Nephalim

Ultimately, Dead Like Me is good because I sit down and enjoy the time I spend watching it. It's morbidly funny, and it entertains me, so if that's all I need, then it does the job.

The main problem with Dead Like Me, however, is that it takes the steps a show would take towards going beyond that. Because of its content, you would expect some meaningful thoughts on life, death, and whatever's in between. I mean, as a concept, it's intriguing - a young woman dies, but lives out what would have been her years as a grim reaper. And that's what Bryan Fuller does, he comes up with interesting ideas, but he has nowhere to go with them. It happened with Wonderfalls, as well. And even if you think about the Star Trek episodes he wrote, they touch on cool ideas, but never fully explore them.

Where could this show have gone? At the end of the first season, there seemed to be some sign of George letting go of her life, and the possibility of her being happy in death. But when the second season began, there was no sign of growth. The show is well acted and well written, but as a whole, it has massive plot holes, inconsistencies, and strange loose ends that look like they never had reasonable explanations behind them when they were imagined.

Gravelings, for example. With the Ray Summers story arc, we established that they are the souls of "bad" people. And then, to defeat him, he simply had to be reaped. Are we then to gather that the other gravelings are souls that have yet to be reaped, perhaps on an oversight on their would-be reaper? Are reapers actively pursuing them? If gravelings weren't around, would people still die? Where did Ray go upon being reaped, considering his reap wasn't accompanied by the usual light show. Now, these questions are inconsequential to the plot but have greater philosophical ramifications, and it's hard to make a show about life after death without begging a existentialist question every now and then. But this doesn't, and I consider that it's primary failing.

Whereas other shows or movies that deal with life and death usually conclude that there simply aren't any answers for us, Dead Like Me establishes that there ARE answers, but we won't ever know them, and then the matter is dropped. So my problem with Dead Like Me is that it's not as smart as it pretends to be. All it is is the beginnings of an idea which was never thoroughly thought through.

This movie is about Paris Hilton dying. It pretends to be about teenagers getting sucked into a teen horror flick and not seeming to know it - why else would they bumble around like idiots waiting for psychos to slash them?

Since the moment Paris Hilton was announced as on the cast of this film, that's all that this film has been about. It makes me think that the director made this film specifically to see fantasies about Hilton's gruesome death come to fruition. What conversation about House of Wax hasn't involved Paris Hilton? What interview or featurette hasn't brought her up?

It's amazing to see this in theatres. Everyone is anxiously waiting for Paris Hilton's death. They plod through the scenes involving other people, and elbow each other expectantly in Paris-heavy scenes. "This is it. This is when she gets it." And when finally she does get a stake through the head, everyone stops paying attention. It's not scary, the acting's deplorable, and the script is worthless, but none of that matters, because all anyone came to see what Paris Hilton getting a spike through the head.

However, the more macabre among us movie-goers will be disappointed. A spike through the head is the best we came up with? If I was personally behind this project, I would've put Sin City to shame with the torturous end I'd put Paris Hilton through. Blood, bones, teeth, and various Paris organs would've made appearances (and not the ones showcased in her previous films). It would've been long, and it would've been mean.

This movie fails on all scales: As a movie in general, it's poorly directed, written, and acted. As a teen slasher, it's a lame duck. Since the plots of all teen slashers are basically the same, the only way to stand out is with exceptionally creative deaths that push the limits of gross-out. Otherwise, it slips into obscurity. And as a movie in which Paris Hilton dies, it's unimpressive. If I pay admission (or take the time to download) just to see Paris die, I want to get some bang for my buck.

Therefore, I conclude that this movie failed on every foreseeable level.

I have no idea why anyone thinks that Joel Schumacher is a passable director. His efforts to establish himself in many genres has repeatedly failed. The only films he doesn't manage to run through the slaughterhouse are saved only because they ride on something other than direction, IE Cate Blanchett in Veronica Guerin, and the John Grisham source for A Time to Kill. The only films that he's involved in that don't completely fail as films are the ones that require the director to be a virtual nonentity.

The Phantom of the Opera is not an example of one of these movies. If you took stills of the scenes and made a storybook, then maybe it wouldn't be a waste of time. But otherwise, everything here fails miserably. Emmy Rossum's soulless performance juxtaposed against Minnie Driver's (in hands-down the worst performance of her life) ridiculous overacting render both characters completely unbelievable. Gerard Butler and Patrick Wilson, who have both done extremely well in other pictures, fall flat here, as if they think their characters are so well-known that they don't really have to actually act, and the audience will just get it from notoriety. The only redemption on the acting spectrum is Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry, who, naturally, gets the smallest amount of screen time of all the second tier characters.

The Phantom's scars look like little more than an intense sunburn - barely worth putting a mask over. That this was done because people wouldn't believe Christine's attraction to a disfigured man (so I hear) only amplifies what a shallow blunder this was.

If the film had sacrificed acting for good singing voices, then maybe I could understand, but that can't be the case, because all the leads just aren't good. I've seen high school productions of the Phantom do better.

Blair Witch Project didn't really scare me, but it was a very good movie. It had some vision that most films of its ilk severely lack, and was about as un-Hollywood as you can get. In part because of this, there was this buzz of uncertainty about it. When it came out, I was just starting high school, and there was a lot of gossip about how this actually was true.

Blair Witch 2 completely betrayed that. And profoundly betrayed it.

The actors were all pretty teens. The plot was nonsensical and nothing was actually resolved or revealed. What was advertised as an exploration of the Blair Witch legend didn't explore it at all, but just contrived new stuff, handed us archetypal characters that were impossible to care about, and attempted to draw it all back to videos, as if it somehow made the first movie more meaningful.

What was truly ironic about all this was that the fact that this was bigger budget never actually came up. The first movie had no money, and so attempted to scare us with suggestion and inference. This movie HAD money, and tried to scare us overtly, but the best it could do was a pristine dead girl in a closet? STILL no actual sighting of the Blair Witch? But it's not all that surprising. Even on the video release of the first film, the downward spiral was becoming evident. The new footage was the three actors (on better quality tape) just sitting around and regurgitating stuff they had already said in the theatrical release. The creators had nothing to add, but added for the sake of it. Which is exactly what Book of Shadows is.

It's strange. Like, apparently, every other reviewer I've read here, I read the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and the rest) and they're probably among the most pivotal books I've ever read. So I'm familiar with them, and I couldn't say I was going into the movie with much confidence in Hollywood's abilities to safeguard something so precious to me.

And I was right. This is barely the Hitch-Hiker's Guide. I've always been of the mind that a movie adaptation of the Guide would never work - there are elements to the book that simply defy a visual medium, and I never saw the point in making a movie out of it, other than simply for the sake of it. That we measure the success of literature these days in how good the movie adaptations are perplexes me.

The characters here are the characters in name only, and it's the fault of direction and writing, not the actors. I agree with the common sentiment that these two new characters were added for the sake of it, because they served little purpose otherwise. The film derails itself into sci/fi tropes, forgetting, apparently, how much fun Douglas Adams had mocking them. But that was expected. Could you have made a more faithful screen adaptation while recognizing the limits of the medium? Absolutely. But it would've sacrificed spectacle and clichés.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this movie is the trailer. Looking back on it, the trailer (which took the stance of being the Guide's definition of a movie trailer) was tearing strips out of the very movie it sought to promote. The trailer had more Douglas Adams in it than the movie.

I'm honestly amazed how well this movie is being received. This wasn't remarkably bad, nor was it spectacular. It was fluff - a pointless, contented time-waster. I'll watch it again, I'm sure, but I won't go out of my way to do it. But while it may not have failed as a Hollywood film, it did fail as a tribute to Douglas Adams, and I'm quite surprised that there are so many who think otherwise.

SPOILERS AHEAD I can't say I'm surprised to see both the amount of people in love with this film and the amount of people who think it deplorable. But I'd like to address some of the comments I've seen.

First, I loved this film. I think it's the first film in a long time that has done something truly unique that works. I'm glad that it was so uncompromisingly faithful to the comic. Now, obviously, I'm not going to take the position that everyone has to like this film. But I think that some things have been unfairly stated about this film, and I'd like to address them.

The image of women in this movie has come up repeatedly. It's accused of being maliciously sexist, and unfairly so. I agree that no respectable women are in this film, and I agree that they are stereotypical, comic-book knockouts. But that doesn't make this movie sexist, and the reason that's so, is because it treats men EXACTLY the same way. There are no male role models in this film, either. Though some characters may have good intentions, they're all despicably ruthless. Marv may be out on a righteous revenge quest, but does that merit cutting off a man's arms and legs and leaving him for a bloodthirsty dog? You want to tell me that tearing the genitalia off the same man TWICE is something people should emulate? No character can justify their actions in any rational manner. Similarly, all the male characters are muscle-bound supermen. They are not striving for realism or accurate depictions of how people look or act. EVERYONE here is a fantasy, not just the women.

In fact, the most sympathetic characters in the entire movie are Lucille and Nancy. That they're open with their sexuality doesn't take away from the fact that they're both good, strong people, nor does the fact that they're both victims. Lucille does the right thing. It gets her killed, but it's still one of the most moral decisions anyone in the film makes. On top of that, the character with the highest body count is likely Miho, and she's presented as, by far, the most skilled combatant among the cast. So, it makes me wonder how one can claim that this movie is unfair to women. And if you expect women to be cast as moral, righteous people ONLY because they're women, then I'd say that a rather sexist expectation to go into a movie with.

I'm confused when I hear people say that it glorifies violence against women. The men guilty of crimes against women in this film meet with such gruesome and torturous fates that I'm very hesitant to call them glorified.

So of course, there's the overwhelming violence. I agree, this is probably the most explicitly violent movie out there. These "heroes" don't get revenge by killing their opponents, they get revenge by torturing them to death. Everyone is shamelessly ruthless, and the authors had to in turn make their villains so disgustingly horrific that we can tolerate the amount of punishment inflicted upon them when their pursuers finally catch up with them. Kevin couldn't just have killed Goldie. He made Lucille watch as he ate her hand, and displays the heads of the other girls he killed and ate as hunting trophies on his wall. Only now can we, the audience, allow Marv to quarter him and leave him to be eaten alive.

And that's what this movie's about. There IS meaning and poignancy underneath all the blood and gore. I won't blame anyone for being overwhelmed. The only reason this movie is bearable is because of the unique comic-booky perspective we see it from. The high-contrast black and white, with splashes of colour in a pair of bright red sneakers, piercing blue eyes, golden stream of urine, or that yellow bastard, makes it surreal. The most intense scenes are depicted in inverse silhouettes.

Which brings me to the argument of style and substance, which comes up whenever a highly stylistic movie comes out. That it involves a style no one's ever seen before leaves it open for the easy-to-make accusation that that's all there is to it. But the style and content of Sin City work together. Both are nothing without the other. If this was shot like every other movie, the story would be overwhelming for even the strongest stomachs. And if the story told was the same as every detective revenge story, the style would be pointless. But here, they act together to make one of the few truly unique movies in years.

If you don't like it, fine. But this IS a good movie.

Minor Spoilers Ahead, watch out! This would've been a good movie if it had gone for utter farce and didn't try to so overtly deliver a moral, which ironically would've gotten the point across.

Now I'm going to assume by the language and content that this movie was written for mid-teens. High-schoolers. However, the way it's delivered treats its audience like children that need to be walked from one idea to another. Instead of potentially coming to the conclusions the movie advocates ourselves, we're hand-held through some sloppy voiceovers from Cady Heron, the lead character played by Lindsay Lohan. The whole point of the movie is that these so-called "plastics" live pointless, hollow lives, thriving merely off the failures of others. This is extremely clear already, and doesn't need to be spelled out for us.

While I'm on the subject of theme, I'd also like to address some of the hypocrisy this movie demonstrates. Going into it, one expects that this will attempt to demonize the clique nature of high school culture. Instead, it promotes it. All conflict in this movie comes from cliques clashing, and the happy resolution has the characters disassociate from each other into their own cliques. The only thing this film does is address problem cliques, like the "skank army" led by Rachel McAdams' Regina George, ensuring that with their destruction, the other cliques can live in peace. It's a wasted opportunity, if nothing else, that could've showcased just how ridiculous clique systems are.

And then of course there's the blatant shallowness, disguised as marketing. The lead is the attractive (I think we can all agree) Lindsay Lohan, and while she's befriended by the average-looking Janis and Damien, they end up playing very minor roles. Instead, we're bombarded with beautiful people for the majority of the film. Beautiful Cady pursues hunky Aaron despite the machinations of pretty Regina. And even when Cady tricks Regina into gaining weight which makes her apparently lose her "hot body," she still looks amazing. A couple of overweight students are thrown in so that Cady can, in the profound conclusion, assure us that you can still be beautiful without being a supermodel, but the film ignores these characters just as much as the Mean Girls it vilifies do.

Why does Cady have to desire the typical teenage heart-throb over, say, the quirky but kind-hearted Damien? Why can't Janis be happily homosexual? Or at least ambiguous? Why does the film have to assure us, at the end, that she IS, in fact, straight? Why must every fat person persist to be a sponge for comedic abuse instead of an actual character? Why couldn't any of the pretty girls realize that being pretty doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) matter and stop putting so much effort into it? What seems to be an effort to break down preconceptions ends up reinforcing all the stereotypes we've seen before.

If you don't want to look into it, it's entertaining enough. Many of the jokes are rather obvious, but it has its moments, particularly Rachel McAdams getting suddenly hit by a school bus during a heated confrontation with Lindsay Lohan. Watching it, I was thinking to myself, "Man, arguing in the road? Someone better get hit by a bus," and lo and behold, BAM. I laughed extensively, and my vote would've been lower without it.

Spoilers

Having been intimately familiar with the legends this was based off of, it's not unfair to say that I was a very biased audience. And even having seen it, I really think that it blew its potential. The discrepencies between the myth and this movie were needless, and didn't add to the plot. To me, it seemed as though Petersen was cutting corners to make a story that was easier to translate into film, fulfilling tropes and archetypes rather than take some initiative and tell it the way it could have been told. The deaths of Menelaus and Agamemnon in particular seemed to be thrown in just to give the audience some moral satisfaction, that they got what was coming to them. Meanwhile, in the myth, Helen goes back with Menelaus, and Agamemnon takes Priam's youngest daughter as a concubine and returns home (to be murdered by his vexed wife, but that's entirely another story).

At the end, I felt like this movie should have been bigger than it was. Just in depth and production, this didn't seem like it was that big a deal. It was just another movie. The script was choppy and hammy, and everything seemed rushed to make a war that was supposed to last twenty years into a movie that lasted a little over two hours. The complete exclusion of anything supernatural also hurt this film, I believe. And if they keep that philosophy for the might-happen sequel of the Oddessey, I don't think it will be even remotely recognizable.

But even if I set aside the knowledge I had going into this film, I don't think it was that good. With the exception of Eric Bana, Rose Bryne, Saffron Burrows (I know, I was surprised too) and Brendon Gleeson, everyone just seemed to be trying too hard and not pulling it off. The action sequences weren't exactly innovative, and I think should've been considerably more graphic. I mean, all the characters are going on about how horrible the war is, but then we get this toned-down version of Gladiator to support that? Doesn't really add up for me, anyway.

This isn't a review of this particular movie. I thought it profoundly mindless, but fun enough to make up for it. I think the CG was a tad overused, and didn't look all that good most of the time. I was particularly unimpressed with the Dracula creature. But that's pretty much all I have to say about it. It was harmless. Not good enough to leave any lasting impression, but not bad enough to make me care enough to hate it.

But I just can't get over this crossover trend that was set with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen last year. There have been several movies since that throw a bunch of characters from different franchises into the mix. Even though the Alamo is supposed to be a historical docudrama or whatever, it seemed strange to see Jim Bowie and Davey Crockett in the same story. So count that one, or don't, if you wish. Freddie vs. Jason pitted the two famed slasher movie icons against each other, and Alien vs Predator does the same with the equally iconic sci/fi monsters.

All right, two in one, that's not that bad. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was just ridiculous, of course, with dozens of literary sources mangled in a shredder and thrown together, barely stitched together to form what some might consider a moderately coherent plot. We've got, like, ten different books colliding in this movie. Apart from the League itself, there were further references to others, including Sherlock Holmes.

But that one we can let go, because it's based on an old comic or whatever. Fine. The movie was bad enough on it's own.

Van Helsing, however, does this so overtly and so needlessly that you really have to wonder what anyone was thinking. It's the League of Extraordinary Universal Monsters. If you haven't seen the movie, you likely already know that it features Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and the Wolf Man. However, it also feature's Mr. Hyde in a utterly unnecessary preamble. And not only does this seem out of place in the company of these classic monsters, but it's hinted that Hyde is also the Hunchback of Notre Dame, AND Jack the Ripper. These references just seem thrown in for the sake of throwing them in.

I seriously don't know what the hell they can do with the sequel you know they're going to make, unless it's just the same movie over again, with all the dead villains either coming back or turning out not to have died. Maybe we'll get computer-animated flashbacks to enlighten us.

I swear to God, Bram Stoker must be wishing he could rise from the grave and wreak his terrible, vampiric revenge upon all the different bastardizations of EVERY possible character he created. Dracula's been done to death, of course. The League butchered Mina Murray, and now Van Helsing has turned its titular character into something that barely resembles the guy we met in the book. Should we expect "Jonathan Harker" coming in 2005? Starring Keanu Reeves as an vampire hunter who engages hordes of identical undead in slow-motion kung-fu brawls? Or, better yet, "Westernra" starring - oh, I don't know, Drew Barrymore, let's say - as Lucy Westernra, turned vampire, but kept her soul or something, and so uses her supernatural undead powers and sex appeal to fight evil. It'll be like "Angel," except she's a chick.

You might laugh or roll your eyes, but if Van Helsing has been any indication, we are not that far off.

Maybe Somers thought this would be a dud, and so tried to cram in every monster he could find because he didn't think he'd get another chance. Or maybe he has a terminal illness or something. Because this is what he loves doing - taking classic, iconic figures and revisiting them in new and occasionally moderately interesting ways.

Unfortunately, Van Helsing was NOT one of those occasions.

Well, what do you know, I guess this sort of WAS a review of the movie.

I'm confused because I know that all these actors can do better because I've seen them do better, and I'm also confused why anyone thought that Mark Steven Johnson was the man for the job. His art direction looks like a boring version of Tim Burton's Batman vision, and he must be to blame for the ridiculous story and ridiculous acting.

I find that with Ben Affleck, most people really like him, or really hate him, and I seem to be one of the few that think he's just okay. But this just looked painful to him. Murdoch's character just looked like he was playing the brooding loner bit because of the cool factor. He seemed only mildly invested in the revenge story which was apparently his one driving factor in life.

Then there's Jennifer Garner, who I think is likely to become one of the better action actresses of her time. She's brilliant on Alias. And if she's a good Elektra, we can barely tell, because she's almost peripheral to the plot, with very little screen time and probably five minutes of actual dialogue. And her character is just as stupid as hell. Since it eventually turns into a revenge crusade for her, the backstory became very convenient for her, particularly with the black leather get-up she just happened to have stowed away. And then, she meets a sort-of blind guy who can still fight exceptionally well, and is surprised when he turns out to be Daredevil.

Michael Clarke Duncan is a strange choice for Kingpin. I think he's an exceptional actor, but he's just a huge detachment from the Kingpin of the comics. For one thing, he's too young, for another, he's black, and most important, he seems like an uber-thug more than anything else, whereas the Wilson Fisk character that comic fans came to know and love was an elegant villain. Ruthless and brutal, but elegant. You had no trouble believing that he could fool the public into thinking he was just a very successful businessman.

Joe Pantaliano is a great sleazbag, but if he can do more, he certainly didn't show it here. His character was one-dimensional and archetypal. We never got a good idea of why he was so interested in these stories.

Colin Ferrell was as over-the-top as he apparently could be. He was amusing, but had very little to his character.

But I don't blame the actors. The dialogue and direction was the main culprit, here. Throw in a kitschy soundtrack, and you've got a disastrous comic book movie. It had it's moments, like the Stan Lee and Kevin Smith cameos, but these were few and far between. The plot seemed like it was written by a nine-year-old. I mean, Daredevil is apparently trying to hide his identity, but he walks around as Matt Murdoch brandishing the weapon he uses as a cane? These characters were idiots.

And for those of you who aren't aware, Mark Steven Johnson is the director of Grumpy Old Men and Jack Frost (the Michael Keaton movie). So what ever gave anyone the idea that he could handle anything remotely resembling a serious movie, let alone one as dark and brooding as this?

I'm not kidding. This is one of the very few fairy tale movies to actually practice the themes that it preaches. At the end of the movie, the story establishes that people don't need to be "beautiful" in the traditional sense of the word, but whereas other fairy tales fall short, and give some excuse to turn them both into rich supermodels, instead, Fiona continues to be an ogre, and the story ends on a "happily ever after" note with them still living in a swamp.

Now, let's take a Disney movie as a contrasting example. Like, Aladdin. So at the end, the moral of the story is that Aladdin was a diamond in the rough despite being at the bottom of the social class barrel. But to live happily ever after, he needs to become a Prince.

Shrek is of course renowned for its amazing visuals, which it certainly has in large supply. While the animation is superb with every character, I was especially impressed with Fiona, who was the most life-like among them, and certainly would give Aki Ross a run for her money. But along with all the visuals is an interesting story, dynamic and original character who manage to fit into the loose, generic roles associated with the genre (hero, damsel, sidekick) while defying the archetypes that usually tie such characters down. I was especially delighted to see the guardian dragon actually become a character and not just a story vehicle.

As the result, we end up with an interesting, visually stunning, and wholly entertaining twist on the stereotypical fairy tale. One of the best movies of the year, and I fully believe that it should've been nominated for best picture. Unfortunately, the Academy, being so terrified of computer animation as they are, created the "Best Animated Feature" sub award so that they could take all animated films out of the running for best picture.

Major spoilers. Don't read unless you've seen.

I think we need to take a step back and look at some of the reaction to this film. This movie wasn't that good a movie. It wasn't bad - I liked it, but it wasn't nearly as groundbreaking or brilliant or marvelous as everyone seems to think. Characterization is inconsistent with what we saw in Vol. 1, and if this "expanded mythos" that Tarantino is so proud of gave reasons for these inconsistencies, then we should know them from watching the movie, not having to buy the book, the special extended DVD edition, or the super-mega-amazing director's cut collector's edition.

It seems that people just assume that Tarantino strikes gold every time he does ANYTHING, so they rant and rave about how much of a genius he is no matter what he does. Rather than answer a good deal of questions we had in Vol. 1, Vol. 2 just gave us a bunch of new questions - the answers to which were less than satisfactory. And Taranino's talent for dropping subtle hints is completely lost upon this plot. Rather than gentle foreshadowing, he beats us over the head, repeatedly, which makes certain aspects of the story VERY predictable. They basically told us how Bill would die about halfway through the movie, and told us how Elle lost her eye before they told us. Then, when the movie confirms these battering-ram foreshadows, it treats it like we'e supposed to be surprised?

Every single aspect of this film was a disappointment. Let's go over a few.

As I'm sure you all recall, in Vol. 1, the name of the Bride was bleeped out, and this continues through the first portion of the film. However, when her real name is revealed, it means nothing. Which makes you wonder why he ever bleeped it out in the first place. And if the answer is "just because," then why did he tell us her name at all? At least, in the fashion we were given. It was pointless. I could understand if we never found out her name until it was listed on the closing credits, but this was just stupid.

Now, character inconsistencies. In the first film, we are told that Elle hates the Bride. Fair enough. But, she is also willing to kill the Bride by poisoning her in her sleep, and flips out when she's ordered not to. But, in this film, she kills Budd, and her reason for doing so is, she says, because Budd managed to kill her. And this is, let's remember, after she told him to. Now, I wouldn't put killing Budd past Elle for a second, but I think if anything, it should've been for the money. She's proven, and continues to prove in Vol. 2, that she cares little for honour and the warrior code. So then why this sudden spark of sympathy?

And then there's Budd. All we know about him is that he's a hick. That's pretty much all we're given to work with. Every part of his character helps to reiterate this. That was done well enough, but for one thing - why did he keep the sword? Or at the very least, why would he lie to Bill and Elle about it? Now, I argued this with a friend, and she thought that it was because Budd loves Bill, but didn't want to show any sentimentality. While that does make a certain degree of sense, there's still the matter of what we're given. Until Vol. 2, we didn't even know that they WERE brothers, and their relationship is not at all elaborated on through the course of this film. I saw no actual evidence of why Budd would do something like this. Now, Tarantino professes that he made up elaborate backstories for all these characters to make their motivation more apparent to the actors, but here, it seems to have been a curse as opposed to a blessing. There can be a huge story behind these characters, but if it stays behind them, we never see it. Their actions were sloppy and pointless. And I really can't see Budd as anything but a hick, which makes we wonder if he was ever actually an assassin at all. I mean, it's only been four years, and he's just completely degenerated?

Onto Bill. Wow. I never realized just how crappy an actor David Carradine actually was. Everything is hokey and overdramatic. Now, I thought that this was supposed to be an homage to the chop-sockey, kung-fu media of old. Because he'd be great there. But he's stagnant and embarassing in any semblance of a dramatic environment. And the Bride, at this point, just killed O-Ren, who, we're told, he invested a lot in, Budd (he thinks she did, anyway), his brother, the only man he ever loved, and Elle, his (unless I misunderstood) current lover. But he never even brings that up. It doesn't seem to phase him, and yet, we're supposed to believe that he'd react to the Bride's leaving him the way he did. Even NOW, the only reason he seems at all upset with her is that she left him.

Pai Mei was my favourite part of the movie. The aged mentor character was true to form, complete with the all-consuming superiority complex and twisted humour at his pupil's failures. But he just seemed forced into the plot for no real reason. We got very little insight into his relationship with the Bride. When Elle announces that she murdered him, I wasn't sure if the Bride cared or not. Additionally, we're told, and are given no reason to believe otherwise, that Pai Mei is over a thousand years old. Given the stuff we've been given, that strikes me as a stretching our suspension of belief rather thin, and it just came out of nowhere. And THEN, there's also the matter that he's a kung-fu master, he's 1000 years old, and yet, Elle managed to kill him.

And finally, the Bride herself. Now, if I'm an experienced assassin, do I

just answer the door when I'm on assignment? If she hadn't dropped her pregnancy test, she would've been killed. So, it was luck. How the hell did she survive all this time if she makes such stupid mistakes? Let's remember that she's a former member of the Deadly Vipers, which means that she kills people for money. But we're never showed that. We're only showed the sins of the other five, as if Tarantino's afraid that we might lose faith in the Bride if she was portrayed as a ruthless assassin like O-Ren or Elle. But it would be more interesting if this baby actually CHANGED something. Instead, we're never shown the Black Mamba. We're only shown the Bride. Or, the happy-go-lucky student of Bill.

And the fights all sucked. The Budd fight didn't happen. The Elle fight was pretty intense, but too short, and what a crappy ending (and also, they're jumping up and around a trailer with a friggin black mamba somewhere in it, and it never comes up, and they don't seem to notice, and through it all, the Bride had bare feet). The Bill fight was probably twenty seconds long, and I'd seen half of it in trailers already. They never even stood up for it. For whole course of this friggin' movie, NO ONE GOT CUT WITH A SWORD. Probably one of the better fights was the one with Karen.

And then, there's a lot of carryovers from the first film that, now that you've seen the second, make no sense. Like, Sofie Fatale. The way they show the Two Pines Massacre, there was no possible way for Sofie to be in the chapel at the time, and there doesn't seem to be much reason, either.

And then there's Vernita Green. Now, give me a moment: The Bride wakes up in Texas. She hitches a ride to Okinawa, gets a sword made, then goes to Tokyo, uses the sword on O-Ren, travels to Pasadena, does NOT use the sword, and then goes back to Texas.

It almost seems like the movie was written to have Vernita killed FIRST. Especially since she loses the Pussy Wagon - which no one has seen and lived to tell about, yet Estoban somehow knows about it - apparently after that fight, and she GOT the Pussy Wagon when she killed Buck in Texas. Then, after killing Vernita, she went to Japan. This also makes more sense as she didn't have (or at least didn't use) the sword in the Vernita encounter. The movie just seems full of sloppy writing.

Now, this is just a personal nitpick, but I'll mention it anyway. This movie is a self-proclaimed homage to chop-sockey kung-fu crap, right? Well, then why not actually pay homage to it? This is a very staple archetype - you start off with the easy minions, and then work your way up to the most trying battle of the film. Yet, the Bride started off her revenge quest at the House of Blue Leave, where she single-handedly fought off hordes of supposedly skilled assassins, Johnny Mo, Go-go, and finally, she fought O-Ren while she was utterly exhausted. The Vernita fight wasn't nearly as taxing, though it was pretty intense. At least she got cut. Then, Elle took care of Budd for her, and Elle, like I said, never actually draws blood from the Bride. And then, the Bill fight was super-short and seemingly effortless on the part of the Bride. It seemed too easy for her.

Now, I liked it in spite of all this. I would recommend anyone to see it, but I don't think that anyone's redefining genres or whatever the crap all the critics are calling it. And Tarantino's making a mint off of this. He's announced plans to spin it off into a novel, he wants to rerelease it in theatres as a single movie, and he wants to make multiple special DVD editions, as well as multiple individual supplement discs. And, he also wants to make a Vol. 3 in fifteen years about Vernita's daughter Nikki coming after the Bride.

Tarantino already thinks he's god, so I fear that he's going to go the way of Lucas very very soon. I think another innovative filmmaker is about to bite the dust.

If any other name had been attached to this movie, it wouldn't have gone through because no one would let it. Tarantino has been awarded every freedom to indulge himself, and dear god, he uses every last one.

The movie is drenched in style. It's loaded with very impressive cinematography and art direction, and it's well directed for what it was going for. But I find the major disappointment to be with the writing. Particularly the dialogue. The story was very good, but almost all conversations between characters were just horrible. The Bride & Vernita's conversation in the kitchen was just embarrassing to listen to. Their lines were so cliched that it must have been impossible to say them with any passion without hamming it up, so they hammed it up.

The blood spewing from every open wound was also a little overdone, and just looked fake. Even without knowing the physical problems with it, the blood didn't look good in almost every fight scene. I mean, if you're going to have THAT much blood in a single movie, I'd take steps to see to it that the blood actually looks decent.

And then, there were a lot of scenes, or, at least, shots, that were too long, and pointless. They added nothing to the film, and if it was any other director, would've been on the cutting room floor. Unless Vol. 2 is substantially different, this movie did NOT have to be cut in two.

WHile it's certainly worth seeing, it's not nearly Tarantino's best, nor is it worthy of all the praise it's been getting. There are way too many instances where useless content or ridiculousness was just shrugged off with, "Well, it's Tarantino."

Don't get me wrong, the old Adam West Batman TV show was certainly funny, and given the times, a more accurate representation of what Batman was trying to be wouldn't have succeeded nearly as well. But the show still betrayed all the emotion and grimness of Batman's themes.

In Batman & Robin, Schumacher seems to be getting back to those roots. He treats the entire Batman franchise like a joke. Even if it was funny, this would be betraying the name of Batman. But here, seeing as it's NOT funny, it only succeeds in becoming the worst of the Batman movies, and, arguably, the worst films ever created. And I'm taking into account Plan 9 From Outer Space, Gigli, and You Got Served.

George Clooney just plays George Clooney. Which is the road he usually takes, but this suave, dashing, and charming Batman seems more like Mystery Men's Captain Amazing than the crimefighter of legend.

There's Chris O'Donnell, the angst-ridden Robin trying to break out of Batman's shadow. The only thing he ever really does is act like a child.

Alicia Silverstone. Wow. I seriously wonder what makes someone say, "Hmm, who should we get to play Batgirl . . . I know! Alicia Silverstone!" No offense to Alicia, but she's out in right field on this one. Her tough-girl performance is sprinkled with reminders of her Clueless days. But all that aside, she actually does very little.

Now, onto the villains. Uma Thurman, who we know CAN act, is hamming it up to ridiculous proportions. First, when she's playing the nerdy Dr. Pamela, she exaggerates that to a level I thought impossible. And then she inexplicably turns into an extremely sexualized villainess whose plan, by the way, would kill all the plants she advocated protecting.

Arnold seems like the worst possible choice for Mr. Freeze. I mean, of all the Batman villains I could see him playing - Bane, for christ's sake - Mr. Freeze is not on that list. He possesses none of the emotionless, calculated, and cold (no pun intended) sociopathy which makes Mr. Freeze such a good character.

And then, all that aside, they're handed ridiculous catch phrases and cliches they're expected to say with any level of sincerity? At one point Mr. Freeze says "chill out." Of all the ways it sounds, menacing is not among them.

Seriously, I'd have more respect for Schumacher if I discovered that he hated Batman, and had intentionally ruined it with this garbage. Then, this might actually be just his own personal joke. Instead, it borders on a travesty of good cinema. I only wish that 0 stars was a selectable option at the imdb, for this film ALONE.

The best thing about Batman Returns is that, when you watch it, you manage to forget how much Joel Schumacher has destroyed the franchise. Batman Returns takes these famous characters and explores them deeply and disturbingly. What Burton started in Batman, he continues in this wildly stylistic sequel.

Though in terms of writing and acting, the greatest success is celebrated by the villains. In Catwoman, we see Michelle Pfeiffer transform from a twitchy, nervous, and undertrod secretary into a dark, confident psychopath. Pfeiffer's performance in Returns is one of the most unsung in the history of film. We see her degenerate from scene to scene, slowly losing control, until the breaking point at the climax.

Then there's the Penguin, bent on revenge against all the silver spooners who thrived where his parents abandoned him. His interaction with society can be easily compared to that of Edward Scissorhands. When they first recieve him, the city is thrilled at the novelty of his otherness, but they turn on him in an instant. The only difference is that the Penguin deserves it. In the end, he's abandoned once again, by the city, by his co-conspirators, and finally, by his avian minions themselves.

Batman Returns takes what could have easily just been another pop culture action film and turns it into a twisted reflection on some very disturbed characters. Gotham City, under the direction of Burton, remains dark and gothic, unstained by the neon and blacklights that Schumacher would later invade it with.

Returns is, and probably will always be, the last Batman movie to stay true to what Batman was truly about, a dark man, in a dark city, trying to find the light.

This shouldn't have been a movie, sufficed to say. If you like the dancing, that's certainly fair enough, but that's the only thing this movie has. Everything else just shouldn't be there. The "plot" is ridiculous, and I've seen better acting at kindergarden renditions of Wizard of Oz.

People seem to think that if you're not a dancer, you have no opinion of worth on this movie. But judging this movie AS a movie, and not as a documentary on dancing, this is a VERY bad movie with good dance sequences. My only wonder is why this couldn't have been easily contained in a music video, so that it wouldn't have to take up a cinema in an actual theatre.

As a teenager, I usually find myself rather insulted by movies I'm expected to like, but Eurotrip is just something else. I mean, does the world really think we're all this stupid and shallow? Eurotrip reinforces what every uncultured high schooler believes: Europe is full entirely of insane and wacky men, and beautiful, usually topless women.

But all these European sterotypes aside, this movie seems entirely to be an entry in a teenage homophobe's diary. In fact, the only reason that they even GO to Europe is because the guy's trying to convince his friends that, yes, he's straight. And when they get there, it's full of oodles of beautiful women, and oodles of ugly men, y'know, so that the teenage audience won't feel uncomfortable looking at naked men who are actually attractive.

If you find yourself identifying with ANYONE in this movie, then there may be no saving you. I admit, when it's funny, it's funny, but they're definitely not worth the price of admission. If this movie DOES enjoy any success, I'll take it as a sad statement of just how stupid the majority of teenagers actually are.

*Minor Spoilers - don't worry, you spot them coming a mile away*

Some of the fights were decent. The morphing thing on the werewolves was good. The costumes were interesting, if not a tad redundant, and the setting kept very gothic and fitting for most of the film.

That is where the virtues of this film end.

We have been waiting almost ten years for another decent vampire movie, and we keep getting cliched disappointment after another. Vampire culture barely factored into it. We hardly see them demonstrate any of their powers. This could very easily be about human werewolf-hunters, and the plot would need only a little tweaking. That aside, the plot was still quite bad. The avenging-murdered-family bit is getting very old and very tired and it's pulled off in uncreative enough a way not to give them the benefit of the doubt.

When Selene (Beckinsale) and Mike (Speedman) inevitably fall in love, you begin to wonder why, as nothing has really happened that merits any feelings for one another. Their first kiss comes from out of nowhere. I realize this is primarily an action movie but let's put SOMETHING behind the relationships.

That being said, the action sequences that were rewarding to watch were few and far between, and none of them involved Selene. Kate Beckinsale seems very out of place in a fight. And in the final battle, the death of the big bad guy is actually very comical, and the cinema I was in burst into laughter when he died, which I somehow doubt was the intent.

And finally, as a horror film, it doesn't even try to scare you. I can't see it being considered a horror film in any serious capacity.

And as a detail, why didn't we just call them "Werewolves" instead of "Lycans" which sounds exactly like "Lichens."

A few spoilers follow:

Comics are comics, and movies are movies. I thought this was a truth generally accepted by the greater whole of humanity until I saw the Hulk. The movie was well-written, well acted, and explored a character that could have come to screen as no more than just another superhero. But, here's the problem with Hulk: Ang Lee.

I don't have any running disrespect for Ang Lee. He's a good director when he's put in his element. But I don't think he had enough respect for the source from which the Hulk came from. So he treats it like it's just a comic. In turn, we get these shifting panels, freeze-frames, and take-apart, put-back-together transitions that are supposed to make us feel like we're inside a comic book.

This is all well and good, but when one of the prime villains are killed by an explosion from behind, we freeze the image of him flying through the air, and then fire engulfs the screen. Not good, Ang. Not good at all.

And then, this film reiterated my belief that Ang Lee can't keep a secret to save his life. The audience comes to realize that Bruce Banner's father killed his mother when he was young quite early in the film. It's fairly clear, even though they don't show the actual murder. But, nevertheless, when we are shown the murder, very close to the end of the film, it's treated like this is the big secret we've been waiting for through the whole movie.

That being said, the film was worth a second glance. The creature was very well done, the action scenes were pretty impressive, and the overall plot wasn't the superhero cliche that most films, whether based on comics or not, tend to be falling into, lately.

I can't believe that this was in any theatres at all. Despite the fact that the effects, sets, etc. were just really cheap and chinsey, and the movie lacked production values in any possible way, the premise was contrived, the killings were comical, and for a horror movie, it failed to even begin scaring the audience.

With all the overacting, midi music, really, really bad dialogue and bad everything else, it looked like a college film project than anything people paid money for.

As a fan of previous incarnations of Friday the 13th, I'm all the more disappointed in a movie that failed to live up to what had come before it.