amnesiac12001

EVERYBODY WANTS SOME!! is Linklater's successor to his 1993 masterpiece DAZED & CONFUSED, if only in spirit. Previously, DAZED's reputation traveled largely on the basis of perceived nostalgia, but EWS!!'s entry into this (now) diptych transforms DAZED's role as a part of a larger-scale, entirely neglected utility of the period film: anthropology.

Much has been made of of EWS!!'s eschewing of a conventional plotline as a detriment, but I argue that the meandering and static events of the film are the very point, and that a plot would actually do a disservice to that purpose. EWS!! is a forensic recreation of a 3-day period in 1980, when Linklater himself would have been playing college baseball. Linklater's own singular eidetic memory serves to restore what most period films lack: the detailed minutiae of interpersonal communication. Period films historically have been able to recapture clothing, props, hairstyles, and other fashions of a given period, but more difficult (and perhaps most difficult) is to recreate the mannerisms and speech patterns of said time and place, and Linklater does this masterfully. For myself, watching the film reminded me of things I haven't seen in social situations since I was a child but were as clear as a bell upon seeing it rendered with almost documentary authenticity. Every character (with one exception) fits the era almost perfectly, with characters such as McReynolds and Beuter seemingly brought directly out of 1980 to the future for this film.

EWS!! intends to immerse the viewer into the very time period itself as if they were a native to it. To facilitate this, Linklater avoids all stylistic photography, shooting everything with neutral or natural lighting to replicate how the people of the time would see it, and not how later generations would do so by using vintage aesthetics to imply the past seen retroactively as we might through aged photos or obsolete media (THE GODFATHER, SCHINDLER'S LIST, etc.).

EWS!! is as close as I feel to making a period film without using time-travel to get there, and the focus on the sheer mundanity of the narrative solidifies this. The film is a look back in time, not to any great historical events, but into the parts of history that get left behind: the details of an everyday life.

It gets my vote as one of the best films of 2016 and one of the best films in Linklater's oeuvre.

SUPER CAPERS is a bad film with a great idea: make a live-action superhero cartoon with nods to Looney Tunes and AIRPLANE! Unfortunately, the execution is a mixed bag that makes it hard to pin down exactly why it doesn't work.

The problem is that SUPER CAPERS is an antique: a high-concept live-action comedy for children. I mean ACTUAL children: from about 4 to 9 years old. They haven't made films like that since the 1990s, and even now, such films usually revolve around talking animals with a supporting human cast. For this reason, the film is full of jokes, homages, and gags that are straight-up rip-offs of other movies that can make it painful to watch if you're an adult who doesn't chuckle at the sight of a flux capacitor in an RV designed to look like the DeLorean.

This was the director's intention, but I didn't realize it until I heard him say so on the audio commentary. It's also the reason why the film is shot in an old-fashioned widescreen format that makes the sets look like sets, and the action fairly boring and uninteresting. The pacing is off, the editing isn't tight enough, and the acting is a tad under-rehearsed, although the cast is game and skilled enough to push through it.

All this makes for a lame movie with lots of slapstick humor that isn't as funny as it should be. But to be fair, since this film wasn't made for adults, it's kind of hard to be so critical of it. Once you take into account that it was made for kids who just wanna watch goofy stuff, it actually kinda works. The director is religious, so there's a little bit of a "message" in the film, but not to the point of proselytizing.

So the film is a rather bland and boringly unfunny film if you see it with adult eyes. But if you imagine yourself watching it as a kid in the late 80s, you can actually kind of enjoy it.

I found STORKS in the way that you're supposed to find underrated/cult classics: by accident. When it was released, I bought into the collective sigh of underwhelm that most critics expressed and that was my mistake. It's easy to understand why the critical community didn't like it: in an era where Pixar, Disney and even Dreamworks keep churning out magnificently multi-layered heart-warmers that set the bar stratospherically high, STORKS doesn't register all that well. We've been spoiled by excellence. As a result, we've lost the ability to enjoy the simple pleasures of pure entertainment.

And that's what STORKS delivers better than babies or packages: entertainment.

You might have noticed people commenting on how forced and thin the storyline is and how uneven it feels, and those complaints are accurate. The plot is extremely thin (virtually an extended sitcom-sized premise stretched into an epic road-trip format), and the story moves so quickly that it goes too far too fast with nary any breathing room to savor the experience or give the characters the tension or time to build any real catharsis or change. But the characters are so authentic to themselves that you know just about everything you need to know about them from their first scenes.

I think the main reason STORKS gets such middling reviews in print and here on IMDb is because it's an old-fashioned type of comedy: a screwball-slapstick hybrid. The emphasis on sight gags, pain-humor, and wackiness has generally been avoided in animated films as passe and vulgar--low comedy. The rapid-fire snark between the main characters of Tulip and Junior hearken back to the old Howard Hawks workplace comedies of the 1930s, which is definitely an acquired taste in the post-narrative style of humor found in kids entertainment today--where non-sequiturs and punchlines exist in a vacuum and visual comedy is derived from abstraction rather than plasticity. But the comedic energy and the variety of jokes from modern "Office"-style cringe (Pigeon Toady) to the machine-gun-speed HIS GIRL FRIDAYy-style verbal sparring (Tulip & Junior), absurdism (the wolves), post-modern meta-humor (the boy and his parents) to classical WB slapstick of yesteryear, and the film is riotously funny because of it. At the end of the day, that's what STORKS wants to be: FUNNY.

STORKS is not a great film. It's not a masterpiece like TOY STORY or UP. It won't win any Oscars and it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But there's an excellent chance that it will live on as a multi-generational favorite for the same reasons as dumb-fun-with-a-heart-of-gold treasures like SPACEBALLS, DUMB & DUMBER, THE NAKED GUN, and NATIONAL LAMPOONS CHRISTMASs VACATION:

Because you can watch it 1,000 times and it will NEVER stop being funny.

So try it out. There's a 50-50 chance you'll be among the ones who can't stop watching it.

PHANTASM: RAVAGER is perhaps the most disappointing and horrifically executed follow-up in a film series since TROLL 2, a declaration I only wish was hyperbolic. It almost single-handedly unravels all the value and merit gathered from the previous installments and it does so with almost neolithic incompetence.

While we all knew that RAVAGER was the least-capitalized of the series, it's shocking at how poorly made it is, especially considering what Don Coscarelli was able to do with a comparable budget 37 years earlier. The film has all the production value of a SyFy Channel Asylum monster movie (complete with unprocessed production audio), and with even less narrative cohesion. The script is cringe-inducingly bad, with little-to-no plot or agenda beyond wanting the viewer to question how much of Reggie's reality is real, and the dialogue is almost a parody of bad movies done without irony. The actors, many of whom have had decades of experience under their belt, behave as if they're in their first student film, and every performance looks so horrifically under-rehearsed that it feels like they're reading their lines off of cue cards taped to the other actors' heads.

It's also the least consistent with the style of the rest of the series, and the film opens with a recap introduction that was so inept that I thought it was tacked on by an executive producer. And so many stretches of the movie involve the characters wandering around a desert simply to pad time with a free location. To put it another way: I've waited 18 years to see this film and I actually fast-forwarded through certain scenes simply to see if they were going somewhere or to bypass the sheer ineptitude of the filmmaking. That's how bad this film can be. I have seen fan films on YouTube made for pocket change that showed more talent, creativity, and cinematography than this.

I suspect that all this may have been done on purpose to ensure that no one would ask for another film (rendered moot since Angus Scrimm has now passed on), as Coscarelli has expressed a desire to move on from PHANTASM films. It would have been better for all if Coscarelli had simply loaned out the film to screenwriters who wanted to take a whack at it instead of wasting decades until he came up with an idea. As it is, we've now lost so many potential sequels and have to suffer the indignity of this entry as its finale. The lack of any talent on display in this film is almost an insult to fans of what was one of the most unique and beloved horror film series of the century.

RAVAGER is for completists only, and even then...I pity them for what they have to endure.

I really wanted to like this film as a blind rental, but it fails at almost every turn to be the type of film it aspires to be.

10-IH is obviously one of those small-scale genre films that indie startup companies use as their flagship productions that attract well-meaning B-list veterans who enjoy helping up-and-comers out and it shows. The characters are barely defined, hardly eccentric (one gag in the film is that "normal people need not apply" but none of the characters besides the punk griller are weird in any way), and the script traipses through the A, B, C, and D plots with an almost casual disregard for gravitas. Each character has a single (hardly crippling) problem to overcome and one sequence involves 3 of them going on a road trip despite the fact that they all seem to work every single day with no replacements.

It reminds me in many ways of EMPIRE RECORDS: a formulaic retread of character-driven workplace comedies like CLERKS and WAITING... but with prepackaged stock characters, signature visual gags, and expository dialogue to serve as dramatic reveal; it wants to be poignant and make a statement, but with all the sophistication of a 6th-grader. The camera work is functional,the production design non-existent, and the plot devices textbook: you can practically see the numbers under the paint. Added to which, the soundtrack repeats the same 2 songs that were originally produced for the film because they had no budget for pre-existing music, and that grates. And the original score plays home the emotional beats sincerely to the point of sentimentality.

10-INCH HERO is almost a parody of the kind of film it wants to be, and despite some nudity and profanity, is virtually PG in its tone. Take the nudity and language out and it would be the kind of film that Family Values production companies make when they try to ape mainstream movies.

SINISTER was one of the best horror films I had seen since the start of the millennium, so much so that I knew it would be virtually impossible to replicate it in a sequel. I was right, but not for the typical reasons. To begin with, the film keeps its original creative team, so there's a solid continuity with the first film. The problem comes not from the execution so much as the story: SINISTER 2 is trying to be PART 2 and PART 3 in the same film, and the narrative demands pull it in 2 different directions, which is what weakens it.

The A Plot is the strongest, following the Deputy from SINISTER on his quest to destroy Bughuul's agenda on Earth. He's terrified, out of his depth, and all alone, but his nervous Dudley Doo-Right demeanor in the face of evil makes him achingly likable. The B Plot involves a battered wife played by Shannon Sossamon, who is hiding herself and her twin boys from her powerful and psychopathic abusive husband on an abandoned plot of land, unknowingly placing her family in Bughuul's cross-hairs. The C Plot involves the ghosts of Bughuul's victims trying to corrupt one of the twins into becoming another statistic.

The problem is that the A Plot is so focused that the narrative needs the B Plot to slow the movie down. The Deputy is so competent in his quest that without the B Plot, the movie might be over in 40 minutes. So the B Plot, which feels like a story from another movie, literally intrudes on the A Plot to complicate things, and that's where the horror movie clichés come in: jump scares, spooky-house-searches, inconvenient phone calls and unexpected errands to distract people from finding solutions too quickly, etc. The B Plot is fine on its own, but it doesn't gel right with the A Plot and you can feel the difference.

The A and C Plots however, are fairly solid. Not only do they get right to the myth-building, but they also help flesh out that Bughuul is more powerful and dangerous than SINISTER led us to believe. Not only has he been busier and for much longer than previously suspected, but he's also ruthlessly determined to eliminate those who would stand in his way, regardless of dimensional barriers. The C Plot is thin, but the child actors are surprisingly good, and they drive home the point that maybe the kids who go missing from the murders aren't as innocent as they seem. There is a massive plot hole as to why they would serve as agents for the god who is slowly consuming them, but there's also clear indications that they aren't who they used to be, another hint of Bughuul's power.

The film kind of breaks some of its own rules for the sake of action towards the end, but thankfully, it doesn't wallow in the weaknesses of traditional horror films...it just trips on them a lot to pad out the running time. I have to admit, I was impressed at how SINISTER 2 derails our expectations about how things are going to go the same way SINISTER 1 did. The ending feels rushed and familiar, but getting there is more exciting and uncertain than it is for most sequels.

My guess is that SINISTER 2 is supposed to get most of the slower parts of a franchise out of the way so the future sequels don't get bogged down too. SINISTER 2 might just be the road bump on the path to a faster and leaner SINISTER 3 and/or 4.

This film reminds me of the kind of breezy, competent, procedural explorations of the underworld we used to see in the 1970s. Unsentimental, understated, blackly comic, and sparsely stylized. It's a magnificent example of restraint and indulgence, and when and how to do both.

The story and the characters are fully fleshed but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than exhibition. Three sets of protagonists (none of them truly antagonist or contagonistic to each other to count) all act in accordance to the events that happen and piece together the aftermath in a logical but undramatic fashion. The film is incredibly deft at making the drama about the implications of what is going to happen rather than milking a scene for its anguish. Even the most gut-wrenching moments are played for maximum minimalism, and the humor and horror both emerge undiluted and unaugmented as a result. The violence is actually perhaps the best of any film in decades as it's played (with the exception of one scene) for all of its brutal, instant, and appalling reality. You feel the aged and worn reality the characters live in and the existential malaise that comes from being trapped in it.

The narrative is unconventional, in both how it begins and ends, but its not pretentious or gimmicky. The film is merely interested in what happens and how it happens, and leaves it to the viewer to determine how they feel about it.

THE LAST DAYS ON MARS is a surprisingly well-made film about things we've already seen before. And that's the charm that makes it worth watching. To begin with, the film is brisk (1 1/2 hours) and doesn't waste much time in telling its story. Even the few moments of quiet contemplation of life/death don't overstay their welcome. The characters don't make stupid decisions, but they do make them with little motivation.

The film is essentially a cross between 28 DAYS LATER and THE THING, but the film is aware of its influences and doesn't try to reinvent the wheel. If anything, it strips them down to the foundation and goes with a simple explanation that feels more believable than 28 DAYS LATER. The film takes the technology seriously without turning it into a spectacle. It kind of reminds me of RED PLANET in that sense, but it doesn't depend on CGI spectacle to lend undeserved importance. The film very simply suggests that the characters be taken as real people who are reacting to the situation in front of them, just on a different planet where the rules of survival are equally alien.

TLDOM is worth watching because of the skill and confidence of the people making it. Perhaps the only thing holding it back from the attention it deserves is that in spite of that skill, it doesn't have anything different to say.

The advertising for this film is extremely misleading. The trailers would have you believe it another unrequited-lovers-indie-rom-com but the finished product is anything but. While it's true that the film deals with unrequited love, it doesn't resort to artifice to explore it. The characters are very well-defined people who are so realistically rendered that they might as well be people from your real life. Everyone, especially Wilde, has a bottomless assortment of nuanced mannerisms completely natural to them but unpredictable and unforced. DRINKING BUDDIES has its roots in Mumblecore, but it spiritually takes after Cassavetes more than Baumbach, but with the added delight of avoiding Cassavetes' circular awkwardness and unmotivated arguments and focusing on character trajectories based on their decisions.

I was so pleasantly surprised by this film and if you enjoy verite film that doesn't wallow in melancholy or socialist realism, you will be too. I highly recommend it.

This movie is for advanced cinema geeks only. It is the complete opposite of a Michael Bay movie; if you like TRANSFORMERS or AVATAR, then you'll want to avoid this movie like the plague. In fact, even cineastes who will watch any obscure film of any kind have trouble dealing with TREE OF LIFE because of its unusual layout.

The structure has already been laid out in another fine review. And everybody has laid out how clearly subjective the whole thing is. So I'll condense the properties of it.

Terrence Malick often favors non-narrative tone-poem visuals but this one is unorthodox even for him. At times it feels like Malick is imitating other directors with very different styles to get at what he's trying to say. He feels that the subconscious feelings in the images are more important than the story--in some way, the story exists as a framework to find the images.

In the case of TREE OF LIFE, Malick wants to speak volumes about small things on a cosmic scale, and the methods he employs to do it makes it seem disjointed. He uses experimental avant-garde film techniques akin to Stan Brakhage and Jonas Mekas to create textures and associations, then uses Godard-esque editing techniques to assemble the images in a fluctuating emotional montage that has very little logical coherency. He cuts things together based on what happens in the moments, not whether the moments have any chronological importance. So the film skips over entire sections of time just to get a few seconds of something ephemeral.

Yes, there is are reasons for it, but the question is whether those reasons justify the approach. Well, it does and it doesn't.

The film is visually amazing; all those comparisons to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY are true. But trying to blend the creation of the universe and the nature of existence with the incredibly detailed emotional experience of a family in 1950s Texas doesn't really gel. I think Malick's personally feels that the internal life of the boys and the birth of creation have the same emotional weight, and that unfortunately makes the movie kind of overwrought to most of us.

The scale, visuals, and overall vision are nothing short of full-blown astounding; there's nothing even remotely like it anywhere else in film today. But unfortunately, it's also a bit indulgent and discombobulated, making it equal parts profound and pretentious at the same time.

I like it myself, but it is an extremely acquired taste.

"DEMON KNIGHT" is a criminally underrated masterpiece of 1990s B-cinema; I argue that it stands with other genre siblings like THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS and DEAD ALIVE as an overlooked gem composed of everything enjoyable about the horror movie experience.

DK is incredibly fun. Bloody, gory, goofy fun, but it's also quite surprising. It accepts its limitations, both financial and thematic (due to being a "Tales From the Crypt" project) and embraces them with all the enthusiasm and grandeur it deserves and some that it doesn't. It accepts that its premise is fundamentally far-fetched, but also accepts that to the characters, its nothing short of completely real, and so the story and the cast treats it as such and that is what sets it above other, disappointing kitsch horror films that stray into the meta or take themselves overwhelmingly seriously for an underwhelming concept.

What sells this film more than anything else is the cast; it's a testament to the craft to watch them work here. They never wink to the audience or treat the material with disdain, but instead, give it all they have (without veering into parody or kabuki), and that sells the importance necessary to invest in the characters and care about their plight. Virtually everyone in this film except Dick Miller is cast against type, and given a character in stark contrast with the ones they are usually given in films and TV outside. The most notable is Thomas Haden Church, who devastates his charming, adorable iconic role of Lowell in "Wings" as the loathsome, irredeemable, belligerent Roach. Sadler in particular is affecting as Brayker, who is a character of such quiet dignity and resignation that I truly wonder why he hasn't been offered more roles like this since. The true standout, however, is Billy Zane, who has such unparalleled charisma and humor that had this film been recognized at its time for its greatness, Zane would be remembered for The Collector and not for TITANIC. Zane's performance as The Collector is nothing less than on par with Christoph Waltz's Landa in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then you have yet to see the evidence to the contrary.

You really can't go wrong as a horror movie fan, casual or serious, with giving this film a go. Even if you don't find it to be your cup of tea, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it wasn't worth your time.

DEMON KNIGHT is actually worthy of your time. Give it a shot.

This film is a textbook case of "biting off more than you can chew." Which sucks because with a couple million bucks, it could've been something impressive.

The premise is actually promising: mythological-powered heroes sharing the spotlight with action heroes in a comic book universe as they save the world from supernatural threats. There are actually some clever and well-written lines and zingers in the script, and these are the lines usually best delivered. It also manages to not take itself too seriously, which makes it easier to digest. I'd argue that it's a direct descendant of "Adventure of Buckaroo Banzai" which makes it's failure all the more painful.

Unfortunately, the movie tries to do too much with too little. While half the cast is composed of well-known and very talented actors, the other half is composed of stunt men and friends of the director's, and it shows. The budget is woefully small for subject matter of this magnitude, and while there's some spirited camera-work and clever production schemes to compensate, it doesn't quite pull off.

The biggest problem is that the director didn't have what he needed to light it properly. Considering that the budget was likely under $800,000 it could have been anything: not enough lights, not enough money to get additional shooting days, or not enough money to keep the talent on longer than needed, etc. but the limits of the budget really show. The setups are nowhere near as dynamic as they need to be, the lighting is stark and practical, and the set design virtually nonexistent. The setups reminded me of a lot of mid-budget HD porn movies where they shoot the action head-on and in two shots to keep the borders of the set (and the warehouse beyond) out of frame.

The cast is staggeringly impressive; there's some real talent here, and Sizemore, Busey and Jones tend to have the best delivery of some truly underwhelming lines, but even their contributions can't distract from the fact that the film was so rushed that they didn't have time to learn their lines as well as they should. In the commentary, the director admits that Sizemore often had to learn his lines minutes before they shot a scene, so this probably happened more often than not. More than anything, it looks like Hollywood actors doing a favor for a film student and his buddies.

Visually, it looks like a cross between "Repo: The Genetic Opera," "The Batman XXX" parody, and the "Angel of Death" web series with Zoe Bell.

Still, the fact that the director managed to get the film made with the cast he did for the money he had and in LOS ANGELES (at God knows WHAT rates) is nevertheless impressive, and I have to respect him for that. Because the budget was so low, it's hard to tell how much of the film's failure is due to ineptitude or finance, so I'm not going to write off the filmmakers just yet. With more money and a larger crew, he might actually have done this (or the sequel) right.

It falls short of the "Buckaroo Banzai" level it wants to be, but its a digital age cult curio nonetheless. Perhaps not one of the best, but no less worthy of consideration.

This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.

In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.

It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.

The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.

I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.

I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.

And that's exactly why it works.

I saw this film back in 1996 for the first time and have since never been without a copy in my library. I watch it at least 10 times a year and each time I see something new, make new assumptions, and get the same excitement from watching it.

The original "The Thing From Another World" was typical grade-B sci-fi move that was actually quite well-made for its day: unfortunately, the monster was James Arness in a suit and essentially a vegetable. Even today Hawk's version seems to get more accolades than Carpenter, but in a strange and rare twist, the remake is actually phenomenally better.

The Thing takes place in Antarctica 1982 and subjects a team of Americna scientists, mechanics, pilots and fuzzy radioman to an alien life form that can assimilate any organism it touches...anything. The team has to figure out who' human before spring allows it to escape. Because the thing is an imitator, it has no singular shape, so every time we see it, we see only a mass of blood and flesh from other lifeforms it's assimilated over its travels in space.

The characterizations are admittedly weak because we don't have the time to get background, but in a way, this works because when the thing possesses someone, we're left to wonder what clues it gives away,if any. Nevertheless this has some superb acting by a wonderfully interactive ensemble cast that definitely puts Keith David into his "always bad-ass" character that he plays so well.

Other than that I feel that this film is The Perfect Script. It's not too long, not too short, has a brisk and energetic pace, leaves plenty of clues hidden and obvious, great material presented in the right way, and is one hell of a mystery than can cause you to look back over and over again for any possible clues you may have missed. I've since noticed almost no continuity mistakes, but am always discovering new clues and hints. This film is THE blueprint for studying the structure and execution of a suspense film, much more so than many of Hitchcock's films.

No other film by John Carpenter has ever managed to be as perfect or as outstanding or enjoyable as this (although They Live was fun), and I would recommend it to anyone who has not seen it. If I were stuck on a desert island and had to choose two or three movies I'd have to choose, this one would be #2, no question.

The problem with comic book movies has always been maintaining the balance between the original source material with its bountiful detail and the simplicity of an introductory film.

The Punisher is a simple story: Vietnam veteran Frank Castle witnesses the unintentional murder of his family by mafiosos and dedicates his life to destroying criminals. Emphasis on destroy.

The Punisher was a product of 1970s nihilism and is probably the only Marvel character to actually kill his opponents. In this day and age, this sensibility is more than a little foreign and in the translation of the book to film it shows.

The script is based VERY loosely on Garth Ennis' brilliant Welcome Back Frank series and the origin story. Part of the problem is that the story of WBF deals with a Frank Castle who has 20+ years of slaughter under his belt and goes back to his old ways after a brief character shift in the Marvel universe (complicated and unnecessary to reveal here), and his reputation adds to his presence. In the film, Frank has just picked up the mantle of vengeance-seeker and is extremely clumsy in his work. Secondly, WBF was written by Garth Ennis, a writer whose knack for grotesquerie exceeds the confines of even an NC-17 rated movie, so selecting his story as a basis for a script is ludicrous because his incredibly gory humor can't translate very well to mainstream audiences; and without that, the story loses it's punch AND its lifeforce.

The only semblance of this exists in a fight between The Punisher and The Russian, a prominent character whose size and idiocy is a neverending source of comic relief in the book; unfortunately, he is a minor and disposable character here who does manage to create humor through various double-take inducing feats of strength, but nowhere near to the level he should.

Frank Castle himself is unrecognizable. The Punisher from the Marvel world is a battle-tested maniac who borders on insanity and uses lethal force in MacGyverian fashion. Thomas Jane plays him as a brooding rogue cop who clearly possesses too little ingenuity to be dangerous and too much humanity to be menacing. In the film version, Castle uses sleight of hand to subdue a knife-wielding abusive boyfriend when the comic-book Castle would have shoved his face through the back of his skull. The rest of the characters are mere shadows of their comic book selves, and many of them, including Saint and Quentin, don't even exist in the book! In short, the film is an appalling collection of action movie clichés, action movie production values, and action movie coincidences to further the plot that they may as well have not even bothered to adapt an actual source material. The pitch-black humor and perversity found in Ennis' story have been stripped away to create a Frank Castle that won't offend too many mainstream moviegoers by being too brutal, a character trait that, let's face it, is the primary reason people liked The Punisher in the first place.

Not worth the price of admission.