TheHande

The Wolfman brings back Universal's classic horror-icon back now more amped up that before. The A-list cast consisting of Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving give a strong back bone to what is essentially a very entertaining movie.

Stylistically the film achieves its own interesting atmosphere with the dark late 19th century look and the psychedelic mind effects. At times the more psychedelic moments do seem to cross the point of unintentional hilarity but the effort is still quite good.

Looking from the view-point of horror films The Wolfman is very weak on suspense. The movie resorts to making the audience jump with sudden, loud audio-bursts and with the unexpected appearance of people, animals etc. This is a very cheap method and I felt it crossed to the point of preposterous from time to time. There is of course some blood and gore but due to its over-the-top nature serves more as a visceral fuel for the film's actions and not really as an element of horror.

However, the werewolf effects have been achieved extremely well. The film balances nicely between actual physical human-performance and CGI use. Because the film clearly attempted to stick true to the classic image of the Wolfman, the werewolves with their hunched look may occasionally remind you of the 1970s Hulk-series, but at least they look decidedly different from most other werewolves that have been seen in recent films.

Sadly, as I have not seen the original Wolfman films I can't really measure how well this remake did justice to them. The script is okay, meaning the talented cast of actors actually get to show off some *acting* ability and not just move their jaws to meaningless words like in so many other contemporary horror-films. The heavy CG use is something I'll probably never get used to and there was even some redundant usage of it in this film but generally I can see why the film-makers would want to make the film-making process a bit easier with it.

The Wolfman is thankfully a thoroughly entertaining movie even though it has its few weak spots. It's not, in my view, a true horror-film by definition but more of a supernatural, romantic action-film.

In The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Sergio Leone perfected his epic western. It's key is the trio of main characters who all bring something different to the table and all serve as integral ingredients to a film that might appear a mere adventure film on the surface, but which is both a comedy and character drama as well as a great war movie at the same time.

Clint Eastwood's the Man with No Name, this time called Blondie, continues somewhat on the more ruthless note he took on from the previous film (For a Few Dollars More). However, he's not a truly malicious character but more of jerk-friend who is also extremely observant and at the end of the day doesn't stab anyone in the back so hard that they wouldn't get up again. This creates his rather odd relationship with Tuco.

Lee Van Cleef's Angel Eyes is the very embodiment of evil as far as characters go. He wipes anyone who's in his way, is entirely devoid of any morals and generally manages to create a menacing mood with his presence. This is a stark contrast to the character he played in the previous film and made all the more unsettling by the fact that his appearance is almost identical to this character from the previous film, right down to the pipe.

Eli Wallach as Tuco the Rat is easily the most memorable character from the film. Appearing at first filthy, amoral and without any redeeming qualities he is suddenly thrust into a wavering partnership and later, one could even say, a type of friendship with Blondie. We find out that there is more to Tuco than meets the eye though he never stops being the seemingly greedy scum that he is at the start, by the end of the film the viewer is even able to sympathise with him to a degree.

What truly sets this film apart from other westerns and as well as the rest of the Dollars trilogy is that even in its close-to-three-hour length, the film doesn't feel excessively long. The length is justified. You 'want' to spend the 170 minutes with the main cast of characters.

The second film in the Dollars Trilogy sees the Man with No Name become a Bounty Hunter and compete for the bounty of a notorious criminal with another talented and prepared hunter. The movie is a step up in scale from A Fistful of Dollars but a step down in coherence and pacing.

The film's moments of comedy are what make it stand out. Whereas the first Leone movie was a very somber piece, For a Few Dollars More displays the West as being inhabited by quirky characters. Even Eastwood and Van Cleef's heroes aren't quite as serious as their majestic and iconic appearances would let on. The comedic elements however don't always come off very cleanly which is a bit of a shame.

Stylistically the film remains consistent with the Dollars trilogy. However El Indio is not the most compelling antagonist and for this reason his part in the movie comes off rather uninteresting. Between Manco and Colonel Mortimer there's a bit of a void to be filled by a more interesting character and this begins to show in the film's pace. The film feels too long with not enough material to fill the running time. Even the catchy theme song begins to feel repetitive at times.

However, Leone's distinctive style and I think especially Van Cleef's sympathetic performance are what make this movie worth watching, but personally I think it's the weakest film in the Dollars Trilogy.

The Legend of Chun Li takes a vastly different approach to the Street Fighter franchise compared to the 1994 film. It focuses more on a single character and tries to depict her as well as her adversaries as interesting characters with history. The effort is admirable though doesn't work perhaps completely all the way through.

After a fairly strong beginning the second act of the film deteriorates a little bit. The section following Chun Li's life in Bangkok suffers from some shotty editing and skipping between unrelated events. The feeling of a coherent transition is lost because of this. The film also makes the faux pas of redundant flashback usage in a 90 minute film.

However, the effort seen in the dialogue scenes of the film's shows that this is clearly trying to be different from most other video game movies. Sadly the Doom-director's natural ability for action-scenes doesn't lend much here and a few of the scenes feel sobby and forced. But at least the film made the effort.

Over-all the actor performances for the more recognisable characters are all solid and only Charlie stands out as being a clichéd character-type. The action-scenes look excellent and if the dialogue scenes were a little bit more involved then the movie would certainly earn praise.

Even as it is, the film is good and worth a watch, but I personally always preferred the entertainment value of the 1994 film more.

Dragonball Evolution attempts to bring the cartoony and over-the-top martial arts/fantasy/sci-fi manga to the big screen. Mostly the transition has been handled well. The film takes considerable liberties with the source material but considering the over-all length of the original manga this is to be expected and the changes work on their own.

Characters are given adequate introductions and the film also features plenty of comedy to even out the fighting and action. However, the film suffers from scenes rushing by way too quickly and the villains for one are not given many character moments. It really feels like the film makers could have taken the time and textured the film's plot better before the inevitable CG-heavy final fight sequence which was thankfully handled very well.

Despite some rather sharp contrasts with the original characters' appearances all the actors seem to fit their roles well, especially Justin Chatwin who is finally allowed to channel the bad ass towards the end of the film. The only character whose transition wasn't perhaps done as well as I hoped was Shen Long who pops up only near the very end.

Between the comedy and action, the inherent entertainment value of the piece Dragonball Evolution is well done adaptation of the world famous manga. If the sequel ever materializes I hope they take time to work on the film's pacing rather than just slapping on some more characters from the manga.

This review is in the form of a 10-point questionnaire (1 point per star):

01. What did I think of the title? - First part is good and snappy. The subtitle felt unnecessary though.

02. What did I think of Duke? - He's a straight-backed sort of hero who only wants to do the right thing. Not the most personal of main characters but sympathetic and human enough that you sort of root for him.

03. What did I think of the villains? - Brilliant and varied, each slightly more preposterously cartoony than the last. Chris Eccleston was obviously my favorite and I can't wait to see him in the sequel. I was waiting around for Cobra Commander to show up and he didn't disappoint (that was just a fantastic voice). Everyone just stood out.

04. What did I think of the supporting cast? - Rather surprisingly I felt the supporting Joe characters didn't stand out nearly as well as the villains. They were distinguishable from one another but no-one really stood out as particularly interesting. Snake Eyes was cool and even got his personal character arc.

05. How did it match up against Transformers? - I have to say that I find human actors playing human characters a lot easier to relate to than gigantic CG robots to be honest.

06. What did I think of the CGI? - Oddly, it didn't bother me as much as I thought. There was definitely an excessive amount of it but it all seemed to be there to serve the over-all look of the film. It was justified, just as in Transformers and with the giant-robot factor lowered it perhaps helped accept the CG better.

07. What did I think of the flashbacks? - They were rather abrupt but I liked the fact that they tried to give the characters some history.

08. What did I think of the Internationalized Joe unit in comparison to the Real American Heroes of the original cartoon? - This one's a toughy. Obviously this was done to better appeal to international audiences, but I'm kinda tempted to see what the film would have been like with a more US central approach. It could have potentially added to the entertainment value but in the long run might have undermined the film's credibility even further.

09. What did I think of the soundtrack? - I actually enjoyed it but during the action scenes it just got buried under the sound-effects. A bit of a disappointment because I was enjoying it so.

10. What did I think of the ending? - Bring on the sequel. It was nice and ominous.

The concept of the Rear Window is so quaint its positively humbling. The idea of setting an entire film in just one location would seem like a major faux pas in a thriller film. However, the approach is justified, the viewer is subjected to the main character's point of view of the events which at the same time creates a small element of doubt as to what the viewer is seeing is really happening.

The acting performances are old school, but they serve the style of the film and help it stay interesting. Hitchcock's films tend to have very good dialogue and I like listening to it.

What surprises me about the film is how dark it is in spite of seeming so innocent. It has the elements of a great detective story but with a detective who can't leave the room. The one small special-effect moment at the end is probably the only part of the film that doesn't fully work but even it is a minor flaw in an otherwise marvelous movie which still holds up.

The Birds is an early example of great special-effects work combined with a good story. Hitchcock's suspenseful cinematography adds to the mix and the ambiguous ending is the cherry on top.

Like many Hitchcock films the characters are played naturalistic which makes them interesting to the viewer. While there's quite a bit of dialogue most of it is well written and keeps the viewer invested in the film during its more quiet parts. The characters and their motivations are interesting as well.

However, where the film stands out are its special-effects. With relatively simple technology Hitchcock brings the bird attacks to reality in a compelling way. The silent crows waiting for the school children is a creepy image that stays in your head. The sparrows coming down the chimney is an impressive effect and the seagulls wrecking havoc on the town are menacing in their chaos.

Over-all the film's only weakness is that the pacing doesn't work quite well and the lack of dramatic music also takes away a little bit of the excitement. None the less, The Birds is still an effective picture.

Psycho combines the intensity of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller with the creepiness of a slasher film. The combination works well to provide a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat but which still has the stillness and conventional look of an old movie.

The plot is very simple but provides a frame for an interesting narrative. Hitchcock's excellent photography makes this movie stand out and the casting is spot on with all the characters appearing distinct. I also appreciate that there is not so much over-acting which tends to be the case with many older films and it helps to bring the film a type of soberness but thankfully it doesn't suck the life out of the film like it does with many other films.

The film does have a few weaknesses, I've always had a sense that Norman is not as innocent as he appears and the film goes perhaps into too much detail on how he covers up for the murder. The film could have done with less. Also, the psychiatrist at the end hams up the tone of the film just a tad too much and is one of the few things about the film I've never enjoyed.

However, over-all Psycho lasts the test of time.

Alien Resurrection brings back the action of Aliens and combines it with the grimy goriness of Alien 3 to provide a film that is creepy and entertaining at the same time. The film's strength involve a number of interesting ways to reinvent the Aliens and a memorable cast of actors.

The film really seems to bring the Alien-franchise's more sensual aspects to life with the resurrected Ripley. The film also has many great confrontations with the Aliens and the final act of the film provides one of the strangest and most rewarding finishes of any of the Alien films.

The film's only real weakness is that it doesn't quite match the emotional conviction of Aliens and the story is more of a wrap up then a stand-alone chapter. Riddick and the Aliens make a grand exit with this film which is interesting enough to keep the audience invested and entertaining enough to avoid a dragging pace which the first and third film suffered from.

Alien 3 cuts back from the larger and more action-driven approach of Aliens in order to show a movie that's more down-to-earth and back-to-roots horror film. The film succeeds in a way but unfortunately loses a bit of its appeal in the process.

Visually the film stands out from the rest of the Alien films with its grimy industrial look. The prison setting gives the film a feeling of isolation akin to the first movie. There's only one alien, just as in the first movie, and the humans this time are all but defenseless against it, as in the first movie. However, after being exposed to numerous aliens in the last movie the threat feels underwhelming and the concept a little bit of a rehash.

However, Alien 3 has a distinctly reflective feel to it and the acting performances are far more memorable than in the first movie and the film also has a bit more entertainment value. Still, the final confrontation with the creature lacks the impact of the other movies. Thankfully the iconic final scene of the film salvages the rather underwhelming ending to some degree.

Alien 3 is definitely on par with the first film of the series but lacks a lot of the entertainment value that would make it surpass the original.

The originator of the Alien film franchise has aged well for a science fiction horror tale. Ridley Scott's knack for making visually impressive films really shows and the world owes him and H. R. Giger for creating one of the most memorable monsters in film history.

Having said that, Scott's film has never been my favorite of the franchise. The opening is as impressively artistic as it is, regrettably, boring. The cast minus Ian Holm and Sigorney Weaver all lack the much needed element of personality and Scott's loose directorial approach makes the dialogue sound really indifferent. The intensity does begin to pick up after the first act but at no point do the actors really stand out in my view. Even John Hart only stands out because of the chest-burster scene.

The film however has enough memorable scares and moments that it does keep you entertained. However, in the areas of narrative, direction and pacing I feel this movie is the least powerful in the franchise.

Stephen Chow has a knack for combining impressive special-effects, interesting characters and hilarious comedy. The prototype of Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer, demonstrates many of Chow's strengths but the film does not rise to the same level of excellence as the later film.

The film relies heavily on making the characters as pathetic as possible but lacking the multi-level approach of Kung Fu Hustle the characters just come off miserable at first and then suddenly get better for no reason. The story also focuses too heavily on a central duo of characters and the badguys are left more to the background.

The film still has hilarious Kung Fu references and excellent visual-effects and gags which keep the viewer invested in the film but the structure is too straight-forward and too simplistic to compete with Chow's later work.

However, it's entertaining and I guess that's what really counts.

I'm neither a fan of Dragonlance nor do I know anything about the RPGs or novels which this movie is based on but it certainly tried to treat its source-material with some level of seriousness. Taking a risky chance with its combination of 2D and 3D animation the movie produces two types of results for both: embarrassingly bad and surprisingly good.

At the beginning the 2D animation limps, appears stiff and flat whereas the CG works somehow well especially with the bigger dragon-animations. When the drakonians step in the typical minions' CG somehow begins to look a lot less impressive than the 2D which picks up from time to time in the battle-scenes. At least there wasn't a lack of effort in trying to make the characters look lively even if at times the characters' expressions and motions look ridiculously cheezy and exaggerated.

On the voice-acting, nothing really stands out but nothing really annoyed me either. The frantic pace of the story is probably the film's biggest weakness as it tries to rush through the events of the novel and while it offers plenty of interesting plot-elements the film lacks a dynamic the pace would require to feel acceptable and which is only enhanced by the lapses in animation quality.

The film none the less makes a valiant effort in trying to convey the story to film, the limitations in budget are most likely the reasons why the attempt is not fully successful, but the sloppiness actually begins to add some entertainment value to the film as well, so I can't say the whole thing was a wasted effort.

This is a guilty pleasure for a fan of animated films, where the story and narration for once make some sense but the animation just can't keep up.

Transformers 2 succeeds in what every sequel should strive to achieve. The film is just as silly and entertaining as its predecessor. Sadly, it also falls victim to the obvious problem of sequels that follow their predecessors exactly, it doesn't manage to exceed or stand apart from its predecessor enough to be considered the better movie.

The film has a good structure and manages to pace action, (over) dramatic story-telling and comedy incredibly well. This is evidenced by the fact that while the movie is considerably longer than the first it doesn't feel like the movie is dragging on. The moments of levity and humorous voice-acting from the Transformers cast are what keep the film from becoming too monotonous to bare.

The film has its weaknesses though. Sometimes the comedy crosses the line between being appropriate and being just too much the focus of a scene. The action-scenes are still preposterously huge and difficult to follow. While we get to see new Autobots they are mostly kept to the sidelines and don't have a chance to show a lot of personality. The Decepticons are all gray in colour except the most humongous of them, and mainly they seem animal shaped for no apparent reason.

The biggest problem with the film is that it doesn't bring anything new to the mix. The cast is almost entirely the same. The novelty of the first film is now replaced with the story of the Decepticons arriving in Earth long before the two films' events. And despite all the fan outcry we still don't hear the Transformers Theme Song.

But in every area the film succeeds in mirroring its predecessor and is by all accounts a good movie if not a stand-out film.

Terminator 2 is a film that I would like to like but can't. There are parts of it I genuinely enjoy but at the same time it doesn't have the appeal or seriousness of its predecessor or the inherent entertainment value of its immediate sequel.

James Cameron's direction and visual style are what make the film look good. But as much as certain scenes from the film remind me of the first movie it never feels as good and dark as the first movie. The emphasis on even bigger action-scenes didn't impress me and only the T-1000 has stuck in my mind visually from this entry in the series.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's role reversal from the previous movie is a refreshing touch but one that is undermined as the Terminator loses more and more of its cold and calculating robot mentality. Becoming a big buddy to the young John Connor is the reason why the ending of the film is so heart-breaking, but the change occurs in such a way that it feels like a very flippant change in direction from the first film.

But maybe I'm too in love with the darkness of the first film and just a tad too sarcastic to enjoy the film's balance of action, narrative and drama. But for me the movie feels long, drawn out and not nearly as dramatic as the first or the third entry in the series. For entertainment value at least it beats the fourth easily but as iconic a film as it is to most people, for me it's just over-rated.

With Terminator Salvation the film franchise now moves away from time-travel to deal with the battle with the machines from the more relevant viewpoint. While the post-apocalyptic world of the fourth Terminator movie has its charm it wears out quickly after which we're left with a very standard type of action movie.

The character of Marcus Wright was clearly the focus of the film and while he was interesting enough on his own as the film reaches its final act it begins to dawn that he is in the movie to serve a very obvious purpose. Neither John Connor nor Kyle Reese stand out as great characters. Christian Bale and Anton Yelchin have faces fit for big action-movies but as characters they unfortunately fall to the sidelines.

Aside the action-scenes the most fun I had while watching the movie was spotting references to the old Terminator movies. The problem with this is also the main problem of the film itself, it's not the first tree movies. I'm a fan of the first one so it's hard to be objective but certainly this movie didn't exceed its excellence. The second one isn't my favorite but I thought it and the third movie out shined this one for over-all entertainment value.

Terminator Salvation is definitely a good movie on its own but as a continuation of the legacy of the Terminator film-series it falls short of its predecessors and becomes just another chapter, not an epic.

Wing Commander is in many ways a typical military themed Science Fiction film but it has enough strengths to make it worth watching.

The first and most difficult hurdle of any sci-fi film is establishing a plausible or at the very least a believable setting or plot scenario. The second is trying to get the viewer involved. Wing Commander succeeds in both of this areas adequately but not exceedingly well. The setup is very cut and dry and the characters rather blunt but everything is explained at a reasonable pace so that the viewer has time to absorb what is happening.

Production wise the movie also succeeds rather well. The space-ships feel small and with the presence of Jürgen Proschnow this definitely evokes a type of "Das Boot in Space" atmosphere. However the space-combat looks fantastic by 1999 standards and the special-effects have lasted the test of time which means the movie will not make a modern viewer cringe. Costume designs are a little off but not horribly.

Overall only the Kilrathi's presence and depiction is the only thing that deserves any major criticism. Their presence in the film feels very distant and they stay out of the spotlight until the final act. When we finally see them they come off as a very stereotypical sort of antagonist for a sci-fi film and this was a slight disappointment.

The plot itself, having a military setting follows a rather predictable series of events. Thankfully the cast of actors has enough heart and personality that these events don't feel like they're dragging on and generally the acting was very believable. Only during some of the combat dialogue characters seemed to lack intensity which sometimes gives off the feeling like combat in space isn't a big deal.

A rather predictable story and disappointing representation of an alien species aside Wing Commander delivers an entertaining 96 minutes of sci-fi action. Not an outstanding film but very Okay at least.

Without speculating the long lasting effects of this movie on the franchise's continuity, Star Trek is a brilliant movie. It offers a brilliant fresh look on the franchise while retaining enough classic elements to keep you locked in and involved with the characters.

One of the things which Star Trek does well is tell a dramatic story. Upto the point where Spock's mother dies the film feels rather well setup but after continuity becomes disrupted you're left in the dark as to how the movie ends. This shock value undoubtedly wears off on later viewings but keeps you involved none the less.

The great thing about the film is how it allows all the classic Trek-figures to don the spotlight. Uhura undoubtedly less than the guys though her involvement with Kirk and Spock does make for interesting viewing. Hands down my favorite performance came from Karl Urban as McCoy and it really felt as if DeForrest Kelley had come back from the dead. In fact all of the new actors inhabit the base-traits of their predecessors well and there is no lack of continuity experienced in the new cast, even with more outlandish casting decisions as Simon Pegg.

The only thing that's disappointing about the movie is it's emphasis on action, which is based definitely more on film marketing than cinematic artistic merit. The shaky camera-work seems most out of place for a Star Trek film but this new bold direction for the franchise only serves to launch what I believe to be a new series of films.

In all Star Trek leaves you with a great feeling that the movie has taken you through a great journey. I hope that the sequels will keep building more on the characters and that this New-Old Trek series will have a good run.

Live long and prosper.

The Wolverine movie tries to balance itself at being a serious telling of the character's origin story and a fun summer block buster at the same time. While the film definitely succeeds on both fronts it doesn't quite match the seriousness and intent of the first three movies.

The exploration in to Wolverine and Sabertooth's relationship is one of the more rewarding experiences out of the film from a story point of view as well as seeing the origins of the character's name and the ultimate decision to have his skeleton covered by nigh-indestructible metal. All of the back-story works well but the scene where Logan finally loses his memory felt like a bit of an anti-climax especially after the shocking plot-twist concerning Kayla.

The action scenes are once again brilliant and the element of comedy is very welcome in the film. I also have to admit to liking all the new mutant characters, no matter how briefly they appear. Wade Wilson was fun and Deadpool provides the coolest part of the film's latter half (and making me wish that Baraka from the second Mortal Kombat film would have looked more like him). But while the more entertaining parts of the film are handled even-handedly with the story-drive ones they unfortunately do undermine the film just a tad bit.

Typical fan complaints aside, Wolverine is a good action film and a well-handled retelling of the character's origin story but not a film that can match the message of the first three X-Men films.

Clint Eastwood delivers another film with a sympathetic storyline about real human-values that is brought to life by interesting characters and a frank attitude towards the Bullshit of Life.

This is a movie that delivers on many levels. It's mundane suburban-American setting with a war-time history background gives the movie a firm background. It's this relative mundaneness that helps maintain a realistic and natural habitat for the film's characters. The multi-cultural aspect of the film is also handled with a nice but not overt fish-out-of-water scenario.

Walt's character delivers the rest to make the movie whole. A seemingly racist but at heart just a simple and frank character who has an edge to him and fights for what he sees is right. His interaction with Thao and Sue creates the film's warmth and his encounters with the gang-members provide Eastwood with a chance to play his grittier side.

The great thing about the movie is that it doesn't put itself decisively on anyone's side except that of the common man who wants to get on with life. The film's climax is perhaps a little predictable and its only weakness but the conclusion leaves the viewer with a good feeling once the credits start to roll.

Watchmen is not like your typical comic-book movie. Rather than trying to tell a story, it's more of a speculative work that takes the form of a comic book and flips it into a twisted parody and a simultaneous mental exercise for the audience. It's parallels to other better known comics and their characters are perhaps pointless and it's hard to write a review of the film without attempting at least convey the philosophical edge this movie has over most of the competition.

One thing which shines through the adaptation of comic to film is that it feels almost like it's trying a little too hard to be a movie. The film suffers from being too wordy and not utilizing a movie format for it's deep philosophical probing of the human mind. It does get its commentary on nuclear warfare and humanity's inhumane nature across with the bluntness of a sledgehammer for which the film really can't be criticized since that is obviously the whole point of the movie.

The thing which Watchmen really needs and consequently lacks however is an interesting visual narrative. Things progress simply because they seem to need to do so and yet in such highly reality-based comic book setting the progress feels a little forced. Yet it feels like it drags on a bit, especially in the beginning, the problem may however be that the film simply doesn't confine to the basic structure of a movie and that's why it feels a little awkward. 90% of the whole movie is setup for a climax that isn't really all that climactic.

It's a little hard for me to put this movie in frank comparison with other Super Hero movies because it clearly plays with its own set of rules. Really all I can offer is my humble opinion, it's a good film with a deep psychological plot which none-the-less irks me in its attempts at being cinematic.

Friday the 13th as a slasher film is quite a humble movie compared to what would eventually be in store as it would evolve into a franchise of an exploitative and later even a self-parodying nature. The first movie establishes the basic rules and storyline and in it does a decent job.

The young cast provide an unusually sympathetic group of characters for what has become a real cliché group of characters. The kills aren't that gruesome but violent enough in their own right to give the movie a morbid energy. Atmospherically the film works and the added of element of nostalgia also gives it a bit of a sympathetic quality.

I'd have to say all in all that the last act of the film is the strongest. Pamela Voorhees is perhaps not the most iconic of movie-killers but still a competent psychotic villain for this film. The ending is also one of the best and most classic scares in any horror movie and its effect has not changed.

Friday the 13th's only problem is its close approximation and indeed rather blatant similarities to other Slashers of the day, mainly John Carpenter's Halloween, compared to which it perhaps lacks the extra finish to make it as memorable a movie, but it's still a fun, scary movie in its own right.

Friday the 13th is an obvious attempt to bring some credibility back into the Jason franchise, in essence it's cramming three film's worth of Friday the 13th mythos into one movie in the hopes of giving the film enough back-story so that the audience doesn't notice that nothing has actually changed.

The film is definitely enjoyable. It has its cheezy moments, its dark moments and genuinely good production values. Jason for once seems like a thinking killer, a truly scary killer, and not just a mindless shape that goes and dismembers everything in his path. The main three characters are also a sympathetic bunch, but the rest fail to stand out.

Whereas the teen-group of the original movie was wholly sympathetic, more or less everyone else in the movie is depicted as complete morons. Also, I hate how the morality-rules of the Slasher genres are spelled out so blatantly for the audience. We all know that characters who smoke pot and have sex die in each film, why did the film-makers feel they needed to keep reminding us of this. It's okay for the movie to have some comedy, but in all it seemed like they were pushing for the almost intentional self-parody seen in so many other films in this specific franchise.

And yet the movie has plenty of genuinely disturbing and gruesome moments which throws the film into a bit of an unbalance. What it does is water down the films attempt which I already described in the first paragraph of this review. Really, is this just another addition to the franchise than a real, experimental remake? Is it really just more of the same? Unfortunately, yes. It's a horror movie with its strong points but ultimately you would be better off just watching the originals and only this if you wanted to spare the time of having to see all of the same plot stretched out over 4 hours.

While watching Taken I was reminded of several other "Lost Child" films and surprisingly the one which first came to mind was Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando. Specifically this movie is what that movie should have been like. Liam Neeson outshines Arnold with a witty and far more sympathetic and charismatic character portrayal.

The film's plot is simple but has enough twists and texture to make it into a fulfilling experience. The film takes many turns and even goes on the verge of moral ambiguity but Neeson's charisma pulls the film through even its more preposterous segments.

However, it's perhaps of the film's over-the-top nature why it will never reach the same classic and timeless status as Flightplan or Frantic. The film stands out well for its relative grittiness but also suffers slightly from it. The film is a pleasure to watch especially since it offers so many memorable moments and for once an appropriately up-lifting closure.