Reviews by Lexi

''Ok you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The 12-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?''


A man is accidentally transported to 1300 A.D., where he must battle an army of the dead and retrieve the Necronomicon so he can return home.

Bruce Campbell: Ash

Army of Darkness is a perfect rendition of a cult classic. If you go anywhere and ask if anyone has heard of it, they'll give you a puzzled expression. But search the web or meet any Horror enthusiast and you'll see that there are Evil Dead maniacs lurking out there, and I am proud to say that I am among these individuals.
Most trilogies tend to turn sour by the third film, Godfather 3 and The Mummy Series to name a few, but here Darkness manages to make itself a stand alone film and a fine damn one at that. It still has it's nods to the original Evil Dead, but if you're looking for the ultimate horror experience, then this film may not be it. Instead Darkness is full of comedic dialogue and antics. Our hero Ash spits out classic one-liners that so many people try to copy today...I'm looking at Austin Powers here.



Bruce Campbell is ASH. His character evolves throughout the trilogy and it's in this third installment that he is the ultimate kick ass hero. It's in this third installment that everyone remembers him from. It's in this third installment where he has the chainsaw, the boomstick, the one-liners, the sugar, the hot damsel. Campbell will always be known for this one character. He's such a coward and yet we still feel the need to cheer him on. Campbell is the master of physical comedy and he uses it to his advantage here, fighting an army of mini Ashes, splitting away from his evil self and getting his face sucked down an unknown demon hole from a book.

''Oh you little bastards! All right, I'll crush each and every last one of ya! I'll squash you so hard you'll have to look down to look up!''

Speaking of which, that's what makes the film even more enjoyable. It's insane bizarre comedic tone. Whether you like slapstick comedy or have a dark funny bone, this film is delightful for all. I never thought I would laugh so much at someone pouring boiling hot water down their throat. Then to have the thing grow inside of you and try to detach itself from your body, only in a movie like this can you watch that and laugh with it. Granted, it would help if you've seen the first two films and in order as well. The opening does give you a recap of what's happened, but you feel more for the film and Ash if you've been through the horrors alongside him.

Much like Peter Jackson got his start in the horror movie genre, so did Sam Raimi, as stated in other reviews of Evil Dead. You know, the guy that went on to direct such big hits as Spiderman,Spiderman 2, even Dark Man. Army of Darkness has the little Sam Raimi magic touch. Once you see it you can tell that it's Raimi behind the lens. Raimi has his brothers scattered throughout the film, playing many different characters at that. As well as Three Stoogies get ups and the POV of certain objects, such as arrows being shot or forks being thrown.

''Into the pit with those bloody-thirsty sons of whores!''

The first movie was Evil Dead then came Evil Dead II and finally this little rare gem, Army of Darkness. The first one was almost pure horror, while the second interjected some humor here and there, but was still mainly a horror while this one has very little horror at all and is more of an action comedy. Once again this movie sort of picks off where the previous movie leaves off, sort of as we have our hero Ash transported back to medieval times where he is mistaken for a member of an opposing army. The previous movie had him hailed as a hero right away, but here he is taken prisoner and forced to fight the evil dead in a very cool pit fighting scene. He quickly wins the respect of the ones who tried to kill him and he is sent on a quest to fetch a book that has the ability to send away the evil dead and help him get back to his own time. What ensues are some very funny scenes and a rather big battle at the end which is also rather funny, lets face it seeing a guy picking up obvious fake skeletons and acting like they are attacking is just humorous. Bruce Campbell is great in this movie, however no one else in the cast really sticks out all that much except for the main villain who also just happens to be Bruce Campbell. Still he carries this movie and he is enough for one funny action horror movie.

One aspect saves Army of Darkness from being ridiculous, and that is it's fully aware of it's own flaws. Sam Raimi is by my opinion a genius in every sense, and manages to turn the sometimes terrible special effects into a vital part of the movies sick dark humour. It's not bad, it's just not taking itself very seriously because that is the point! This movie is far from a low budget blunder. It's got a great plot, a great cast and it's got countless laughs. Also an option for two alternative endings, my favourite being a futuristic twist one that is also Sam Raimi's preferred conclusion.

''Gimme some sugar, baby.''

''There's something out there. That... that witch in the cellar is only part of it. It lives... out in those woods, in the dark... something... something that's come back from the dead.''

The lone survivor of an onslaught of flesh-possessing spirits holds up in a cabin with a group of strangers while the demons continue their attack.

Bruce Campbell: Ash

Sam Raimi went too far for the good reasons. He created an unbelievable and unforgettable work that has served as inspiration for many movies in recent years. The movie is easily one of the most visually stunning Horror movies of all time, for sure. Die hard fans of gore get an eye candy for an hour and a half. Raimi created a cult movie in all the sense of the world. "Groovy!". Evil Dead 2 will never bore you because in every scene theres a dystinctive feeling of uncertainty and that makes it even more compelling. There are no rules here, only chaos.
The plot is as scary as you let it be, but it's held in such a way that it isn't taken too serious. I mean, apparently demonic possession caused by the Necronomicon is something that happens in the real world not in a seperate plane of existence. Not exactly with that particular book but it can happen supposedly via satanic books and certain rituals. Raimi takes it to a different level of humour mixed with drench loving gore.

Bruce Campbell deserves a special mention as usual. He delivers a wicked, solid, and totally believable performance, which overshadows his previous film. Something you haven't seen before mainly because of the strange situations he goes through. His performance could be described as a solo act. Easily hands down, one of the best performances of any actor in a Horror movie. Also, one of the characters that suffers the most in any movie! Ash is beaten up by demons, humans, objects, etc. Even possessed creatures taunt him.

''Got you, didn't I, you little sucker!''

The gore here is gloriously give in spades. You get decapitations, mutilated bodies, a hand cut off (Then Possessed), bleeding demons, etc. Blood spread all over the cabin is the common denominator. One of the goriest movies OUT THERE!.
Watch Evil Dead II to witness one of the most creative, brave, and goriest movies of all time. It delivers something for everyone. It has action, gore, spectacular camera angles, and some action! Check out Ash V.S. possessed Henrietta.
Phrases like "join us!", "swallow this!", and specially "groovy!" will become part of your daily vocabulary.

The film is more of a remake than a sequel, recapping the events of the first film, dropping three characters, and generally picking up somewhere in the middle. For example in the original Evil Dead Ash stumbles upon the Book of the Dead, and he does so again in this movie. Many events are totally re-filmed as if they never occurred. It's a rare beast of a sequel – somewhere oddly in between continuation and smug self-parody.
I personally prefer the third Army Of Darkness if only because I find the horror funnier, a more epic film, and a bigger budget with wiser dialogue. Evil Dead II goes a bit too far in areas.
For Example: The dancing furniture is awful.

[Ash's Hand gains a life of it's own]

''Gimme back my hand... GIMME BACK MY HAND!

With Raimi apparently planning the three films to work directly as one continuous story, it could be quite easy for the second part to be completely at a loss to some if they haven't seen the first. To deal with this, Raimi felt the need to have a brief ten minutes at the beginning in which he explains the events of the previous film. Whilst this beginning is by no means as enjoyable as the rest of the film, it remains necessary and is a clever way of introducing newcomers to the situation at hand and poor Ash's position.

Raimi is part of what seems like an elite group of directors. Whilst some newcomers to that big chair behind the camera began working on television adverts, some of the most famous directors of the early twenty-first century began their careers making low budget films with unbelievable special effects and vast quantities of blood. Whilst Peter Jackson's earliest work includes the extreme Braindead(1992), Raimi began with this trilogy. It's quite tempting perhaps to compare and contrast just how much the directorial works of these two directors evolved. Both began with these wonderful films and eventually they both worked on huge blockbuster motion pictures (Raimi with the Spiderman films and Jackson obviously with the Lord Of The Rings trilogy). In a way it's worth wondering how the children who so adore the characters of those recent films might feel about Lionel from Braindead or Ash from this. They probably wouldn't understand.

However, no one can say this series lacks originality. Instead of presenting us with a banal representation of the original film, director Sam Raimi reunites with Campbell and creates a whole new beast – packed with excessive physical humour, self-parody, tongue-in-cheek humour, and what Campbell himself described as splatstick comedy. On top of that, Campbell is much better here than he was in the original.
Ash is still somewhat of a coward, but Campbell lends his character a great sense of irony here that if anything, only establishes Ash as one of cinema's most iconic characters.

Overall, Evil Dead II is a really fun ride, with a superior performance from Campbell. It may not be on the same level as the original in terms of horror or just general enjoyment, but it's still a blast. As Ash would say, ''Groovy, baby!''

''Let's head on down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch.''

''I know now that my wife has become host to a Candarian demon. I fear that the only way to stop those possessed by the spirits of the book is through the act of... bodily dismemberment.''

Five friends travel to a cabin in the woods, where they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons.

Bruce Campbell: Ash

While Evil Dead obviously was never in the running for an academy award, it has touched two generations of fans now in the last 35 years or more. It was made by college kids as nothing more than a B-movie/home made effort but it turned out to be one of the most original and gruesome movies in the last quarter century.

Evil Dead is a tale about 5 college kids taking a vacation in a secluded cabin among the woods somewhere in Michigan. During their stay they stumble upon the centuries old Necronomicon, the book of the dead. (Not to be confused with the book of the dead from The Mummy).
After stupidly reading from the book, the ancient evil the book possessed, comes to life and begins attacking the 5 kids (including one scene where a woman is raped by a tree) until they are either killed or possessed. One by one they are dispatched by the one remaining survivor named Ash and by daylight the evil is gone....or so we are led to believe.

This movie took the possession concept from The Exorcist to a brand state of mind. This was supposed to be an Amateur effort orchestrated by young students yet the special effects are not bad for 1981 and non-Hollywood standards. If you see this movie and not the next 2 in the series, its quite amusing to see Ash play the role of the normal, afraid everyday nobody as opposed to the hero he'd become. If you look at the movie from the perspective of it was a low budget flick run by unknown actors, actresses, directors, etc you can truly appreciate its lasting effects on the world and the sequels spawned from it.

''We're going to get you. We're going to get you. Not another peep. Time to go to sleep.''

The POV shots are used with such innovative bravado and technical efficiency. Shots used in the manner of Dario Argento. One of the first people to use the shaky Cam effect. The use of POV in Evil Dead would influence a number of film directors. Sam Raimi is one of the best American filmmakers when it comes to these specific shots.

Ash in the first Evil Dead is a tragic figure. Here he is a far cry from the heroic figure of Evil Dead 2(1987) and Army of Darkness(1991). Ash in Evil Dead is tormented by the loss of his friends and girlfriend. Ash is pretty much patterned after the main character of Sammo Hung's Encounters of the Spooky Kind. Ash is a simpleton who fights to survive against the demons that possess his friends.

One of the best elements of this movie is the subplot involving Ash and his girlfriend, Linda. Its this element as well as others that makes The Evil Dead(1982) my favorite of the trilogy. Bruce Campbell and Betsy Baker are wonderful in the scenes they do together. Its heartbreaking and sad to see Ash dismember and kill a woman he loved so much. The sequence where Ash gives Linda the necklace is one of the movie's lighter moments.
The humor is blended into the horror scenes without being overly ridiculous. Evil Dead is full of dark, gruesome humour that is both funny and scary. Mixing horror and humor is a tricky thing to pull off because there has to be a balance for the combo to work. The Evil Dead is successful in combining the two together in a combined effort. Fun to watch horror with funny proceedings and dialogue, as opposed to humour with unsuppressed gore.

''You will die! Like the others before you, one by one, we will take you.''

Notorious for the rape in the woods scene, Evil Dead becomes a daring picture at this point of the film. Scene like this separates the first from the next two as a masterful horror picture. Ellen Sandweiss is very brave in going through with this scene. A terrifying sequence to observe and watch. Sam Raimi reuses this scene in Evil Dead 2 without the unrivaled viciousness of the one here.
The gore here is fantastically displayed. For a low budget film the make up effects are impressive. Was not popular with the MPPA because of the extreme colour used to portray typical blood.
The filmmakers use a stylish and crude approach to make the gore scenes work. Joel Coen must have learned something about filming gore scenes from Evil Dead when he directed Blood Simple.

Unlike alot of other horror film examples, there is no sex scenes(Branch scene doesn't count). Which makes the film that bit more professional, although Raimi still flashed a girl topless just for laughs. Raimi tried to capture what real teenagers would do in a cabin miles from the nearest town, But when Bruce inhaled real marijuana smoke in front of the camera for a scene, he was totally senseless. But still the totally untrained actors tried there best to do every stunt, every emotion, everything that Raimi threw at them for as little pay as $100 a week. One of the hardest scene to shoot was the last. How are we to end this film with a good kick? how about the supernatural energy running through the house and into Ash. True non-acting locals were called in to do the sequence of doors, noises and Sam himself was behind the camera. He started at a shot of a leaf on the ground, then started running through the woods, through the back door, through the closed doors of the house, out the front door and straight into Bruce. Although there was a rumour that Sam did the whole scene on a motorbike because of the speed the camera seems to be going. The Evil Dead, a real good start for Bruce Campbell and for Sam Raimi if what abit dated and rough round the edges now, a true classic, for most, for its impact on low-budget film history.

''Now the sun will be up in an hour or so, and we can all get out of here together. You, me, Linda, Shelly. Hmm... Well... not Shelly, she? We'll all be going home together. Wouldn't you like to be going home? I bet you'd like that, wouldn't you? Scott?''

''My name is Robert Neville. I am a survivor living in New York City. I am broadcasting on all AM frequencies. I will be at the South Street Seaport everyday at mid-day, when the sun is highest in the sky. If you are out there... if anyone is out there... I can provide food, I can provide shelter, I can provide security. If there's anybody out there... anybody... please. You are not alone.''

Years after a plague kills most of humanity and transforms the rest into monsters, the sole survivor in New York City struggles valiantly to find a cure.

Will Smith: Robert Neville

One man who is immune against a deadly virus that has wiped out humanity tries to survive and find any remnants of humanity with his trusty canine pal Sam.

Will Smith who plays Robert Neville does his part. Although he's been in this kind of hero-type role previously. A slight nutty character.

''God didn't do this. We did!''

What a glorious first half of a film which spirals off yet still retains resonance.
A few scenes which were intriguing and provided scary atmospheric suspense were impressive. Reminiscent of silent Hill or Pulse. The night creatures look menacing although they could be something out of Harry Potter(Dementors) the way they do the lighting.

The look and feel of post apocalyptic New York is really a visual treat. The plastic covers over the buildings, blown bridges, grass growing everywhere...really added to the seriousness of the storyline.

''Come on, Sam. We gotta go''

His thoughts and delusions feel real and although humorous at times, underlined the fact that he is alone save his best friend Sam.
I can only put my self in his shoes to replicate his loneliness and sadness. It was gut wrenching to see him lose his best friend Sam and the way he chose to end her pain. That scene had me choking...

I didn't care much for the ending though. For those expecting to see a resident evil type movie, don't watch this. There is much more depth to this movie and it's definitely a serious thought provoking movie with bits of action thrown in.

My only gripe is the zombies are a little too powerful and intelligent for overheated creatures.
Effect wise it wasn't too bad but I feel I'm being kind as it wasn't perfect. Sounds, music and visual concepts were astounding.
Brilliant concept and starts of so compelling shame it's 2nd half is comprised of some sadness. Worth a watch.

''In 2009, a deadly virus burned through our civilization, pushing humankind to the edge of extinction. Dr. Robert Neville dedicated his life to the discovery of a cure and the restoration of humanity. On September 9th, 2012, at approximately 8:49 P.M., he discovered that cure. And at 8:52, he gave his life to defend it. We are his legacy. This is his legend. Light up the darkness.''

All positives aside, there are a number of key elements from the book that Legend virtually ignores:
The overall vampire legend itself, Neville's personal struggle to save his little family from the dust-borne plague, his undead wife returning to him; the daily vampire hunt, his former carpool buddy and neighbor, Ben Cortman, who has become his nightly nemesis and most importantly, the near fatal "stopped watch" incident, which even The Omega Man indirectly paid homage to. All of these items would have required the screenwriter and producer to do some actual writing, rather than letting the CGI guys take over the production.

The 1954 sci-fi/vampire novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson has now been filmed three times: as The Last Man On Earth in 1964 originally scripted by Matheson himself, as The Omega Man in 1971 without the vampire elements, and now with the original title and expensive sets and special effects. This time the seemingly sole survivor of the worldwide pandemic Robert Neville is played by Will who is an actor with real charisma and charm and considerable box office appeal who has beefed himself up for the role.
The principal weakness of the movie, however, is the realization of the surviving victims of the virus. The CGI characters are almost as silly as they are scary but, above all, they are presented as more cannibalistic monsters than human. The Omega Man handled these characters much better presenting them as sad as well as scary. The other serious fault is the lack of clarity in the narrative - at times, it is simply unclear what is happening and why and a longer director's cut would be welcome. Finally the references to Ground Zero and God may play well with US audiences but will not be so resonant to audiences elsewhere.

There were definitely some great parts, the cinematography was fantastic and the computer generated scenes of a dilapidated and seemingly uninhabited New York were amazing. It most certainly was scary on the dark scenes, although animation in daylight was appalling and not particularly impressive, in fact, it reminded me alot of the movie 28 Days Later but not it's equal by far. Smith once again proved himself a very capable and believable actor as said before. The first half is great, though the second will definitely leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.

''I can help. I can save you. I can save everybody.''

''The pain, so unexpected and undeserved had for some reason cleared away the cobwebs. I realized I didn't hate the cabinet door, I hated my life... My house, my family, my backyard, my power mower. Nothing would ever change; nothing new could ever be expected. It had to end, and it did. Now in the dark world where I dwell, ugly things, and surprising things, and sometimes little wondrous things, spill out in me constantly, and I can count on nothing.''

An undercover cop in a not-too-distant future becomes involved with a dangerous new drug and begins to lose his own identity as a result.

Keanu Reeves: Bob Arctor

Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly(2006) is a humanistic and undeniably heartbreaking adaptation of Phillip K Dick's novel. What works is the film's pre-occupation with the human condition; focusing on the emotional and psychological effects of substance abuse, relationships, and essentially, trust; or lack of trust.



The performances are wonderful. Keanu Reeves' portrayal of Bob/Fred is incredibly sensitive and thoughtful. His final scene in the field, picking a blue flower, showed what a subtle and textured actor he can be. Winona Ryder is also really moving as Donna, the object of Bob/Fred's desires. Every word homes in. She seemed to capture a sense of mystery, eternal sorrow, and confusion within the phrasing of her dialogue and the tiniest of exchanges with Keanu. The scene in which the couple argue about Donna's refusal of intimacy is excellent and the chemistry really tense. There's a wonderful sense of rhythm within the delivery, and the emotion is raw. It is a good comeback. As for Downey Jr and Harrelson; they work incredibly well, bouncing off one another with the air of camp, dry wit and fun. Blowing smoke rings, watching someone choke, freaking out about a nine speed bike and the state of the universe, are all delivered with conviction and strength. Downey's Barris is stern; but also a lot of fun. Whilst Harrelson really shines when utterly confused, stoned, and paranoid.

''Total total total totally total total... total providence.''

The animation is also truly beautiful. It is rich, and artistically vibrant. It works in the film's favour, conveying a sense of hyper-reality that is also embedded within every day life. It feels real, rather than detached or futuristic. We are engrossed, not removed from the story or its characters.
The animated overlay very clever too, especially that scramble suit, which conceals its wearer's identity.
Some really clever and funny scenes that amuse and seem totally pointless. Loving the characters having idea bubbles or Freck's suicide note with the alien, Freck holding Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead; A truthful, powerful testament and compliment to Philip K Dick. Amazing how their conversations always end up being from bicycle to silenced foiled guns to paranoia about someone being in their house.
There's a major twist and may take more than one viewing to appreciate the complex ending. So amazing when you piece it together. Richard Linklater did a wonderful job directing and executing this. It has become a Graphic novel that comes to life with artistic realism that conveys the druggy state of the movie's message.
The story runs at an exciting pace; keeping you on the edge of your seat to continue and uncover Bob Arctor's fate. Will he be arrested although he is taking surveillance of himself? Or will he be able to find a bigger fish to fry while making his cover and descent to hell mean something? The layers Linklater has sewn together here are all superimposed on each other to great effect.

The language has many quotable passages that you can almost feel are Dick's words; for this I commend Linklater for the courage to stick to the real heart of the story. I almost don't have to mention the roto-scoping effect used, similar to the director's previous gem Waking Life. Without the freedom animation allows, the movie could not have been as successful as it is. I praise all involved as this journey continues with its laughs and tears all culminating in the heartbreaking finale, that when looking back really is the only way it could have played out. Also, it was a very nice touch, before the credits, having Philip K. Dick's memoriam for all his friends that had died or suffered immensely from the effects of drugs. A Scanner Darkly tries to give meaning to their descent and a glimmer of hope for the future to one day rid itself of the voluntary plague of drugs represented by Substance D.

''What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly? Clearly or darkly? I hope it sees clearly, because I can't any longer see into myself. I see only murk. I hope for everyone's sake the scanners do better. Because if the scanner sees only darkly, the way I do, then I'm cursed and cursed again. I'll only wind up dead this way, knowing very little, and getting that little fragment wrong too.''

''I always believed that fear belonged to other people. Weaker people. It never touched me. And then it did. And when it touches you, you know... that it's been there all along. Waiting beneath the surfaces of everything you loved.''

A woman struggles to recover from a brutal attack by setting out on a mission for revenge.

Jodie Foster: Erica Bain

Are these urban revenge movies becoming popular again? There was a surge of them in the early 1970s Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Taxi Driver that had a genuine purpose, albeit an entirely commercial one. The streets at that time were filled with lead.
But things have died down mostly since then. The children causing much of that trouble are now in their 50s and 60s and although urban crime still trumps rural crime, but here we go again. First Death Sentence and now The Brave One. Jody Foster and her boyfriend are walking their dog through the tunnels of Central Park at night and are set upon by three tattooed Hispanics who bash the man's head in, beat hell out of Foster, and kidnap their dog. The boyfriend is, or was English/Indian, so that the audience is less able to turn this into a strictly ethnic confrontation. Foster manages to come by an illegal gun and, in essence, goes through the same developmental stages as Charles Bronson did in Death Wish, but less schematically. It deals more with Jody Foster's character and her relationship to the detective on the case, Terrance Howard.

The film can deal with Foster's anguish and her ambivalent relationship to Howard because Foster is a much better performer than Charles Bronson was, and because Terrance Howard matches her charismatic ways. The plot is more complex than Death Wish too which also becomes its downfall, aimed at a more adult audience, or at least a more thoughtful one. If, after the first vigilante shooting or two, Charles Bronson seems happy as a clam, waltzing around in his spacious flat with the apricot carpets, playing Herb Alpert at high gain on his stereo, Jody Foster slouches around, ridden with guilt, and we the audience squirm around in unrelenting boredom.
At first she screws up at work at a radio show, concerning very poetic stories about the city and its history. But when she begins to talk about the vigilante killings and interviews Detective Howard, she begins to get some really sicko calls along the lines of "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." She even tries to confess, but her attempts are foiled by the police bureaucracy.
Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly but it's been done countless times before.
Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.

''I'd say it was probably the fall that killed this guy... or it could be the crowbar embedded in his skull. I'd say it's about 50-50.''

The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.

Overall this movie is as predictable as it is unbelievable and ultimately questionable in its message. Jodie Foster plays that same role, that she has played two times already: a completely normal woman who is being driven over the edge when harm is done to her and her family (see Flightplan and Panic Room). It's time she tries new things for a change. Everything about The Brave One tastes stale. The movie is annoying in its superficiality and simplicity. One of these movies that will be forgotten in ten years time.

''There is no going back, to that other person, that other place. This thing, this stranger, she is all you are now.''

''I gotta wonder what kind of a bastard I must have been, that nobody was there to claim me. I mean, I am not the most charming guy in the world, so I've been told, but...nobody?''

A hard-living superhero who has fallen out of favor with the public enters into a questionable relationship with the wife of the public relations professional who's trying to repair his image.

Will Smith: John Hancock

''Call me an asshole one more time.''

The only reason I did not award this Hancock one star is that the underlying theme of redemption is a commendable goal. I can even honestly say the first third of Hancock was quite entertaining, but it begins to spiral downwards fast. For lack of a better word, the movie became just predictable and flat. And it's hard to imagine Will Smith in a sub standard flick.
John Hancock is far from your average superhero, but the trailer tells you this in itself. What the trailer doesn't tell you, is that after the rogue anti-hero drunkenly parades about as advertised, he has to develop a backbone plot and make the film go from a clever spin on a hot- ticket genre to an emotional action drama. There are entertaining and unique elements that make Hancock shine in ways I guess, but they end up secondary to a emotional occurrence and a two-faced plot concept.
It's easy to be deceived these days by the shear unruly star-power that is Will Smith, especially when he's attached to a project dealing with superheroes, a genre that has been a cash blockbuster vehicle. He's talented no matter what he does, and in that regard, Hancock is stupidly enjoyable. While I personally felt his character was too much of an a**hole as the script so frequently and unoriginally puts it, that doesn't mean Smith isn't good at it. He's just a great hero no matter the story or pile of rubbish he stars in.

To quickly summarize, Smith plays Hancock, a lonely, drunken jerk with Superman powers and a public approval rating of zero. When he saves Ray's (Jason Bateman) life, Ray offers his services as a P.R. consultant and the two work to change his image. Eventually, you get to Hancock's back story and some strange but obvious twists take the film down a different path that to explain would be a major spoiler.
So from the perspective of a producer that has a decent script with a highly marketable concept written by some nobodies and with a director (Peter Berg) attached whose best action credit is 2007's The Kingdom I would definitely want to sign someone to play Hancock who is going to guarantee me top spot at the box office. Well, result. Smith is such a proved commodity with an amazing streak of top first weekend box office spots that he could get any contract he wants and he should do that.

''People should love you. They really should, okay? And I want to deliver that for you. It's the least that I can do. You're a superhero. Kids should be running up to you, asking for your autograph, people should be cheering you on the streets...''

After Smith, the marks for Hancock are pretty much in the middle lane. The CGI and Berg's directing style is too sloppy for what should be a clean-cut summer blockbuster. His refusal to use any camera stabilizing device works for a few scenes, but most of the time it's just dizzying and the close-ups become dizzyingly obnoxious. The plot concept, which paints a picture of Hancock as a hero and then fills it in with the origin story later instead of the other way around, makes for an interesting affect, but instead of enlightening what we know about Hancock, it ends up taking the film in another direction entirely. While you might think this movie would leave you with themes about turning one's life around and becoming the best you can be, that gets glossed over and you're left stupefied.

Altogether it just feels that something is missing, the plot requires more action. It turns out that PR man's wife happens also to be a demigod, who used to be married to our hero, but had to distance herself from him because it was lethal for both of them. You see, they both lose their respective powers in each others presence, they are fatal catalysts to each other, an Achilles heel, a weakness.
So, the she-hero stays with the PR man, while Hancock will continue saving the world. In the mean time, we, in the comfort of our entertainment facilities, experience the sublime, squalid form of so called entertainment.
Let me answer the big questions in the following way. Suppose we view Hancock as a symbol, for example, as a symbol of America. The US saves the world by acting as world protector, unilaterally exercising its power, flying hither and dither (think Afghanistan, Iraq). US sticks bad guy's heads into bad guy's butts (think Abu Ghraib). The damage US inflicts onto 'rogue' nations, lost human lives are weighed against the potential good. Meanwhile, we experience the sublime on TV projected by CNN, comfortably resting on sofas and lazy-boy chairs with popcorn and beer.

''Your head is going up his ass, his head is going up his ass, and you get the short end of the straw, cause your head is going up my ass!''

I think, Vincent and Vince Gilligan could do much better with their plot by simply following major event of the latest US wars, using US = Hancock symbolism. And Will Smith? - yes, camera loves him it seems. But for me, it is a memory of Six Degrees of Separation that attracts me like a moth to the flame, to the cinema. It is regrettable, that after amassing such personal success, wealth and authority, he produces such low grade output.

Now, to answer the big question – Do I regret seeing this film? The answer is yes and no; and not because of the film itself, not because its entertainment value, nor because it made me better or relaxed me and helped me to get through the day. It made me realize yet again that star power and big budgets do not necessarily equal a film of any consequence, of quality and indeed depth and originality.

''Call me crazy one more time.''

''Now some of you might think that our loyal host intended this treasure for the coffers of Prince John, instead of to ransom the king- and you'd be right. But a strange thing happened. A change of heart overtook him in the forest and there it is safe and sound!''


When Prince John and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard's absence, a Saxon lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.

Errol Flynn: Robin Hood

Olivia de Havilland: Maid Marian

Another classic that I've watched so many times when i was little and growing up. Robin Hood played by Errol Flynn is a wonder to behold everytime you watch it.
He's got charisma, a flair for the dramatic and a real penchant for keeping you watching. He gives the whole film a huge boost.

Granted it's dated yes, but timeless yes also. It's of a bygone era when films had a quality lacking in today's cinema.

Going back to Errol Flynn, this guy was a legend in his time and he's amazing in this.
Olivia de Havilland also dazzles as Maid Marion and the Sheriff of Nottingham played by Melville Cooper is somewhere in between camp and jovial villainy.
Eugene Palette as the plump Friar Tuck is also a huge part of comic relief as is Little John played by Alan Hale. They really fit their roles perfectly.

The music well suited to the late 1930s, Warner Brothers going all out with this big budget retelling of the Legendary Robin Hood.
The last sword fight truly needs to be marveled at. Choreography wise it's aged well and still entertaining to watch.

An old favourite classic. Kevin Costner should have watched this!

''This is every shade of wrong.''

A murder mystery brings together a private eye, a struggling actress, and a thief masquerading as an actor.

Robert Downey Jr.: Harry Lockhart

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is set in LA, what transpires is, while escaping from the police after an unsuccessful robbery, the small time thief Harry Lockhart is accidentally submitted to an audition for a role of detective in a film, and invited to a party. He meets the homosexual private eye Gay Perry , who suggests him to participate of an investigation to develop his character. He also meets the gorgeous aspirant actress Harmony Faith Lane, and finds that she was a friend of his childhood for whom he had a crush. Harry and Perry get involved in an intricate murder case with many leads. With the support of Harmony, they find the sordid truth of the case.



Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a funny, black comedy yet violent, action movie with an original screenplay, where the lead character is actually the narrator of the events. Robert Downey Jr. is excellent in the role of the cop out Harry Lockhart and shows great chemistry with the delicious Michelle Monaghan, and with his gay partner Val Kilmer. The story in a chaotic result becomes involved with many subplot threads, but in the end all of them are satisfactorily resolved and concluded. The usually efficient police, at least in US orientated programs/series/Films, apparently non existent in Los Angeles, since there are countless car chases and shootings without any police involved.

A terrific opening credit sequence easily sets up the authenticity and originality of proceedings for a eagerly awaiting audience. In essence, these are the reasons why you need to see this roller coaster of comedy.
The razor sharp wittiness, shockingly fast-paced albeit hysterical dialogue, a pulp-fiction-esquire vibe, its pure cheesiness and the cynicism of a worn, aging paperback detective novel.

''Thanks for coming, please stay for the end credits, if you're wondering who the best boy is, it's somebody's nephew, um, don't forget to validate your parking, and to all you good people in the Midwest, sorry we said fuck so much.''

Got your attention yet? Alright, maybe an explanation of the seemingly simple plot is warranted. It begins with a ridiculously funny set up resulting in Downey's character being paired up with Kilmer to observe the latter in his job as a private detective. They hook up with a down-on-her luck actress who brings a case for the sleuths. This synopsis constitutes gross misrepresentation on my part as things get remarkably complex. How so? Well, even the lead the character (who also is purposefully pathetic as narrator) takes time out within the movie to remember where he is in telling the story. There are even snippets of dialogue where the characters attempt to fill in the gaps or actually remind themselves of what has happened thus far in the movie.

Downey, Kilmer and Monaghan are all caricatures drawn from popular references of literature, movies and art. All however, are larger than life, exhibit great chemistry and for a movie buff, it is heaven to witness the self referential exercises and hear the narrator shred every narrating convention applicable. Downey's performance is remarkable (neurotic, comic, vulnerable and charming). I have never seen Kilmer in such a well-defined, uproarious piece of work. Monaghan is also integral to the trio and shines exuding a brash, fighting and sexy appeal. She brought back fond memories of early Kathleen Turner and Rene Russo. The fact that her look screams Renee Zellweger, is not a bad thing either.

''Wow! I was glad you had a gun in there. For a second, I actually thought you could do that, like it was some big gay thing.''

Black became famous in the 1980s for writing the hit buddy movies: Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout and The Long Kiss Goodnight. As a first time director, he does well keeping the frenetic pace and allowing the audience to catch up only to get lost time and time again. The style is so disarmingly effective, that at times I shook my head in confusion or found my hands against my mouth, agape in shock. I also think that in creating such a brilliant script that Black may have blacklisted himself in Hollywood for mirroring its supposed fame and glamor and exposing its not too pretty side. His one-liners and connected sub-plots are not typical and Kilmer and Downey make magic with their banter and clinical delivery.
All the ingredients of a pulp-noir styled effort can be found, even employing a structure of chapter-type headings within the movie. Parallel story lines unfold and given plot assumptions are turned over, always with achingly funny results. Even the clichés are clever e.g. a tough guy predictably crashes through a glass table, or body after body turns up, to haunt the characters.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is the most obvious of all Shane's self-referential films, because it speaks directly to its audience.

"I saw the last Lord of the Rings, I'm not going to have like seventeen different endings."

But balancing a self-referential narrative in a film like this almost seems a risky thing to do in the post-Tarantino era – the era in which self-reference became hip and cool, but most importantly: financially profitable for the studios. The production companies dished them out and soon the entire concept was burnt out and boring. The smug, self-aware attitude of flicks like Boondock Saints became tiring. But it's only fitting that the father of the genre should be the one to resurrect it.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has the best dialogue I've heard in a movie for ages, and the brilliance of it is the fact that it doesn't become overbearingly self-conscious: it's amiable and entertaining.
The film's title is a reference to another movie, by the way. Pauline Kael supposedly saw the term in Italy, where it was used to describe the James Bond character. It effectively sums up exactly what Hollywood wants in their movies – girls, sex, violence. Result, ''Kiss kiss, bang bang''. Black is back. Black is back doing what he does best.

''I tell him about destiny; he's shaking his head. About dreamgirls; he doesn't care. I mention the underwear thing? He has a *fucking conniption*. And you? How 'bout it, filmgoer? Have you solved the case of the - the dead people in L.A.? Times Square audiences, please don't shout at the screen, and stop picking at that, it'll just get worse.''

''Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if it does, maybe I am.''

In the year 2035 a techno-phobic cop investigates a crime that may have been perpetrated by a robot, which leads to a larger threat to humanity.

Will Smith: Del Spooner

At the core of I, Robot beats the soul of Asimov as his 3 laws regarding robots are sacredly left intact and the film does abide by them. Also a lot of the characters have similar names to the people in the text. It is almost like taking Sci-Fi and some of the now classic characters and setting them in a new background of the future. The core is left intact but in some ways it has been updated and refreshed.
The story, special effects and extremely zealous direction, however, all seem to be brought forth by the collaborators who cobbled this film together. There are influences of 80s Sci-Fi greats, such asRobocop, Short Circuit, Blade Runner and Total Recall. Each of these robot influences echo back to what makes I Robot so intriguing, a joy to watch and memorable.
The philosophy behind the premise involved is remarkably logical actually. Far too often in Hollywood the combination of philosophy and action is ridiculously unbalanced. Whether in the second Matrix film where they stupidly fitted a complex and confusing philosophy into one ten minute period, or in other styles, far too often the action is either corrupted by the philosophy or vice versa. Therefore it is actually quite a pleasant surprise for a film to be so exciting, yet so logical.
Thanks to the original writings of Isaac Asimov, the story of I,Robot works well because the philosophy is an already recognizable one. Asimov's theories on artificial intelligence have been mentioned in countless different films, but few have truly considered the implications of the rules and how you interpret them. For this in itself, I, Robot deserves a lot of praise.

In terms of acting, I, Robot is a surprising experience. When Will Smith first wakes up with his hat on, the first question is how long until he really begins to grate. Amazingly though, like the product placements, after the first twenty minutes, Smith really begins to fit into his role and provides an appealing performance as the pessimistic Spooner.
Smith is also assisted by a decent supporting cast. Using the same technology as was used for Gollum in "Lord Of The Rings" Alan Tudyk is brilliant as Sonny the robot with emotions and a heart of gold. The highlight of the supporting stars though is the always brilliant James Cromwell as the deceased creator of robots everywhere. Cromwell has made some excellent career choices over the years and once again he shines throughout.

''Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?''

''Can you?

Sure the story does have a lot of sci-fi influences and clichés aside from robot films including Star Wars and Planet of the Apes but don't these benchmark sci-fi films influence everything coming down the turnpike these days. It even has the classic sci-fi cliché of the social outcast claiming there is an invasion coming except no one believes him. But that is not what should bring us into the film.
Credit is due to director Alex Proyas because it is his magic as a filmmaker that holds this film together. He knows where to play it straight and where to let his lead actor bring on the charm. Also you really have to admire the man's technical ability. His brilliant inter-laying of robots into the photography is astounding. Proyas is an A-list director in the making and I, Robot shows that he can deliver a big Hollywood film.
I also give credit to Will Smith who starts out being very unapproachable with his character but as the film goes we really become fond of his hero. Smith's Spooner does have a lot of his previous sci-fi heroes inter-laced into Spooner but it comes off as more of a homecoming than an annoyance. In some ways I think Proyas had something to do with that especially in the chase down scene towards the beginning of the film. It almost felt like Men in Black all over again.

Although you get a very eerie feeling watching in the middle of this movie, when you are not watching some debatable acting, about the fate of humanity. This is a society that is hell bent on robots. Robots are everywhere in the future. They encompass every aspect of our lives, from our personal lives to our business lives. They are an integral part of everyday society in a way that in present day few can comprehend. When the movie talks about how robots are so integrated in society it really made me think, as well as a few people I was seeing this movie with. I told my friend in the theater 'this is freaky!' In this film they talked about computers shutting down libraries, about environmental degredation affecting society, and other global issues that affect us. The movie has a distinct tone of Asimov's time, as there is an implied trust in society that obviously does not exist in modern day America, as everyone does not think these robots pose any danger to anyone, and Will Smith's character is one of the outcasts, as he does not trust robots at all.. And it was, when this movie was a true science fiction film talking about technology and how it affects society this to me was Asimov's true vision of his work, not some silly Hollywood crap full of chiches and stupidity.

''Look, I understand you have experienced a loss, but this relationship just can't work. I mean, you're a cat. I'm black. I'm not going to be hurt again.''

But there are some bright spots in the cast. Bruce Greenwood plays Lawrence Robertson, the head of US Robot, the corporation that produces these robots.
Chi McBride is excellent as John Burgin, Will Smiths boss who in understanding but always comprehensive of Will Smith's fear of robots. James Cromwell is also excellent as Dr. Alfred Lanning, the creator of these robots who is recently deceased, under mysterious circumstances, which is the centerpiece of the plot. Although this is a very fascinating film in many respects was unhappy with the finale. The finale was a typical slam-bang action thriller that might as well have been an alternative ending to The Matrix. This I think was nothing short of an insult to great science fiction, and aside from the bad acting is an insult to great science fiction work that is true science fiction instead of an excuse for an action film.

To further add to the concept of a different time I get the feeling that Del Spooner, Will Smith's character is a comparison to McCarthy agendas and philosophies, a reference to an earlier time as mentioned. In McCarthy America was supposed to be scared of an enemy, and those that were not scared of this enemy were branded evil and part of the problem, which was in those days communism. Here paranoia is considered evil, and if you are paranoid of robots then you are branded an outcast in a McCarthy-like manner. This was one of the most fascinating aspects of the film, giving it a Good Night and Good Luck vibe, and one of the high-points of this film's writing style. The bottom line of this movie is that a good substantive film on the fate of man was sandwiched by a film full of Hollywood clichés. What could have been one of the best science fiction films of a generation has turned out to be a film with as many equally bad points as there are good points. This film is also entirely too reliant on CGI.

A key factor in the story is the character of Sonny, a robot with very human traits and even learns how to wink. Sonny is aware that Dr. Lanning built him for a purpose, but he cannot figure out what the purpose is, even if he somehow dreams about it. Eventually, Spooner realizes that Dr. Lanning created Sonny as a clue, like a Sherlock Holmes chapter.
The design and effects people did a great job in coming up with a sympathetic, innocent-looking robot in Sonny who everyone would think is a villain but actually develops a distinct emotional connection with Calvin and Spooner.

[sneezes]

''Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.''

The film is actually a dazzling combination of high-tech action flick, a computer generated special effects sci-fi movie, and a murder mystery. The sequence where Spooner is attacked by a phalanx of robots in a highway is quite mind-boggling. But of course, you have to suspend your disbelief all throughout to be able to fully enjoy the movie. The scary climax shows Spooner, Calvin and Sonny in an action-filled final showdown with rampaging robots in the mammoth USR headquarters, a glass and metal structure that is a character in its own right.

Director Proyas succeed in creating a believable futuristic world populated by robots. It's different from the cinematic modernized environment of "The Fifth Element" where cars can fly but more like just a realistic progression from our real world. What makes the story even more thrilling is the fact that it takes place just as the latest robotic model, the NS-5 automated domestic assistant (where Sonny belongs), is about to be mass marketed to the public. They are designed to replace earlier models who are more loyal to man. It turns out they are the ones with the mean streak in them.

Will Smith gives a witty portrayal of Spooner, delivering his clever one-liners with enough wit and aplomb. Bridget Moynahan gives good support as the addled Dr. Calvin, James Cromwell is very persuasive as the late Dr. Lanning, even in the scenes where he is just shown in holograms, and Shia LaBeouf shines in one of his early roles.
But the real stars of the film are the designers and technicians who came up with the robots and a unique visual style that gave Chicago a new breathtakingly beautiful metropolitan skyline and landscape.

I, Robot overall seems closer to The Crow than to Dark City. There's definitely truck loads more style than deep thought provoking substance here to contemplate and fathom.
Proyas isn't afraid to cater to the audience's demand for a video game paced action scene every 8 minutes or so. But I suppose that's the price of working with such a large budget and such a skilled cast and crew. The effects work in this film is really astounding, although these days that's getting to be almost a matter of course. Proyas mixes the action with just enough ideas to create a movie that is less than an embarrassment to Asimov's original. The closing shots with the robot on the hill have a weird quality to them and a very ambitious idea behind them that redeems the affair also to some extent from the rather silly fight scenes that immediately precede them. In the end, I'm surprised by how good it ended up being and still hoping that Alex Proyas has more great sci-fi to bring us in the promising future.

''As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.''