Sunday, September 28, 2014

Sinking the Iceberg

  I should start off by saying that I have a very weird relationship with this movie. I grew up with Lost in Space as a family favorite, right alongside Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Two movies I found no fault with as a kid. I saw them so many times when I was younger that they were sort of impervious to critique. I just accepted them as they were, and I never thought twice about it. But now that I'm older, I can pick apart these movies quite well. ...But I still like it just as much. I suppose it's due in no small part to the nostalgic brainwashing that still allows me to enjoy things like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and the live action Masters of the Universe .

  Getting right to it though, I think the biggest problem with Lost in Space is pacing. Which is something that never occurred to me before because it's not a slow movie. Something is always happening. But movies like this should always look back to the original Star Wars, and Aliens. You set everything up in the first half, and the second half is just a total roller coaster. No brakes. Lost in Space has fits of intensity, and then it stops. It's like one of those sitcom moments where a teenager is learning to drive for the first time?
Go... brake. Go... brake. Go... brake. Thus the movie never picks up a consistent and steady pace. It's choppy rhythm makes it's subplots feel shoehorned and the story comes out staggered. The actors have to contend with this, as I can only imagine the script itself had the same issues. When the actors are given opportunity to finally emote, it's always cut short by another big spectacle moment. Although character development does show up, it creeps in at the oddest moments, and it always seems to be like too little, too late.

  I have no issue with the silly space monkey. I'm immune to that sort of thing. Not even Jar Jar Binks annoys me. I can recognize how they would be off putting, or even insulting to a more discerning audience, but I always sort of just accepted their existence and it never bothered me. The worst crime this movie commits (beyond not having Bill Mumy play future Will Robinson) will always be the spectacular waste of talent it contains. William Hurt, Gary Oldman, Mimi Rogers, Heather Graham, Jared Harris, and well... yeah, Matt LeBlanc? (Actually, I should point out I don't feel LeBlanc was wasted here at all.) The cast was ultimately not given good enough material to work with, except LeBlanc. His Major West is a reason to watch this movie again. He's just delightfully fun. A total bad boy archetype, but he's having fun with the role and it shows. Gary Oldman is reduced to chewing scenery, which he does well... but c'mon. They could've pulled a better villainous performance out of this guy. William Hurt is totally acceptable as the absentee father who has to make "apology videos" to his kids all the time. When his arc comes full circle, you can feel the genuine paternal concern, but like I said... too little, too late.

  This movie should've been capable of pulling down Oscar noms! Instead it has like a 20 something percent on rotten tomatoes and is not-so-fondly remembered as a piece of junk. I personally don't consider it a piece of junk. I think it's flawed for sure, but no more so than a lot of other movies people, en masse, have made tons of excuses in favor of. (I'm looking at you Star Trek Into Darkness) When it takes off and flies, it soars. When it decides to stop and dole out some exposition, it comes to a screeching halt... and just about crashes. It's two hours of this stop-n-start pacing. If you enjoy the good parts enough to sit through all of it, I don't think you'll really have a problem with the movie. It's fun, but it's not what it could've been. It could've been the Star Wars of the 90's. But instead it feels like an aborted TV pilot, high production values aside.

  Though speaking of high production values, they're through the roof here. I notice this shit now. The bridge of the Jupiter II actually moves and jolts, they don't just shake the camera around. (something they still do to this day in Star Trek movies) The production design is just so friggin cool. I love it. The new design of the Robot (which is definitely a highlight of the movie, albeit a short-lived one), the design of the Jupiter II, the look and style of everything from the bio-suits, to the weaponry and Major West's show stopping mechanical armor plating... it's all fantastic. Also, the movie is also cited as having very dated effects, and for the most part I agree, but what people often overlook is that Lost in Space was made in the sweet spot of special effects movies. It was only partly fueled by CGI. Maybe a third of the way.  There's a LOT of practical effects here. Matte paintings, miniatures, animatronics, and entire sets that seem to be built on hydraulics to collapse and give way under the actors.

  The scenes that showcase the fantastic practical effects work are great. Those fits of intensity? Highlights of the movie. The insane first action scene in which the Robot goes haywire, Judy is dying, and the ship is plummeting directly into the sun. The alien spider shootout on the Proteus. Escaping the Proteus. The iconic crash landing. And last but not least, the climax in which West pilots the Jupiter II through an exploding planet. I don't care who you are or how badly you hate this movie, that was some straight up exciting stuff. Even now, more than a decade on- it's totally thrilling. I could go on and on about the stilted acting, the absolute waste of Heather Graham, how awesome LeBlanc is when he gets to be a macho bad boy (would've loved more roles with him like this) and how fun the movie is when you just accept it for how it is... but I also know it's not exactly a good movie.

  Being that it was a major part of my childhood, I own Lost in Space on VHS (the same copy I bought way back when it first came out) and Blu Ray, I own the comic book tie-in that Dark Horse published, a movie companion book from Scholastic that I got as a kid, I have the soundtrack on my computer, and I even collect the toys. Yep. (eBay is a godsend) I even got super excited when I saw a pack of the movie trading cards at a flea market last month. It takes a very special brand of nostalgia to engender that sort of fanboy mentality, but what can I say? I'd like to be generous and just say that the movie was divisive, but it wasn't. Not really. The majority consensus is that it really rather sucked. I'm not going to argue with anyone who holds that opinion, but in my opinion, I've been cut a better deal. I got all the fond memories, the nostalgia, and I can still enjoy this movie, and that's one more movie for me to enjoy that they never will.

Totally wasn't kidding about the toys.
And I'll be damned if the theme song by Apollo Four Forty isn't the catchiest shit ever.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Beginning of the End

  This review is going to seem a bit odd coming from a guy who jumps at the opportunity to remind people that Aliens is his all time favorite movie. Ever. Of all time. Yes, it is a masterfully crafted experience that on it's own merits is close to being flawless... yet, it robs the original of it's mystery and subsequently takes away some of the inherent scariness. Aliens was the movie to franchise things. The term 'xenomorph' was coined for the alien creature, the colonial marines were introduced into the universe, Ripley says "Get away from her, you bitch!" and thus... things would never be the same again. Comic books, trading cards, action figures, video games, novels, you name it- Aliens is the movie that spawned all of that. Decades on, and with a legacy to boot, it's easy to look back on Aliens as the pinnacle of the franchise... but the unpopular opinion that I have been fostering myself, is that it was indeed the beginning of the end.

  The plot of Aliens is pretty straight-forward like the first one. The lone survivor of Alien, Ellen Ripley, is found on the escape shuttle from the Nostromo (the ship from the first movie) floating through space in hypersleep... after 57 years. The people who find her don't believe her wild claims about the alien creature, until they lose contact with the terraforming colonies they established on the planet from the first movie, now called LV-426. They offer Ripley her old job back if she accompanies a team of Colonial Space Marines to the planet, in case it turns out to be a "bug hunt", she can 'advise'. She agrees, under the condition that they're going back not to study the creatures or to bring them back... but to wipe them out. It's a great set up honestly. Most sequels struggle with a good plot, but this isn't bad at all. The film's tagline fits perfectly: "This time it's war."

  And war it is. As they descend to the planet, which in comparison to the pacing of the first movie, seems like at a breakneck pace- one of the marines remarks, "Express elevator to Hell, going down!" It's a catchy line, but it also perfectly describes the movie too. The closer we get to the end of the movie, the crazier things get. I mean, obviously, that's basic movie logic. Yet, director James Cameron poured so much raw intensity into the last 45 minutes of this movie, you practically have to remind yourself to breathe.  The climax of this movie seems to have multiple parts to it, each eclipsing the last in sheer tension and spectacle until we finally end with the iconic power loader vs. Queen Alien fight. At this point, you want to cheer. This time, we get to see Ripley fight back.

  On the note of the Queen Alien though, I feel like in a way, that's where things went screwy. Not that she's not an iconic and breathtaking onscreen presence... but the life cycle of the xenomorph is completely explained now. They are animals, they operate much like an insect hive, with a hunt/gather mentality. The queen lays the eggs, the eggs propagate more worker drones and the hive expands. Gone is wondering whether or not the alien is malicious or sadistic. It's not. It's just an animal, doing what it was programmed to do. A single one of these things doesn't seem so scary anymore, which is why Cameron has legitimate swarms of xenomorphs attacking the protagonists at any given moment. It's the sheer number of them that manages to be frightening now, but in a very basic way. There's nothing Lovecraftian about this movie, no sir.

  There's no mystery left to the alien creature. Something which all the subsequent movies struggled to undo to a certain extent. We had a perfect cinematic killing machine which was surrounded by this impenetrable fog of mystery, danger, and death. It easily ranks as vicious and scary as any iconic movie antagonist. Freddy, Jason, Dracula, The Terminator, you name it. However the sequel sort of strips that mystery away from it. It reduces it's actions to that of a simple animal, working on natural instinct. Which is still frightening, in the way that coming face to face with a hungry Panther might be frightening... but the alien creature is no longer the outer-space boogeyman it was in the first movie. That is why I feel that Aliens was the beginning of the end.

  Regardless of how it changed the mythos, in my opinion it is one of the best movies ever made. Due in no small part to it's heart. Ripley forms a maternal bond with a little orphaned girl who's survived against the aliens for a long time. There's just something more intense about having to put your life on the line to save someone else as opposed to the entire push of the movie being about self-preservation. Putting a kid into a mix like this was ballsy in my opinion. It's disturbing situation. Yet I think that just strengthens the bond between her and Ripley and makes for one of the most memorable on-screen dynamics ever. That's what saves this movie from being just really good, and makes it absolutely fantastic. It has heart, surprisingly.

  On it's own merits, it's an amazing thrill ride of a movie. It's been decades since it's release and to this day, you'd be hard pressed to find a sci-fi, action, horror movie any better than this. It has all the perfect elements for a big space-action/horror extravaganza. It's exciting, thrilling, scary, unnerving, and it manages to be all of this without being cheap about it, or insulting your intelligence. Complete with stunning battle sequences, a memorable cast of characters, and a fantastic score, Aliens is one movie I can easily watch over and over. I simply never tire of it.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

A Perfect Film

  My feelings for this franchise is well documented. Aliens is my all time favorite movie. Ever. I love Alien 3, and I pretty much loathe Alien Resurrection. Yet I'm here to talk about the first movie. Alien. The genesis of the franchise. While it's not my favorite movie ever, I have come to the conclusion it is the best movie of the franchise, one of the best movies ever, and perhaps a perfect movie in general. I say a perfect movie, not the perfect movie. The difference is important. There will never be the perfect movie. There are too many genres and too many differing opinions on the receiving end. Yet under the singular sci-fi/horror genre of movies, in which there is a select audience to appreciate it... Alien is the holy grail.

  The opening titles fade in and out slowly over a glacially paced shot of a planet panning across the screen. The title "ALIEN" is slowly formed, piece by piece at the top of the screen. Eerie and haunting music plays over all of it. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. It's slow, creepy, haunting, and in a sinister way... beautiful. It's often imitated, but never duplicated. It has a specific combination of elements that make it so great, and iconic. The worn down, lived-in aesthetic of the ship and it's crew. The atmosphere of the planet. The visual design of the derelict alien spacecraft. The look of the alien itself. All of it. It all contributes to this nightmarish movie that still has the ability to shock and scare more than 30 years after it was released.

  The plot is simple. A group of space workers are woken up from hypersleep by their computer, on company orders to investigate a mysterious alien signal. The mysterious signal ends up leading them to an uninhabited planet with a derelict spacecraft crashed on it. Inside the ship, they find a hive of massive eggs, and well... they end up retreating to their shuttle plus one unidentified parasitic life form. I think it's the simplicity of the plot that allows this film to work so well. I think a complex narrative would have hindered it from being so damn effective. Speaking of how effective it is, I think that's due in no small part to it's lack of answers. The movie isn't vague or ambiguous, it lays things out for you fairly well. Except... when it comes to the alien itself.

  Where did it come from? Well, the immediate answer is that derelict spacecraft. Yeah... but where did that ship come from? Why were there so many eggs on board? Furthermore, why does the alien kill? To eat? For sustenance? For pleasure? There are clues and cues for both notions throughout the movie. Ultimately, ignoring the subsequent mythos and sequels, it's up to you. The alien seems content to finish off it's prey quickly until it confronts a female. It toys with her, lets her scream, and kills her slowly, off screen. The next time we see her, her corpse is mostly obscured but we can see her legs. Her bare legs. I know it raises uncomfortable questions, but wouldn't that make the alien even more sinister? Even more mysterious? Even more scary?

  It's no secret that the alien's design is highly phallic. Yet the subtly suggestive imagery heightens the scariness of it. As well as not knowing it's intent. Is it sentient? Malicious? Or is it acting out of a basic hunt/gather instinct? We don't know. We know as much as the human characters in the movie. Which is enough to propel the story forward and sink us into the suspense. The lack of answers about the creature and it's origins are fantastic. Hitchcockian even. It's like something out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. The look of it, it's behavior, all of it. In fact, there's a decent description brewing here. Alien takes a monster from a Lovecraftian nightmare, and places it squarely in a situation that Alfred Hitchcock would be proud of. The ultimate locked room murder story can only take place in space.

  The story is a vehicle for mind blowing imagery, haunting alien landscapes and futuristic tech-grunge interiors. It's all an arena for this creature to stalk and prey on the human characters, one by one. Starting the movie, it isn't even clear who the main protagonist is, which is probably one of the very few plot twists the movie has in store for us.  It is almost hard for me to write a lengthy review about Alien because I believe it to be a perfect movie. There's no extra paragraph or two dedicated to discussing it's flaws. I can't even find any. The music, the mood, the setting, the acting, the casting, the pacing... it's all perfect. It's all deliberate and meticulously handled.

  I think another reason why this movie works so well, is the cast. They have a real chemistry amongst themselves. They feel like real down to Earth people. Average working class Joes. They are essentially intergalactic... truckers. Each and every one of them has a personality type that seems familiar, but it seems like less of a cliche and more like something that's simply relatable. Elaborate backstories aren't needed in order for us to care about them and not want to see them die. It ratchets the tension and suspense up a notch, that's for sure. I only wish a few of the subsequent sequels would've gone back to this one for inspiration, a couple did, and those worked... but a few didn't, and those suffered for it.

  Nevertheless, I don't think it's a huge spoiler to say that towards the end, only one crew member is left alive. Alone, on the ship, being stalked by the alien, rushing through the strobe lit corridors with steam vents popping off in front of you every few feet... the entire aesthetic has become iconic. Imitated endlessly by countless rip-offs, but never entirely successfully duplicated. It's a hell of a climax, and one that still gets me on the edge of my seat, no matter how many times I've seen it.  It is hard to not love Alien. I'm sure there are those that do, but I'm not one of them. I've seen it three times this year, and I think it might be worming it's way into my top ten movies of all time. I still really believe that it is a perfect movie. See it, if you haven't, and see it again if you have. It's always worth it.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Arcade Magic

  The 80's was definitely a magical time for movies. Movies didn't have to be perfect to be good, and suspension of disbelief was alot easier. The Last Starfighter is the perfect movie to fit into both of those arenas of film. It's a coming of age story which is basically The Sword in the Stone but with aliens and spaceships. How does that not sound awesome? I think from a present day standpoint, people might be very underwhelmed with this movie, since the effects have ages fairly badly... However, there is a certain charm to the movie at the same time that's simply irrepressible.

  Our young protagonist, Alex Rogan (Lance Guest) lives with his mom and his little brother in an all-American trailer park. I mean... this is a trailer park as only Norman Rockwell, or E.T. era Steven Spielberg could have possibly seen them. It's charming in it's own way. When's the last time you described a trailer park as charming? Thought so. Anyhow, Alex still realizes it's a dead end life for him. Fixing the neighbor's electricity, plunging toilets, and basically being the handyman for the entire trailer park. He never has the time to go hang out with his friends or anything. Yet you can tell if anyone is going to make it out of there, it's gonna be Alex. Not to mention he has a beautiful girlfriend on his arm, played by the gorgeous Mary Catherine Stewart.

  Anyway, it seems the sole source of entertainment in this entire place is this little arcade game called "Starfighter". Alex plays so much that he eventually beats... "the record". An event so amazing, that apparently everyone in the trailer park shows up to watch him beat said record... in the middle of the night. The sight of all these middle aged people who probably don't give a flying fuck about video games cheering on this teenage guy to beat a high score is pretty ridiculous- and that might be the biggest understatement ever.  Having said that, "Starfighter" is the sword and the stone in this case. Beating the hi-score ended up whisking Alex away to an intergalactic war where he realizes the game was merely a test... and this is the real deal.

  The movie has it's moments, and a lot of them. Lance Guest is really fun as Alex, and the production design in the movie is fantastic. It looks great. The alien creatures, the spaceships, the suits, all of it. It feels like a slice of a much larger cinematic universe which was just begging to be explored even further. It's a shame that it wasn't. If I have any complaint about the movie is that it doesn't spend more time on it's high-flying space battles or exploring more of this universe. There's a lot of exposition that is merely handed to us through several conversations and speeches and I couldn't help but feel this was a case where "show don't tell" was needed.

  However, The Last Starfighter is charming and exciting and full of characters that you wouldn't think twice about spending 90 minutes with. Everyone does a great job in their role, and even when the script gets a little thin and the story maybe isn't what it should be, there's still this energy present that keeps it fun and keeps it moving forward. The movie makes a detour to explain how nobody on Earth would necessarily miss Alex. Well, he now has a robot double on Earth. It has some great moments, and Lance Guest does a great job of playing him too- but whenever you're back on Earth... you find yourself wishing we were still in space. It's not bad, and still fun, but one wonders why they grounded us after teasing us with a legitimate space war.

  Despite it's dated special effects, the space scenes are incredibly well done and very fun. Alex really steps up to be a legitimate Starfighter and the movie rewards us by treating us to a series of awesome space battles. Really, the movie plays on the charm of being an arcade game come to life. It's why this movie probably couldn't be remade. Not without losing it's charm. Whenever I hear that old computerized voice from the arcade game bellow out "Greetings Starfighter" it brings a smile to my face. It's a movie that works because almost everyone can relate to Alex Rogan and his dream to be... somewhere else. And for me, as a kid, that 'somewhere else' was always outer space.

  On it's own merit, it's good. Maybe not great, maybe not an absolute classic, but it manages to be more fun than most modern movies. It captures the feeling of adventure so necessary to a story like this, no matter what era it was made in. Yet... it just seems like they don't make movies like this anymore. Fun is a timeless concept, and there are always going to be fun movies... but... the specific brand of fun generated by The Last Starfighter seems to be a fading concept. It's simple and effective, and honestly? Endearing. It's charm is forever tied to the idea of things like arcades, and booth games, and having to have a pocket full of quarters to play these things. It's a bygone era, but the movie is a perfect reminder of how fantastical it could be.

Friday, August 15, 2014


  I don't often review games on my blog, mainly because I never finish them in a decent enough time frame... but I do from time to time. Seeing as how I was (am?) on a Batman tangent, and I just finished Arkham Origins, I figured, why the hell not do a review? I like a game that can garner strong reactions from me and leave me feeling very opinionated. I can pick apart Arkham Origins like a holiday ham. Let me start by saying... THANK GOD, THEY FIXED BATMAN'S SHOULDERS. I don't know about everyone else, but all throughout Arkham Asylum and Arkham City (two games which I thoroughly loved) it always looked to me like Batman's shoulders were so big, they looked freakish... and now I feel like they're fixed. In fact, I just like his look in this game a lot better. People might say something like that is superfluous, but if I'm going to spend countless hours playing as a character, I want him to look... well... cool. Not freakish.

  Granted, here's the tradeoff though... Asylum and City had amazing gameplay which overcame the oddly proportioned Batman model. Origins has some issues. After I started the game too many hours went by before I felt like I was even playing a new one. The control scheme is largely the same, and the game alternates between some very basic scenarios over and over. Predator room, angry mob, predator room, angry mob, etc etc etc... only about halfway through the game did I start to feel like Origins found it's footing and started infusing some new and interesting level design and puzzles for me to tackle. From that point on, the game was a veritable roller coaster. I couldn't and didn't want to put it down. As opposed to Asylum and City, which felt like that from the start.

  I do like the story in Arkham Origins, but I don't think it fully felt like an origin story. In the game, Batman has been doing his thing for two years already. You'd think that a lot of the conflict he goes through in the game, especially with Jim Gordon, would have already happened in the span of those two years. In fact, I would've preferred a game where Batman doesn't have his methods down. Where he slowly discovers the need for a cape, for a grappling hook, for brass knuckles in the gloves. I would've liked to have seen Bruce designing the Batsuit, assembling the Batcave, creating the batarangs and coming to the all-important revelation that everything Batman touches must have the "Bat" prefix. Otherwise it's not legit. Of course. I wonder if Alfred ever gets tired of that. After All, only he and Bruce know the proper names for all this stuff.
"Master Wayne, shall I fetch your boots?" "They're BAT-boots! Dammit Alfred!"

  Then my biggest problem is that the controls aren't as intuitive as they were in the previous two games. In Asylum and City, you really feel like you're in control of Batman, as opposed to being in control of a little computer generated character in a 3D environment. In Origins, there were countless times I had to fight the controls just to get Batman to do what I wanted him to. I press triangle... he's supposed to counter right then. Not stand there like a punching bag for a couple seconds too long. For comparison's sake, I booted up Arkham City to see if it was just me and I didn't remember exactly how the counter system worked. Nope. Nope, nope, nope. It works fine in Arkham City. It is Origins. The whole system has moments where it doesn't quite... work. Sure I can counter til my thumbs bleed, but after you've been playing these games for years, you start to notice when there's tiny flaws. Like a splinter in the back of your mind.

  There's tiny lags, moments when things are unresponsive, even if just for a split second. Though when you're playing as the goddamn Batman, a split second is too freaking long. Those split seconds start to add up too. If the game doesn't counter right when you tell it to, you get hurt. If this happens over and over and over... you die.  Thankfully an intuitive player won't have an issue with this. You'll adapt to these little inconsistencies after a while, predict them, and overcome the situation with relative ease. At worst, I got setback a checkpoint once or twice. Nothing I'd sell the game over though. The biggest problem with this is that sequels are supposed to get better, not have amateur little screw ups like this. Look at Assassin's Creed II, Borderlands 2, Uncharted 2, and hell, especially Batman: Arkham City. Games improve. This isn't rocket science folks. I'm not talking about story, acting, dialog, plot, or anything. I'm talking about basic controls.
At the third freaking game in the franchise, issues like this are inexcusable.

  Having said that, once you do finally get the hang of things, the game is still lots of fun. Predator rooms are still fun, and so is standard melee fights. Origins really shines when it thrusts you into unpredictable situations and boss battles. The game knows how to excite, especially when you're fighting series alums like Bane, and Joker. It also knows when to serve up new danger like a blockbuster fight with Firefly, or balls-to-bone fight with Deathstroke. Fun stuff. Overall, I can't say I would trip over myself to recommend Origins to people, but it is a fun game, and I'll probably still mess around Gotham City for a while. It's fun, but by no means a great game. It at least manages to edge out as a good one though.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Neon Knight Returns...

  Oh boy. This should surprise nobody I guess... Batman & Robin is awful. God-awful.  I wanted to try and find new merits in the movie rather than just refresh my memory of how bad it was. After all, I found new things to appreciate about it's predecessor- is it really crazy to think I might have done the same with this...? Yeah, no, I know. Insane. I was just about hysterical when I saw Clooney in the Batsuit. He looks like George Clooney dressed up as Batman, not Batman himself.  It's so bad. He looks like a man in a clunky rubber suit with all the fake muscles and bat-nipples in the world. He's no longer what we're used to, he's no longer Batman. He's something... else The movie isn't even willing to push him into self-parody, Clooney languishes in this middle-ground of awfulness where he doesn't have room to act himself out of this restrictive rubber trap. The same can be said for literally everyone in the movie.

  Which is a shame because there are moments... very few and far in-between, but there are moments in the movie that look absolutely dynamic. If you can remove yourself from the dialog, the plot, and just about everything else and just look at these scenes...  they are crafted with technical skill and often an artistic eye. When Batman and Robin escape from Mr.Freeze's rocket by surfing out on the metal doors as the rocket explodes behind them? Perfect first example. It's a stupid scene. Batman had just said earlier, not three minutes earlier, that if the ship exploded it could kill thousands. Then he puts a bat-bomb on it and jumps the hell out. So you might be too busy facepalming to notice that regardless of the lazy writing, that moment actually looks... really cool. As well as an introductory shot of a mad scientist's lab in the amazon jungle, a car chase down the arm of a gargantuan statue, and more.

  These aren't reasons to watch the movie, but it's something I noticed which was nice. As well as the music, I love the theme. Yet aside from all that, there's not much to like about Batman & Robin. It plays out like a musical without singing and dancing. Everyone looks like they're in a stage play of Batman, Mr.Freeze is no exception. Trying to make his henchmen sing Christmas songs, while they're all freezing to death in his icebox of a lair. Lest I mention the opening, in the museum. Where for five minutes the movie is literally Batman on Ice! Complete with acrobatics, choreographed "fights", and some lovely spectacle. Ugh, agggh. It's so stupid looking. Batman and Robin consistently wait for bad things to happen. A villain needs to make a pun, so they stop... and let him, and then resume the chase. "You know what killed the dinosaurs?" Mr.Freeze asks... "The Ice Age!" he follows up. At this point, I'm not convinced a new ice age won't kill Batman and Robin as well if they take any longer to catch his shiny ass.

  I also realize that a review like this is objectively pointless. Nobody making the movie was trying to make a serious Batman movie. They were literally trying to sell toys to kids. What are we reviewing? The merits and demerits of a toy commercial? Who's the joke on here- honestly? Am I going to sit here and pick apart the acting in a toy advertisement? The plot? The seriousness? I'll say this, as a machine designed to sell toys, Batman & Robin succeeds with flying (neon) colors. There's no way a kid won't love this movie. Batman has a gadget for everything, and for a few bucks, your action figure of Batman can have all the same nifty gadgets. The movie displays everything possible. Bat-bikes, Batmobiles, Bat... skis? Which actually look like toys on screen. Nothing looks practical or functional. Things are loud and colorful for no reason except to make loud and colorful toys. I had the Batmobile from this movie as a kid. Who didn't? I also had the one from Forever, and I preferred playing with this one.

  From the zip, pow, whee sound effect scheme to the plot making excuses for new batsuits and bat-gadgets, to our villains looking like giant action figures themselves... Batman & Robin is a well oiled machine. Once you realize it is really ONLY selling toys to kids, you can neither hate it nor bash it. It exists. Oh well. It's good for a really painful laugh, and then you move on. Bruce Wayne seems like a closeted gay man here more than ever. He tries to explain to his long-time girlfriend that he's not the "marrying kind"... and it half sounds like a coming out speech. He seems largely immune to Poison Ivy's charm... I wonder why. Clooney probably just couldn't muster enough shits to give to make any part of his Batman performance serious. I don't blame him. I couldn't have either. I bet he realized he was only there to be an action figure for 90 minutes. That'd depress anybody interested in actually playing the dark knight himself.

  Sadly, not even nighttime is dark in this movi-er... toy commercial I mean. You've seen the bad press, you've heard the bad word of mouth. Even from a brand new point of view, Batman & Robin is beyond redemption. It will never been a good movie, or even a good Batman movie. The villains are toys, the heroes are toys, everyone and everything else is collateral damage. Aside from some really impressive sets, and a bombastic musical score, Batman & Robin is a movie that should have stayed in my childhood. Back where 9 year old me appreciated it. I will say this for this trainwreck of a production... sitting here, watching it, groaning at all the awful dialog, and averting my eyes from the over abundance of day-glo and neon... I found myself wishing, if only for a moment, that I was a little kid again. Because I know that as a little kid, this would still be a blast for me. When you're that young, any movie that gives you superheroes is golden. Batman & Robin was no exception, I loved it at that age, and for a moment I wished I was back then... loving it all over again.

  Not much else to say. Maybe in another 8 years or so, I'll watch it again. Not to review, not to criticise, not to groan at, but as a nostalgia trip. Like watching old commercials on youtube. It's an old friend from my childhood. The stuff nostalgia is made of. Does that make this movie okay? No, objectively it's still bad. We all know it. That hasn't changed while we weren't paying attention to it and I don't imagine it ever will. It's a weird chapter in this Batman franchise, but thankfully the last chapter. One that is easily skipped for those looking for good Batman movies- don't bother with this one. It's a frigid mess.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014


  Batman Forever is neither as bad as I remember it, nor as good as I so badly want it to be. They had the groundwork for an immensely good movie, but spoiled it with a few bad apples. Does the good outweigh the bad? For once, I think it almost does. That's not to say though that this 1995 blockbuster is without some grave issues. First and foremost is it's sense of humor. Every movie has humor. It can be any kind of humor... Unintentional humor, dry humor, dark humor, black humor, gross humor... and then over-the-top Jim Carrey humor. I loath the inclusion of Jim Carrey in this, though it's probably not exclusively his fault... I can't imagine his one-liners and jokes being written at all. This stuff had to have been either ad-libbed on the spot by him, or pencilled in on the script somewhere, by him. I really don't think this kind of humor gets written. Jim Carrey is all over this movie like a stench. The stench of doom as it turns out...

  As I said with my review on Batman Returns, each Batman movie is both ranked by and remembered by it's villains. Believe it or not, it's my firm opinion that they've gotten Batman himself right 7 out of 8 times. (both Burton movies, this movie, and then the three Christopher Nolan movies). So the ruling stick by which we measure most of these movies is the villains, and ohhhh my god, these are the worst. Yes, Batman & Robin is overall a much much... much worse movie, but that was a sinking ship. This was a damn cruiseliner. You can understand the villains being god-awful in Batman & Robin, because everything else was god-awful too. Batman Forever, on the whole, is far from being god-awful. They got some things right. So in a way, the bar is raised in comparison to Batman & Robin. In fact, it's not bad at all. Yet, The Riddler and Two Face are without a doubt some terrible on screen presences.

  Firstly, they both play their roles with the seriousness of the Looney Toons. Val Kilmer has his brooding down, and everyone else is playing this straight... and then Two Face and Riddler over here have stepped right out of some twisted buddy comedy. What the hell? Riddle me this... which Batman villain kills wantonly, laughs all the time, paints everything in a specific colored motif, and gleefully delights in chaos? If you said The Joker, you're right, but this movie seems to think the answer is Two Face, because that's exactly what he's like in this movie. He's a cheap imitation of the Joker, only exceeding Jack Nicholson in how many laughs he can get in per minute. Tommy Lee Jones seems to be trying to upstage Jim Carrey the entire time.
Upstage. Jim. Carrey. Can you imagine for a second how over-the-top silly things turn out? Yeah.

  Jim Carrey himself makes little to no effort to even play the part. He's playing Jim Carrey. The funny noises, the one-liners, the physical humor, the innuendo, the pelvic thrusting, the annoying laughing... ugh. All of it. They bought Jim Carrey... they got Jim Carrey. This is NOT how the character of The Riddler should have been. Regardless whether or not he was different in the comics, the simple fact of the matter is that he's annoying on screen. Worse than John Leguizamo in Spawn. How he ended up being listed in dozens and dozens of reviews as the "sole highlight" of the movie... it... it hurts my brain. He's amazingly annoying every second he's on screen, providing only slight glimpses of true sinister behavior, it's ultimately lost behind his comic routine.
Both villains here seem to be comic relief, both competing to eclipse the other in how many gags they can pull off. The worst part about it, is that they clash with the quite serious and dark tone of the rest of the movie.

  I can't say those two are the only bad apples in the bunch, but they're the outright rotten ones. What most people don't remember is that this is the first movie that put the nipples on the batsuit. It was more prominent in the next one, but still. Regardless, I like the Batsuit a lot this time, more than the previous two. It's really cool looking. Moving on. The next bad apple is Nicole Kidman as Dr.Chase Meridian. Let me spell that out for you... D-o-c-t-o-r Chase Meridian. Doctor as in professional psychologist. Yet she behaves like a hormonal teenage girl with a full-on Batman fetish! It's an obsession with her to the point where she uses the bat-signal just to summon the caped crusader for some alone time. She throws herself at him atop the police station like a desperate lonely housewife. It's ridiculous and pointless and I can't tell if Batman is turned on or confused, like the audience. Probably both. She doesn't come across as mature, strong, or intelligent. She's the worst of all the love interests in the franchise so far. Yet she makes a serviceable damsel in distress... so there's that. At least?

  Kidman is just under Carrey and Jones as the third worst bad apple, but not as bad. Though I can't believe Alfred actually says she's "wise" at one point. She's confused and man-hungry. She ends up not knowing whether she wants Bruce Wayne or Batman. This actually causes Bruce some turmoil. He has a Clark Kent complex over the crazy chick with the badly written lines which she legitimately seems to be rushing through. Anyways, she tapers off as the movie goes on and her total screentime isn't that much, which is good. She adds nothing to the movie anyways. Now lets start in on the positive. I think Val Kilmer is a fantastic Bruce Wayne, and a great Batman. He looks badass in the Batsuit, and dapper as Bruce Wayne. The fight choreography is actually fairly solid, I'd argue the best in the franchise thus far. The gadgets are sleeker and shinier, and the henchmen are a dime a dozen.

  There's plenty to like in Forever, from how they handled Robin's origin's, which in my opinion was done quite nicely- to his dynamic with Bruce Wayne. Great stuff that's often overlooked. Granted, it is hard to see that there are some perfectly good performances, action, and dare I even say... nuance, but it's all there. It's just outshined (literally) by all the bright neon and CGI renditions of Gotham. I really dig the look of the film, even if it is a bit too colorful. It's cheesy, but in a goodway. Like a Will Smith summer blockbuster. Nobody goes in expecting high art, but if you let it, it can really be enjoyable. The same reasoning can only be applied because there are actual merits to this movie. You can't tack on the 'summer blockbuster' excuse to anything and get away with it. (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, The Last Airbender, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I could go on...)

  Granted there are some silly parts... the villains seem to magically come up with random motif ridden hideouts and elaborately decorated lairs overnight, and Chris O'Donnell is a bit hard to accept as Robin at first, but I think he tries his damnedest to be sincere and authentic in the role. His pain and desire for revenge ends up seeming more genuine at times than Jim Carrey's evil streak ever is. Val Kilmer has his moments of stiffness, and the script calls for some hokey little gags, but the qualities of the actors behind the protagonists shines through (with bright neon, of course). I felt like most of the cast and crew were legitimately trying to make a cool Batman movie, and I'll be damned if it isn't at least really entertaining. There are some shots in this one, visually, which rank among some of my favorites in the entire franchise. Batman leaps off some tall structure to catch up with Two Face and his goons down below, and the camera follows Batman down as his cape glides him down with style. Not to mention the heroically gothic theme adds a sense of urgency and adventure to the movie, I found myself humming it long after the credits rolled.

  This movie has plenty of actual good acting, and some genuinely exciting moments. It's fun, so much so that it meets it's own flaws head on. It's neither overshadowed by it's shortcomings, nor does it ever completely overcome them. It's on the level with them, which means it's still a fun movie if you can accept it for what it is. Batman Vs. Jim Carrey and Imitation Joker. Which actually sounds pretty crazy. I had a good time with Batman Forever, and I think it's easier to digest than it's predecessor. It also really tries to get into the character of Bruce Wayne. Thus far it's the first movie in the franchise which tries to understand really why he's Batman, and the psychology behind it. Granted, it's handled with kid gloves... somewhat, but it's still interesting. In the attempt, if nothing else. There's also some recurring imagery which I found striking and meaningful. Overall, there's more to chew on than anybody would like to admit.

  I know half the internet might wanna burn me at the stake for ranking one of the Joel Schumacher directed Batman movies over a Tim Burton one... but in my humble opinion, Returns and Forever are completely on par. I just prefer Forever. Tough. Deal with it. I think it deserves a second look. After Batman and Batman Begins, Forever is now my third favorite Batman outing.

Odd and Bleak

  I never enjoy this one as much as I always like to think I do. Yet, of all the times I've seen it I think I've enjoyed it most this time. Burton's sequel to his own smash hit is something of a head scratcher though. It's too funny, and not in a good way. The humor is bleak and nasty, even gross and unsettling. This isn't Batman. This is Tim Burton. The climax of the movie has Danny Devito's Penguin, directing an army of literal penguins- all with missiles strapped to their back to go and blow up Gotham City. I still to this day can't swallow that. It looks silly, it is silly, it breaks the movie for me. Yet on the other hand, we have the best on screen portrayal of Batman and Catwoman together in the same movie. Do you hear me Dark Knight Rises? Do you?

  Unfortunately, this is more the Penguin's movie than it is Catwoman's, which is even stranger to me because the only real reason to have a secondary villain in any movie with Catwoman is so that we can have a larger scale danger behind Catwoman, and maybe include a subplot where she struggles between teaming up with Batman, or you know... killing him. Yet this movie has the spotlight on Penguin, something like... 75%? It's not pleasant, but I don't imagine it was supposed to be. Let me stress this though, it's really uncomfortable to watch. The Penguin waddles around in leather work boots, and the filthiest long johns you've ever seen, complete with sweat stains, and what I'm 90% sure is skid marks. I don't even want to know. This is a far cry from the monocle-wearing, suit-clad Penguin we all know that goes wuaghhhh wuaghhh wuaghhh. This is a disgusting sewer cretin that's more mutant than mob boss.

  It doesn't work for me. Not a bit. I heard that at one point Christopher Lloyd was being considered for the role, and thinking back to him in the Addams Family movie... I would've preferred him. Not that Devito was bad, but casting Devito lent the role to a nastier tone. Can anyone see Christopher Lloyd being asked to do the same things? I have no doubt the role would've reverted more to 'mob boss'. Yet, that isn't Tim Burton. Burton wanted a cadre of characters who are strange and weird and genuinely freakish. Batman included. Speaking of, he's better this time around. I can't put my finger exactly on how, but off the top of my head... improved fight choreography, new gadgets, tweaks to the costume, et cetera... Keaton is as great as ever and seems to have real chemistry with Michelle Pfeiffer.

  The two have sparks between them (or maybe just a lot of rubber and latex) in or out of costume. Pfeiffer is a great Catwoman, sexy, scary, unnerving. She's not a thief though, not that I recall. I remember her causing a lot of mayhem, trying to get revenge... but no stealing, per se. Wasn't that Catwoman's whole thing? She was a cat burglar! Hence the literal cat motif.  Alas, it seems the writers and Burton are less concerned with faithful adaptation and more with just creating really frightening characters. In fact, the movie was so violent and sexual that McDonalds backed out of a happy meal toy deal. Damn. Batman and Catwoman's scenes together play out like a... gothic leather/latex fetish reel. Not saying that's bad, clearly we've finally found out what turns Batman on.

  As for the violence, Batman still kills people. He straps a bomb to a bad guy's chest and drops him down a manhole or something. Boom. Batman struts away, off to punch another henchman or something. Yet, he protests when Catwoman wants to kill the man who's been trying to murder her the entire movie. Whaaaat? Also, Penguin pretty much bites a guy's nose off, complete with on screen blood spray. All these things... just add up to a movie that doesn't quite feel right. Penguin doesn't even seem all that evil until the end, Catwoman just seems like a crazy lady with an identity crisis, and Batman just seems confused a lot. These villains are nastier than they are evil, they feel weird for the sake of being weird.

  Batman takes a backseat to pretty much everything else going on in the movie. I'm also pretty sure Christopher Walken as the evil industrialist Max Shreck gets more screentime than Keaton as Bruce Wayne. In the end, this is a hurried movie. Yet, just like it's predecessor, Batman Returns has pacing issues. It has fits of intensity then long moments of characters just being... odd. Plotting, planning, sitting around in dimly lit rooms, brooding. This is the stuff the Tim Burton Batman movies are made of. You either dig, or you don't. I dig. Yet, while this one was a much bigger effort, with a lot of the rough edges from the last one sanded down, I don't feel like it's necessarily better. It's good, but not great. The tone and the weirdness almost put me off entirely.
  Batman himself is still great though. The gadgets, the fighting, the brooding. All of it. However, in a franchise that focuses more on it's villains than it's hero, you wonder if that's enough. Everyone distinguishes the movies by the villains. "Is that the one with the Riddler?" "Nah man, that's the one with the Penguin." "Oh, yeah that's right." Nobody says "That's the one where Keaton's Batsuit looks a little better." It just doesn't happen like that. If only the villains were on par with Batman himself, this one had the potential to surpass the last one, but in the end... it's content to simply be... weird, dark, and gross. It's one ultimate saving grace is the fact that after spending so much time with such disgusting and strange villains, you want Batman to swoop in and save the day, and isn't that the whole point? To have villains you want the hero to stop? Thus making the movie incredibly watchable, but... little else.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014


  Batman is a big deal to me, seeing as how I saw it after Batman & Robin, and then also after Batman Forever. I was a 90's kid. Not an 80's kid. My dad also felt it was too dark for me as a youngster whereas the ridiculously neon stylings of Batman & Robin was a natural progression from my early childhood favorite: Batman: The Movie. So after years and years of camp and cheese, my dad bought me Batman. It was nothing short of a revelation. A revelation I can imagine being nothing short of a cultural phenom when it came out. Comic book movies don't have to be lighthearted or campy. Brilliant notion.

  Batman takes it to the extreme for it's era. It's less concerned with flashy action scenes, and more concerned with the oddities of reclusive billionaire Bruce Wayne (Keaton) and the psychotic proclivities of The Joker (Nicholson). It's more concerned with style and awe instead of story and pacing. Batman has fits of intensity, and then long sequences of socializing and investigating. Characters brood over newspaper clippings or TV monitors, they lurk around preparing for their next encounter. Plot-wise, Batman is tight as a drum. Story-wise, I feel it leaves something to be desired.

  I don't feel like Bruce Wayne has much of a character arc here. We follow him around as he goes sorta nuts over reporter Vicki Vale (Basinger), but it seems like he's only peripherally interested in her. Alfred seems to be far more smitten with the concept of Bruce settling down than Bruce is smitten with anything but being Batman. He always seems preoccupied or deep in thought. Although he does eventually realize that he should invest in a relationship with Vale, the realization hits him with the impact of someone remembering where they left their keys.

  This whole situation does end up producing one of the movie's best scenes. But you wonder how he got to that point, emotionally. He's been such a champ at being detached thus far. Then again, this is why I love Keaton as Bruce Wayne. His performance is odd, aloof and weird, and deserving of a better plot- not a cliche romance that honestly adds very little to the movie. This is not a substitute for an actual character arc. He starts and ends the movie in the exact same emotional state. He learns nothing, he doesn't grow as a person, nada. Yet... I think this is simply because Batman himself is not the focus. The villains are. They will always be, at least until Batman Begins. However, the movie's strengths far outweigh these weaknesses.

  Batman succeeds where virtually all it's successors utterly fail. Gotham city. Gotham and Batman are inseparable. You can't stick Batman in California and maintain the same tone. Batman inhabits Gotham City the way a bat inhabits a cave. It has to be dark, creepy, and have danger lurking around every corner. Gotham City here is not just New York dressed up as Gotham, it's been built from the ground up. It looks like something out of a dark and twisted dream. Old and new architecture are present, but they clash. It isn't a smooth blend of old and new, the new industrial architecture is like a cancer, ravaging Gotham. Steam vents and smoke stacks sprout from the buildings like insidious weeds in a dying garden. This city was crafted behind the scenes, it wasn't just a set that they put together. There are matte paintings, miniatures, and all kinds of effects used to bring Gotham to life.

  They understood that Gotham had to live and breathe, just like the dark knight himself. It shows, and the end result is nothing short of breathtaking. As a backdrop, the city is a fantastic stage for the plot to unfold. Double dealings, dirty cops, mob bosses, and of course the caped crusader himself taking no prisoners. It isn't really fair to slight the movie about the romance subplot, because I also think that it is interesting to measure how Bruce Wayne interacts with women. The freakier they are, the more interested he is. I mean... he can't possibly have normal tastes. No way. Batman is not the mask, Bruce Wayne is. Bruce has no time for the mundane, and as actor Robert Wuhl remarks at one point in the movie, the rich are odd "because they can afford to be." Well, Bruce is so rich, he can not only afford to be odd, he can afford to be Batman.

  Batman himself is brought to life wonderfully in this movie. He's dark, violent, odd and memorable. The casting of Michael Keaton has gone down in history as one of the riskiest casting choices ever, and one can see why. He doesn't look like a Batman at first glance. Hell, he doesn't even look like a Bruce Wayne. Yet, Keaton inhabits the role with a very dark distance about him. He seems a million miles away whenever he's Bruce Wayne, and as Batman he has a violent fire behind his eyes. Nicholson is still the best Joker, gleefully delighting in the chaos and the mayhem he causes, something Heath Ledger's Joker never did. Ledger's Joker is far more deadpan, much less hysterics. Which work in the Nolan movies, but here...? We needed Jack Nicholson's insanity. It's perfect.

  Between Batman and the Joker we have a gaggle of gadgets and guns and henchmen and vehicles and... it goes on and on. It's ridiculously fun, as most of the movie is. There's no denying that. From start to finish, Batman commands the viewer's attention with an out of step time period, and a gothic art deco style that one simply can't place. It's a comic book brought to life. That's all the explaining I've ever needed to do. In the translation though, it does lose a few things, and reinterprets a few other things. It adds a connection between Batman and the Joker that... seemed odd and tenuous at best, but I guess it completed this little circle they had going of "you created me and I created you". I'm not a huge fan on that point, but eh. It doesn't change that much about either character. Worse things have happened. Like... Batman & Robin.

  Anyways, despite it's sparse action, and style-heavy proceedings, the movie is still careening towards the inevitable showdown, which doesn't disappoint. The movie is big on spectacle if nothing else. Not the sort of Michael Bay spectacle we've all come to expect from summer blockbusters these days... but a sleek, gothic, stylish brand of spectacle. Then again... this is directed by Tim Burton. It's a fantastic movie to look at, and is a true experience. To date, despite it's shortcomings, I believe it's the best Batman movie, and it also happens to be my favorite Batman movie. In the process of writing this, I've also been watching it's sequel, Batman Returns... contemplating whether or not I want to write a review on it. But you can be sure that if I do, it'll be at the same Bat-Time on the same Bat-Channel!

Chop chop

  Now here's a movie that makes collecting VHS worthwhile. The cheapest most available copy of this movie is $40 on ebay. Not including shipping. Some heathen went ahead and uploaded a VHS-rip to Youtube a while ago, but there's something about owning movies like this that just automatically make you better than people who don't. Not really. I kid, but it's certainly really cool. I always seem to have on hand, an armada of cool movies most people I know haven't seen. Introducing someone to something they'll like is always a great feeling. Whether it's food, a movie, a band, a book, even a video game. It's an awesome feeling. In part, it's why I have this blog. To introduce people to movies I think they'll like. I think you guys will like this one. Enter: The Challenge.

  I actually bought this from a friend of mine. He runs a store here in Pennsylvania called Jay and Brian's Excellent Video Store. One of the coolest places to go if you dig movies, period. Now as far as I know, this movie isn't even available on DVD, so the tape itself is pricey as I pointed out above. They happened to have a copy for $25. A veritable steal. Trust me when I say, it was totally worth it. The movie is about an out-of-luck ex-boxer named Rick (Scott Glenn) who's offered a ton of cash by a Japanese man and his sister to covertly bring a valuable sword back to Japan for them. Rick agrees, and unknowingly ends up in the middle of an age old feud between two bitter brothers. A feud that seems destined to end in bloodshed!


  I love old ninja movies, old samurai movies, old Scott Glenn, young Scott Glenn, ninjas in general... samurais in general... samurai swords... swords, swords plus Scott Glenn... Scott Glenn with sword vs samurai with sword? Perfect. Okay okay, I'll stop. Yet if any of that sounded remotely appealing, you should probably watch this movie. Scott Glenn is a typical cocky American fighter. He comes across like a poor man's David Carradine in just about everything, yet for some damn reason I like Scott Glenn better. Like... by far. So watching him learn the ways of the samurai and go through some crazy shit was really fun. His performance really carries most of this movie. Not gonna lie.

  The first two thirds was almost straight drama, a few chase scenes here and there. Nothing much to speak of in terms of spectacle or action. Yet the drama is tense and suspenseful. It's directed with laser pointed efficiency by director John Frankenheimer. He does a masterful job here. Alas, Rick is consistently pulled back and forth between both brothers. One a simple sensei with a dojo and a philosophy couched in the old ways, and the other a billionaire businessman with a compound fit for a G.I.Joe villain. It should be fairly obvious which one is the villain. Yet I found myself at times mentally putting myself into Rick's shoes. What does he care about either side?

  The sensei is aloof and devoid of any sort mentor-like warmth... and the businessman, although his methods are ruthless... he's willing to give Rick a huge chunk of change to deliver the sword to him. From this perspective... it's no contest. Rick ends up seeing that the meager sensei is an honest and hospitable person. He ends up devoting himself to learn from the sensei, and in due time becomes a trusted student. The arc is nicely handled, even if we have seen it a billion times. Also, a movie like this simply would not be complete without a romance subplot. It might've been leaner without it, but they used it to decent effect to give the plot a kick in the butt when it needed it.

  If you've seen The Hunted with Christopher Lambert, this will seem a little too familiar. Fortunately though, The Challenge scratches the itch that The Hunted presented. The Hunted might have had a tighter pace and a little more action sprinkled throughout, but it felt fairly basic. I can't explain how The Challenge feels any different through the first two thirds of the movie... but it has charisma, and it has Scott Glenn. They both feel a little basic I guess, but The Challenge was clearly building up all this tension and drama for a hell of a climax. The Hunted's climax felt par for course, but The Challenge went straight up Delta Force on me.

  Rick and his newfound sensei storm the enemy's fortress to rescue a damsel in distress and settle the brotherly feud once and for all. It's so awesome! The snappy editing shines through, highlighting the action scenes in a way we just don't get anymore. This movie was made with the right people, in the right era, and in the right way. The drama, tension, and charisma all bubble to the top in the climax. The movie ends with a bang and one of the best sword fights I've seen in long time. It's interesting to watch Rick fight in the movie, because clearly he's adopted the skills and ideals of the samurai, yet unlike so many other movies in the same vein, Rick is still a cocky American fighter. He throws punches in a sword fight, and uses whatever he has around him when he's cornered like he's in a bar fight. It's great.

  The movie itself is a most excellent find, I'm glad I bought it and I'm glad I saw it. It was worth the money I paid for it, and I readily suggest it to anyone looking for a good east meets west movie with Scott Glenn, swords, and a badass climax.