The Ring Two -- 2005 -- PG-13

I watched the Unrated Edition. As a sequel this poor film has to stand up to the sheer creepiness of the original and when compared, it pales. However, when considered as its own film, its actually pretty good. It does what so few sequels do, and that is take the old plot on a new ride. It handles the characters from the original and allows them continued development. It creates a really creepy atmosphere, and has its own share of scares and chills. It has good momentum throughout the movie, good development, and enough intrigue to keep you wondering without being annoyed that you don't know what is going on for most of the film.

It has some weak points, though. One is this elaborate deer attack that once you know what is going on (and watch the making of video that explains it) makes sense, but in the context of the film, really loses you. They explain that the deer react to Samara's presence, and any setup for this (even a barking dog beforehand) would have helped. A similar issue occurred in the Ring with a horse going crazy, so it works, but it never gets a sufficient explanation in this film.

The other problem is what I call Forced Conflict. This usually occurs with characters who like asking lots of questions, like detectives or doctors. This film has a psychiatrist who asked perfectly reasonable questions that the character could have simply answered to avoid all ramifications. Instead, the character clams up and refuses to answer even the simplest question: "Did you hit your son?" Why not answer this with a truthful resounding no? What does she say? "I want you to leave." To make this forced conflict even worse, the psychiatrist locks the character in her office to detain her for a moment while she gets coffee. The psychiatrist returns moments later to find the character escaped out the window. Can anyone say "You just incriminated yourself"?

This aside, it is a passable film when allowed to stand on its own. When placed aside the original, it doesn't measure up and feels like a sequel.

Skeleton Key -- 2005 -- PG-13

Dissenters aside, I thought this movie worked pretty well for what it was. Most of it occurred in one house with some pretty decent character development, though the main character could have been rounded out a little better. We got a feel for her outlook, but not much of her past life or future desires.

I thought the basic plot was pretty good and the twists were well thought out and tied together, along with a very sinister revelation near the end. That really helped this film a lot, but it still suffered from underdeveloped characters. While I will grant that there was a reason they appeared the way they were, it still would have helped if there was more substance to them.

Some of the sequences did not make a lot of sense. Why continue to go up to the attic just to explore the forbidden room? Especially after what it was doing earlier? Why defy the homeowners so much? Why, when threatened as she was, with the knowledge she had, did she stand directly in the path of danger? Why not run to her room where she had already protected herself? She seemed to willingly welcome the fate she ended with. In quite a few instances, the plot moved the characters instead of the other way around as it should be. This movie also has the distinction of being the only film I know of where a vehicle is unable to break through a lock on a fence. Kinda weird.

Everything else was well-explained, clever for the most part, and tied up neatly complete with a bizarre question mark of an ending for a minor character. So overall, not bad, it just lacked in a lot of other areas. I think a little more thought into the screenplay would have helped a lot.

Rent -- 2005 -- PG-13

I've been waiting years for this one. I got the cast recording of Rent in 1997, a year after it came out on Broadway. 

This is a heck of a drama on screen. The relationships are engaging when watching them develop from the sweetness of Collins and Angel to the touching uncertainty of Roger and Mimi to the controlling/flirtatious rocky back and forthness of Joanne and Maureen, it seems to cover the basic types of relationship types we encounter or have even been in before. And then you have Mark who is just there giving us the tale from his vantage point, it seems, as he works to film his movie. Through Larson's wonderful music, we feel the trials these characters go through and the heartbreaks as they endure them.

The stage-to-screen translation worked very, very well and it delivers a powerful performance with nearly every main musical number intact. Some of the more recitative numbers from the show were changed into straight dialogue, and two songs were cut; Christmas Bells, which is a favorite from the show and I wish they kept and Contact, which I'm grateful was gone. I guess it was a fair trade-off.

Another bonus here is after listening to the cast recording for so long, most of the main cast in the movie was from the original Broadway cast meaning that the voices singing were exactly the same ones from the 1996 recording. 

Yes, some of the subject matter deals with homosexuality, but that is not something rubbed in the face of the viewer; it's simply an element of the story such as space travel is for Star Trek...simply there and we move on. Will and Grace is 100 times more in your face than this show is about that topic.

So my bottom line is that this is still a wonderful show, and the filmmakers did a great job on the movie of it. The biggest danger is trying to make a movie out of a musical is losing some of the magic of the stage; it wasn't lost here.

The Interpreter -- 2005 -- PG-13

A political thriller following a woman who works for the UN as an interpreter who overhears a plot to assassinate a controversial head of state. The Feds try to protect her, but she shields from them her complex past making their job only that much more difficult.

This is a film with multiple layers and pretty solid characters. The plot centers itself more around this woman as uncovering her past than it does who is following her, and this is pretty much on purpose. The questions linger throughout: did she hear something or not? Is she in on it or not? And the beauty of it all is that we really don't know until it's all over.

I found this to be a well-constructed plot that finally ties itself up fairly well by the final frame, though the denouement is a little shaky. Fortunately, for a political thriller, it doesn't bog us down in the politics. In fact, the movie centers around a fictional country, which while some complain that this is a poor device, works a little better than placing a real one in there since it allows for a statement to be made without centering anyone out.

Overall, good flick.

Constantine -- 2005 -- R

If you watch this one, you'll like it or hate it. It's the type of fime that requires you to shut off the logic center of your brain and simply go with the ground rules that the movie lays down. If you try to make it religious, you'll hate it.

Now that we've gotten past that, this was a decent film. The main character had a huge flaw and a backstory that tied directly into the body of the film and the story. It was actually quite brilliant. The plot flowed very nicely throughout, and once you hit the end with minimal untied ends.

The only real complaint I had was this guy that was at the beginning. He kept showing up here and there throughout the film without any real intro of who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. We slowly get the idea that he is carrying an artifcat most necessary to the completion of the main plot, but how he becomes supernatural is really never fully explained. Pondering it after the movie ends, I can come up with an explanation plausible within the structure of the film, but I shouldn't have to. This film explained everything except that one point...maybe I missed it.

I might as well hit on the inevitable all-knowing character who lives is a weird location, but seems to have all the answers as long as you know the question. Constantine also has a "sidekick" that disappears for the central portion of the film when he isn't needed. It seems he serves his base purpose in the plot and goes "poof" when we don't need him.

Overall, it made for a good action film, and makes a borderline superhero type of film. I could see it as an underground comics type of hero, and I believe he is actually based on a comic book character. The most difficult part of watching this film is forgetting everything you know about religion and accepting what the film is saying for the duration. However, if you can do this, it's a great ride.

King Kong -- 2005 -- PG-13

King Kong is a remake of the famous 1933 RKO film of a giant ape who takes a woman who was sacrificed to him and is subsequently captured and taken to New York where he climbs the Empire State Building and is shot down. Peter Jackson's follow-up to The Lord of the Rings epic is also an adaptation of pre-existing material, and while faithfulness is likely maintained to the original, the material appears to have flaws that not even the masterful scriptwriting team of The Lord Of The Rings can save.

The execution of the material makes it crystal clear that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing behind the reins of the film. The plot is followed logically and every major even happens for a sure reason so nothing runs out really unexplained. The special effects are top notch and the acting is good as well...but this film is not the near flawless perfection of Lord of the Rings.

I found multiple points in this film worth cutting out, but on the whole it worked rather well for me (the run time was over 3 hours). I liked the characterization of Kong himself and the relationship between him and Ann. Their relationship, which is mostly shown with little dialogue, is absolutely touching to watch as they go through their trials. It is this relationship that really takes the film up several notches on the ladder of great films because it is so well done. When the Empire State Building comes, you are just glued to the screen because that whole scene is all about Kong and Ann.

I felt that the other characters were mostly well-rounded, although there was a fair amount of the gratuitious 2 dimensional death fodder. I also think some of the subplots were unnecessary such as the kid, Johnny or whatever his name was. 

The most glaring thing about the film that was just unbelievable (if you were paying attention) is Ann Darrow running full speed through the jungle BAREFOOT! The was one rickety bidge but she crossed it barefoot wthout so much as a cut on her perfect little feet. 

I also felt that some of the actions were unnecessary and a little unbelievable. I mean, seriously. No matter how gorgeous the woman is, are you going to risk a freakin' crew to go back in there and try to rescue her from bloodthirsty natives? And even if you do that, are you going to trudge through an overgrown jungle to try and rescue her from an overgrown ape? And when the brontosauruses started running, I had to ask, why didn't they step back into the jungle out of the path of the beasts? After all, they just came out of the jungle onto that little road to start with. Sure, it made a cool sequence to watch, but it could have been easily avoided.

However, the three T-Rexes vs. King Kong? Wow. That was seriously cool. It also served an awesome purpose of solidifying the Ann/Kong relationship.

Definitely could have been shorter without any loss to story or character, and some of the plot hiccups were probably a result of the original material that was never changed when it was reenvisioned. These hiccups are ultimately forgiveable due to the awesome characterization between Ann and Kong as well as that killer T-Rex vs. Kong sequence that runs for a good 15 minutes without letting up. Overall, I enjoyed it and will probably actually buy the DVD when it comes out.

Frankenstein -- 1931 -- NR

The 1932 version of the film is nothing but plot. Boris Karloff definitely established the visual look and feel of the legendary monster, the sets are ominous enough, and the effects solid for 1931, but the script just had a plot and ran through it with no attempt to create any kind of characters or their relationships with one another. 

Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.

Citizen Kane -- 1941 -- NR

This 1941 Best Picture winner definitely earned it. Most people are familiar with the infamous last word of Kane ("Rosebud"), and while I had an inkling I knew exactly what it was (thanks to a song from Animaniacs), I learned that unlike most films where knowing the goal spoils the movie, this word was not so much about Rosebud, but what Rosebud represented in Kane's life. Through the film, we learn all about Charles Foster Kane and his take on life and money and politics. We know what he likes and dislikes and wants and doesn't want. All of this was not to build to finding out what or who Rosebud is, but to explain why that was so important to him. 

A modern film might spend 20 minutes at the end of the film explaining the meaning of Rosebud, but this film allows the audience to (gasp!) think for themselves and ponder just how deep the meaning goes outside the theatre. This is an amazing film for just that aspect; it was some amazing writing and ponders whather money (for Kane was the richest man in America) is really all it was cracked up to be. In fact, what Rosebud is is not known in the film until the last 30 seconds before the final fade out.

My only complaint was the old Jed Leland. When he as an old man chattered, I was bored to death. Fortunately, he wasn't allowed to talk for long and we got back into the history in short order.

This is an amazing film with an amazing script. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

D.O.A. -- 1950 -- NR

This is a 1950 film noir movie that was remade several years later. It involves a man who was unknowingly poisoned giving him only a week to track down the guy who killed him. Like a lot of old thrillers, this was a fun ride. I think it skirted some believability when the main character (who is little more than a banker) was at home with a gun in his hand and chasing the unknown bad guy through an abandoned warehouse only to have him escape. He also as observant as Sherlock Holmes in nearly everything that went on. Some of this can be put down to the fact that he knows he's dying, so he has nothing to lose. This aside, like I said, it's a fun movie to watch, and kicks off real quick for the short attention spanners.

Climax! Mystery Theatre -- Casino Royale -- 1954

Full Title: Climax! Mystery Theatre presents Ian Fleming's Casino Royale 

In 1954, the television show Climax! produced a 60 minute TV version of Fleming's first Bond novel shifting the characters a bit for American audiences. It had Jimmy Bond of the "Combined Intelligence Agency" who was working with Clarence Leiter of the British Secret Service (He was Felix Leiter of the CIA in the book). This was filmed Live in 1954 and had 3 basic sets: the casino, Bond's hotel room, and LeChiffre's hotel room. This is included as a bonus feature on the DVD of 1967's Casino Royale.

For what it was, this show did a phenomenal job of portraying Bond and his habits. It showed him as a competent agent with little humor and just there for the job. I enjoyed the drama infused and hardly noticed the international shift on Bond to an American agent. He was a strong character and well-developed along with the other characters. 

This bonus feature alone is worth getting the DVD for that horrible "send-up."

The French Connection -- 1971 -- R

1971 must have been a slow year for movies. If ever you wanted to know just how boring a detective's job can be, this film exemplifies it. It's 104 minutes I'll never get back. The characters experienced no growth during the course of this film, and the story never took off to any degree that I noticed. The only note-worthy scene was an interesting chase of a car following a city train. The car was under the tracks swerving and speeding. However, the setup for the chase was poorly executed and since I had no emotional investment in the picture by this time, it came off as really anti-climactic. 

How this film managed to win 5 Oscars including best picture, best director, and best screenplay is a mystery I'll never know the answer to. For best picture, it beat out Fiddler on the Roof and A Clockwork Orange, both of which are vastly superior to this film.

But hey, not all films are for all people. I didn't like it, but maybe I missed something.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind -- 1977 -- PG

Overall, this was a good movie with a literary feel to it. Three interlocking storylines come together at the end for the big alien interaction (hence the title, no big spoiler there). The question of "What is at the mountain?" drives the story forward the momentum stays very steady throughout.

The weakness? Richard Dreyfuss' character. His plot line keeps this movie from being perfect. This man has a wife and three children. He starts acting crazy, loses his job, makes his wife nuts with this UFO talk and his propensity to make mountains out of mashed potatoes. As she is on the verge of forgiving him, he goes over the top, destroys the yard (as well as steals from the neighbor's yard) and throws stuff in the kitchen window. This, of course, makes her take the kids to her sister's. Now, all this makes sense, but if they are in a real relationship, she would be willing, even after all this, to forgive him. After all, they have three children and a marriage that seems to be working just fine except for a few recent weeks which can be chalked up to insanity. How does it end for his wife? Her husband is completely gone and she is left with three children, no income, and a house with a mountain of mud in it making it almost impossible to resell without a significant amount of work. Sure, great ending.

If you can get over the complete abandonment of his family by Richard Dreyfuss' character, it makes a great movie, though. Everyone else's motivations and resolutions are perfect.

The Exorcist -- 1973 -- R

Proclaimed the scariest movie of all time, the Exorcist has equally been called a journey of one man's faith. It involves a 12-year old girl who is possessed by a demon, completely throwing off the prognoses of doctors leading her mother to seek an exorcism through the help of a priest who is losing his faith following the death of his own mother. This movie is really creepy in some parts and downright bizarre in others. The prospect of such a thing actually occurring would be frightening. 

This is not a traditional scary movie in any sense of the word, but an opinion of how bad a demon possession can get. The demon (once it takes over) is quite vulgar in every way, but how many scary movies can you find where the line "The power of Christ compels you" is spoken at least a dozen times in perfect context?

Great characters for the most part with only the part of Burke Dennings getting the short end of the character stick despite the implied size of the role from the other characters. The chld knew him; the mom was sweet on him; but he died without speaking so much as a handful of lines and having very minimal screen time (most of it drunk during a party).

It's not for all horror hounds due its very dramatic aspects (a component lacking in a lot of horror), but overall, a good watch.

Dead Ringers -- 1988 -- R

This film was billed as a Psychological Thriller and was even in Entertainment Weekly's list of the top 25 scariest movies of all time which is what led me to watch it. The problem: this is not a psychological thriller. A thriller requires a threat of some sort to be omnipresent, but this movie has none. No threat to anyone at any time during the movie. (Well, there is sort of one near the beginning, but it comes to nothing.)

This is a psychological drama trying to masquerade as a psychological thriller. Here's where the problem with this comes in. The premise of the film revolves around these interdependent identical twins (Elliot and Beverly -- and yes, that this is a woman's name is a sore point for Beverly) who share an apartment, their gynecological practice, and even women. One is a suave ladies man who generally picks up the women and then lets his introverted, book worm brother have a turn as him. The movie is without a doubt creepy in an "ew" kind of way, but that's about it.

The drama comes in when Beverly falls in love with a woman that he and Elliot had been sharing and now he wants her for himself. Beverly descends into drug use with her and since he is a doctor, he is able to procure pharmaceuticals for himself. She finds out about their "sharing" and is obviously disgusted by it, since she picks up early on that Beverly seems a little "schizophrenic." She is an actress who has to leave town for awhile, and Beverly has difficulty with the separation eventually returning to his brother to cling. Elliot decide he has lost touch with his brother and they need to re-synchronize so Elliot gets on the prescription drugs too, so they're at the same level. As these things tend to go, they both lose everything in the process. We won't even go into the "gynelogical surgical instruments for operating on mutant women." What the heck was that all about?

The problem comes in when everyone besides Elliot and Beverly are poored developed characters. We know the twins very well, but everyone else is out of the loop. Even the girlfriend actress doesn't get much development. While this is typical of a psychological thriller, a drama requires relationships to keep it interesting and moving, and the only relationship developed is that of the twins. Time is given to Beverly and the girl, but only between them. She, as a character, rarely gets much time.

The climax & ending makes very little sense. I think I have an idea, but trying to go past a simple reason to why the why is is convoluted in my own head to say the least. When the end credits started rolling, I was actually hoping for a final scene to explain what the heck just happened, but nothing. I watched the special features on the DVD, but nothing. I don't really have any clue why the climax went the way it did, or why the ending was the way it was. 

The film was decent, but a lot of stuff happened that didn't make a lot of sense, and the ending just lost me giving me a poor last impression.

Fatal Attraction -- 1987 -- R

Classic love triangle flick that was nominated for best picture and has been spoofed over and over and over. A man (Michael Douglas) cheats on his wife for a weekend when she is out of town, and is then stalked by the woman he slept with (Glenn Close). Once you get past waiving your finger at the idiot for committing adultery to start with, his family becomes the victims of his wrongdoing, making the consequences of his actions the real plot of this story. After the affair, the movie kicks off and just moves non-stop to the end with several twists and turns along the way as Close's character keeps tightening the noose.

What makes the tale all the more enthralling is the realization that with everything that she is doing to him, he can't (won't) reveal what is really going on to his wife because if he does, he'll be forced to reveal his infidelity. Close's character knows this and continues her dirty game until he dies or gives her what she wants from him.

Blood Simple -- 1984 -- R

This debut for the Coen brothers who write and direct is an awesome thriller that takes four characters and keeps them guessing. They reveal to the audience everything that happens to each of them, and that superiority over the characters only heightens the drama watching the characters guess as to the intentions of the others. 

Basically, a husband is upset about his wife having an affar and leaving him, so he hires a private investigator to take care of the situation. Well, the investogatr double-crosses him, and the roller coaster starts from there as everything just goes horribly, horribly wrong. 

After watching it, I learned why it was such a classic. Definitely worth a viewing if you haven't yet seen it. The "R" rating is more for situational content than anything else. Minimal profanity, blood, or nudity, which is often the reason for the rating in a film like this.

The English Patient -- 1996 -- R

This won best picture in 1996 over Evita. Talk about a slow burning fuse. It took forever for anything interesting to happen in this film, despite all the war stuff, and people getting blown up occasionally. The beginning was intriguing enough: plane shot out of sky with two people in it; one survives all burned up. Sure, want to know who they are. The film moves through two different plots: one for the guy with the burned up face before his face got burned up in the past, and the other for the nurse who is caring for him in the present (1944). Anytime you feel like checking the runtime on a movie, there is a pacing issue in my opinion. However, this is also the type of film to ensure all loose ends are tied up and somehow it leaves you with a satisfied feeling when it's all over. 

Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.

American Beauty -- 1999 -- R

This film won 5 Oscars in 1999 including best picture. It's a bizarre dramatic tale about what is supposed to be typical suburbia. If this is typical suburbia, then I want to move to Canada. Basically, you follow two people in their screwed up marriage and their screwed up daughter (who is probably more normal than the parents are). Dad is quite the pervert going for his daughter's little friend (and nearly having sex with her), and mom is quite the adulteress. Now, I understand their marriage is down the tubes, but they are still married. The daughter follows the parents' leads and hooks up with the weird camera-toting drug dealer next door flashing him and then sleeping with him. 

Despite the weirdness of the storyline, the writing was actually good, the characters were well rounded, and the actions the characters took (no matter how strange they are in my world) made sense within their characters. It progressed nicely throughout with a good pace, and overall, it's easy to see why this was a good movie. The plot, though, is just messed up...

Big Fish -- 2003 -- PG-13

This fantasy tale from Tim Burton was a wonderful little yarn blurring the line between fact and fiction. The basic plot is a son's father's tall tales of his younger life. The son does not believe they are true at all beyond the very basest part of it might have happened. 

As he moves through his father's tales (along with the tales showing us that fantasical life his father led), he finds more and more that the stories have more truth than fiction to them. 

The story has a beautiful ending showing that Burton's flair for the dark and strange can easily be adapted to a very touching tale. Worth watching.

Audition -- 2002 -- NR

This was a Japanese film with English subtitles. Had it been reviewed by the MPAA, then it would have an R rating for violence and sexuality.

Seven years after a man loses his wife, both his son and best friend encourage him to try to marry again. His friend, who is a producer, stages an audition to help the guy find the perfect wife. He centers on one girl, and even though his friend says she is wrong for him, he goes for her anyway.

This whole film is a slow creepy build to the final scenes where the girl's true intentions become clear. This definitely qualifies as a psychological thriller as the man learns more and more about the girl's spotty and almost non-existant past and the horrors she leaves behind her. The characters were well rounded and believable, and it had a fair share of truly freakish moments to make your skin crawl. It really is a worthwhile viewing of a film, even though you have to deal with subtitles.

There are some odd points. One was when the guy wanted to know where the girl lived, but he had no address for her. He had her phone number, and his son was seen on the internet. What one thought popped into my head? Reverse phone number lookup. Did anyone mention it? No.

The other point was a big one. This guy was never put forth to be psychic or anything else other than a normal guy. Yet as he explored, he got flashes of what went on in various places, and right before the climax, there was this long dream-ish sequence where the girl's backstory and life is almost completely filled in. He was even in the girl's house, a place he had never gone to. In a movie as strong as this was, this seemed like a cop-outish way to deliver a large amount of exposition in a short time frame, since it felt so clairvoyant in nature.

This aside, the flm was very good, and worth watching if you don't mind disturbing images. Some of the final scene even made my stomach turn.