straight face. Without the wink wink -attitude this could've been an even greater action film. But I still enjoyed it a lot.

*** / ***** http://fastmovieblog.blogspot.com/

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a quite good movie, despite it having to balance kick-ass over-the-top action, dry observational character-based comedy and a sweet, life-like romance. But director Edgar Wright has proved himself to be able to direct with a fast, music video -like style, of pretty normal and mundane things. He is also able to make symphatetic comedy characters that are properly fleshed out.

Scott Pilgrim is based on a comic-book by Bryan Lee O'Malley. The titular character is a slacker in his early twenties. He's just met a new girlfriend, the 17-year-old Knives (Ellen Wong). He introduces her to punk music with his band, Sex Bob-Omb. But as their relationship progresses Scott grows anxious as he's dreaming about a mysterious woman on roller skates, Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). When he finally meets her, he decides that she is the woman of his dreams and gives everything to be with her. But besides having to break up with his prior girlfriend, this means he has to battle seven bitter old flames of Ramona.

The colorful imagery of the film is very comic book-like. Sound effects are displayed by text, split-screens resemble comic panels, the color scheme is bright and colorful etc. It owes also much to various video games (such as Street Fighter, Devil May Cry and Mortal Kombat) and to anime movies. It's worth noting that rather than copying O'Malley's style, Wright creates his own visual better suited for the film medium.

The OTT style represents on how the characters feel their (love) own lives are earth-shatteringly important. Characters can do basically anything: fly, make sonic blasts with guitars or turn people into quarters.

The editing is fast and furious. It is fitting that the soundtrack consists of fast and furious punk rock music as well. And it is very, very good, especially the songs by Beck.

The biggest strength of the film is the large cast of characters, all of which are well-written and believable in that universe. Wright has chosen his supporting cast well, as even with few lines, they bring out the fun and steal scenes. Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are both good, but overshadowed by the supporting cast. However, their relationship works in the film too, and one can reflect one's own heartbreaks and loves on the screen. This is a feat only films that have characters one can truly identify with, can have.

The film is aimed for an audience from teens to mid-twenties (more if they are really childish). Many people older from that probably won't understand anything from the kinetic style, or have forgotten what it feels like to have heartache at this age. For us that do, and geek out over the stuff this references, this is warmly recommended.

Full review at http://fastmovieblog.blogspot.com/

I got to see in advance the first big blockbuster of the summer in a press screening. I must say that the summer begins quite nicely. M:I:III does the same for the franchise as Batman Begins did for Batman. Both had to follow one of the worst sequels of all time. However to put a newly found rising talent as director and take a darker grip on the story both do wonders.

The plot, that was long held secret is as follows: Special Agent Ethan Hunt has left field operations to get married to beautiful doctor named Julia. However, when Hunt's friend and former student gets caught during a mission, Hunt must return. And then something goes terribly wrong etc. Sound like a standard action-movie so far, doesn't it? But the real surprises are yet to come.

J.J. Abrams (Alias and Lost) has directed a film that works as well as his previous work. Feels the same, too. The story twists don't get too big as in the first movie, though.

As for the acting, Tom Cruise isn't the least bit irritating in this one. I got to hand it to the bastard, he sure can pick up the best projects from the best directors. Hunt's team mates are now present throughout the movie, so the movie centrals around an agent team more rather than just Cruise's super agent. Simon Pegg is fun as the Q-like gadget-expert. One would have liked to see more of him. Or at least little better scripted appearances. The best of them all is however Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. His weapons dealer is cool as ice, ruthless and totally merciless. The new Bond-movies badly need such baddies, but you haven't seen them since Blofeld was dropped in a chimney.

The bast thing about this movie is that it's exciting. A couple of scenes in the beginning really make you believe that these characters are in mortal peril. You relate to the characters just enough to care what will happen to them. Even Ethan Hunt is a human being this time around. The Bond movies have never had that kind of thing, except maybe On her majesty's secret service or From Russia with love. The action is, of course great and the familiar M:i-clichés, such as self-destructing tapes, real-like rubber masks and jumps on a wire, appear.

All in all, a very satisfying action movie and a positive surprise.

****

The Best Part (Spoiler):

The opening scene, where Hoffman questions Cruise about an object with a gun on his loved one's head.

Some say Rio Bravo, some the Searchers, some Shane for some reason. Everyone has an opinion about what the greatest 'classic' western (before the '60s when Leone and Peckinpah broke the old myths) is. I would have said High Noon for a while ago. Then I was home last evening, at a very cold and snowy winter day. I thought to look at a movie from TV and didn't care much what they were showing. It happened to be this masterpiece. And I was awe-struck.

The story tells about a sheriff (Kirk Douglas), whose Indian wife and a mother to his child is raped and murdered. He goes on to find the men who did it to the town of Gun Hill and finds out that the other of the men is the son of his old friend (Anthony Quinn). He has in time become the most powerful man of Gun Hill and won't let his son to be taken to the court for his actions.

This is a quite daring one for a fifties western. There's some blood and nudity here. And most of all, the sides aren't black and white, but rather shades of gray. The movie's most potent message is that you can't take a life, even a criminal, because there will be people who were close to him and his death will hurt them worse. Every life is valuable.

Kirk Douglas is good in the lead role. He bottles most of his emotions in, as probably anyone in his situation would. Better is Anthony Quinn, who essentially has to decide between his son and his best friend. He portrays anger, fear, anxiety and hopelessness great.

This became my favorite classic western. it's not Once Upon a Time in the West, but I loved to see so mature themes in such an old movie. It looks great too, they had wonderful set builders then.

***** The Best Part: The showdown at the Gun Hill railway station

What got me watching this movie was the advertisement that this movie is like South Park directed by Tim Burton. I agree with the South Park part. The movie deals with elementary school kids with anarchistic humour involving lots of comical violence, cursing, bodily functions and bizarre incidents that make so many, including me, loving that show. Also this movie.

As for Tim Burton, he directs visually impressive and original movies, that deal with a character, that doesn't quite fit the surrounding world. None of the descriptions above quite fit Terkel in Trouble. The characters are quite normal types. Anyone knows the types, bullies, wiggers, vain girls, teased fat ones and crazy substitutes from their own days at elementary school. I think a proper tag line would be "South Park directed by Sam Raimi". At least in the Evil Dead days Raimi was famous for enjoying both torturing his actors while shooting and enjoying a lot of violent humour inspired by the Three Stooges.

So it was a very funny movie. It wasn't actually a very original one, the key mystery is way too easy to figure out, but I was laughing too hard at things like a fork in the eye, a sledgehammer to the crotch and biting a kid's ear off in a battle, to really be bothered by it. Even the South Park boys would be jealous.

**** The best part: Instead of the best scene, I'd like to describe my favorite character. That is Terkels alcoholic sailor-uncle. A very violent, ignorant and nonchalant he may be, but loving Fernet Branca so much makes him a really twisted character. And also an enjoyable one.

South Korea has lately been raised as the promised land of cool action movies. And not without a good reason. Oldboy showed us how surprising, daring and gritty Korean movies can be. A Bittersweet life fits the formula otherwise, except its story is age old.

An assassin is hired by a gang boss to find out if the gang boss's girlfriend is having an affair with another man. If so, the assassin has to kill both of them. But, as it happens, the assassin falls in love with the girlfriend himself. With violent results. And then he goes out to revenge. In Hollywood, they probably would've made a boring Steven Seagal movie, that follows the same pattern seen a million times already. But in Korea even an old story like this can be made to look cool and refreshing. The result is so good, you can feel it in your stomach. It all works out fine. The actors, the action, the direction. Even the love story is oddly touching. Highly recommended especially to those, who haven't yet seen any korean action movies.

****

The best part: (minor SPOILER)

The race to load guns at the Russian arms dealer

Funny title for a movie. It must've come from some Japanese accompanions, because the legend says, the Japanese have a nickname for James Bond and that is Mr. Kiss-kiss-bang-bang.

I was surprised to see an American movie that feels fresh. That hadn't happened for a while, as nowadays most American movies are based on something else such as a comic book, a novel, a video game or even another movie. Kiss kiss, bang bang in fact plays with our expectations of a movie. It's a kind of parody from old crime movies. If it resembles anything, it is the movies by the Coen brothers like the Big Lebowski. And we're still far off.

What makes this film so special, then? Well, the fact that it knows that it's a movie. The narrator voice tells us so, frequently. And makes some killer jokes from it. And itself. Other than that, the movie's kind of realistic. How can a movie joke about itself and still be realistic, you ask? Wellm for instance, the characters make mistakes all the time. And I don't mean the I-can't-tell-the-truth-so-I-will-make-up-this-ridiculous-story kind of mistakes you see on sitcoms. I mean bad luck mistakes. Like falling down, when you're running to prevent an assassination. Or accidentally killing someone you were about to threaten with your gun. And like Lebowski, one severed body part travels around.

One hopes that Robert Downey, Jr., who has just risen from the rock bottom, would start to get some good roles after this. The movie is as fun as anything by Tarantino, so I think we have good chance of that.

**** The best part (minor SPOILER): Going to the bathroom and discovering a corpse

The worst thing you could do when going to see this movie, is thinking that this is some kind of political satire. As the movie was released near the last presidential elections, many made that mistake. But Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not politicians. They are, first and foremost entertainers. And this is a parody of action movies, nothing more.

But what about the treating of liberal actors? Well, in most action movies liberals, who try to help, only make things worse or stop the justice from being done. If the movies this is making fun of are kind of fascist, it doesn't mean this is. And for choosing real life actors to be killed off? Well, that's an old Parker and Stone trick. They know it's just funnier when you get to see familiar faces killed off. It worked on South park, didn't it? In fact, they are friends with George Clooney and Matt Damon. And they still didn't go any easier with them. As for the foreign policy of Mr. Bush, it's just a set-up for all the action, not a political statement. They don't bring out Bush himself, because they used that joke dry already in the short-lived sitcom That's my Bush! So just sit back and enjoy this gross-put comedy without prejudice. If you can stand the bad taste jokes (which I found hilarious), it should be fun for everyone.

****

The best part: The deadly black panthers

1994 was arguably the best movie year for 20 years. The year had movies like The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, the Lion King, Clerks, Heavenly Creatures and even a good Elm Street sequel! Many were then outraged, when their favorites were ignored in the Oscars when Forrest Gump (a good, but not great movie) cleared the table. Many argue that Shawshank should've won best picture and Pulp should've won the best actor awards. But, to my opinion, a more worthy winner to these awards would've been this gem, Tim Burton's masterpiece.

Burton has always had his own vision that no one else can't have messed with. This movie too is about outsiders, freaks even, who can't adjust to the surrounding world. It's almost tragic that many things described here actually happened. A lesser director would've made a Bowfinger-like comedy that has cheap laughs for the bad talent of the director, but Burton still holds the strings. While the movie has plenty of humor, it is never mean to it's characters and never points fingers and laughs at them, but rather with them.

The movie's best qualities lie in the acting talent. I honestly think Martin Landau's Bela Lugosi is the best performance I have ever seen an actor do. He makes the horror icon seem so vulnerable, so painful and yet a wonderful actor, although given crappy material by Wood. For example, who understands what the hell the "Pull the String!" scene means, but Bela's (and Landau's) talent covers it up. And kudos also to the make-up. If Wood would've had the make-up artists, maybe the Bela look-a-like in Plan 9 could've shown his face, too.

All the other actors are wonderful, too. Johnny Depp proves once again that he is one of the greatest actors of his generation. The movie's positive tone is mostly thanks to him and his positive attitude and it's a small wonder that Wood couldn't sell his movies if he resembled anything like Depp in real life. Sarah Jessica Parker, Bill Murray, Lisa Marie, Jeffrey Jones... the movie is full of unforgettable performances! The movie's story is a success-story without the success. The movie is a testimony of how hard it can be to make even a cheap movie made in Hollywood. The movie is about overcoming these obstacles. In that it's like a tribute to the cinema itself. At the end the ever-optimistic Wood thinks he's made the movie he'll be remembered, Plan 9 from Outer Space. He's right, but not after he's gone. The optimistic end is contrasted by the following epilogues, that like in American Graffiti, prove that life doesn't always work the best way for every one. Burton still made the right decision to end the movie in the right point of Wood's life.

***** (the top 10 movies I've seen #3)

The Revenge of the Sith is an unusual movie in a way as it's not trying to tell a story about 'what' is happening, but rather 'how' some things everyone knows are going to happen. Let's face it, there's no way anyone is going to see this without having seen at least one Star Wars movie before or has heard of the famous climax of the Empire Strikes Back. So, basically everyone knows how this is going to turn out. Darkly. Bad for the good guys. Especially one key character, that links all six Star Wars movies together. But the fun is seeing 'how' this is going to happen and happily, I'll have to say it's quite convincing. Darkness has always done good for Star Wars. The best one is still Empire, but this is definitely the best of the new trilogy.

For the dark story of a character's turning to evil, you'll need some tragedy, some fear of loss, and of course a manipulative baddie out for his own. Ian McDiarmid is great as Palpatine. He sure knows, how to play out his cards. A lie there, a half-truth there and a bad encouragement there and voilá: He's become the ruler of the galaxy. He's a real mastermind, because he had control over a whole war and its both armies the whole time. The previous prequels didn't take much interest in him or the other villains, which I thought was a bad thing, but now as I see what Palpatine was aiming for I'm really stunned. I might even re-watch Menace and Clones (only seen both once!) to take a closer look at his scheming.

As most people will say, most of the other acting is as wooden and dull as ever. The thing is, that as George Lucas had left the majority of things that were mentioned in the Original Trilogy for this movie, the movie rolls along so quickly, it leaves preciously little time for the characters to chat. And Jar-Jar doesn't have one line in the movie (Phew!)! There are occasional stupid moments, but as this is a Star Wars movie, I'm willing to forgive. I forgave Spider-man 2 also, didn't I? As Return of the Jedi had its Ewoks and Phantom Menace its Gungans, I'll have to say I hated one character obviously created for toy marketing purposes. It's General Grievous, the Jedi-hunting half-alien, half-cyborg with a stupid Caribbean accent (Hello, racism accusations as after Phantom Menace) and a bad cough. This stupid character who resembles a video game boss with his four arms and Transformers-like changing ability. It's the modern day ewoks all over again, but this time Lucas has figured that PlayStation games sell more than plush toys. I was happy to see Grievous get killed. If only they had a similar scene with Jar-Jar... Or the new-model R2, with electric shock-gun, jetpack and ability to speak words like uh-oh. Curious how 3PO is the one with his memory erased, but R2 is the one who forgot how to use his abilities in all the later episodes.

**** Best part: A tie between two McDiarmid's scenes: The Sith legend he tells Anakin (and still he can't figure out, that he's a sith!) and the fight with him and Mace Windu. Bad time for an entrance, boy...

In Sergio Leone's sequel to A Fistful of Dollars his real talent really starts to shine out. I think the first 'dollars' film suffered from the fact that its plot was stolen from Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo. This, however is a completely original movie and I'm very glad that it is. Some of Leone's trademarks, such as the use of a 'good' a 'bad' and an 'ugly' character are shown here for the first time. The surprise here is that this time around Clint Eastwood isn't actually the good one. Lee van Cleef might look sinister in his black clothes, his impressive weapons arsenal and really seems at first like the bad guy, but as the story progresses, we learn that he is, in fact, fighting for good reasons, unlike Clint who is only killing for money. El Indio is a very good bad guy, but not as memorable as Lee van Cleef and Henry Fonda would later be. See, I can't even remember the actor's name!

There's not very much bad to say about this. The plot has enough twists to keep you interested, it has some great side characters (the hunchback, played by the craziest actor ever, Klaus Kinski and the old man living by the railroad come to mind), incredibly good music (Ennio Morricone could be the greatest movie composer ever!) and of course, Leone's ace directing (look at the cut from a laughing Indio to a wanted poster!).

If I had to teach someone what a spaghetti western actually is, I would show this film. It's just a very good film compared to the absolutely brilliant the Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a time in the West, but it isn't as epic as both of those films are, either. Highly recommended. *****

The Best Part (spoiler): The end duel might seem like a prototype to the one in the end of GB&U, but it's still brilliant with the use of the music box tunes and Ennio Morricones usual Spanish guitar and choir. But maybe the scene where Clint and Lee shoot at each others hats takes the cake.

Jackie Brown is probably the most adult work of director Quentin Tarantino. Although the name and star Pam Grier hint for a blacksploitation-style movie, the movie never feels like any kind of exploitation. There are numerous references to movies like Foxy Brown and many songs in the background are ripped from their soundtracks, but the movie itself is actually quite calm. It has some violence but it's not very explicit ea. it's shown off-screen. This is not how Tarantino movies usually are. Another thing that freaks us Tarantino fans out is that in the movie characters talk mainly about stuff that's related to the plot, there's barely any mention of old TV-series or Kung-fu movies of the 70's. This is why the movie also feels less Tarantino than his other work. This may be due to this being an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's the Rum Punch and not an entirely new story from QT's warped mind.

All this does not make this movie a bad one. In fact it's surprising how little actually happens in the movie, it's mainly just talk until the last 40 minutes or so. Yet Tarantino clearly has a gift with words, you will always feel interested about what a character says. Speaking of characters, Tarantino has usually a marvelous cast, but this puts the likes of Pulp Fiction to shame. Pam Grier is great at the title role, Robert DeNiro gives us yet another immortal role and Samuel L. Jackson does a superb arms-dealer who thinks a little too much of himself. Yet the best performance comes from Robert Foster, who is really the heart of the movie as a bail-payer, who becomes interested in Jackie Brown's scheme to steal the money his boss wants to smuggle to America. The relationship between Foster's character and Jackie is touching, almost like Vince and Mia in Pulp Fiction, as it's an almost love-story which ends before it even starts.

The plot is actually like a Seinfeld episode without the jokes. All characters seem to have different interests at first, but later all the plot points tie in together. And this time Tarantino actually tells the story linear, not by some jumps in time back and forth. It's actually a working solution for this film. We Tarantino fans got a little worried there when he made such a straight movie, quit for six years, but we certainly were rewarded as his next one was the two-volume roaring rampage of revenge, his most exploitational movie yet.

**** (8/10)

In Sergio Leone's best westerns there usually are three main characters, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Actually all are more or less bad, but the Bad is the baddest and the Ugly somewhere in between. In For a Few Dollars more, the Good was Mortimer, the Bad El Indio and the Ugly Clint Eastwood's Monco. In the timeless masterpiece, Once Upon a Time in the West, the good is Harmonica, the Bad Frank and the Ugly Cheyenne. And I probably won't have to explain who the three were in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. So, my problem with this movie was, that there was no Ugly. The good is obviously Clint, the Bad is Ramon, but there is no Ugly. This is probably due to the fact that this is a remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (which I have to admit, I haven't seen yet) and the story has to be faithful to the original one. Too bad, because Leone's best talent is to tell a hate-revenge-greed-stories by the personalities of his three heroes. This comes best alive in the duel sequences. This one also misses one. The final shootout, when Ramon tries to shoot Joe, is good, but not as masterful than in the three following westerns.

But even if this one isn't as good as the other Leone westerns, it's still quite good. Ennio Morricone's music is wonderful and has already some prototypes of the themes he would use in Once Upon a Time in the West. Although the dubbing is horrible, the people playing townsfolk, like the Innkeeper or the Coffin-maker are great. Sadly, the Baxter gang is left to the background as the story tells more about the Rojos and Joe's unholy war against them.

*** 1/2 (7/10) The Best Part (SPOILER): As the shootout isn't the high point of the movie, I'll have to choose Joe's escape from the torturing Rojos. Eastwood looks really painful and you'll actually be worried about whether the hunting Rojos will find him or not.

The Monty Python-groups's first movie is a mere medley of the favorite sketches from the Flying Circus TV-show. That's why how much you'll enjoy this movie depends if you have seen these shows. If you haven't, you'll be in for a delight. The Pythons have a wonderful talent of mixing different kinds of comedy, from witty word-play to physical slapstick-comedy to my personal favorite, totally offbeat and crazy humour. The sketches also usually break the regular pattern of comedy sketches, there are no punchlines or acted jokes and normal sketches can end on a cartoon link to the next sketch or to an announcer saying the movie's title; "And now for something completely different".

If you have seen old MPFC episodes before, there's little more to offer you. There's none of new material, and as the most important thing in the Python comedy is the element of surprise (and fear and almost fanatical devotion to the Pope and...). Old sketches are merely linked together in a new way and made with a slightly higher budget. For example this time in the Dead Parrot sketch they are using an actual stuffed parrot. For fans the greatest point of interest is probably the much cleaned and remastered animations, as well as some new during the closing credits, from the twisted mind of Terry Gilliam.

**** (8/10)

Best Sketches: I have two favorite sketches, one from the verbal humour dept. and one from the offbeat dept. The Nudge-nudge sketch may resemble the work of other sketch comedians, but the pure wit of Eric Idle leaves them all behind. As for the offbeat-humour, the documentary describing a part of London in fear of a gang called Hell's Grannies is ace!

This film has been praised to high heavens by everyone, it is currently #2 in the IMDb highest-voted movies of all time-list and it won 11 of the most wanted of all movie prices, including Best Picture. So why should I write another review of it? I probably won't have anything new to say, unless I absolutely loathed the film. Which is the furthest from the truth as can be. I'm writing this simply for my love for the biggest film of our time.

This film as anything finally shows us how perfectly Peter Jackson has captured the book. I still don't think anyone could make a better adaptation. Jackson was wise enough to choose actors instead of stars in the roles as this part requires them more than anything. And although I was suspicious at first, all the hobbit actors hit just the right spot, Billy Boyd and Dom Monaghan ARE more than just token comic reliefs and Sean Astin really shines this time around as the bravest hobbit of them all Samwise "the brave" Gamgee. Without great actors, this movie could feel like a regular hack 'n slash action movie set in a fantasy world, but with great actor work and a great script the story's themes of friendship, courage and sacrifice are really the main attractions, not just the stunning action scenes. Just like in the good ole epics like Lawrence of Arabia.

Something that should also be noted in the trilogy is the wonderful music of Howard Shore. Truly, he is the new John Williams, who can create noticeable and endlessly hummable main themes, threatening pre-battle music or soft, idyllic music for a simple village like Hobbiton. The viewer feels easier the atmosphere of the location with the help of fitting music. And it couldn't fit better than in this one.

It's notable now that the most respected directors, such as Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg talk regularly against using too many fake-looking computer-effects in movies. I agree that the traditional effect-making is usually more stunning and some classics, like the Thing or An American Werewolf in London couldn't have the same effect if they were made with computers. But The Lord of the Rings trilogy really shows that sometimes CGI can be as magical. They probably couldn't have made the epic battle scenes or characters like Gollum without computers. The trick seems to be to use them just the right amount and not just to attract the viewers, as most movies nowadays do, but to help the story, as they did in this one.

If some downsides should be mentioned, it would be that even with 3 1/2 hours in the regular cut, the story doesn't focus enough on some things and tells a little too much of some other things. Most people think, that leaving Saruman out was a mistake. I agree, but I'd rather had seen the Houses of Healing scene between Eowyn and Faramir. The movie needs also some tenderness and at least one fully written female character. Fortunatlelly, these scenes are on the DVD and also there's plenty of Miranda Otto otherwise in the theatrical cut.

***** (10/10, the best films I've seen #2)

The Best Part (SPOILER): A very hard choice, but I would say the part when Gollum and Frodo have a final fight from the ring inside Mount Doom as Aragorn and co. fight Sauron's immense army is the most effective for me

(May contain minor SPOILERs)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is just about as good as a movie, that's meant to be pure entertainment can be. The movie also contains a deeper message, concerning the cruelty of war and the value of the human life. Although the small-budget film-making, like in the two previous movies of the dollars-trilogy, has its own attraction, director Sergio Leone really shows what he's made of this time. There are some epic war scenes, huge explosions and realistic sets, that Leone no doubt could have been able to make with the minimal budget of A Fistful of Dollars.

The movie is set sometime in the American Civil War. As before, Clint Eastwood stars. He's the man with no name, which is this time named Blondie. He still doesn't talk very much and he'll still do anything for a fistful of dollars. Although he's namely the Good he's not really a hero you can look up to. In fact he's only the least bad of the three main characters, who are all greedy and ruthless men, who are prepared to kill anyone who stands in their way. The Ugly is Blondie's best friend, partner in crime and also the worst enemy. He's the Mexican bandit named Tuco. Eli Wallach is wonderful as Tuco, he almost steals the show from Clint, being a cruel, stupid, vengeful, greedy, two-faced, but somehow also a very lovable character. The same can't be said about the Bad, the assassin Angel Eyes, who is played by the greatest of western crooks, Lee van Cleef. He's a ruthless man, who'll not only kill a wanted man, but also his family and take their money when he only needed to get was one name. When he gets paid, he'll kill his employer, because he reckons, the previous body wanted to hire him to do so. Angel Eyes also works as a deputy leader of a southern POW camp. He's almost the complete opposite of Col. Mortimer from A Few Dollars More. They are on different sides of the war, but the southern colonel is a much more honorable man.

The movie contains an anti-war message. Although the Civil War only seems to be the set-up for the gold hunt which covers the movie's plot, war is criticized all the time. The POW camp could as well be a concentration camp, as prisoners get beaten near death as the choir is forced to sing, so the voices of the beating couldn't be heard. You are put to the camp for simply rooting for the wrong side. Also watching a big fight at the river, the usually very little-talking Blondie notes that he's never seen men wasted so badly. Later he even gives his coat and cigar to a dying soldier. He seems to be the only character in the movie capable of some sort of empathy. Who would've thought!

The modern action film directors should take a good look at the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (some do, but to no avail). At least many movie villains should remember Tuco's unforgettable line: "When you got to shoot, shoot, don't talk!"

***** (10/10 The top ten movies I've seen #4)

The best part (Major SPOILER): Many to choose from, but there's never been a dual scene quite like the one at the cemetery in the end. While Ennio Morricone's wonderful music plays, the camera goes around to show us the whole scenery and Tuco's and Angel Eyes's emotions (Blondie is so calm I can't really say the same about him). Tuco is very scared, almost in panic and waits for the tension to trigger off. Angel Eyes, however is bubbling with hatred and greed. Blondie is still squinting calmly as ever. Never has a movie showed emotions so good without words.

This is not the worst movie in the world, but alongside with the remake of Psycho this is probably the most pointless. Almost every single scene from the original classic is duplicated and the only thing it adds is some crappy CG scenes which fit to the movie about as well as trousers to a rubber duck. Why on earth did they have to wait for 17 years if they hadn't a single new idea? The worst thing is that with truckloads of money and modern SFX, you would think this one would have the greatest car-crashing scene of all time, considering the predecessors funny sequences. But no. In this the police cars only smash to each others rear end for ten minutes. For Christ's sake! Haven't these cops ever heard that you can brake with your car? So in fact it's the worst car smashing scene of all time.

The best thing about this movie is the music. There are cameos from old faces (Aretha Franklin, James Brown) and newcomers (Wilson Pickett, Eric Clapton etc.) alike. The soundtrack is almost as good as the first one with classics like R.E.S.P.E.C.T and great new songs like Looking for a Fox. The only bad new song is Turn on Your Love Light, which is like a lame copy of the original movie's Everybody Needs Somebody to Love.

As for the cast, they never really fill the void John Belushi left (maybe Jack Black would've been a good contender). John Goodman is good and surprisingly he can also sing OK, but he as well as Joe Morton are underwritten. And it's never a clever idea to bring a kid to a sequel (the Mummy Returns, anyone?) especially a singing and dancing one. Dan Aykroyd is still the quieter brother and that's why he's really not a convincing main character and the band members still can't act to save their lives. Frank Oz manages to raise a smile, though.

All in all, it's not a very bad movie, and you might actually enjoy it if you haven't seen the original. See the original, if you can choose. It's still really funny, cool and funky unlike this. Sadly, John Landis is on the club of the directors, who can't make worthy successors to the great movies in their earlier career. It's spooky, that all of them are actually named John; Landis, Woo, McTiernan and Carpenter.

**1/2 (5/10)

Best Part (SPOILERs): All the musical scenes are worthy but the Ghost Riders in the Sky sequence is probably the best.

First of all I think it's unfair of comedies to get a big cult status. If the best jokes come too well known, the element of surprise is gone. This happened to me for example in the case of This is Spinal Tap. I had heard about the Stonehenge gag, the amplifier that goes up to 11 and the part where they get lost. So, if you haven't seen this movie yet, I suggest you wouldn't read this, because it really does spoil great comedy, if you know too much about it in the first place.

The movie is set in medieval England ...or is it? Maybe I should start again.

This one is probably the funniest of all Monty Python movies, but not the best. The clever satire of Life of Brian and the wonderful visual feast of the Meaning of Life make them superior to this. There's really not anything more than a bunch of typical pythonesque sketches in this one. Which, of course isn't a bad thing at all.

It's said often, that because the movie's budget was very low is why they had to use the infamous coconuts instead of horses. But then again, how come they had enough money for the Trojan rabbit, the army of celts in the end or Tim the enchanter's explosions? Well, most of the action sequences are animated anyway. And that's another plus, because this is the only Python movie, where the great Terry Gilliam animations pop up as often as they did in Flying Circus. Maybe because making them gave Terry a heart attack (in the movie, at least), he only animated the opening credits in LOB and MOL. Too bad, because this has also the best and funniest opening credits, ever! Signed, Richard M. Nixon.

The Pythons really are genius in both writing and acting. Particularly funny are Cleese as the Frenchman and the Black Knight, Chapman as King Arthur, Palin as the leader of the knights of Ni and Dennis, Idle as the Dead Collector and Sir Robin, Jones as Prince Herbert and sir Bedevere and even the rarely seen Terry Gilliam has his Bridgekeeper, one of the funniest characters of the whole movie. All of the characters have also enormous amounts of memorable quotes and that makes this without a doubt the most quoted movie of all times. That just proves that even if the movie has some years to it, it hasn't lost any of it's appeal just because some new comedies like There's something about Mary and American Pie go even deeper into the pile of bad taste. Give me the cartoon-violent Black Knight scene over the sperm-as-hair-gel any day!

***** (9/10)

The best part: (SPOILERs) The hack 'n slash Black Knight scene is the best splatter sequence from a non-splatter movie! Also I really love the Bridge of Death (Answer these questions three: What is your name? What is your quest? What is your favorite colour? You wouldn't think answering those could be THAT hard) and of course, everyone's favorite monster, the Killer rabbit and favourite villains, the Knights who say Ni (or Ekki-ekki-ekki-ekki-z'Bang zoom-Boing z'nourrrwringmmmni) who want some nice shrubberies, which are not too expensive and make people cut down trees with a herring.

(May include SPOILERS)

This was one of my favorite films as a child, along with Jason and the Argonauts, Jurassic Park, Critters, the Lion King and the Naked Gun. The first adventure of Indy is like one of the great Donald Duck comics of Carl Barks came to life. It's as funny, exciting and has a wonderful treasure as a McGuffin (the thing everyone in the film wants). Except, of course it's more violent. But as I am a twisted kind of person who enjoys violent films and black humour, I can't say that is anything else, but a recommendation. But if you don't want to see a hulking German mechanic being chopped by an aeroplane propeller, see something else.

Actually, when you think of it, the plot has been seen millions of times before and after (man gets a mission, meets a girl, girl hates him, fights some sherpas and Nazis and arabs and the wrath of God and gets the girl in the end), the characters are as thin as paper and the ending is quite dull (funny though). But who can say no to a movie, that has Nazis, ghosts, lots of snakes, a hero, who never drops his hat and a monkey who can give a nazi salute. Fans of new blockbusters might want to check, if they can spot the actors of Doc Ock and Gimli (no challenge to real movie fans, but they must have seen this already)

There's everything anyone could ask for in this movie, even a very romantic scene, when Marion fixes Indy's wounds up! Well, anything except serious drama and nudity, but there are other films for those. There's almost nothing bad in this movie and that makes this my top ten movies of all time #10!

***** (10/10)

Best part:

Of course it HAS to be the iconic running away from a giant ball of stone that has inspired video game programmers, artists and movie directors alike.

No, it MUST be when Toth's face melts at the end. That was was the creepiest thing I ever saw as a kid (well, next to the documentary about Ötzi the mummy)

No it IS the "swordfight" against the arab. That's the funniest joke in any action movie, EVER!

This is Quentin Tarantino's (referred from now on as QT) first movie ever and it, like many other debuts of great directors (like Terry Gilliam, Peter Jackson, John Carpenter or Sergio Leone) has been made with considerably small budget. This is only good because it has forced QT to focus on the story and the relationships and not to some gimmicks like the three separate stories in Pulp Fiction or the huge battle scenes in Kill Bill vol. 1 (not to say of course that these movies aren't great too). Small cast and a simple setting in an abandoned warehouse bring the best up. Keitel and Roth are great and Madsen and Buscemi have the best roles in their whole career. And even the smallest roles are noteworthy; Stephen Wright as the bored DJ of K-BILLY always makes me smile.

It has been said that this movie is not an important one because everything in it has been taken from another movie. You know, the color codes from Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, the set up from the Killing etc. But I disagree. If not else, this movie introduced the world what the new generation of movie-makers was capable of. The one, who has grown up watching old movies from TV. And of course every movie maker in the world can learn how QT makes the characters more human by making them have normal discussions about Pam Grier or Madonna's songs or tipping or anything like that, what we discuss every day or his choice of music. Normally music is suited to the movie to depict the emotions or to strenghen the scene or to earn more money with soundtrack albums that have new songs by hit artists like Jerry Bruckheimer does. On QT's soundtrack there is some old music from the 70's which was so out of fashion in 1992 as possible. But it works. The music choices are of course great and they also succeed in bringing up an eerie feeling when they are used in an improper scene. Like "Stuck in the Middle with You" in the ear-slicing scene. All in all, no matter what everyone else says, this movie deserves to be one of the best movies in the 90's and the fifth in my top ten list of best movies of all time. The only downside is that the movie is perhaps a little too short. I would've liked to know Mr. Pink's story for instance.

9/10

The best part: The Psychopathic Mr. Blonde dances to "Stuck in the Middle with You" with a razor blade in front of a tied-up cop, the camera tilts to the left and comes back and Mr. Blonde has the cop's ear in his hand. Then he shouts to the ear; "Hey, what's going' on?"

Futurama first aired in just the right time, when the Simpsons was at its worst. Nowadays, the yellow family has gotten better, but where is Futurama now. Cancelled. I guess FOX executives didn't like the series constantly mocking its own distributor. The Simpsons got away with the same thing, because the series is older and still brings FOX truckloads of money.

I just bought and watched the 4th season of Futurama, which was curiously never shown here in Finland. I must say, that the show ended with the best episodes! Jokes were great, writing clever and it was even touching sometimes, when it explored Fry´s relationship with Leela or Leela´s origins. And just after the show had showed us what it was capable of, they had to cancel it. The Simpsons still isn't what it used to be in seasons 4-6, so I almost would have rather seen Our Favorite Family being cancelled instead. Futurama had loads of more potential than Homer and co., which seems to last forever. Don´t get me wrong, I still love both shows, and if I had to see a lighter side in Futurama´s cancellation, it would be, that maybe the animation team making Futurama would be able to start making the Simpsons motion picture.

Movie sequels do not often improve the original film. In the science-fiction genre, there are however some exceptions. Movies like Aliens, X-men 2 and Bride of Frankenstein improved their already great predecessors (Many would add Terminator 2, but I won't, because I prefer small budget action-cyber-thrillers to big-budget bonanzas). The greatest sequel (I haven't seen Godfather II and I do not count Return of the King as a sequel) of all time is none other than the Empire Strikes Back.

As Star Wars was just an amusing little adventure flick with one-dimensional characters and a simple story, however well made and funny, ESB is a lot deeper in comparison. The characters have real emotions now and the universe is a lot more dangerous place than before. Just look at the Luke in the first film, who is sadder for the death of Ben, who he knew only two days, than he is after his aunt and uncle, who have raised him as their own son, die. Now, compare him to the Luke in the sequel, and his despair as Vader tells him his secret in the very famous scene. It's a shame Mark Hamill's career went only downhill from here, because he could've done some great "serious" acting (Oh, come on. He's playing the Trickster as Harrison Ford makes billions with each of his movies).

Fortunately, the humor has survived from the original film. Chewie, C3PO and Han vs. Leia tongue lashings still create giggles, but the funniest character is of course Jedi Master Yoda. It's brilliant how they could make a demented old muppet, who can't speak sentences with the right word order, a respectable icon of wisdom.

Although the humor, the story is a lot darker than in the previous film. Deception, death and war are constantly present, and come together in one of the best climaxes I've ever seen.

The Empire Strikes Back has almost everything that one could wish for; strange creatures, romance, humor, darkness (not the band you twit!) and epic fights both in space and on the ground. The only downside is, that the story is left unfinished in the end, but one could always see the next episode of the Star Wars saga, The Return of the Jedi right after finishing this movie. This one should be shown to cynics, who loathe science fiction. If this doesn't turn them into fans of the genre, nothing will.

10/10

The Best Part (SPOILERS):

Oh, there's so many to choose from! Some of my favorites are; the climatic lightsaber fight, Han Solo being dipped into carbonite, Millennium Falcon getting lost inside a giant space worm, the rebels succeeding in stopping the Walkers in Hoth with tying their legs together with rope and Luke fighting bogus Vader inside the tree of knowledge, killing him and seeing that the face behind the mask is really himself.