Star Trek: Nemesis.

Review #2324: Star Trek: Nemesis.

Cast: 

Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (Commander / Captain William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (Lieutenant Commander Data / B-4), LeVar Burton (Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Lieutenant Commander Worf), Gates McFadden (Doctor Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi), Tom Hardy (Praetor Shinzon), Ron Perlman (the Reman Viceroy), and Dina Meyer (Romulan Commander Donatra) Directed by Stuart Baird (#1692 - U.S. Marshals)

Review: 

By the year 2002, Star Trek was in the midst of a long slog of what you might call its second phase of franchising. From 1987 to 2005, there was at least one Star Trek TV show on the air (before the dawn of streaming, one could watch shows in "broadcast syndication"). Of those, only The Next Generation (the one that started with a child prodigy that no one liked and a crappy-ish first two years that I liked as "pretty good" before Deep Space Nine challenged what that really meant) attracted attention enough to actually make movies with; in the winter of 2002, Nemesis, the fourth and final film with those Next Gen characters, was released, coming after the lone success of First Contact (1996) and two middling efforts with Generations (1994) and Insurrection (1998). The original story for this film came from the efforts of three people: John Logan, a previous co-writer of films such as Any Given Sunday [1999] and Gladiator [2000], Rick Berman, who previously responsible for co-writing the last three films...and Brent Spiner. Stuart Baird was hired to direct the film, having been previously known for his Academy Award-nominated work on editing for Superman [1978] and Gorillas in the Mist [1988] before becoming a feature director with Executive Decision (1996) and U.S. Marshals (1998); at it stands, this is the last directorial effort for Baird, who still edits well into his seventies. The movie was a financial failure at the time of release, and it spurred the end of any new Star Trek films for seven years.

It's funny to see this as the "final journey" of a crew when you consider Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). Those main actors were all past their fifties (some even in their seventies, whereas with Nemesis, the oldest was Stewart in his sixties), but there was something to the idea of "The wall coming down in outer space" that felt like a damn good way to end on a high note (the less said about Generations, the better?) in embracing change. Here I feel like I am watching B-roll footage of rejected Star Trek material. You have a person who looks and kind of talks like the captain to go along with some deadly plague and a plot to destroy the Earth and Data being Data (complete with the crew godawful dark uniforms because god forbid there is any color beyond undershirts); hell, Troi being mind-violated was actually done before with the episode "Violations", and that one didn't have the crew going "oh, I'm not letting you relieve yourself of duty." I don't think you can even say it falls on Baird, because, well, the last film in the series was directed by Frakes with the plodding Insurrection. Maybe it is cliche to say, but this is certainly a movie that looks "tired". Here, it just feels again that one is watching an overextended episode of the show that only lets Stewart, Hardy, and Spiner have anything to actually do. It is the ultimate experience of frustration: it provides a few familiar comforts that never has a terrible stumbling block or great moment. It fritters and dithers for nearly two hours like an old pet that forgot how to do tricks. Hell, it presents Remus (a planet right around Romulus, heh, get it) with little to no actual curiosity despite the whole *vampire slaves* thing (okay, they're sensitive to light, but didn't that sound better?). Baird seems trapped in actually making a movie with people in it, and it is funny to see that from a guy who had been wrapped in a film sequel (sort of) years earlier with U.S. Marshals (1998), which somehow seems more up his alley. The action scenes are hit and miss (we will not discuss the dune buggy sequence), with the battle for the climax at least serving serviceable, which is both the best mark for the film and a sad thing to say for a movie that ran itself into the ground before it even got halfway to the 117-minute runtime. 

You know, there were seven cast members for this show, but if you watched the four Next Gen films back-to-back, you could swear there was only three or so that actually did anything of note (poor McFadden might as well be a ghost, and it is perhaps great irony that Dorn, who had the pleasure of being a key cast member of more Star Trek episodes than anybody...has nothing do here in the last time he played Worf for years). Honestly, at a certain point, I think I stopped caring about Data when it came to this film. By the time the film tries its little rug pull moment, my mind was elsewhere (evidently, Spiner wanted his character killed off due to fears of aging in the last film, here he gets his wish with a cheap trick). Stewart (who called the film "particularly weak" in his memoirs) may be the most talented in going with sci-fi mumbojumbo, but is it really a compliment to be the best part of a sinking ship? The funny thing about Hardy is that the attempts to make him look like a younger clone of Stewart has the same effect as trying to pretend that Wooly Willy is fun after spending five minutes with it. As a whole, it is a sad experience to watch such a plain bad Star Trek movie, managing to prove that either one should make their script is all the way to go before making a movie or one shouldn't even try at all if the result is something like this. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

Alien Resurrection.

Review #1594: Alien Resurrection.

Cast: 

Sigourney Weaver (Ripley 8), Winona Ryder (Annalee Call), Dominique Pinon (Eom Vriess), Ron Perlman (Ron Johner), Gary Dourdan (Gary Christie), Michael Wincott (Frank Elgyn), Kim Flowers (Sabra Hillard), Dan Hedaya (General Martin Perez), J. E. Freeman (Dr. Mason Wren), Brad Dourif (Dr. Jonathan Gediman), Raymond Cruz (Vincent Distephano), Leland Orser (Larry Purvis), and Tom Woodruff Jr (Lead Alien, Alien Queen, and the Newborn) Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

Review: 

It is a funny thing to think about the progression of the Alien films. The original film, released in 1979, was a great experience in chilling horror that had its striking power created by inspiration from writer Dan O'Bannon (who co-wrote it with Ronald Shusett) to basically do a horror version of Dark Star (1974) that took inspiration from a variety of sources that revolved from The Thing from Another World to the writings of H.P. Lovecraft that combined with the talent of director Ridley Scott and creature design by H. R. Giger made for one of the best films to ever invade the genres of horror and science fiction. Aliens (1986), directed by James Cameron, moved itself into action sci-fi with particular influences being Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers alongside the Vietnam War that ended up making a sequel just as good (if not better) as the original feature. Alien 3 (1992), directed by David Fincher, was a depressing failure in every sense of the word, full of potential that went off the rails to the point that its director disowned it. That film ended with the death of its lead character, and yet here we are, with a cliche title to boot. The film was written by Joss Whedon, whose previous writing credits included Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) and Toy Story (1995). Asked how he felt about the film that resulted from his script, his response is probably the most amusing part of the film, as he thought that it "was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong". In any case, one should really begin with director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who had an interest in cameras as a teenager in France. He did animation, advertisements, and music videos before entering feature films with Delicatessen (1991, the first of two collaborations with Marc Caro) at the age of 38. This was his third feature film effort and only Hollywood production  (Jeunet's next feature in Amélie (2001) proved more fruitful and is arguably his most famous effort). He was picked after other potential names like Danny Boyle and Peter Jackson rejected the offer (the latter found it hard to find enthusiasm to do an Alien film. Not surprising, honestly), with freedom granted to do his own film without too many studio notes involved. There exists an extended cut that restores a few scenes to the film, although Jeunet has stated the original version is the preferred one by him.

Here we are, with a movie that has a fundamental flaw in its premise: Ripley is cloned, with blood samples collected before she died. Somehow, her DNA is mixed with a Xenomorph queen that means she has a embryo in it to raise. So Ripley now has more strength and semi-acidic blood to go along with a link to the aliens. All of this, including the idea that someone wants to exploit the Xenomorphs for further use, is beyond ridiculous. 200 years after the third film, and there's still weirdos trying to play fetch with killer creatures? In the end, should anyone be surprised that this is such a bland movie? The aliens seem to have taken a hike in terms of actual scares (particularly with its offspring at the climax), and the pop-ups of close-up shots at times only serve to make a confused movie that can't seem to figure out exactly what it wants to be. It is too murky in its design beyond just muddled spaceships and attempts at humor, and it all boils down to the idea that only doesn't really care about what's happening at any point. They run around corridors and yell, but who cares? Actually, its even stranger, because the amount of people who come out of here alive is almost more than the entire amount of the other three films combined (six, as opposed to the four here). The acting doesn't really do many favors, not so much because they do awful, but it is more that they can't really hold the film up to anything other than wooden space fare. Weaver is undeniably the most interesting presence, in that the idea of making Ripley one with perhaps splintered loyalty to either human or alien-kind could have potentially made a useful premise to go on, with a hardened edge and less dialogue keeping things semi-interesting. The sequence with the failed Ripley clones is the most effective scene. Ryder does not fare as well, seeming miscast when it comes to trying to keep up in presence when it comes to supposed mystery (i.e. "she's a robot!", following in the tradition of the first two films) that results in wires of wood. Pinon (a regular in Jeunet's films) does okay, and Perlman seems to be enjoying himself in ham-fisted ham, at least (he shoots a spider at one point). Dourdan and others seem too stock to really make a useful impression (Hedaya and his examining the brain before death doesn't count), unless one counts bewildering in the case of Dourif, who spends separate scenes with his face near the glass of an Xenomorph and calling a new baby alien a "beautiful butterfly". And Whedon blamed the execution of his script? No, I think the failure of the film falls on everyone's shoulders starting with Whedon. He wrote five endings! And none of them were actually used, believe it or not. Can you imagine what could have happened if there had been a fifth film on Earth? Weaver wanted to see a good script before doing another film, and perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that there wasn't a sequel done - where else could you go? The next film to involve the Xenomorphs wouldn't be done until the crossover film Alien vs. Predator (2004). Beyond a silly way to bring back Ripley and the Xenomorphs, there is just a fundamental lack of scares and/or thrills to really inspire anything other than a bland 109 minute experience that proves that some film franchises just need to stay un-resurrected. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Book of Life.

Review #1571: The Book of Life.

Cast: 

Diego Luna (Manolo Sánchez), Zoe Saldana (María Posada), Channing Tatum (Joaquín Mondragon Jr), Ice Cube (The Candle Maker), Ron Perlman (Xibalba), Kate del Castillo (La Muerte), Christina Applegate (Mary Beth), Héctor Elizondo (Carlos Sánchez), Ana de la Reguera (Carmen Sánchez), Danny Trejo (Luis Sánchez), Grey Griffin (Grandma Anita Sanchez), Carlos Alazraqui (General Ramiro Posada / Dali / Chuy), and Plácido Domingo (Jorge Sánchez) Directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez.

Review: 

"From day one, I felt the weight of all of Mexico behind me, but it’s sort of a weight I’m used to carrying. That’s what I’ve always done in my career; I’ve always wanted to showcase my culture"

Mexico has resulted in a variety of filmmakers over the prevailing decades, ones who aspire to get out into the world and make their own projects over time, whether that means in live action or animation. Jorge Gutierrez was born in Mexico City and raised in Tijuana, and he had a clear love of his culture that carried over to his work in animation, which included study at the California Institute of the Arts; his 3D short Carmelo (2000) was a breakthrough in some respects. He did character design alongside writing on a variety of animated series before getting the chance to do his own series with the Adobe Flash-animated El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera, which ran for one season. Gutierrez developed the idea for this film over the span of a decade, with original plans of optioning at Dreamworks before it fell into the hands of Reel FX Creative Studios (behind features such as Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away), with 20th Century Fox Animation serving as a fellow producer. Others would join soon after to help produce, such as Guillermo del Toro. He wanted to make sure he made a movie about the culture of Mexico with his own brand of magic, to the point that he mandated that the animation crew not go to Mexico for research, believing that they would only find things that would make a "tourist version of a culture." 

It could be inevitable to think about this film in relation as one of two animated features released worldwide dealing with the Day of the Dead, both involving trips to the underworld alongside trying to avoid being kept under (or worse yet forgotten about), with the other being Coco (2017). One can watch either before the other and still find plenty to find satisfaction with however, regardless of the clear distinct difference in quality. It might seem a bit unfair to pick on this film, because it is a nice looking movie, achieving the basic ambition set out by its director to capture vivid animation within Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). Its picking of cast that mixes familiar voices here and abroad do fine in keeping a good head above underworld waters, at least for the most part. Luna does fine with what he is offered, which namely involves a bit of posturing and silly moments. Saldana does alright with balancing some humor involving this main trio, taking charge that surpasses Tatum, who seems a bit miscast in actually lending the right degree of banter to go with the others. Ice Cube fares about as much as one could expect from casting first-time voice acting meant for comedy - decent, but curiously placed in a film that desires something more involving. Perlman and del Castillo do make a fair pair together, while Applegate tells the story with patient timing. The others are alright, but one basically tries to lose themselves in the animation before being reminded of a silly joke or songs that come along for the ride, which again could have worked with more original songs. It has nice designs at times (such as with La Muerte), and a case could be made that it doesn't overstay its welcome at 95 minutes, and that will surely be more than enough for some. It is the structure that comes from the film in trying to have both a world of creative whimsy and ties with clichés from other films of its ilk that clouds the overall result, particularly when it comes to its unnecessary singing to tell new threads in an old-fashioned fable that could do with more mystery and less wringing overall (telling the story to an audience is one thing, literally showing an audience of kids being told this is another), which goes down from overcoming fears and achieving your own distinct destiny and yada yada yada you know where it's going from there. Ice cream can come in many flavors, but if you find it a bit runny, it isn't going to make the result better than the ice cream truck down the road. I thought the film was fine when it stuck to depicting a view upon a culture that Gutierrez obviously has a passion for with charm and vibrant nature, and if that seems more than enough for young audiences, it likely will hit the note needed for a watch. It isn't anything great, but it suits the basic needs for those who desire said enjoyment from a fable of old and new cloth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blade II.

Review #1188: Blade II.

Cast: 
Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks/Blade), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Ron Perlman (Dieter Reinhardt), Leonor Varela (Nyssa Damaskinos), Norman Reedus (Scud), Thomas Kretschmann (Eli Damaskinos), Karel Roden (Karel Kounen), Luke Goss (Jared Nomak), Matt Schulze (Chupa), Danny John-Jules (Asad), Donnie Yen (Snowman), Marit Velle Kile (Verlaine), Darren "Daz" Crawford (Lighthammer), Tony Curran (Priest), and Santiago Segura (Rush) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim and #1061 - The Shape of Water)

Review: 
The cheapest way I think I could describe the film would be that if you liked the first film, you'll be fine with the sequel. It isn't wrong, however. It's a movie that has plenty of loud action, ridiculous moments, and a continuing winning combo of Snipes and Kristofferson. Its plot and some of its characters may be a bit shaky, but in the long run there is just enough here to make something worth a watch for entertainment. It isn't a particularly great comic book film, but it tries to have a balance of action and horror that makes it stick out a bit, not being too much of a copy from its predecessor, which was also written by David S. Goyer. I can't really say it is a better film, in part because of the story, which is okay in getting to its spectacle parts but sometimes ridiculous when giving deep thought to some of its motivations. The initial idea of the film (which sounds like Blade crossed with the Dirty Dozen but with vampires that call themselves the Bloodpack) is a curious one, although it is amusing in execution, since if this so-called pack were trained to supposedly terminate Blade at some point in time, I imagine they would've probably been beaten senseless in less than a hour. Obviously the movie doesn't reply on the ability of this pack to be able to beat Blade, but their lack of characterization besides Perlman and Varela, with the others feeling like fodder. Even though they do fine jobs, they are characters who can sometimes feel one-note, with the former being a bully with watchable qualities and the latter being okay but not invoking as much interest when it comes time to the plot or when with Snipes. Reedus is okay and charming, and Kretschmann is occasionally creepy, but these are cursory moments. Even Goss can't really deliver too much as a villain, perhaps because he doesn't really have much to say (which doesn't help when compared to Stephen Dorff and his villain from the original), and the Reapers (as interesting as they look) seem a bit muddled when compared to Blade; the action is fine and dandy, but after a while the film can't quite find a way to wring itself to anything other than just going through the motions between going from one dialogue piece to another before an action sequence comes in. At least it doesn't feel like an endless cutscene (although the CGI can be a bit dodgy sometimes). The climax is alright for spectacle, although it doesn't really have too many surprises. The film suffers a bit when comparing it to the first film, which felt more flexible with balancing its action and mythology without too much trouble. As okay as the film is with its execution, it still invites curiosity for anyone looking for some vampire action horror that can deliver in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Special Note for 2019 only: In an error best described as "counting sheep wrong", the review count for Movie Night had been miscounted since review #1168, which was Firewall (2006). Somehow, it was never properly cataloged into my records (which I keep for things such as ratings of each film, release year, etc), while the reviews that followed were. The numbering was done correctly for #1169 (About Schmidt), but the next review of Futureworld was mislabeled as #1169 instead of the correct #1170. This means that the reviews that followed up to now were the wrong number. The review numbers have been corrected and things are fixed, but I wanted to make sure that there is no confusion. Enjoy.

Movie Night: Drive.

Review #652: Drive.

Cast
Ryan Gosling (The Driver), Carey Mulligan (Irene), Bryan Cranston (Shannon), Albert Brooks (Bernie Rose), Oscar Isaac (Standard Gabriel), Ron Perlman (Nino "Izzy" Paolozzi), and Christina Hendricks (Blanche) Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.

Review
Drive is a strange film in the sense that it feels so retrofitted and could seemingly work in another era. Is it a bad thing to be compared to other eras and their films? No, not really. This is at heart a movie that gives you time to just watch it and not just listen to dialogue. Whether that's an aspect that makes the movie exciting/boring depends on the viewer's patience. Honestly the movie was fine for me, though I imagine it works best if watched at midnight, or a late time, as it just heightens the mood. The actors don't exactly have many lines to go by, but they do make the most of it, especially Albert Brooks. It's actually a bit surprising on how effective he is as a villain. He's a chilling character to watch at times, and he makes the movie his own for his scenes. Gosling and Mulligan do share a good bond with each other, Gosling is pretty effective playing a (mostly silent) character who looks like he'd fit into a 60's movie, seemingly inspired by Steve McQueen or even Clint Eastwood, which is a pretty good compliment. I like how he uses his expressions sometimes to help convey his emotions without dialogue. The supporting cast such as Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman are fun to watch, along with Oscar Issac (in the brief scenes he has) and Christina Hendricks. Are the characters easy or hard to like? That all depends on the viewer, though Mulligan is probably the only character without blood on her hands. The action and violence is subdued, but when it happens it is a good payoff. I like how the driving sequences are shown, it feels so natural and the lack of dialogue actually helps make it better. This is a strange movie, it shouldn't work, but it works so well at being a movie of its own.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Pacific Rim.

Review #425: Pacific Rim.

Cast
Charlie Hunnam (Raleigh Becket), Idris Elba (Stacker Pentecost), Rinko Kikuchi (Mako Mori), Charlie Day (Dr. Newton Geizler), Burn Gorman (Dr. Hermann Gottlieb), Ron Perlman (Hannibal Chau), Heather Doerksen (Sasha Kaidanovsky), Ellen McLain (Jaeger AI), Robert Kazinsky (Chuck Hansen), Robert Maillet (Aleksis Kaidanovsky), Max Martini (Herc Hansen), and Diego Klattenhoff (Yancy Becket) Directed by Guillermo del Toro.

Review
Pacific Rim is the third in my walks to my movie theater, and when the film started, the audience had grown from a handful to a near room full. After I left, I kept that in mind while trying to form my opinions into one singular review that didn't say the same thing over and over again. And what did I think of this film? It was pretty awesome. Was it a great film? No, but for 2 hours, it was entertaining, and yet it didn't feel like it had been too sacrificing in the characterization, in fact I liked the characters, they were written alright, and the actors were good, such as Hunnam, Elba, Kikuchi, and even the supporting cast. They were likable, they were useful and they all had a purpose in this film. But of course, the main thing about this film is the Jaegers and Kaiju, who are grand in scale, but grander when battling each other. The battle scenes look beautiful, and they bring an epic scale, truly grand in scale. This film is about 80% battling, 15% on characters and about 5% manic energy. It even manages to bring a chuckle or two out of me, and this did a far better job of spectacle than the Transformers films ever did. But nevertheless, this is a pretty good film. It may take spectacle over characterization, but really did anyone not expect that? My main reason for watching this was because of the fact I could see giant robots fighting monsters and not have it all be a great dream. Instead, it is brought to life by Guillermo del Toro, who does a wonderful job. Truly, this one deserves the hype, and it deserves a watch, for the grand spectacle and the fun that it delivers. Truly, I did not waste my money watching this.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.