NorthwestPopcornMuncher

Highlander is a weirdly paced film, one that you would think is awkward, but if you like cheese and over-the-top acting like I do, it all just somehow seamlessly fits into a fun urban-fantasy action flick. Even if you don't like cheese, I still recommend watching this one just out of an experimental curiosity.

Out of the three iconic Universal monster flicks (Dracula, Frankenstein, and this), I feel The Wolf Man was the most suspenseful and entertaining of them all. Lon Cheney does a fantastic job acting as both a ravenous beast and the haunted Larry Talbot, who was cursed to become the vile Wolf Man after fending off a werewolf in the night.

Unlike with Frankenstein and Dracula, which rely on the horror of the scenario itself, the Wolf Man's horror is emotional and dramatic. The Wolf Man, while a killer and monster, is not in itself the terrifying part of this movie: it is the repercussions of the wolf's actions.

The storyline between John Talbot and his son Larry was also a pleasant surprise with this movie. Larry did not intend to be a monster, and it is clear that his father, though misunderstanding the curse, meant well for his son. Which is why the ending where we see John forced to kill his son to stop Larry from murdering Gwen hit hard. Like the curse Larry carried, John himself partakes in a great tragedy to repeat the actions his son tried to heroically attempt.

This is not really a fundamental flaw with the movie, but a minor nitpick: why did Larry not ask for the necklace back from Gwen when he went to say his goodbyes if he was so convinced he was a werewolf? It could have saved him trouble. But this gripe can be excused, I think, because that would have stopped us from witnessing a fantastic finale for this wonderful movie.

Acting on all ends was stellar, the score was chilling, and the special effects were utterly haunting. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to witness horror without worrying about cheap jumpscares and gore, the storyline alone is what haunts you! 9/10.

A very poor adaption of the Chronicles of Prydain books, which inconsistent looking animation and some very bland characters that replaced snappy dialogue and compelling characterization from the Prydain novels. Not to mention utter tonal shifts at time. I felt the voice acting was rather bad too.

The only positives I give this movie is that it was experimental for a Disney movie and a bit darker than their material at the time. Also, Elmer Bernstein's score is excellent. However, just because there was a darker tone and aesthetic, it does not change the poor plotting and character writing the movie suffers.

I can see why Disney suffered from this movie. It's just not very good compared to fantasy films they had made previously. I feel Prydain was a weird series to turn so dark and edgy. Yes, it has dark elements, but there are some very graphic and kind of adult scenes that never featured in the books. And it hurts to watch for Prydain fans, who enjoyed the character building from the books which is just not found here.

I really would never watch this movie again. The Prydain books, on the other hand, are worth a re-read!

Watching through this miniseries, I thought it was going to be like most campy religions cartoons for children, treating the story like a generic fairy tale. Rather, the creators of this series, using many different animation styles, have created a beautifully animated series that portrays the moral complexity of the Old Testament. It's down to earth, not afraid to show terrifying imagery and death.

The most notable episode, in my opinion, was their portrayal of Creation and the Flood. Creation is painted as a beautiful paradise in acrylics, and Satan is portrayed as legitimately creepy and actually persuasive. When man finally sins, the painting of the ideal creation is stripped away, going to a smoother but darker animated style showing death and pain. They also get the idea of "death" correct, portraying it as separation from God, and gives the hope of the gospel. The Noah part of the tale is also excellent. Noah and his family is written with a sense of humanity. Funnily enough, the History Channel "The Bible" show has a similar storytelling format, with Noah telling his family the Creation account. Except, unlike how History Channel butchered Genesis, this one handles it with respect and nuance.

The other episodes would portray characters such as Abraham (another stunning one), Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David, Elijah, Jonah, and Daniel (from the episodes I could find). The Abraham, Joseph, and Ruth episodes were handled in puppet animation, with was smoothly done. The same style would be used by the same animation company to make "Jesus the Miracle Maker", another spectacular film I recommend to any Christian wishing to see a respectful portrayal of Jesus.

Unfortunately, there are some flaws across the episodes. The Moses episode is particularly weak; it tries some inventive storytelling but the animation is unappealing and comes across as boring. The Daniel episode is distracting with it's foggy watercolor style. The Jonah special's animation is not good, but it does get the villainous and grumpy portrayal of Jonah correct. There is occasionally Biblical inaccuracies in some of these episodes as well, but they get the moral message behind the accounts and are theologically sound (from a Protestant viewpoint anyways), so that saves these episodes.

Overall, a fantastic show. May be a bit traumatizing for children, but if they can handle some scary imagery and violence, I recommend showing this to them for ministry purposes. It's portrayal of the Old Testament is deeper and thoughtful and preaches faith, not spectacle.

Colonel Douglas Mortimer is out for revenge on one of the vilest men of the West, an outlaw named El Indio. Along the way, he meets "Manco", a notorious Bounty Hunter who is also after the same man. They team up, hoping to destroy the large outlaw gang and get paid handsomely.

This film is better than A Fistful of Dollars by a long shot. There is better music, more compelling characters, and the screen direction is excellent. The plot is also a bit more complex which leads to an enjoyable experience. It is truly art.

One of the best parts of this film, in my opinion, is Lee Van Cleef's Colonel Mortimer. He plays a very lawful man with a good motive. The rape and suicide of his sister is a stunning cause for revenge. I am used to watching Van Cleef playing villains, but his time as a clear hero feels like he brings gravity to the role.

This contrasts with "Manco", a mysterious man named "Joe" in the last time, played by Clint Eastwood. He still has the same grim outlook in this one, but he definitely feels like he's changed at this point in history. He's more compassionate. He still acts larger than life, and in the final duel between Mortimer and Indio, he acts like an almighty and watchful mediator over the small duel between the two men. It's brilliant.

El Indio is one of the most wicked villains in all of cinema. He shows no remorse for his actions, and the music from Morricone adds to his thoughts with the strange buzzing and chaotic music for him. He's cold blooded and only serves himself. Yet, he's strangely deep for such a irredeemable villain.

Ennio Morricone's music adds to much to the movie. It sounds like the beating of the hot sun overcoming the landscape and atmosphere, springy yet deadly. I don't think Leone would have nearly made an impact in this film without the impressive soundtrack.

The biggest flaw this film suffers from is once again a slow start, and some of the film is rather confusing. It needed a better time communicating it's plot, as the audience feels clueless in some instances of what Manco is doing. Yes, he is mysterious, but it is just hard to follow.

Overall, a great film. I feel it is underrated in the trilogy, but serves as a good bookend to the character of The Man with No Name. Of course, the third film would be The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but the story chronologically ends here. And it's a satisfying ending for Manco and Mortimer.

I absolutely hate to say this as a Spider-Man fan, but this film, while very good, has some irksome problems. It's a fun movie, but an awful adaption.

Here's a controversial opinion: Sam Raimi doesn't understand Peter Parker. He gets the struggle part right. However, where Peter fails in the comics, he isn't supposed to be a complete loser. Peter is charming, smart, charismatic, and driven, whose failures come from being human, not incompetency. Raimi turns Peter incompetent, solely for laughs. Perhaps this is a fun character, but it simply isn't Peter Parker.

His Spider-Man also lacks charisma. Despite the quipping (which was never essential to his character), he delivers the lines so borishly. Where is the excitement or dread? Why doesn't he become more personal with his foes when punching them? What he really does well is fighting, but his movements feel vanilla.

As for Mary Jane, this rendition is completely awful. She's a terrible person, who expects much of Peter despite him, in the previous film, saying he couldn't be in a relationship! She whines and seems to be self-centered. Once again, there's a lack of charisma like the character had in the comic books that was needed here. Her and Peter Parker, as well as Harry, all feel like characters of a soap opera, and it feels so out of place.

Doc Ock is fine, I think. I wish he relished in his evil like he does in the comics, but his plan is understandable. My issue is the arms controlling his mind... It just ruins the entire character for me. They had good set-up with his wife dying, but no, apparently the arms control him? Sort of a waste, and "Rosie" is forgotten to Doc Ock all too quickly. But hey, the special effects with his arms are amazing, and have not been matched. And Alfred Molina's acting definitely makes him charming, so he's just a lot of fun!

Harry is just annoying. He is nothing like his charming comic counterpart, but just mopey and depressed. At least this is saved by a rather decent subplot in trying to find the identity of Spider-Man for revenge purposes. Doesn't nearly hold a candle to the slow developing of insanity his comic counterpart had, unfortunately. (And that gets wasted in the third film.)

The plot. Wewlad. So, Doc Ock's plan is fine. My issue is Peter losing his powers. Why would he lose them due to love sickness? That's incredibly stupid and mopey and doesn't belong in a ham-fisted spectacle like this film enjoyably is. Peter downright saying "no" to Uncle Ben is terrible and out of character.

There's a difference in adaption here: in Amazing Spider-Man #50, Peter loses his powers due to illness and just loses sight of his heroics with Kingpin's terrible crimeway being too much. He is actually overwhelmed. So, his reasons are logical. He eventually reinvigorates his heroism and realizes he is strong enough to overcome. It's a brilliant story. But the mopey love-sickness just seems so stupid. It brings down the film.

What saves this film is clever comedic writing, good camera direction, good special effects, and a heavenly soundtrack. Oh, and J. Jonah Jameson. He saves the film single-handedly.

The side characters, like Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson, are well-written and explored, as well as having the charisma the main characters desperately needed. Give Rosemary Harris and J. K. Simmons a round of applause.

I like to explain to friends that Sam Raimi's eye for camera direction is what made this a perfect comic book movie. Look closely at modern comic panels, how they move and shift on characters. Wide shots, very detailed in the forefront while less detailed in the background. That detail is reflected in Sam Raimi's camera work. The masterwork of this in the Train Fight. You feel the dread and speed of that train, as certain angles Spider-Man swings around at can leave you disoriented, like a rollercoaster. Raimi excels in his visual storytelling.

Elfman's soundtrack is unbeatable. Just listen to it and you'd understand why. Oh, and the dialogue in the film? Absolutely incredible.

Ultimately, the entertainment I get from this film saves it from the awful characterization and drama. I leave it with a 7, a grade I wish I didn't have to give it out of nostalgia and love of this film. However, I am being honest in criticism.

I absolutely hate to say this as a Spider-Man fan, but this film, while very good, has some irksome problems. It's a fun movie, but an awful adaption.

Here's a controversial opinion: Sam Raimi doesn't understand Peter Parker. He gets the struggle part right. However, where Peter fails in the comics, he isn't supposed to be a complete loser. Peter is charming, smart, charismatic, and driven, whose failures come from being human, not incompetency. Raimi turns Peter incompetent, solely for laughs. Perhaps this is a fun character, but it simply isn't Peter Parker.

His Spider-Man also lacks charisma. Despite the quipping (which was never essential to his character), he delivers the lines so borishly. Where is the excitement or dread? Why doesn't he become more personal with his foes when punching them? What he really does well is fighting, but his movements feel vanilla.

As for Mary Jane, this rendition is completely awful. She's a terrible person, who expects much of Peter despite him, in the previous film, saying he couldn't be in a relationship! She whines and seems to be self-centered. Once again, there's a lack of charisma like the character had in the comic books that was needed here. Her and Peter Parker, as well as Harry, all feel like characters of a soap opera, and it feels so out of place.

Doc Ock is fine, I think. I wish he relished in his evil like he does in the comics, but his plan is understandable. My issue is the arms controlling his mind... It just ruins the entire character for me. They had good set-up with his wife dying, but no, apparently the arms control him? Sort of a waste, and "Rosie" is forgotten to Doc Ock all too quickly. But hey, the special effects with his arms are amazing, and have not been matched. And Alfred Molina's acting definitely makes him charming, so he's just a lot of fun!

Harry is just annoying. He is nothing like his charming comic counterpart, but just mopey and depressed. At least this is saved by a rather decent subplot in trying to find the identity of Spider-Man for revenge purposes. Doesn't nearly hold a candle to the slow developing of insanity his comic counterpart had, unfortunately. (And that gets wasted in the third film.)

The plot. Wewlad. So, Doc Ock's plan is fine. My issue is Peter losing his powers. Why would he lose them due to love sickness? That's incredibly stupid and mopey and doesn't belong in a ham-fisted spectacle like this film enjoyably is. Peter downright saying "no" to Uncle Ben is terrible and out of character.

There's a difference in adaption here: in Amazing Spider-Man #50, Peter loses his powers due to illness and just loses sight of his heroics with Kingpin's terrible crimeway being too much. He is actually overwhelmed. So, his reasons are logical. He eventually reinvigorates his heroism and realizes he is strong enough to overcome. It's a brilliant story. But the mopey love-sickness just seems so stupid. It brings down the film.

What saves this film is clever comedic writing, good camera direction, good special effects, and a heavenly soundtrack. Oh, and J. Jonah Jameson. He saves the film single-handedly.

The side characters, like Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson, are well-written and explored, as well as having the charisma the main characters desperately needed. Give Rosemary Harris and J. K. Simmons a round of applause.

I like to explain to friends that Sam Raimi's eye for camera direction is what made this a perfect comic book movie. Look closely at modern comic panels, how they move and shift on characters. Wide shots, very detailed in the forefront while less detailed in the background. That detail is reflected in Sam Raimi's camera work. The masterwork of this in the Train Fight. You feel the dread and speed of that train, as certain angles Spider-Man swings around at can leave you disoriented, like a rollercoaster. Raimi excels in his visual storytelling.

Elfman's soundtrack is unbeatable. Just listen to it and you'd understand why. Oh, and the dialogue in the film? Absolutely incredible.

Ultimately, the entertainment I get from this film saves it from the awful characterization and drama. I leave it with a 7, a grade I wish I didn't have to give it out of nostalgia and love of this film. However, I am being honest in criticism.

What can I say? Major Spider-Man fan here, and I feel like this movie has gotten the closest to Spider-Man of the comics, whom I love and adore, the closest. Lemme explain.

Unlike the dumb "Spider-Totems" thing in the comics nowadays, this movie shows the true idea of Spider-Man: that heroism and responsibility are not exclusive to people. We can fall from grace, lose a friend, be out of our time, or be misjudged, or face the unknown. Yet these challenges will not get in the way of what is right.

What is great: -This is the best rendition of Peter Parker, bar none. I love the Raimi Spider-Man films, but man. This shows the struggling, yet mature and idealistic Spider-Man I love that Stan Lee crafted. -Miles is improved in this adaption 10-fold. Unlike his comic rendition, he is satisfying to follow along. I loved the story with his father and uncle and how it contrasts with Peter. He has good and bad influences and ultimately has to find who to gravitate toward. -Gwen Stacy proves to be a very satisfying individual with her own hurt. Her costume, like in the comics, kicks major butt. She's clever and complex. -Good gosh, Doc Ock threw me off guard. She is the perfect Doc Ock in any of the non-comic renditions. Sassy, smart, yet horrendously evil and revels in it. If she was only the chubby male nerd, she'd be a 1:1 rendition of the comic version. But she doesn't have to be, because she on her own right thoroughly entertained me. -I liked Kingpin and his family stuff. -I knew Prowler's twist was coming, but it still hit me hard. Had to keep my mouth shushed for my brother in the theater, and it surprised him. -Can I just say, this is how you do the comic book art style right? I know the 2003 hulk tried and failed miserably, and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man shot scenes that resembled comic panels. But this got the style and fluidity of comic books correct.

The cons (mostly nitpicks!): -Frankly, every other villain has bad design choice (Scorpion, green goblin) or just feels underutilized (Tombstone). -SPID//ER and Peni Parker feel kinda just there. Wish they had more to do. -The final fight between Miles and Kingpin feels very anti-climatic to me. Miles' venom blast may be his signature move, but man it is not satisfying. -Gwen's explanation of getting to the city before everyone else feels far-fetched and overly complicated. -I'm one of the few people who doesn't like the soundtrack. Really not my thing, and it doesn't add to the film.

Yes, I've heard of this film being a remake of Yojimbo. However, Sergio Leone adds his own spin to the film. The casting is absolutely brilliant, the camera work is quite impressive, and the dialogue is some of the most memorable out of any western I have seen.

I cannot stop praising Clint Eastwood's "Joe", whose cool demeanor yet often violent behavior makes you question whether you are following a hero. However, Joe is a man whose actions speak louder than words. Sure, he may wish to have payment for his deeds. Yet he brings justice to the middle of nowhere like some living legend of the West. He feels larger than life, but also strangely grounded. He can get hurt, but he always overcomes. He is all you could ask for in an action hero.

The villains in this film are cool too. I was afraid the banditos would be very stereotypical on the first view, especially their dress. But they are well-written and some of the cruelest villains I have seen in film. The climax is satisfying with how Ramon is defeated in his own pride.

As for the camera work: the "night time" scenes are odd, but otherwise the wide shots, the angles, and lighting are well used in this movie. Leone had a creative eye.

What really sells this movie the springy, yet unnerving soundtrack that reaches into it. The beat of the song sounds like a galloping horse under a whip. It tells a legend in itself, with the growing triumphant melody. It adds to the atmosphere of the west.

The only flaws I have with the film: The weird night-time darkening out in the cemetery. It has a very slow start. (Though, that builds up later.) Sometimes the action scenes are hard to follow and become too stylized over substance.

Still a favorite of mine. Hopefully it can be yours too!