In Time (2011, Andrew Niccol)

What would you do with a hundred years?

The cast is pretty surprising. I've only seen "JT" in Black Snake Moan, but I thought he was adequate in this film. His acting skill might have been deficient with a heavier script, but that is another problem I had with the film. Amanda Seyfried is a hottie here before her Les Miserables fame, and her character was a cliche, but portrayed well. Again, the script I think failed to demonstrate her motivation and attitude change, but she did good with what she had. She and JT actually run a lot in this film and that kept me excited.

The action is good, no doubt. Cillian Murphy was the biggest surprise, and I think I liked his character the most and his motivations. Lastly, Vincent Kartheiser I am fond of for his work in Larry Clark's Another Day in Paradise and he looks a lot like his Mad Men character here, but his boyish face suits the plot of the movie.

The script: There are some things like what did the father of "Will Solace" do that got him killed, as the Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy in a remarkable performance) alludes to, and maybe it was intentional by Niccol, but this felt unexplored to me, unless his dad just did the same thing JT did. Nice symbolism with Will Salas (sp?), which I suppose plays to the theme of time and no rest for people living on borrowed time.

Mr. Weis pays a pretty penny to be protected.

I felt there were some contrivances and unexplained "BAMF" moments like when JT outsmarts a room full of armed thugs or when he escapes the mansion in the beginning, or how they get through all the time-zone barriers after the escape, since the movie showed the process not being so easy and quite costly the first time and why JT runs his time down and I feel like most of the script wasn't fleshed out enough, and if elaborated would have made for a more satisfying experience. Most fans from what I gather like the concept more.

"Timekeepers" use Steyr AUG rifles, like the baddies in Die Hard

I would agree with that, but I did like the film a bit more, so I will be buying the blu ray for my collection as it seems to have nice replay value for the creativity and brisk pace. The concept was neat, yet I would say I was bothered more by it than the film itself. Not much detail is given to why these people are being genetically engineered (cloning?) or why society has reached that point.

There is also a lack of cohesion with how the "time is life" system works. Is it just a visual aid for the viewer? I think not, since these people can physically see the timers on their arms, but maybe it is still just a metaphor? E.g. the rich and powerful have all the time they want, the poor and meek more of a struggle? Other minor issues like the time-arm-wrestling were vague and the actual process of how people exchange time. Sometimes people seem calm and mentally processing the transfers, like when JT gives his buddy ten years of time, but sometimes seem anxious to make sure the other person doesn't take too much time during the exchange.

The cars are pretty slick.

 The pacing: The runtime of the film is pretty short, and the pacing is a bit problematic for me. It makes sense to be quick-paced, but scene after scene felt robbed to me of tension and character development because one minute the protagonists are relaxed, the next on the run. Terminator I felt did much better, and this is no Terminator, but just an example of how you can keep tension and balance quick and slow moments better. The two lovebirds don't even get a proper love scene or any real relational development. One scene he's holding her at gunpoint, the next she's digging him. Like I mentioned, Seyfried isn't given much to work with then and I wondered why she would not make a break for it from this fellow. Overall, this movie was too short.

You could do a lot in one day's time.

The themes: Robin Hood, poor vs rich, etc. It was interesting, and another reason why the movie should've been longer. The ending feels insignificant and divisive. This might just be a political message by Niccol, but all the more reason to keep it going. The ending felt very "sequel-y" to me, similar to the sci-fi flick Push.

The more worthwhile theme that is handled better was the aspect of time and vanity, how people get cosmetic surgery, are always in a rush, like old Brooks complains about in The Shawshank Redemption, and how the rich would ironically value time and wealth so much that they miss out on what it means to "truly" live and take some time to enjoy the world.

The storm drains of Los Angeles make for fun scenes.

 Production design: The guns and costumes are pretty neat. I think I saw some AUG rifles. Murphy's coat was cool, his car design too, almost Knight Rider-esque, and was that a Shelby Cobra? Not sure, very 007-looking. The scenery/locations are perfect for the movie, being LA and whatnot. The mansion scene is on-point, and the costumes were pretty dapper. Seyfried's outfits looked nice, but that was another issue too: Where was she getting these clothes? There seems to have maybe been some deleted scenes showing these in-between moments.

I'm interest in the blu-ray version because I rented the standard definition, so wondering if the movie looks better and if I'll be able to see the color pallet better. Overall, nothing struck me with the cinematography, but there wasn't too much "shaky cam" and some nice overhead shots if I recall and a good chase scene.

Timekeepers are always "on the clock."

Rating: 7 out of 10

Better than it was bad. I was thinking a 6, but even with its problems, like some other critics have written, the movie still is pretty fun and surprisingly substantial. Check it out if you're a sci-fi fan. I hear that Niccol took a lot of inspiration from other films, which might bother sci-fi fans as did Oblivion. I would say this is not nearly as good as Oblivion which I gave an 8/10 but it's still not bad.

With this review done, I'll add that I haven't seen Bladerunner yet which I hear is the pinnacle of sci-fi. But I've seen other popular sci-fi-y flicks so this film peaked my interest and it was a nice experience. I was surprised that it was not a comic book.

Rant about Harry Potter saga

Due to Richard Harris' passing, fans never saw his full portrayal of Dumbledore.

I'm sure this is a divisive subject, but I've always felt (increasingly so) that Chris Columbus was the best director for the series. There is something magical about the first two films. It's hard for me to put into words, but the atmosphere, the heartwarming musical score and sort of "old fashioned/ancient" style of the magic made it feel like a real world for wizards. Voldemort was much scarier as a withered old man with red eyes, raspy voice, and a nose! and with a hood as a dark wizard on the rise in the flashback scene.

The score made me feel like Harry, a young boy who has fallen in love with this new world where he has friends and people who care about him. It made me understand why he loved it so and called it home when the theme plays.

Hogwarts was actually creepy in the first two movies.

On the other side, I've heard people say that Columbus didn't make 1 and 2 dark enough or made them too dull, but I completely disagree. The forbidden forest was spooky, a giant spider, a giant snake, a mighty underground chamber, a slithering phantom and even the screaming ghost inside of a book made Hogwarts feel much spookier, richer and mysterious than the other 6 films with plenty of ominous tones looming over the future events (eg. "Mark my words, Potter, one day, you'll meet the same sticky end", "Let's hope Mr. Potter will always be around to save the day | Don't worry; I will be", "After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great.")

Voldemort flirts with demonic possession in the first film.

I may be giving too much credit to Columbus but whoever made these characters feel real and layered must've fallen out of favor or simply lost their touch in the other films. I mean, 4 directors? I would go as far as to say that Mike Newell better understood the series than David Yates (who made 4 of the films and somehow effectively did 6), trying to somehow find a balance between Columbus and Cauron's styles whereas Yates just made everything so much worse consistency-wise when he made 5.

Fiennes' Voldemort is no Lord Vader.

Personally I hate it when people leave projects half done. I truly wonder and wish Harry Potter had one director all the way through, or art director, cinematographer or whoever (I'm not knowledgeable about what role every person has on a crew) was responsible for making those first two films so captivating and internally consistent.

I think it would a challenge for any director to present the big world that is to become the stage for a second wizard war, but by the end of the actual series, everything felt so out of whack, pedestrian and confused with thin characters popping up in every story whose deaths we don't even get to see.

Not only was Voldemort's return mildly impressive, but it felt so much more like real life with teenage angst/frivolity on the stage instead. They were all the same length and I'd rather see a consistent and otherworldly film instead of visiting a private school for British kids in hoodies with silly "dark lords" strutting around.

Stephen King's Children of the Corn (1984)

A creepy concept with decent execution at barely 90 minutes. The film opens with a narration (a signature trait of King's stories) by little Job about how a once sweet small town in Nebraska went so sour so fast because he and his clairvoyant sister Sarah are the only youngsters that don't wield farm tools. Biblical names galore in this picture, too, because, well, Gatlin's got religion. Trouble is, the poor children should have lost it instead of losing their minds (and their parents) and seeking to reap the harvest of fanaticism.
But no worries; Sarah Connor, the mother of humanity's savior, real name Linda Hamilton, has come to town, or maybe those credentials do not extend beyond The Terminator story (also released in 1984). Along with Peter Horton, Linda Hamilton gives a satisfactory performance, but the characters lack notable substance outside of being a happy couple. She wants to get married; he doesn't. What else is new? The screenplay was on a diet.

The best part is the kids and eerie atmosphere. The close camera angles on the farm tools and children make for remarkable imagery, along with wide shots of the desolate ghost town. There is also a nice but shoddy theme about manipulation and how it can lead people to commit terrible acts.

Of course, this manipulation comes from a supernatural demon that lurks behind the rows of corn, but hey--what else from a Stephen King story! I guess Old Scratch enjoys corn on the cob and possessing Isaac, sporting devil horns and a very deep pubescent voice.

Mademoiselle C (2013, Fabien Constant)

Rating: 7 out of 10

This French documentary focuses on the making of a fashion magazine and offers snippets from the busy life of prominent fashion mogul, Carine Roitfeld, who is both quirky and intriguing.

Because I know zilch about couture and fashion, this was a nice getaway from typical movies, and attractive French women (as well as the gorgeous language) doesn't hurt! Her ballet instructor was a looker, too, as were plenty of the models who actually had some meat on their bones!

Those in the fashion world, or at least those in this documentary, say that fashion is a dream world with tasteful (or cringe-worthy, you be the judge!) clothing that we would love to see people wear in that dream world. I was drawn to this documentary due to the artsy cover it has on Netflix, and for the same reason I got a laugh out of Zoolander.

Overall, Carine I found to be rather likeable and open about her feelings. One might say vapid is as vapid does, but I appreciate art.  The reviews almost turned me away, saying it had scatterbrained editing and focused on 'soulless' fashion weirdos, but I stuck with it and it paid off! I would love to have a copy of the first issue the movie is about, since most of the shoots were eye-catching (especially the artful nude ones). Photos from the magazine are available for viewing at CRfashionbook.com and "CR Fashion Book" on FaceBook.

This is a serious but lighthearted take on the magazine production and honest glimpse into Carine's quirky character, who I'd never heard of before, offering an abundance of celebrity cameos and who's-who's of the fashion world. It was a neat 90 minutes or so.

Diana (2013, Oliver Hirschbiegel)

Rating: 7 out of 10

Very enjoyable portrait about love, compassion, discontent and choice. Naomi Watts is a constant delight on screen and she shines brighter than ever in gorgeous gowns and to-die-for hair-and-make-up. The brunette wig sequences show that Naomi's beauty is omni--oh, what's the word? Breathtaking? Exquisite?

During sad moments, Watts takes the sympathetic Princess Di and sheds a tear to remind us why the Princess was so loved. Without this wonderful and very human performance, "Diana" would not be as touching.

 The film is roughly shot in the beginning but by its end I could list a handful of scenes that were so effective at summarizing the woes of a Princess that was forever in the public eye until her woe was at last gone and the world inherited her mourning about this bittersweet existence that all of us struggle to understand. The musical score was great, and there are plenty of lines from the dialogue that I loved as well as plenty of picturesque frames.

I hope Diana found that elusive garden of love, despite her tragic route of escape not being the most desirable one. Naomi Watts admittedly wishes this picture about a "gorgeous creature" had been received better, and so do I, for it has a softness to it that carried me vicariously along into Diana's dreams. She fell, yet flew. I fell in love with her dreams.

The Lifeguard (2013, written/directed by Liz M. Garcia)

Rating: 7 out of 10

Kristen Bell is cute and vulnerable as a 29 year old reporter that is not happy with her life. She goes back home and starts an ill-advised fling with a 16 year old boy (David Lambert, in a fine performance) who is going through his own bout of confusion for his future. I won't dwell long on the "controversial" subject matter that pertains to such a relationship, mostly because if he were simply two years older, it wouldn't be an issue and is therefore a silly thing to get in a twist about. Other people have their opinions, but that is not the purpose of this story.

I am generally interested in these little movies that have an indie vibe to them. The performances were solid, and Bell is absolutely gorgeous, morphing between sad older woman and smitten girl who's wound back the clock. She also gives an unexpected amount of T&A without it going overboard. We see why this boy is so crazy about her, but remember it is mainly because they care about each other. Stuff happens in life.

Then you move on. Or you will drown.

The emotions in this picture are very real and tug at the heart. Everyone is struggling and fails to see what they are doing wrong. It was an enjoyable look into how people find the courage (often due to other's encouragement) to tackle the future, or sadly surrender to the pain. The community pool setting and outdoor scenes made for plenty of nice visuals and montages. The film is not too long or too short; it feels just right. I was expecting a 'chick flick' but was surprised by the attention that was given to the other characters.

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (Neil Jordan, 1994)

Rating: 7 out of 10 (Enjoyable)

Admittedly, I did not like the warm color scheme for this adaptation of Anne Rice's novel (who also penned the screenplay). It quickly became apparent that this was a classical vampire story, so immediately I turned down the color on my TV. The undead do relish the dark, living coldly in shadow, so I loved the new murky look. Sapping the color intensified the creepy and dark quality of this film.

Lestat (Tom Cruise) has come to terms with his immortal curse as a vampire. He is demented and thirsty--never convinced that he has sucked enough blood from his victims. One of his victims--although Lestat would disagree--is Louis (Brad Pitt). He has been sired by Lestat and thrust into a new, dark and sunless existence. Louis is a sulky anomaly: A vampire with a conscience! He does not want to join Lestat's round-the-clock bloodsucking feast. No, Louis wants answers to life, some meaning to grasp onto about how he fits in the world as an undead shell. He misses the color of the ocean for he can now only view it at night and the gorgeous beauty of the sun that would scorch him where he sulks. Louis languishes in sorrow, and Lestat gives him no comfort in his torment.

Reborn by caprice, pity and madness is little Claudia (Kirsten Dunst, in an impressive performance). Lestat has broken the vampire code of conduct by siring a child. The undead brat doesn't understand why she will not age and her insatiable thirst for blood startles even Lestat (who dances with corpses from time to time) as Louis tries to play big brother with her, despite the girl's increasing depravity.

Among the undead is a very old vampire, Armand (Antonio Banderas) that is as puzzled about his immortal curse as Louis is, who mistakenly thinks Armand can help him understand it, and conflict ensues due to Santiago's (Stephen Rea) playfully dangerous presence. Louis finds Armand more appealing than Lestat, but Armand is no saint as he and his minions disrobe, humiliate and murder a terrified girl during a stage play in front of an aghast human crowd. Scenes like this are the best of the lot, but they do not prevent a misguided final scene.

The final scene abandons the dark and weary tone of the film, despite taking place after a bittersweet end to Louis' plight as his own evil continues to plague others. An uncharacteristic song begins to play that makes it more jarring and then the credits roll. This bothered me after being so moved by the pathos. Overall, this is still an effective tale about vampires and there is a great deal of lasting and classic imagery that even becomes disturbing at times due to the scary music, content (like people being lit on fire), and well done makeup design. These vampires look beautiful but they are brutal, one way or another.

One Hour Photo (Mark Romanek, 2002)

Sy the Photo Guy is lonely and out of touch with the rest of the world. He is great at developing film, but he also has a creepy collage on his living room wall of all his customers' most precious private moments. Wherever Sy goes, he blends in. If you merely glanced, you might not even see him. This is due to the effective costume design.

Sy is a quiet fellow with a storm of emotion waiting to be unleashed inside of him. His quiet nature is contrasted by an eerie score as Sly tiptoes through the world he does not understand. The subtext is provocative and stirs thoughts once the picture is over. However, the ambiguity is overdone toward the conclusion, which may be an understandable sign of inexperience by first time director Mark Romanek.

Aside from Sy, the characters leave much to be desired. There is the troubled housewife, the thoughtful son and the unfaithful neglectful father. Despite how Sy richly imagines the lives of the people in the photographs, they are merely faces on pictures. Adding to the weak supporting characters is a short story (96 minutes) that has little going on and would become even less interesting upon a second viewing. Sy is merely a sad soul that can easily turn dangerous, despite a memorable performance by a very subdued Robin Williams.

48 Hrs. | Another 48 Hrs. (1982 | 1990, Walter Hill)

Before Riggs & Murtaugh, there was Jack & Reggie.

48 Hrs.

Walter Hill (The Warriors) reunites with James Remar, who plays a convincing psychopath as Ganz in this gritty cop drama, as well as David Patrick Kelly (The Crow).

The banter between Reggie & Jack is simply wonderful, and there simply cannot be enough of it. They don't particularly like each other but they can't resist being together to take down some relentless no-good-cop-killing-lunatics.

The film is short and it shows, being far from the duration of its title, and this film is violent. There is a slew of cynical characters, nudity (which I like), profanity and racial slurs. It is an unapologetic 80s flick, nearly on par with Lethal Weapon, which would come 5 years later. The plot is simple in this cat-and-mouse thrill ride but there is a lot to like about it.

Another 48 Hrs.

This sequel came 8 years later, and it is rough around the edges. But I do have more to say about it than the original, most but not all of it good. With more story, comes more problems. Things begin a bit less than smoothly; the beginning is rather awkward and bogs down the fun, causing unpleasant tension in early scenes between Reggie & Jack.

The Internal Affairs subplot should have been improved but also shortened, allowing for more fun between Reggie & Cates in its place. Naturally, there is nice action and lots of stuff getting blown up, especially glass during shootouts in a member's only nightclubs.

This sequel strangely lacks the unrelenting violence of the original, and there are shots (literally) that are flat out silly, like they were taken from Jason Voorhees' vault of quick kills, e.g. we see a prisoner bust through the glass in the visiting room for no apparent reason, and some motorcycle stunts that belong in other films. This raises the awkward stigma of the film because for the most part these characters (baddies and all) are interesting, i.e. it would be more enjoyable to watch their innards splatter, unlike in the original that had the gore but not the character depth. The nudity also returns, as well as a touch of crazy in the villains, though I wondered why the elusive Iceman became just as nuts late in the film, suddenly making crazy eyes at Cates and having fun with an Uzi.

I was also bothered by Cates shooting Hammond during a hostage situation, given that he doesn't need to do this in the original and instead makes a good shot on a baddie. Has Cates' aim gotten worse? (He is nursing an arm injury, but it's not the arm he shoots with). As a result, the scene catches the "awkward bug" that has plagued the rest of the film. Did Cates not care if Reggie was seriously hurt? A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. On the bright side, the plot ties into the original and as expected Eddie Murphy still brings laughs.

Overall, this is a decent sequel that uses the same formula that fueled the original and takes on a slightly larger scope in story. It is not as sound and coherent as the original, but I do applaud the ambitious story in comparison to the original. A third installment would have been interesting and perhaps these shortcomings would have been grist for the mill.

Rear Window (1954, Alfred Hitchcock)

Rating - 7 out of 10 (Enjoyable)

There is not much to this standard picture as the film stays isolated within Jimmy Stewart's apartment as he peeps into the lives of neighbors who don't believe in using curtains.

It is certainly not bad, and I do love an atmospheric mystery, but I feel like another viewing would be dampened by the familiar plot as is the nature of mysteries.

The neighbors were interesting, but never rise above being visual delights, especially a hot blonde that dances for Stewart's pleasure, though he has his hands full with Grace Kelly, who is sensational in this picture as a socialite struggling to win Stewart's heart (and eyes).

A Fair Shake of The Twilight Saga

Admittedly, New Moon is abysmal and doing Breaking Dawn in two parts was needless, but the original film is stylish, brisk, and atmospheric. Eclipse is a return to form by blotting out its plodding predecessor and dishing up new trouble.

I've always liked stories about werewolves, vampires and humans that get caught up in the mix. There is an allegorical quality and lasting mystique to these fanged and furry abominations. At its center, The Twilight Saga is a dark, earnest and spunky romance.

I was 18 when these movies came out, still in the thick of my own adolescent emotions, making me able to empathize with the gushy feelings that people experience around that time. My significant other and I also made it "our thing" to watch the films as "nice dates."

But they did give me this sweet pair of contact lenses.

The author, Stephanie Meyer, gets a lot of flack for putting a new spin on vampires and whatnot, making them into sparkly porcelain, and borrowing atypical supernatural elements from superhero comics and lending them to these pale bloodsuckers.

However I did find some of her controversial twists to be on the neat side. Moreover, every character has just a pinch of depth to be intriguing (though I would prefer more). Poor usage of run-time is a central problem with these movies; very little actually happens.

I am totally just sitting here, waiting for the next movie to start...

The action is satisfactory and I like the more 'normal' (albeit quite large) wolves versus the man-wolf that cinema is so familiar with. The special effects also improve with each film. One minor gripe is how the sequels (especially New Moon) abandoned the artsy, eerie, cinematic, frosty quality of the original, though Breaking Dawn satisfyingly resembles it.

aka The Twilight Saga: New--wait--No Art Direction

In closing, I don't think the story ever takes itself too seriously and I don't think there is any bad acting and can feel confident in saying that the cast would have been able to deliver with deeper roles. The Twilight Saga is a tepid romantic fantasy. It certainly attracts a lot of blind hate when it is actually rather enjoyable.

Resident Evil (2002)

You'd love to see me use these guns, right? Well, too bad.

Rating: 6 out of 10 (worth watching)

The 'hit' zombie game gets mostly a 'miss' adaptation. Most of this is likely due to director, Paul W.S. Anderson (Mortal Kombat) breaking away from what would have worked better, i.e. actually following the story of the game.

Sadly there is not much going on with the plot. Most of this vague film is bogged down by paper-thin characters with arbitrary amnesia. That is fine if the story is going somewhere, but as the characters get nearer to the surface that will prolong their survival (or so the sequel would have them believe), the story follows suit and becomes even more superficial. Alice (Milla Jovovich) tries to carry this film as the bad-ass heroine, but falls short (and onto the floor of her bathroom, which she doesn't remember having, of course). Late in the film, she also falls off an operating table, flashing her pubic region; the tell-tale sign of an apologetic movie that has little to offer. Jovovich is gorgeous, but the film is not.

The movie as a whole feels clunky, lifeless and shortsighted, as if there was once a desire of a desire to mimic the charm of Aliens that made it a classic action movie. There is nothing of that quality here, despite the neat zombie dogs, stuff blowing up, cool lasers, and Alice doing some nice stunts.

To make matters worse, this movie is quite jarring at times. Early in the film, Alice (having woken up nude in the shower) inexplicably covers her breasts. Why would she do this?

Aah, the audience is looking! Better cover up in this empty mansion.

There is nobody around to peep on her, and seconds later her nipple shows during an obvious T&A shot. The question is why limit the sex appeal? The film is rated 'R', after all. A tonal mess, this film made me scratch my head. Was it trying to be erotic or scary? It amounts to neither. Part of the problem is Alice's costume. It is horrible to say the least and why the shorts? The costume is an eyesore that only gets worse. It is simply bad fashion.

My name is Alice. Umbrella made me forget this movie.  But I found THIS for the sequel.

Admittedly, despite everything I've written above, I did enjoy the film more during this viewing than last time. But to steer away from the bountiful source material and amount to little more than setting up a superior sequel was a foolish choice, and it blatantly shows.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974, Sidney Lumet)

Rating: 8 out of 10 (above average)

Snow stops a train on which a murder has been committed, and the truth is coming out in this clever adaptation by Sidney Lumet of an Agatha Christie novel. Rich folk aboard the train love to dine, but do any of them secretly love to kill?

Lumet wanted this picture to have life, color and exceptional quality. The music, lighting and camerawork are creepily effective and the legitimately cramped atmosphere of the train is wonderful. He certainly achieved that by thinking up powerful scenes and casting big stars for this remarkable mystery, inspired by the tragic Lindbergh kidnapping case.

Lumet described his third choice for Hercule Poirot, the brilliant detective, Albert Finney, as being too young for the role, which would require excellent make-up effects to make work. The result? Lumet thought Finney pulled off a tour de force and I absolutely agree. Finney carries this captivating mystery, flying through so much dialogue with that Belgian accent, the gelled-up hair, looking dapper as he cunningly figures out "whodunit." Midway through his verbal showcase of solving the crime, Poirot takes a drink for his dry throat, a drink that Finney earned.

Everybody looks glamorous, and the picture ends in a poignant moral quandary. The picture never feels dull, due to the dialogue, plot revelations and a fabulous running joke as Finney's interrogations of the passengers ends with "[They] did it!" Finney knows that uncovering dark secrets is not that easy, but it is quite a thrill to watch everything unfold.

After watching "Source Code", thinking sometimes about "Terror Train" and playing "Resident Evil: Zero", I was in the mood for a good train movie. I am pleased to say this picture was far from disappointing.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

That red dress was cramping my style.

Rating: 7 out of 10 (Enjoyable)

This sequel begins immediately after the events of the first movie. The zombie outbreak quickly reaches Raccoon City, a fitting start that echoes the video game, Resident Evil 2. Also borrowed is the plot (and monster) of Nemesis, the 3rd game in the franchise, with Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory) joining the cast to give Alice (Milla Jovovich) some competition and some help.

I'm leaving town. I suggest you do the same.

Guillory is stunning as a S.T.A.R.S. operative, giving the best performance as she instructs others, "Try to shoot 'em in the head" after firing off a head-shot flurry on zombie perps at the police station and lights up a cigarette in her blue tube top, black skirt (that shows off her sexy legs) and holster. Jovovich bares less skin than in the first movie but her nipples blatantly show through her sheer top and undershirt, nearly excusing an underwater nude scene in the film that doesn't flatter her.

To make up for it, the film has topless zombie strippers.

AND THIS GUY.

This sequel is penned by Paul W.S. Anderson, who gave the director's chair to Alexander Witt this time. I find it amusing how Anderson did not follow the video game plot in the first movie, saying fans would not find it exciting due to familiar material, despite the fact that faithful adaptations are generally met with success, hence the love/hate relationship between fans and the first movie that strayed far from a spooky mystery in a mansion. Anderson meshes his own spin on the story well with the source material, leading to a frenetic action flick with good visuals, chilling atmosphere and solid fight choreography.

My name is Alice. And you're dead now.

Character depth is superficial at best, especially for Alice who undergoes the most change (even on a cellular level) but you can't expect more from this genre when characters exist for little more than to be killed off on a scene-by-scene basis. One plus is Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr) as one of the  commandos deployed into Raccoon City by Umbrella to neutralize the zombie threat. He pulls off some cool martial arts and a neat helicopter rappel stunt when he isn't flirting with Alice, and Mike Epps is a civilian with custom-made guns that supplies nice comedic relief.

Bros before brains...

Alas, Apocalypse fails at playing to its strengths. The film zooms by at 98 minutes rather than dwelling on the spooky atmosphere, the panic, tension, and the horror that would accompany a real zombie outbreak. Instead, it opts for silly stunt scenes that defy physics and take viewers out of the movie. Regardless, it is my favorite of the series because it avoids the absurdity levels of the rest.

Harry Potter and the Shafting of Wormtail

One thing that bothers me about the Harry Potter movies is how characters aren't given "their moments" like they receive in the books, characters like Peter Pettigrew aka Wormtail (Timothy Spall).

Wormtail is a rat (literally), a murderer, a servant, a traitor, and a person--but he is not given his moment. He obeys Lord Voldemort out of fear, influence and loneliness. He has a dark side, a dastardly, selfish, sneaky (and squeaky) one that will curse people or flee as soon as the opportunity arises.

Dumbledore wisely tells Harry in Chamber of Secrets: "It is not our abilities that show what we truly are; it is our choices." Wormtail makes a choice in Deathly Hallows that epitomizes his character, a flawed man that regrets betraying his friends and does what he can to atone for it.

Certainly, with choice comes consequence. And the movie chooses to not show this significant moment, despite having a run-time of 146 minutes. After being a focal point in Prisoner of Azkaban, you might as well play "Where's Wormtail?" in the later films and spot him lurking in the shadows. Instead, Peter's arc is discarded. He is left hanging, and it's a shame. Perhaps this wasn't always the plan. A key element of his arc was introduced in the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, as Wormtail is gifted a shiny metal hand by his master for being loyal. But Peter, a man stained by deception, fails to recognize the hidden malice buried within, a sign of who his friends truly are, and were, before he betrayed them. Then he will make the choice that defines his sorry life of betrayal, caprice, consequence, contrition and cowardice.

The African Queen (1951, John Huston)

Real men drink tea, Mr. Allnut.

Rating: 7 out of 10 (Enjoyable)

Humphrey Bogart won an Academy Award for his role in this funny little romance with Katharine Hepburn.

The Great War has started and they must get the heck out of dodge before the Germans spot them, amid crocodiles, leeches and mosquitoes.

In a delightful, dialogue-friendly, humorous script by James Agee, John Huston and friends, Charlie & Rose grow fond of each other's company as they enthusiastically brave the elements over cups of tea. John Huston's insistence of shooting on location pays off in this charming affair about two average folks swept up by the war...

...Or stuck in a bed of reeds.

Remember when you couldn't get back in the boat?

Rose, played elegantly by Hepburn becomes an adrenaline junkie as they engage the rapids, and wants Mr. Allnut, who she later affectionately addresses as Charlie, to construct torpedoes to use against the enemy. She also wants privacy.

In a sweet scene, Rose is at first aghast when Charlie invades her makeshift fort during a rainstorm and kicks him out, before having a heart and letting him back in, so long as he stays on his side of the fort. In exchange, Rose wants his help getting back into the boat after taking a refreshing bath, so long as he doesn't take a peek at her.

1951 clearly wants its background screens and special effects back, and I found myself laughing off the dated moments of the film, squinting at the swarm of mosquitoes, and understanding why the stars couldn't actually risk traversing lakes during thunderstorms.

The picture borders on farce, but the budding romance is honest. Most of all, Bogart makes Mr. Allnut into a very likeable fellow. In a fantastic scene, he imitates a hippo and monkey, showing how man can feel right at home and live happy on the river. Hepburn shows a desire in Rose to embrace the wild side of life instead of having her nose stuck in the good book. These elements have been revisited later in Titanic and Pirates of the Caribbean films.

The Night Flier (1997)

You've been looking for me all your life.  

Rating: 7 out of 10 (Enjoyable)

Miguel Ferrer (RoboCop) did a good job in this role. Richard Dees is a schmuck tabloid reporter that has an ugly charm to him. He cusses up a storm and cares only about himself. Typical edgy Stephen King protagonist, am I right? Complete with cynical side characters.

Do not follow me anymore, or I will swallow you whole.  

The Night Flier is quite spooky as a movie monster with some nice costume design and makeup, aside from a single jump scare that has poor CGI and a tongue-out gag, dating this low-budget movie to 1997. The dialogue and tension in the bathroom reveal scene flows straight out of King's story (which I haven't read, but would love to) and is atmospherically creepy.

There is a strange attraction to this demon as its victims become entranced. An elderly housewife gets her hair done, knowing she'll be getting a visit from him later that night, as the Night Flier beats her husband to death before sweetly killing her next, a touch of the mystifying appeal of the Phantom in "The Phantom of the Opera."

You always wanted to know what Hell was like.

Best of all is the black-and-white "Hell" sequence as the "leads" that Dees has used up throughout his career, and how it damns him to a terrible predicament when the police show up as he's covered in blood and wielding an axe.

Never publish what you believe.

It could've been better with some quality camerawork and higher budget, but I think there is a certain appeal to this "B" (or even C) movie quality. I wouldn't have minded a longer duration, perhaps throw in some sex appeal or a tense love interest in the "Jimmy" girl (Julie Entwisle), or a few scenes about the sleazy tabloid office, or some of Dees' cases that made him the best.

It's a good tale about obsession and selfishness. Was it all in his mind ? Is Dees the Night Flier, or is there a bloodsucking demon out there?


Full Movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGstHabOGo8
Director's Cut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1UQxcGDs3g
"Hell" sequence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5uyfbGVo_4