clurge-2 Reviews

Ladybugs (1992)

Jackée Harry? Jonathan Brandis in drag? I must be in heaven!

[4/10 · 14 February 2001]

Well, I've either died and gone to heaven, or just died. I can't really tell at this point. "Ladybugs" is an odd film. How could I have sat down and watched this film on three non-consecutive occasions? I guess the allure of Rodney Dangerfield is like a horrible, twisted automobile accident. No matter how much you want to move along, you just can't turn away.

Jackée Harry's voice alone would make any man flee the area, and never return. Tommy Lasroda appears near the midpoint of the film to remind us that he should never be cast in feature films EVER AGAIN. Then factor in Jonathan Brandis...as a girl! No, not just Jonathan Brandis. HE'S ALSO DRESSED LIKE A GIRL. Go now. While you can. Run for your life.

Once you watch a bit, you'll be hooked. I'm warning you.

Dangerfield is no threat. If you've seen this film, or "Easy Money" or "Back To School" or anything else he's been in, you know his role. "A wise-cracking (blank)". Here, the blank is filled with "soccer coach". If you're seeing it for the sole purpose of "The Rod", go see "Meet Wally Sparks". A much better effort.

Sometime in the near future, a professor from a large university in Norway will release a thesis paper drawing parallels between "Ladybugs" and it's Hollywood soccer film equal, "The Big Green". The paper will go on to comment that Hollywood cannot make a decent "Big Budget Soccer Picture", and films of the sort should be left to the much more soccer-movie-inclined Icelandic film producers. Just a prediction.

Please take heed. This movie is like a cult. You watch it once, and it will never let go. You'll have to call in sick to work, and cut out your social life because of this film. "Ladybugs" will attach itself to you an never let go...until your eventual demise. Then it will move on to it's next unsuspecting victim that says, "Hmm...Rodney Dangerfield, Jackée Harry, AND Jonathan Brandis...sounds good..."

Proof of Life (2000)

Just don't see this film. Please...

[4/10 · 6 February 2001]

I'm one for artistic films, and films that are different. Pictures that others in my age group (18-25) may find boring and at odds with, I love. But "Proof Of Life" really is a dull, someone-shoot-me-in-the-head, drawn out feature. And to those who don't know me will assume that I'm saying that because I'm a product of American cinema looking for sex, nudity, and drugs.

I went into the film blind, not knowing any more than Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan were top billing. Sure, I realize hostage negotiating is a drawn out ordeal, but the movie took it to the tenth degree. It clocks in at two hours and fifteen minutes. I don't mind long films. But there has to be enough story to carry it for that long! "Proof Of Life" didn't have it. A hostage negotiator comes in, negotiates, then gives everything up to take the hostage using force. Simple as that. Crowe drives here and drives there, and talks with this person and that person. A big waste of time. It all could have been done in ninety minutes.

And Meg Ryan might as well have been replaced with a hatstand. She played a weak, often braless, wife that had nothing to do with the main plot of hostage negotiating. She got top billing for that? Meg Ryan is, loosely speaking, a good actress, and her talents were basically wasted here.

During the last half hour, I could not stop laughing, because of the amounts of film they could have chopped out and still had a watchable movie. The only good thing I could take solace in, is that we were at a cheap-o theater, and only paid $2.50CAD to see it. Let's put it this way, the film took so much out of my viewing companion and I that we had no patience to go and see "Vertical Limit" showing immediately after.

Whether that's a blessing in disguise or not is a different story.

Bottom line here is one of boredom. "Proof Of Life" seemed to get lost in the Christmas Movie Rush of '00. And a good thing too. Saved quite a few people from getting mighty angry. Looks like for once the masses picked which ones would float, and which would sink. And "Proof Of Life" was rightfully deep-sixed!

Cecil B. Demented (2000)

I'm confused as to why this film was made...

[4/10 · 31 January 2001]

I'm not big on John Waters, and I absolutely detest Melanie Griffith, but I figured that any movie that stands up against mainstream Hollywood cinema has gotta be good...right? Uh...no. To the power of ten.

I viewed this movie and thought to myself, "Geez, the story is about the overthrowing of mainstream cinema by the underground...yet this movie is exactly the same as any other teen angst film from the past twenty years!"

But then I thought, "Are they doing THAT on purpose? Is there irony in the fact that a film preaching the coolness of the underground cinema is following all of the standard Hollywood ideals and benchmarks needed to put together a movie such as this?"

Either way, the movie, in my opinion, comes off horribly. "Demented" sticks to the guns of past teen angst films by having a large central teen cast, each with specific quirks (there's the leader, the bad girl with black hair, the hussy, the nerd, and so forth) getting fed up with the "system" and revolting against stuffy grown-ups. However, Waters adds a new senseless twist...killing! That's right Teenage America! If there is something you don't like, grab a bunch of your stereotypical buddies and shoot up as many as you can!

Melanie Griffith is horrible, as usual, and Rikki Lake proves once again why she has a trash talk show and NOT a career in low-budget films. The only redeeming factor of the film is the potshots it takes at Hollywood features, like "Lake Placid" and "The Flintstones". But it's got a lot to make up for. For example, the group orgy at the drive-in where half the characters are offed while performing their sexual duties within the last five minutes (what was that all about ANYWAY??). Or how about the character of Cecil himself climbing into a wheelchair, lighting himself on fire, and "saving the day". Just complete and utter stupidity.

If you feel the need to stand up against Hollywood (like I did), and look to "Cecil B. Demented" for salvation, you'll be very disappointed. The film you thought would make up for the sins of Hollywood in the past year (see "Gone In 60 Seconds", "Hollow Man", "The Art Of War", etc.) only proves that you've once again been duped. This anti-Hollywood picture is just another bad Hollywood picture in disguise. Your money would be better wasted on "Empire Records" or any other film made in the last ten years that promotes teen unity and revolution.

Reefer Madness (1936)

Rrrrroll another fatty for this review, daddy!

[5/10 · 31 January 2001]

How can you not love this film? A piece so wonderfully outdated, even young children could get a laugh out of it. Shows how programmed society is to issues such as the use of "marihuana cigarettes".

The film makes sense of the whole issue of narcotics, as much sense as anyone could have had on the topic back in the 1930s. The film puts special emphasis on marihuana, the "deadliest of all drugs". This is especially laughable now that people have wised up, and found out that marihuana isn't screwing them up half as good as heroin, crack, blow, or acid can. "Reefer Madness" wants us to tell our children some important facts. Marihuana can make you laugh too much. Sure, according to the film you could also turn into a closet rapist and/or a violent murderer, but the laughing is where the emphasis is put. That's the last thing grown-ups would want teenagers to do back in the 30s is to have a good time.

Which brings me to my next point. This whole film looks like one-sided propaganda from the government or some incredibly concerned non-profit organization. In no way am I condoning the use of rec drugs, but the way it's presented gives me my suspicions. Seeing as this film only targeted our good friend cheeba, I'm waiting for sequels! CRACK-COCAINE CRAZY, 'SHROOM PSYCHOSIS, ACID INSANITY, and HEROIN HOE-DOWN! Tell your children!

Bottom line here? "Reefer Madness" will bring about more laughs than concerns in this day and age. If you've got a thing for campy classic exposés, or you just really like smokin' the trees, you can't beat this one.

Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999)

An incredibly well-made film...with a stellar cast...

[7/10 · 29 January 2001]

This is probably the first, and last, time you'll ever hear the words "stellar cast" to describe a feature film starring Kristie Alley. There. Now that I got the Kristie Alley cheap shot out of the way, I can accurately review this film.

Without a doubt, the best kept secret of 1999. It came out with little hype, and to my recollection, made little noise at the box office. Still, the film is witty, post-modern, truthful, and full of satire. The director takes you behind the scenes of Nowhere, USA beauty pageants, and the jealousy contained therein. One of the most beautiful and unique aspects of the film is that it's shot documentary style. We are given the "honest" opinion of the director, and what he sees. And what he sees very well may be the truth...magnified to the tenth degree.

Kristen Dunst is wonderfully cast as the sweet innocent girl (like most other Dunst roles) who comes from a poor family, and aspires to be the greatest of all beauty queens. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Denise Richards thrown in as a wealthy snob who feels threatened by the innocent girl, and along with her mom (Kristie Alley) tries to off her any way she can. I couldn't think of two Hollywood sex bombs better suited to play these opposites. Throw in Ellen Barkin as Dunst's mom (who gets a beer can fused to her hand after a nasty explosion) and it makes up the incredible core cast for the film.

Something about this movie just draws me to it. Could be anything from the colourful sets, to the music by Mark Mothersbaugh (from DEVO!), or the creative mock-u-mentary style. But in all honesty, it's the casting. Everyone played superior roles, and special mention should be given to Mike McShane and Will Sasso, who played the large father and son team of Harold and Hank Vilmes. Incredibly hilarious stuff. See this film to discover a fairly well kept secret of Hollywood.

Gone in 60 Seconds (2000)

This film helped me loose my faith in Hollywood...

[4/10 · 26 January 2001]

This film is completely horrible. Without a doubt one of the worst films 2000 brought to us on the big screen. Pretty bold statements, I know, but there is truth behind them. I finished watching the film knowing only what I knew going in; "It's about stealing cars". There's not much more to it than that. No real sub-plots to speak of, and the few that surfaced were weak, and died after a couple of scenes. Actors were just empty shells, with no real motivation. Cars were given names to signify that they were just as important, if not MORE IMPORTANT as the actors piloting them. Welcome to mainstream Hollywood cinema everyone.

I'm not a big fan of Nick Cage, and stick to my guns that the only decent film he's done is "Bringing Out The Dead". Similarly, Angelina Jolie isn't on the top of my list either, yet if there was a performer that was grossly underused in any film ever, it's Ms. Jolie here. Time her screen appearances. What did you get? Fifteen minutes? And in that time we figure out she is a crack mechanic, loves stealing cars, at one time dated the title character, at one time stole cars with the title character, gets turned on by stealing cars, still loves the title character, and actually never stopped loving him. A lot learned in a little bit of time. Jolie is present as a piece of meat. Nothing else. Maybe they should have talked to her Oscar, and found out that she CAN act. It could have helped the movie. They might as well have put a blonde wig on a Chevy Nova, and `creatively' named it `Angelina' like they did with all the rest of the cars featured. Would have had the same effect.

But alas. The movie stereotypes itself in order to please the common male. Cars, cars, cars, a strong woman who is eventually broken down by an even stronger man, and more cars. Predictable storyline, wandering plot, and actors that could have been replaced with cardboard cut-outs without us being the wiser. Seeing this movie in the same night as "Hollow Man" really made me loose my faith in Hollywood. Too commercialized, too stereotypical, and therefore too predictable. Show a nine-year-old child seven Hollywood "blockbusters", and then on the eighth, ask him/her to predict what will happen next. Chances are he/she'll be able to do it. Are we, the audience, less intelligent than a nine-year-old child? "Gone In Sixty Seconds" seems to think so. And THAT is something that sickens me.

Slaughter's Big Rip-Off (1973)

Two words to make you see this film: Ed McMahon!

[7/10 · 24 January 2001]

Somehow, this film burrowed it's way into the soft spot of my heart. Don't ask me how it happened, but I suppose having the film feature Ed "I'll Sponsor Anything" McMahon as a tail-chasing crack hustler had a bit to do with it.

Frankly, I was disappointed with Slaughter's first outing in 1972. Nothing more than a quick throw-together to follow Shaft-mania. How does the sequel get away from this? Big Jim Brown seems stronger as Slaughter here than in the first. Perhaps this is due to the fact that one year later he had something to work from, instead of his simple "Be like Shaft" motivation before.

The most outstanding part about the film is the soundtrack provided by pimp-daddy number one, James Brown. Almost every scene is graced with a touch of funk by the Godfather. An excellent period film, for the music, wardrobe, vehicles, lingo, and hair. I should also point out this film is also an excellent period film to represent a time in motion picture history when Jim Brown and Ed McMahon could actually GROW hair.

Double the chicks, double the blow, triple the body count, and factor in Ed McMahon and James Brown. You'll be in for one hell of a 70s action flick, and one that outshines it's predecessor no less. For my money, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off can play ball with any Blaxploitation film ever made. Even Shaft. Chances are you'll disagree, but Slaughter's Big Rip-Off has it's own distinct feel. Something the original was lacking.

Trekkies (1997)

They walk among us...

[7/10 · 1 October 2000]

When you watch this movie, you'll realize that hardcore Star Trek fans walk among us everyday. You may even work with one. Business suits on the weekdays, and Klingon battle armor from episode 56 of The Next Generation on weekends. Should these people be locked up? Of course not. Society locks them up for us. There are probably triple the closet Star Trek fans than there are ones that are featured publicly wearing costumes in this film.

Trekkies puts the spotlight on the outrageousness of it all. It tries to show us that these people, with mullet haircuts (or as I like to call them "Ape Drapes"), and attire from the mid-eighties, have not anything better to do, collect or believe in, than Star Trek. Everyone needs solace. Some choose the bible, some choose crime, other choose Star Trek.

I'm not sure which of the above is the most outrageous. But that's besides the point.

Trekkies is a fine film. It walks a fine line between giving the diehards insights and exclusive interviews from the space stars, all the while keeping things light and not too Trek-heavy for people like me who just want to watch and see how far these people actually take it.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)

A suitable adaption for fans of the novels and British humor in general

[8/10 · 1 October 2000]

I've been into Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide" series since grade school where it was introduced to me. So when I learned that I could have it presented to me in visual form, I was interested...just how could they adapt this novel, which strays every which way from the central story, into a mini-series of epic proportions?

Easy. As long as the Brits do it.

Get yourself a heard of young but experienced talent, who are no stranger to the airwaves in the UK, and stick close to the story. You're assured a winner. The book tells amazingly well on the screen, and the characters are pretty close to what your mind would imagine from descriptions in the text. Important points in the story occur when Adams strays from the main plot, and jumps into a description of the history of a certain object, person or event as described by the "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", a futuristic electronic know-all dictionary. The mini takes this to heart so it seems, and sticks with it, showing viewers animated sequences to what the Guide would be showing it's user. This is where the film turns in it's most brilliant sequences.

Granted, some of the effects are cheesy, but for the time of the film (1981) and the budget of a mini, I say they did well. So Zaphod's second head is a motionless blob of plastic, with a moving mouth for about three sequences. The look, and attitude of Marvin the depressed robot is just fantastic and should be ranked up there with C-3P0 and Data as one of the greatest androids to appear on a screen.

The final word on this one is that once again, the BBC has put together another gem. It may scare you, being on two tapes and all, but it's worth a look. A genuine quality piece.

Ballet mécanique (1924)

Spellbinding. Terrific. Groundbreaking. I'll continue...

[8/10 · 24 September 2000]

1924. While everyone else is screwing with "feature" films with subtitles and storylines, along comes Ballet Mecanique. A fifteen minute experimental masterpiece, that walks the fine line of boredom/pointlessness and excitement/entertainment. This particular film was showing in the Art Gallery of Ontario, in Toronto, and was a visual treat playing in the same section as the Picaso.

Leger and Murphy used magic and early optical illusions, such as looping segments and split screens. The repetitive movements of the steel machines, match those of the live action people doing work, or even the comical puppet like figure that dances across the screen to create a mechanical ballet. Be it mechanical movements of humans, or mechanical movements of machines. Something tells me I should make a parallel between the man-machine imagery and the 70's electronic German godfathers, Kraftwerk. It's the Europeans I tell ya...they bring us all the best art as entertainment. Every image, from the smiling girl, to the numbered cards all serve a purpose in the grande scheme of Ballet Mecanique.

I really encourage anybody in the Toronto area, or anyone visiting Toronto, to go to the Art Gallery of Ontario to check out Ballet Mecanique. It's on a continual loop. I could have stayed watching it all day. Very spellbinding.

The Pest (1997)

Somebody PLEASE call the exterminator...

[4/10 · 16 September 2000]

The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on "House of Buggin'" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "race card", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's "Pest" quite nicely...

Cabin Boy (1994)

Quite enjoyable. Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be...

[8/10 · 5 September 2000]

When I was younger (a yearling of 14), Cabin Boy was just one of the movies you HAD to see. Along with Hot Shots, Hot Shots Part Deux, Loaded Weapon 1, Robin Hood: Men In Tights, and The Naked Gun Trilogy. A stupid little spoof filled with cheap gags, and even cheaper laughs. I think Cabin Boy may not be on the level of the previously mentioned heavy hitters in spoofs, but it steps to the plate and delivers just the same.

I viewed this movie again for the first time in about seven years, and now I see different qualities in it, as a "mature adult", rather than waiting for the poo-poo jokes like I did as a kid. Not to say that I didn't laugh at cheap gags, being the mature adult I am...I just got a lot more bang for my dollar this time around. Chris Elliott may not be on target with that phony distinguished guise, but the supporting cast makes up for it ten fold. Andy Richter, on screen for all of twenty minutes is fabulous, making every second count. Why this man has not done more features is beyond me (Conan?). Also incredible is David Letter...uh...Earl Hofert as the old chap in the village. Witty banter (what makes Letterman, Letterman) with Elliott in classic Letterman style is just completely superb (all five minutes).

In the end, all did a good job with what they had. It seemingly isn't the same Elliott that starred in the amazing Fox series "Get A Life", but Cabin Boy turned out to be a bizarre little film that introduced me to tobacco spitting cupcakes and the saying "Jesus Christ in a dump truck". It could have been a lot worse, so those that frown on Cabin Boy...quit yer belly achin', matie...

Human Highway (1982)

Another review from a hardcore Devo fan, you know what to expect...

[5/10 · 4 September 2000]

I find that most of the comments ever said about Human Highway tend to say that it's horrible, save the fact that Devo makes an illustrious appearance. Well, prepare for more of the same.

I won't say the movie was horrible, for I have watched it more than twice, and stayed awake for the duration. I can see how some may call it bad, but not horrible. It has a very wandering storyline, and themes relevant to that of the time it was made (nuclear concerns of the 1980s). A strange appearance by Dennis Hopper tries to brighten things up, but he's not a villain out to destroy things, he's a short order cook. Quite a stretch for the "Villain of 1000 Motion Pictures". The final scene where all characters dance in formation can be described as a "surrealistic" romp, in a movie that can be summed up the same way.

Now on to the Devo performance in the film. A real treat for hardcore fans. "It Takes A Worried Man", a Kingston Trio song from a long ways back, performed here by Devo (with resident Mothersbaugh alter-ego Booji Boy), is more than likely THE high point. A close second is the jam with Devo and Young himself, banding together to make some organized noise in a dream sequence.

If you're not into Neil Young or Devo, please refrain from checking this out. It's really not worth it. The movie can be described as "bad", but you have to be on a Young-Devo level to understand it (or make any sense out of it for that matter).

Time Bandits (1981)

To this Python fan, it was an enormous let down...

[5/10 · 20 August 2000]

I am probably one of the largest Monty Python fans of all time. From the original BBC series, to the feature films, to the audio recordings, I enjoyed them all. I knew Time Bandits had a few Python graduates in it, yet I never sat down to watch it. When I did, I'll honestly say that it was quite a let down.

The film had it's strong points, no denying it that, but I think my expectations were set too high since the Python reputation succeeded it. Plus, I was never a fan of any fantasy-esque kid flicks of the 80s when I was a child, like Labyrnth or The Neverending Story. Time Bandits followed the same common pattern, more or less. Many rave about this film, and it has somewhat of a cult following, but I'm just not charter member I suppose.

The roles of Cleese and Palin were limited, Cleese to about five minutes of screen time, and Palin to about ten. Sure they shine, as always, but they had no room to move about, or steal a scene like they normally would. Time Bandits was imaginative, and thought provoking, but there is only so much you can do when an 8-year-old child is one of the heroes. Imagine the film if geared for adults (say, putting a Gilliam "12 Monkeys" spin on it)...then it would constitute as being truly amazing. A great movie to watch with your kids, but not one for Python fans to sit around and view. Go get Quest For The Holy Grail instead.

The Time Machine (1960)

Perhaps the best Wells screen adaption, better than "War Of The Worlds"...

[8/10 · 13 August 2000]

With all the legendary hype around War Of The Worlds, it seems that The Time Machine has been overlooked. Both are classics, there is no doubt, but in my humble opinion, put your money on Time Machine. Both are your basic Sci-Fi flicks, a male hero yearning for his one true love with only a non-human race standing between them, but Time Machine brings more to the table.

It may be due to the fact that The Time Machine pulls us in, to travel along with George thru time. We move with him through the centuries, seeing the future, and feeling a bit helpless. It's actually quite humbling, due to the fact that the film reminds us that man has almost no control over time itself!

It also may be due to the fact that we get more special effects goodies in this one. Sure the ships and a couple of aliens in Wars were impressive for it's time, but The Time Machine is a colorful film filled with blooming flowers, bright wardrobes (of Weena's passive race), and bright blue Morlock baddies! Quite a contrast to the dreary and colorless "War Of The Worlds".

Let's not say the War Of The Worlds is horrible, I think it provides a great contrast to The Time Machine, which is seen when the films are viewed together. Both have the Wells-ian style written all over them, and both follow the fifties sci-fi formula. Yet one is bright, and one is dark. One foretells the future problems, one highlights present problems. Both terrific, but give the edge to the irridescent, future-telling Time Machine!

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

A grim film, exclusively showcasing certain "assets"...

[5/10 · 9 August 2000]

What assets you ask? I'll get to that later. Being a big fan of "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad", I was excited to learn that Ray Harryhausen, claymation guru of 7th Voyage, was in charge of the "special effects" in One Million as well. The reputation of the film preceded it, or rather Ms. Welch's famous pose for the movie poster did. I geared up for what promised to be a film of epic proportions.

I guess promises WERE made to be broken.

Harryhausen, using the mentality that huge turtles, spiders and lizards roamed the earth a million years ago, inserted these creatures within the live action shots, making for hilarious results, instead of the awe-inspiring clay work from 7th Voyage. Harryhausen's dinos go over a lot better than the doctored stock footage of household pets, but that alone does not an epic make.

I believe the main excuse for making this film was to focus on a certain body area of Ms. Welch. And it ain't her feet. The film turns into a "hormone-ic" joyride as soon as she hits the screen. And when she's not in camera range, I found myself, normally a hormone-controlled male (at least when it comes to movies), hooting for more. With the plot completely lost, and me on the lookout for Welch's chestally gifted area, I couldn't really remember what the message of the film was. It's there somewhere. Tribes fighting, good against evil, civilization against nature...or something like that. If they wanted me to focus on Raquel Welch's bosom, and forget everything else, congrats on a job well done fellas!

Five Deadly Venoms (1978)

Five Deadly Venoms: The best that kung-fu films have to offer!

[10/10 · 30 July 2000]

Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet.

The Eighteen Jade Arhats (1978)

My god, Charles. Is that your new ARHAT? It's to die for...

[6/10 · 22 July 2000]

Yet another numbered kung-fu film, following such numbered epics such as the classic "Five Deadly Venoms", or even "Five Fingers Of Death". This leads me to believe that Eighteen Jade Arhats was named as such only to capitalize on the fact above. These arhats (there's eighteen of them...) are jade figures that give some special powers pertaining to kung-fu techniques. The only mention of them is in the last third of the film! Maybe something is lost in the translation. But we can also look at the fact that instead of using these eighteen arhats to an advantage plot-wise (i.e. having eighteen different people possess a single arhat and one man fighting to get them all), the movie splits them down the middle, one person has nine, and another has nine. Could have called it the TWO Jade Arhats as far as I'm concerned.

The lack of Arhat involvement is my only complaint. It's yer basic kung-fu flick. An elder is killed, and one man has to track down the killer, along the way he meets a woman and they both use kung-fu to kick the hell out of everyone who they think did the killing. Same old, but I don't think any other way in kung-fu movies would work, now would it? If "Five Deadly Venoms" is gone, and Bruce Lee is on a vacation from your video store shelf, you can give this one a shot. Not the best...but follows the perfected techniques.

To Kill with Intrigue (1977)

Could be renamed "Jackie Takes A Severe Beating"...

[7/10 · 20 July 2000]

Here we have one of the few flicks where Jackie Chan, our hero, spends more time taking a lickin' from everyone else, than he does giving it out. Jackie is stabbed, poked, choked, burned, scalded, sliced, whacked, skewered, and school boy'd in just about every scene of the film. It makes for plenty of action, don't get me wrong, but his only triumph comes at the end so that we can leave happy. I realize that Chan is supposed to represent the man who loses everything (house, family, friends, pregnant lover, etc.) but the guy can't even defeat a woman with super-human abilities?? Movies have taught me that Jackie can overcome ANY disadvantage and kick some tail...but apparently not here. Jackie spends more time on screen as a bed-ridden cripple than fighting the powers of evil. Reminds me of a story where a boy wants to move away from his parents because they beat him. When asked where he wants to go live he responds, "I want to live with Jackie Chan's character from 'To Kill With Intrigue', because he doesn't beat anybody!".

Neighbours (1952)

Something else Canadians can be proud about!

[10/10 · 20 July 2000]

This film is amazing. Truly amazing.

The knack for animation seems to be one of Canada's greatest gifts, so I guess that would make Norm McLaren the most generous man at the party. This piece is visually stunning; watching the characters cascade across the screen with the help of stop-motion techniques is a thing of beauty. The awkward, electronique-esque soundtrack conjures up, and speaks for, every single emotion that McLaren is trying to get across visually. In eight minutes, McLaren develops the two male characters, and their emotions, better than a feature length Hollywood production could in two hours. Could he have made it longer? Sure...but he said all he needed to say in the few minutes he worked with...namely, "Love Thy Neighbour". If you can't find this Oscar winner (for Best Animation Short oh so long ago) you are really missing out on something magical. A thing of beauty, and a Canadian gem. Thanks, Mr. McLaren.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Caligari: A creepy, distorted gem of the silent era...

[10/10 · 4 April 2000]

Like so many of the films from the silent era, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari gets overlooked (if you can even find it!) for big budget duds, and runny romantic comedies. Directors of the period like Griffith, Lang, Eisenstien, and Caligari's Wiene, are never given the credit they deserve. And if credit is given, it is in small cultish circles in various pockets around the world.

The set design here is amazing, not a single right angle can be found in any one of the sets. This may not only apply to the disjointed and distorted characters in the film, but also the state of Germany at the time. After all, the film was made in the dark ages in Germany between WWI and WWII. This point is validated by Siegfried Kracauer, with his notion of how the main character of Dr. Caligari can be easily interpreted to Hitler, and vice versa. Both controlled subjects with a form of "brainwashing", both were upset with current forms of society and government, and both were masters of deception. In a period where Germans were looking for direction, and let's face it, authority as well, Dr. Caligari embodied it fully.

In the area of the players, all the names in the film turn out a literally "speechless" performance. Dagover, Krauß, and especially Veidt as Cesare (pronounced Chez-a-ray) are excellent in the use of gestures and motion to get their point across without using words. The camera, stationary as in most early features, uses the mise-en-scene effectively, letting us identify with characters such as Francis and Jane, and disjointing us from Caligari, and the Criminal.

The use of lines and stripes, not only in the sets but in small places like in the good doctor's hair and on his gloves, adds to the telling of the character. Colour tints of the B&W film also play a special part in bringing the whole film together. An amazing sequence where Caligari reveals his true madness, pits Caligari stumbling through the unequal streets of Germany while being haunted by textual ramblings written in the air. A marvelous achievement for it's time. And it adds so much.

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari has changed the way I look at horror films, and even films in general. I urge anyone reading this to pick up this film. The DVD offering is utterly fantastic with the restored print, an audio essay of the film, and production notes. Bypass the overblown "motion picture events of the year", and pick up Caligari, quite possible the greatest motion picture event in the history of motion pictures.

Shivers (1975)

This film literally pits the US against Canada!

[9/10 · 2 April 2000]

In 1976, L'il Davey Cronenberg must have seen how the US dominated Canadian culture. So he made Shivers, his first feature. On the surface, this movie is a fun horror romp, but unlike most generic horror films, it carries a deeper meaning.

Without giving too much away, Shivers (or "They Came From Within") deals with a virus that preys on civilians in a remote apartment complex, and turns them into sex-crazed zombies. The virus, which is the representation of America in the film, starts out in the host, and then quickly spreads throughout the building, much like American culture does in Canadian society. Soon the whole building is filled with mindless, sexual cravists...I think you can see where this is going. American films filled with sex, violence, and mindless story lines infecting Canadian cinemas? All signs point to this theme, and it's fun to watch this film, and pick out all the parallels. Although, if you're not for motifs, watch Shivers for the classic twisted horror Cronenberg brings to the screen. We are treated with references to Night Of The Living Dead and many other classic horror flicks along the way. In closing, if it says Cronenburg in the credits, you can guarantee a pretty grotesque/insane/outrageous experience.

Broken Blossoms or the Yellow Man and the Girl (1919)

Feminism, Masculism, Racism, All Dealt With In 'Blossoms'

[8/10 · 2 April 2000]

Beyond the weepy, sappy, tear-jerking qualities associated with this Griffith feature, it's actually a landmark film in the annals of feminist films. In a time when women were either out on the street turning tricks, or in the home raising children, this film looks at Lucy Burrows (Miss Gish) who seems to be caught in the middle. Of both the above characteristics of period women, and literally caught between an abusive parental figure, and a caring oriental shop keeper. The question is posed...should she sustain the abuse and stay in the home, or be a social reject by shacking up with this "lowly chinaman"? As in all of Griffith's films, the women are either virtuous or fallen, and the men are either lusting brutes, or effeminate sensitive males.

Many may look aghast at the legendary Barthelmess playing the chinaman, Cheng Huan, or any one of a number of races played by white actors. If not anything else, Blossoms is a great example of stereotypes that existed in the early years of cinema. Griffith successfully deals with the race issues, (even with the use of white actors in the various race roles), extreme masculinity issues, and the above stated femininity issues bluntly, and straight to the point. In a culture dominated by the MASTER NARRATIVE of patriarchal while heterosexual males (well, even still today), D.W. tries his best to put it into perspective. And does a pretty good job of it.