Five Milestones in TMNT History Fans Should Celebrate

Check out my latest article on cinemablend.com about everybody's favorite turtles. You can find it here.

Review: The Possession [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from: Cinemablend.com)

Check out my review for The Possession here.

Review: Total Recall [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from: cinemablend.com)

Here's my review of the recent Total Recall. That movie is balls. Check out my review here.

Review [Blu-Ray]: The Astonishing X-Men: Unstoppable

(Image taken from Cinemablend.com) It's decent, but I don't know if it's worth a purchase. See my review for the disc here.

Review: Safe

(Image taken from cinemablend.com)

Hey, all. Here's my review of the movie Safe on DVD. Check it out here.

Review: The Muppets [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from: cinemablend.com)

Here's a review of the Muppets movie on Blu-Ray. Check it out here.

Review: Biutiful

(Image taken from cinemablend.com)

Inarritu’s 21 Grams and Babel were way too long. His latest film, Biutiful, is also too long, but at least it only follows one character so it’s easier to digest. I wouldn’t say that it’s as good as Babel, it’s just a little easier to follow. There’s still way too much going on, though, and it’s also way too depressing for its own good. Can Inarritu make anything other than melodramatic, existential think-pieces? After watching his last three pictures, I’m starting to think he can’t.

The Movie: Three and a half stars out of five

I’m not really sure if the title of this movie is meant to be ironic or not, as I didn’t see anything all that beautiful about it. Instead, I saw a lot of moping around and death. Is the single moment in the film where the family smiles at the dinner table while eating melted ice cream supposed to be beautiful? Or how about the time Javier Bardem hugs his mullet-topped son and kisses him on the forehead? I don’t know, maybe I’m just not built for these art house films. The one thing I do know, though, is that the acting throughout is impeccable. From Javier Bardem’s Oscar-nominated turn as a dying dad trying to make things right, to his bipolar wife, played by the strangely beautiful Maricel Alvarez, everybody in this film does a great job of portraying their characters. If only the movie could be as good as the actors then I think we’d have a modern-day masterpiece on our hands.

The story follows Uxbal (Bardem), a father of two who’s been diagnosed with cancer. He also works in the underbelly of the city, co-running a group of Africans and Asians in counterfeit street-sale rings. He also has a bipolar ex-wife who he’s still in love with and trying to help. Oh, and he can also talk to the dead. So yeah, there are way too many plots going on here. What makes matters worse is that each story on its own could make for a beautiful and moving picture, but Inarritu, in what seems to be his MO these days, overstuffs the story. It’s like watching all the cast members of Babel fit into Javier Bardem’s shoes. Surprisingly, he can actually pull it off, but the film doesn’t seem worthy of his talents. It doesn’t seem worthy of any of the actors' talents, for that matter, because as a cohesive and dramatic story, it falls on its face.

That’s not to say that it’s bad. In fact, I’d say that for a good portion of the first half, I loved it. I could truly feel the remorse in Uxbal’s eyes when he received the news from the doctor that he was going to die. And I grieved right along with him when thinking about everything that he still had to accomplish before he died, like providing a better life for his children than the one that his father left him. That part of the movie, I get. But the rest of it is just too damn much. It becomes a slog after awhile, and it’s too artsy for its own worth. For example, when I first started reading about the movie last year, I was interested to hear that there was a sort of Ghost Whisperer aspect to it where Uxbal could communicate with the dead. But when placed in the actual film itself, it just doesn’t fit. Or maybe it fits too well. I don’t know. The film is certainly a slow meditation, but with so much going on, it’s just hard to watch it with one specific narrative thread in mind. Again, I really want to know what the hell is supposed to be so beautiful in this movie, and why the picture is called that. Did I miss something here? I don’t think so, but with a story that doesn’t successfully bring itself together, it’s a little hard to say. Broken up for its parts, it’s an excellent film, but as a whole, it’s a long and drawn-out mess. Maybe you’ll like it, or maybe you’ll feel the same way I did, but one thing’s for certain. If you like watching great acting, then it’s going to be hard to find a better film than this. Few actors can play broken, dragging-their-feet men like Javier Bardem. So watch it for the acting. Just don’t expect the story to be as good.



The Disc: Three stars out of five

Biutiful is already too long, so thankfully, there’s no commentary on this disc. If you’re a fan of the film, though, you might miss that. So I’m telling you now, if you’re hoping for commentary, there isn’t any. Instead, we get “Behind Biutiful: Director’s Flip Notes.” Much like the film itself, it’s all too self-absorbed, and I’m pretty sure I like Inarritu even less now. He speaks in a poetic, the-world-is-filled-with-wonders and everything-is-important kind of way, and it’s annoying. No wonder his films are so maudlin.

“Beautiful Crew” is actually the only upbeat piece on the disc. It features pictures of everybody from the production team to the film’s caterers while catchy Spanish music plays in the background. I actually watched it twice it was spliced together so well. I seriously think it’s the best thing on the entire disc. It actually made me smile. I wish some of that positive energy could show up in the actual movie. There’s also the theatrical trailer on the disc and “Interviews with Cast and Crew.” This last feature again includes a few of the dour faces in the movie just talking about their roles, and it really makes you want to slit your wrists. Overall, the special features aren’t going to sway you to appreciate the film more. But if you already appreciate it, I guess they’re okay. They’re nothing worth buying the movie over, though.

Biutiful Details
Length: 147 min
Rated: R
Distributor: Roadside Attractions
Release Date: 2011-05-31
Starring: Javier Bardem, Maricel Alvarez, Hanaa Bouchaib, Guillermo Estrella
Directed by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Produced by: Inarritu, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo Del Toro, Fernando Bovaira, Sandra Hermida, Jon Kilik, Ann Ruark
Written by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Armando Bo, Nicholas Giacobone
Visit the Biutiful Official Website

Review: The Manchurian Candidate [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from cinemablend.com)

The original Manchurian Candidate, in hindsight, is actually a semi-prescient movie, what with the assassination of John F. Kennedy a year after its release. So, as an historical milestone, it’s definitely up there with films that you need to see if you’re into such things. But it’s also a masterful picture that deserves to be seen by anybody who loves cinema in general. That said, skip the decent 2004 remake with Denzel Washington and stick with this one, as it definitely holds up even today. Oh, and Frank Sinatra really can act. But he can’t do karate.

The Movie: Four and a half stars out of five

Brainwashing, McCarthyism, assassination, mommy drama, a love story…jeez, there are so many threads going on in The Manchurian Candidate you would think it would get lost in its own ambitious storytelling. Thankfully, this classic film from the 1960s, based on the book by Richard Condon, remains enthralling and intelligible throughout, making it one of the best, and most revelatory, films of that decade. It contains great acting, good pacing, and a masterful script that stays focused throughout and very rarely lets you down.

To describe the plot of The Manchurian Candidate would require several tangents, as there’s an interesting story for each of its characters throughout, so I’ll just give you the gist of it all. During the Korean War, a bunch of GIs are captured and forced to undergo brainwashing treatments by the Communist party. Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey) is the key member of this brainwashing procedure and is turned into an assassin who mentally goes AWOL whenever he sees the Queen of Diamonds. This is all because he was programmed to kill and forget after he sees this card. The story then introduces a web of deceit involving the man’s mother (played beautifully by Angela Lansbury), who seems to play a bigger role in all of this than you would suspect. Now, that’s a very, very poor retelling of the story, because it doesn’t even introduce the headliner of this film, Frank Sinatra, who plays the man who uncovers all the lies. But what I just told you was definitely the most interesting element of the film. Though The Manchurian Candidate is great throughout, there are definitely parts that are more fascinating than others, and the aspect of the brainwashing is the most interesting in the entire film. The uncovering of said brainwashing, though, is just not as good.

The brainwashing plotline opens up so many different avenues that it’s impressive that it all comes together so seamlessly. One thing I absolutely love about The Manchurian Candidate is that it’s a satire that takes itself seriously, but it doesn’t come off as forced or corny. This is mainly because of the McCarthy character, John Iselin (James Gregory), who has all of the bombast of Joe McCarthy himself. This part of the movie, the rising to power of a man set to destroy America, only works because similar events happened in American history. People were blacklisted all the time back then and were proclaimed to be Communists when they really weren’t. It’s a subplot that weaves in brilliantly with the main story, making it disturbingly humorous when situated inside the rest of the pitch-black plot.

Janet Leigh's character does drag The Manchurian Candidate down somewhat, as the love story is a bit slow. If there’s any part of the film that I’d chop out completely, it’s this one, as it doesn’t seem entirely necessary. Also, there’s a pivotal scene in the movie where Frank Sinatra does karate. It’s been said that it’s the first fight scene ever in American cinema to feature martial arts, and it shows, because it is as stiff and comical as a Captain Kirk battle on some alien planet. But besides those two nitpicks, The Manchurian Candidate is a phenomenal picture and I highly recommend it. It’s one of the movies that I’m happy to revisit every couple of years or so.

The Disc: Three stars out of five



It’s funny, with all the conversion of movies to Blu-ray these days, it almost doesn’t make sense for some of these older films to be converted. The two main purposes of Blu-ray, by my understanding, are to put more space on the disc and to improve the visual quality of the film. Older movies such as The Manchurian Candidate definitely don’t provide enough of the latter to make it worth the purchase if you already own it on DVD, or for that matter, VHS. I mean, it looks alright on Blu-ray, but it’s definitely not the kind of film that I would recommend you rush to get for the picture quality that you’re going to see on your high-def TV. It’s not Avatar, after all. Just a thought.

As for the special features, well, they’re really not all that special. There’s a commentary by director John Frankenheimer, but half the time he’s silent and admiring his own film. There are interesting tidbits, though, such as the fact that some of the scenes involving James Gregory’s McCarthy character included ad-libbed speeches. Other than that, it’s mostly just the director talking about camera shots and how much Sinatra wanted to be in the movie. Plus, I’m pretty sure it’s the same commentary already used on the DVD edition of the film since Frankenheimer is now dead. Pass, it’s nothing special.

The “Exclusive interview with Frank Sinatra, George Axelrod, and John Frankenheimer” is also from the DVD edition, so it’s nothing new. Nor is it too interesting. Frank Sinatra was very good in this film, but I don’t think he deserves the praise that the writer and the director bestow upon him in this featurette. The “Queen of Diamonds Featurette” has Angela Lansbury, who doesn’t look a day over 65, talking about her role as the mother in this film. It’s probably the most interesting special feature on here, and it’s fascinating to learn just why she took the now iconic role. “A Little Solitaire Featurette” is another feature that’s not all that special, but it does talk about the relevance of the film as a historical document of what was to come with Kennedy’s assassination. “How to Get Shot” is a few minutes of Lansbury talking about exactly that -- how to act like you’re getting shot. The “Phone Call” feature is -- I’m not even joking -- a phone ringing during an interview and George Axelrod making a joke about it. Little wonder that it isn’t even mentioned on the back of the box. The original trailer is also on here, and it’s pretty ridiculous in that you-gotta-love it, '60s style of trailers. “If you miss the first five minutes…”

Overall, the special features are okay, but nothing worth splurging over for the Blu-ray edition if you already have The Machurian Candidate on DVD.

The Manchurian Candidate [Blu-ray] Details
Length: 126 min
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: MGM Home Entertainment
Release Date: 2011-04-14
Starring: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh, Angela Lansbury, James Gregory, Leslie Parrish
Directed by: John Frankenheimer
Produced by: George Axelrod
Written by: George Axelrod

Review: Blue Valentine [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from cinemablend.com)

Blue Valentine is a movie you have to see twice to fully appreciate. The nuanced performances by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, which earned her a Best Actress nomination, I might add, are great, of course. But they’re all the better when you watch it a second time and realize that half the time, they weren’t even really acting at all. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams were in love.

The Movie: Four and a half stars out of five

When I originally saw Blue Valentine in the theater last year, I wasn’t all that impressed. Sure, the movie was pretty good and slightly depressing, but some critics were hailing it as the best picture of the year, with others saying that Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling delivered the best performances of their lives. But to be completely honest with you, when I initially saw it, all I kept thinking was, "Is this the same movie that all the critics are raving about?" I thought the movie was just alright, nothing all that special, and that the critics were wrong yet again. But no, after a second viewing of the film, I realize that the critics weren’t wrong, after all. I was the one who was wrong. And I think the big misunderstanding was all because I bought into to the hype and believed what I wanted to believe the film was actually about. What I was expecting at the time was a loud and explosive film, full of screaming and arguing and graphic sex. And while some of that is actually in there, what I got instead was a very subtle film full of deep emotions and lingering scenes of a hopeful past that these two love birds once had. It’s really a beautiful film, made all the more tragic because it feels so real at the onset of their relationship. I didn’t get that out of the film the first time I saw it, but I do now. And damn, does it sting.

The story is about a married couple on the brink of divorce. Other stories have been told like that in the past, with Revolutionary Road being the first that comes to mind. But the difference between that movie and this one, or any movie and this one for that matter, is that Revolutionary Road felt very Hollywood, while this film doesn’t. This film feels genuine and real, and I think a huge reason for that is because it was genuine and real. Both Gosling and Williams spent years developing their characters and falling in love, and the early scenes of their relationship, which are definitely the most indelible and sweet in the entire picture, resonate the most because they remind us of what it first felt like to fall in adult love.

Adult love, of course, is very different from young love because there’s more at stake with adult love, what with a woman’s biological clock ticking and hopeless feelings that true love may never truly present itself. But then love does present itself, and it’s like nothing that you could have ever imagined as a kid, and that dangerous and wonderful spark is definitely here in this film. From the moment that Gosling meets Williams in an old folks' home and won’t let her leave without getting a date, to the moment that they first say they love each other on a bus. These scenes just feel so real and personal to me. I’ve never been a mack-daddy like Gosling, but that look in Michelle Williams’ eyes when you can see that she likes him, too, is just so wonderful to watch. It shows a connection that just can’t be faked or played up for Hollywood. This is as personal as it gets when it comes to filmmaking. This, my friends, is true art.

If there’s any complaint I have with the film, though, it’s that the break-up scenes don’t feel as real as the scenes when they’re falling in love. Maybe it’s because I’m not at that point in my relationship yet, and hopefully never will be, but it doesn’t seem as true to life as their initial pairing does. Yes, their crumbling marriage is often shown for ostensibly petty reasons, and that part feels genuine. But some of it just feels forced, like the scene at the end where there’s no turning back. Nowhere in the film did it look like they had it that bad, and so I can’t really believe that it couldn’t be patched up with a little more work and tolerance. Maybe I’m watching it wrong and it’s really a cautionary tale for young people not to get married so young, I don’t know. But any married couple that I’ve seen stick it out through some pretty hard times wouldn’t be so willing to split just because they didn’t feel the passion that they once had. They’d work it out and push on, possibly into a life of mediocrity, but they’d do it for the kid, and by God, they love their kid in this movie. Love her to freaking death.

Perhaps a true break-up movie can’t really be made unless a true break-up was actually occurring in those actors’ real lives. I’m not sure which would be sadder, though, the fact that it was happening in real life, or the fact that we were watching it for pleasure. Either way, I’m a little happy that their break-up didn’t feel as real as the love that they shared throughout the rest of the picture. That might have been too unbearable to watch. And thankfully, this film is quite watchable. A great movie all around that you should see and pick it up, even if parts of it will break your heart.



The Disc: Five stars out of five

A large part of the reason I appreciate the film so much now is actually because of the stellar commentary, where we learn from the director, Derek Cianfrance, and the co-editor, Jim Helton, just how real the performances really were. The two obvious friends talk about how this movie took forever to make (over a decade!), and in how many scenes Gosling and Williams were told to throw away the script and just act from the heart. From that point of view, it makes it all the more special and sentimental to me. The commentary alone is worth giving this disc five stars.

But wait, there’s more! The disc also includes deleted scenes that genuinely feel like a day in the life of Gosling and Williams. Sure, some of the scenes, such as Gosling driving around in a truck with a co-worker and talking about infidelity, wouldn’t fit at all in the film. But they definitely expand the world of these characters, and they’re just about as perfect a snapshot into people’s everyday lives as you can get. These deleted scenes are perfect if you truly loved the film.

There’s also “The Making of Blue Valentine,” which is okay but not great, because many of the things discussed in the commentary are touched on here as well. Gosling and Williams do make an appearance to talk about what it was like getting into their roles, so that’s interesting. These two sure do know how to method act. And finally, there are actual “Home Movies” by Gosling and Williams and the daughter in the film. And they seriously are actual home movies, as the house they lived in the film was rented out and they stayed there for a month, patching together a history and filming it. Special features don’t get much better than these. Great additions to an already great film. Pick it up. Now.

Review: Thor: God of Thunder

(Image taken from: cinemablend.com)

Is Thor for the Wii a great game? No, of course it isn't. We already knew that. It’s a movie tie-in game, and movie tie-in games, besides The Chronicles of Riddick are notoriously bad. You can count on it. But is Thor for the Wii at least a good game? Well, yeah, I’ll give it that, as Sega has managed to make a movie tie-in game that doesn’t fall into awful territory. It might be repetitive as all hell and sometimes even annoying with its “epic” boss encounters that you’ll encounter more than once, but I’ll say that Thor is a decent title. It definitely could have been worse.

And the reason why it doesn’t suck is because Thor, like Ghost Rider before it is a God of War rip-off. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If there’s any franchise worth ripping off, it’s GOW, as there’s just so many different directions that you can take it in. Thor for the Wii, unfortunately, doesn’t take it in all that many directions, as bosses get repeated, enemies get recycled, and a lot of the territories look the same. That said, there’s enough variety in this game with the progressing events that take place that most of it is forgivable. Most of it, I said.

The story involves Loki tricking his brother Thor into a world of trouble because that’s what Loki does. But the story can be put to the side. Personally, Thor has never been one of my favorite Marvel characters, but I would think that he has a bigger rough gallery than is presented in this game. Aside from the bosses, you face very similar foes that can mostly be dispatched by just tapping the attack button over and over again. There are other attacks available that can cut through the monotony, but there actually might be too many attacks, as you’re sometimes given so many different commands that you forget special attacks in key moments when you need them the most. But the moves are at least all there, like lightning attacks and slamming the ground with Thor’s mighty hammer, Mjollnir, so you definitely feel like the God of Thunder (And, as I mentioned earlier, like the God of War, too, what with defeating the seemingly endless waves of enemies before you can progress to the next section).

The combat system is based on combos, which you can link together to create even stronger magical attacks. The combo system is interesting in that you can continue with them even after you’ve been knocked down if you’re quick enough to leap right back into battle. The game may consist of a whole lot of button pounding, but the combos add a bit of strategy, especially with the boss battles where you can get creamed if you continue the same strategy of just tapping the attack button in close quarters. There are also some flying sections where you can shoot lightning and deflect projectiles to send them back at who fired at you, which is similar to Kratos’ Golden Fleece. But the hit detection in this game is a little off, which leads to it feeling more like luck than skill. Overall, Thor for the Wii is a decent title but it’s nothing memorable. If you like the comic or movie, then you won’t feel like you’ve wasted your money if you purchase this game. If you like, either, I said. If you don’t, then you’ll probably just peg it off as another generic GOW clone, so only pick this up if you’re a fan of the Son of Odin.

Now, the DS version of the game, which I was also sent a copy of, is a whole different story. Relying on both screens for combat, Thor for the DS is a 2D side-scroller that also relies on combos, but in a far more interesting way. Thor has a wide-arsenal of techniques like hurling his hammer and shooting out lightning, but it just seems to work better in 2D. I feel like this game is just superior to the Wii version. The story isn’t anything to write home about and it’s also about Loki deceiving his brother, but ripping apart columns and picking up baddies, only to hit others with them, is a total blast that harkens back to the good old days when beat-em-up’s were actually fresh.

br> With both screens to play on, Thor can jump to either screen and take out his foes in a variety of ways, by hammer or by picking up objects in the level, including other bad guys, and slamming them into each other. The only problem that I have with the game is that it may be even more repetitive than its next-gen brethren. But again, Thor just seems to work better in 2D. So add an extra half star for the DS version if you plan on getting it. It’s better that the Wii version, but it’s not a massive leap or anything like that. By Odin’s beard, they’re decent! And for movie-tie in games, that’s actually quite an accomplishment.



Players: 1
Platform(s): Wii (Reviewed) Playstation 3, X-Box360, Nintendo DS (Reviewed)
Developer: Wii (Red fly Studios) Nintendo DS (WayForward)
Publisher: Sega
ESRB: Wii (Teen) Nintendo DS (E10)
Rating: Three stars out of five

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

(Image taken from: Cinemablend.com)

Somehow, I don’t know how, I’ve now seen all three of the Narnia movies without any real enthusiasm to see any of them. And while this third film in the series may not be as surprisingly entertaining as the first movie, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it’s definitely better than the atrocious sequel, Prince Caspian. That’s not saying much, and I don’t recommend this movie to anybody over 10.

The Movie: Two stars out of five

All throughout watching The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I couldn’t stop thinking, "Man, this movie should be awesome." There’s a minotaur on a boat (I’m on a boat!), a dragon, and a nasty-looking sea serpent, but even with all those, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader gets an emphatic thumbs down from me. And the problem with it is the same problem that I’ve had with all of the Narnia pictures; namely, that the people making them refuse to paint them darker and make them more adult. Yes, I know, this isn’t The Lord of the Rings, but it doesn’t have to be that dark. Still, couldn’t it be just a shade darker? I’m not even asking for that much here, people, just tone down the colors a little bit, please. Thank you.

Essentially, though, what’s always bothered me about this series is the fact that it’s stuck to its colorful aesthetic and preachy messages of faith for far too long. And the message of Christianity seriously needs to stop being crammed down my throat. I mean, it’s like they’re not even trying to be covert anymore about this being a religious picture. In one scene, a mouse named Reepicheep tells the youngest member of the Pevensie clan, Lucy, that “We have nothing if not belief.” I mean, jeez! My fiancé and I rolled our eyes at this moment and let out a collective groan. And we’re both church-goin’ Christians! And if you make the Christians groan, that’s pretty bad.

But Christianity and the Narnia films go hand in hand, so that’s not the problem. Just because the films are Christian based, that doesn’t mean they have to be so safe and PG. I never really feared if any of the characters were going to die or not, because if they did, they’d probably just end up in the lion god (Or just plain God, really) Aslan’s Heavenly kingdom. It detracts from the stakes of the film, and it has since the very first picture. Why couldn’t it all just be a bit more dangerous and uncertain like real life is? That, I think, would actually make for a pretty cool Narnia movie -- a film that wasn’t so sure of itself, and which might even question Aslan’s true nature. I’m sure fans of the book would cry out, “But that’s not what the book is like! But that’s not what the book is like!” Well, tough noogies. This isn’t a book, it’s a movie, and sometimes books don’t translate well onto the big screen. I think that’s what happened with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Rant aside, wouldn’t you rather me just tell you what The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is about? Well, I can tell you this: it’s definitely the strangest of the Narnia trilogy. The two youngest Pevensies, Lucy and Edmund, as well as their annoying cousin, Eustace, get sucked into a painting that has the scene of a very Narnian-esque ship floating in it. In one of the more stunning moments of the picture, the painting comes to life and splashes out of its frame until the entire room is filled with the beautiful water. When the three children swim up to the surface, a giant ship is barreling toward them, and you’re now in Narnia. It’s a great moment that leads one to believe that this is going to be a quest with high adventure and thrilling stakes. But then we get Reepicheep and Prince Caspian from the last movie. I’m sure both of these characters are well loved by those who read the novels, but I just find them boring and corny. I was already shaking my head and crossing my arms at this point. They had already lost my attention.

In the movie, the characters have to travel to different islands to acquire these special swords, which is cool in theory. But it’s bogged down by this green mist that can turn people into dragons for some reason and can also make people conjure up sea serpents if they simply imagine them. I’m sure there’s a better explanation for the story, but that’s pretty much how it’s presented in the movie. The main problem, though, is that even with a flimsy story like that, I’m still okay with it as long as it’s exciting. Unfortunately, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is boring as all hell. I fell asleep twice while watching it, and when I woke up, I asked my fiancé what I missed, and she told me, “Nothing worth rewinding.” Well, I did rewind it, and she was right. It was all high seas and adventuring, only without the adventuring. That's really disappointing, because the movie had the potential to be exciting. Again, if you’re 10 (and if you are, you really shouldn’t be on this site), you might like the magic of it all. But if you’ve ever seen Batman drop a man from a height that wouldn’t kill him, but might make it so that he can never walk again, then this film will bore you to tears with its play-it-safeness. Save your money for The Hobbit, whenever the hell that’s coming out.

The Disc: Five stars out of five

Okay, so I totally just went to town on the movie, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate this very special package that comes with a Blu-Ray disc, a DVD, and a digital copy. The movie itself on Blu-Ray, even though it’s too damn bright for its own good, does look quite nice on a big TV screen. The picture quality is stunning. You also get a butt-load of special features. I mean, the packaging alone is reason enough to pick it up.

Each special feature is presented on a different island from the film. On every island, there’s a narrated description of its attributes, as well as descriptions of the characters from the film and other such features that really liven up the disc. One of these features is “The Untold Adventures of the Dawn Treader Animated Short," which beautifully captures the adventures that Caspian went on in-between the last picture and this one. I wonder if these scenes were in one of the books. There’s also “King Caspian’s Guide to The Dawn Treader: Legends and Lore of the Great Ship,” which goes over the different parts of the ship. I’m sure it’s fascinating if you really love the movie. There are four deleted scenes, which actually DO make the film a bit darker, so I wish they had of kept them in. It definitely would have made it more thrilling. There are three behind-the-scenes featurettes, which talk about key moments of the movie, and a game where you have to find swords behind shields. Finally, there’s an audio commentary from the director and a producer. It’s all really great stuff. There’s also a picture book with collectible postcards in the actual box itself. Honestly, even though I don’t endorse you actually watching the movie, I’m all for you buying this disc. It really is quite something.

Review: A.I. Artificial Intelligence [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from cinemablend.com)

2001’s A.I. is a beautiful film…by Steven Spielberg. Whether it would have turned out as beautiful if it had been directed by Stanley Kubrick, as was originally planned, is questionable. It probably would have been more cynical, like a cross between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Lolita, or something like that. Even so, what Steven Spielberg did with Kubrick’s vision is impressive, if a bit over the top and mawkish.

The Movie: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence [Blu-Ray] Four stars out of five

A.I., believe it or not, is a lot like Full Metal Jacket (and yes, there WILL be a lot of references to Kubrick in this review. Brace yourself.). I don’t mean in the sense that there’s an anti-war or an anti-dehumanization message here, though you could definitely make the argument for the latter. What I mean is, A.I. really feels like two separate films, much like Full Metal Jacket and its boot camp/war is hell sections. There’s the first part of A.I., which is a really touching, haunting film about a family dealing with a robot child (Haley Joel Osment) and their emotions toward each other. And then, there’s the fantastical, out-there adventure story about that same robot boy and his journey with his robot gigolo companion, played by Jude Law. I’m not really sure which story I prefer, as they both have their merits. But I do know that you can definitely see the different minds of Kubrick and Spielberg at work in those two different storylines. Kubrick’s vision is on the front end of the movie, and Spielberg’s is on the back end. It makes for a disjointed, complex film that still holds up, even after a decade.

The story is ultimately about mankind’s technological progress moving too fast, almost to the extent that we’re making technology better than us and making mankind obsolete. This is not just the viewpoint of a staunch Luddite, either, but a prevalent message to be taken about the entire movie, which is made evident by the finale of the film, where robots have actually advanced to the state that they’ve evolved on their own. That said, the story is also a Pinocchio tale about a boy who desperately wants to be real, and it’s that element of heart that really makes this movie shine.

Haley Joel Osment does the best acting of his career here. He plays a robot, here called a mecha, who only wants to be loved by his owners, and goes on a bizarre journey that concludes with some of the strangest material I’ve ever seen put to film. I definitely know where the movie Knowing got its conclusion from now. Again, the whole Spielberg touch is definitely prevalent here, and I would have loved to see how Kubrick intended the story to end. That said, the journey is all quite magical, and we feel sympathetic toward Osment’s character. I’m also quite sure that Kubrick would have taken the story in a different direction, what with his fear of extreme advancement in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But again, this was Spielberg’s interpretation of a Kubrick film, and in that, I think he did a pretty decent job.

Along the way, Osment meets Jude Law’s robotic male prostitute character, Gigolo Joe. And from there, we’re introduced to a whole assortment of different robots that are done in a very sophisticated manner that is a melding of both CGI and actual robotics. In the year 2001, it’s nice to see that Hollywood still wasn’t CGI obsessed, and I think it says a lot that we might have taken a step backward in using so many computer generated effects today. I wonder what Kubrick would have had to say about the current state of movies, what with their green screens and Zack Snyder mindsets.

But I digress. If there’s one major problem I have with this movie, it’s that it’s too long. I get that Spielberg had quite the tale he wanted to tell here, partly because he liked the story, and partly because he wanted to create a fitting coda to Kubrick’s career, but there’s just too much stuffed in here. I think a good half hour could have been cut from the film. Still, A.I. is a masterful film full of deep concepts and startling imagery, especially on Blu-Ray, which I now think is the only way to watch this film. If you’re a sci-fi junkie like myself, and also a Kubrick nut, then you need to see this film. It’s got a lot to say and it deserves to be heard.

The Disc: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence Five stars out of five


There is well over an hour of extra content loaded on this disc, but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing new here that didn't appear on the original DVD release. Still, it’s almost overwhelming how much content is in the special features. The only thing missing is a director’s commentary, but you get so much in exchange that I think it’s a good thing it’s absent. It probably would have been too much.

“Creating A.I.” is just that, a segment on the creation of the film. There’s a lot of talk and pictures of Kubrick and the deeply etched money bags underneath his eyes here, and it’s great. Being a massive Kubrick fan (he’s my favorite director, by far), it’s nice to hear so much love thrown in his direction and to learn that at one point in his creation of the film he even requested that Spielberg direct it and that he produce it. I never knew that. I always just thought he died before he got a chance to do anything with it, but according to these special features, that wasn’t the case at all. He had already gotten the project off the ground since the '80s.

“Acting A.I.” features both Osment and Law talking about what it’s like to play robots. It’s fascinating stuff. Especially seeing what raw talent Osment once had. He was such a natural actor (jeez, I’m talking like he’s dead).

“Designing A.I.” “Lighting A.I.” “A.I./F.X.,” and the “Special Visual Effects and Animation” features are all deep and introspective looks at everything that went into making the visuals so stunning. “The Robots of A.I.” is a lengthy, but interesting, discussion on the purpose of robots in our society and how they were created in the film. Some were actors is costume and some were actual robots. It’s really impressive. “The Sound and Music of A.I.” delves into the strange sounds that go into a sci-fi flick and also the John Williams’ score that plays throughout. And “Closing: Steven Spielberg: Our Responsibility to Artificial Intelligence” is similar to what I mentioned earlier about the film’s message on how we need to be careful with how much of our souls and intellect that we invest in technology. It almost sounds like Kubrick is talking vicariously through Spielberg in this segment.

Designs and two trailers round out the rest of the special features.



A.I.: Artificial Intelligence [Blu-Ray] Details
Length: 145 min
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Warner Home Video
Release Date: 2011-04-05
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Frances O’Connor, Jude Law, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas and William Hurt
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Produced by: Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Jan Harlan, Kathleen Kennedy, Walter F. Parkes, Bonnie Curtis
Written by: Steven Spielberg
Visit the A.I.: Artificial Intelligence [Blu-Ray] Official Website

Review: The Fighter [Blu-Ray]

(Image taken from Cinemablend.com)

You can take your King’s Speech, your Social Network, and your Black Swan and go put them in a drawer somewhere. They were all phenomenal films, don’t get me wrong, but for me, The Fighter was the best picture of last year, hands down. No other film evoked the same kind of emotions in me that The Fighter did, and for that, I find it superior to all the rest of the films that were heavily lauded last year. I even liked it better than the original Rocky. And no, I’m not taking that back.

The Movie: Five Stars out of five

A lot of people make the argument that The Fighter is great for its acting but not so much for its storytelling, but I have to disagree. While, yes, the acting in this film is impeccable -- Academy Awards for both Christian Bale and Melissa Leo are proof of that -- but I still think that this film is one of the best movies of the past 10 years. It’s got heart, it’s got humor, and it never slows down, which is rare for a drama these days. The pacing for this movie is incredible.

The story centers around real-life former junior welterweight boxer Micky Ward, back when he was still struggling to make it. His character is played by Mark Wahlberg, who has never been better in anything else in his entire life. Wahlberg manages to make Micky likeable without even trying very hard, which is why he might be so good at it. He’s down on his luck, but he’s talented, and the movie is about his rise to success. Simple enough. But then, something happens. You at first go into this film thinking that this is going to be just like any other boxing movie centered around the boxer -- I mean, it IS called The Fighter, isn’t it? -- only to find out that it’s as much about the people around him as it is about the boxer himself. In fact, it’s probably even more about the people around him, making this one strange beast of a sports movie. A straightforward biopic this ain’t.

Christian Bale, who’s played everybody from a psycho to Batman [What's the difference? -- Ed.], is perfect as Micky’s “junk bag” brother, Dicky Eklund. Dicky was once a boxer himself, and is a local hero for a fight he once had with Sugar Ray Leonard many years ago. But Eklund fell deeply into drugs, and this part of the story is just as important as Micky’s struggle to fame. And this is where the story gets interesting. We really feel for Dicky, and we’re torn between which story we’d rather see -- Micky’s rise to the top, or Dicky kicking the habit. Luckily for us, we’re allowed to see both movies at the same time and watch them intertwine toward the end. I don’t think I’m spoiling anything here by telling you that they both succeed by the closing credits. This may be a different kind of sports movie, but it’s still a sports movie, and in sports movies, people succeed. Nobody would want to go see Seabiscuit if the horse bought the farm at the end.

The females in this film make things even more interesting. Amy Adams plays Micky’s girlfriend, and for the first time ever, I actually found her attractive. And it’s not because she’s beautiful or anything like that, as I’m pretty sure she’s not even wearing make-up in the movie. But it’s how she supports Micky when everybody, including his own mother (Melissa Leo), seems to want to use him for their personal gain. It’s her stand-by-your-man mentality that ultimately makes her sexy. It makes the story even more compelling when all of these different characters combine and fight for Micky. They all try in their own particular way to put him on the path they think is right for him, and it really makes for some stellar moments that almost make the fights in the ring seem unimportant compared to the ones that are going on outside of it.

The Fighter is a first-rate film that really didn’t have to be as good as it is. There were other great movies last year that will probably overshadow this one in year’s time, but for me, there’s nothing better than this. If you like good flicks with a lot of heart and soul, pick this movie up. You’re going to have a hard time finding any better.

The Disc: Four and a half stars out of five

When watching the movie, I often wondered if director David O. Russell went all The Wire style and hired mostly locals to fill in the parts of the general community. The special features prove that he did indeed. And while some of the special features may be a bit long and drawn-out at times, they definitely expand the world of Micky Ward and his brother, Dicky. They also expand the world of Lowell, Massachusetts itself, making every aspect of this disc special if you’re a major fan of the film as I am.

The commentary with the director is phenomenal in a dry sort of way. It’s not like David O. Russell is offering anything mind-blowing about the film, but you can hear the passion and enthusiasm in his voice. It’s like an artist standing back and admiring their work, and David O. Russell is that artist. Most of the time, he spends the commentary talking up his actors and the scenes they had to do. One interesting note is that the crew actually considered calling the film, “Head, body, head,” at one point, which is stupid. But it definitely fits with the film if you watch it. Still, it’s silly to think that it could have sounded like a game of the Hokey-Pokey if they actually went through with the plan.

“The Warrior’s Code: Filming The Fighter” is a painstaking look at all the different factors that went into making the film. It’s interesting to watch the real-life counterparts of Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund discussing how they didn’t think the movie would ever get made, only to see it blossom right in front of their eyes. It’s lengthy, but it’s fascinating. “Keeping the Faith” is about how people actually do idolize Dicky and his famous fight with Sugar Ray Leonard. It really makes all the events in this film seem even more revelatory when it comes to sticking to the facts. Real life is stranger than fiction sometimes, I guess. There are also some deleted scenes on here that, like most home releases, don’t seem all that necessary. The theatrical trailer -- which still looks awful to me, what with its cheesy inspirational music -- is also on here, rounding out the special features.



The Fighter [Blu-Ray] Details
Length: 115 min
Rated: R
Distributor: Paramount Home Entertainment
Release Date: 2011-03-15
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
Directed by: David O. Russell
Produced by: David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Ryan Kavanaugh, Mark Wahlberg, Dorothy Aufiero, Paul Tamary, and Darren Aronofsky
Written by: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Hohnson
Visit the The Fighter [Blu-Ray] Official Website

Review: Marvel vs. Capcom 3

(Image taken from: Cinemablend.com)

Awhile ago, I wrote an editorial on how I thought, just from seeing the videos alone, that Marvel vs. Capcom 3 might suck. My biggest complaints were the characters, the three button attack scheme, and the graphics. Well, after some extensive playtime with the game, I can honestly say that all of my worries were unfounded and absolutely wrong. So, you were right, fanboys, you were right. I’ll eat my own words, I was wrong. The only argument from that article that I do still stand behind though is that it’s not as good as MvC2. But could it have ever have been? Probably not.

Let’s get to the characters first, as that was one of the major problems that I foresaw back then. The characters in this game are just fine and are so different that it’s like learning to play MvC all over again. Arthur is very different from Trish, who’s very different from Deadpool, who ‘s very different from Wesker, so you’ll spend hours upon hours just finding your perfect team (mine’s X-23, Hsien-Ko, and Akuma. Who knew?). One thing I don’t like about some of the characters though is that some of them are absolutely worthless in my hands. That doesn’t mean that they’ll be worthless in other people’s hands, and I can definitely see more balance with this roster than in the last game. But I can’t use Haggar or Thor to save my life, even though those were two of the characters that I wanted to play as the most when I initially heard that they were in the game. In this way, it kind of saps a bit of the fun for me, knowing that even with practice I won’t be able to use them since I’ve developed my own sort of rhythm with the game.

And that’s something that’s pretty new for me in the series—the rhythm. I don’t know how other people feel about this, but this game just seems to move differently than the previous two installments. I’ve always been one for air combos; it was never an integral part of my play style in the past two games. But with the new special attack button that launches characters into the air much easier than before, I find that half of my battles now take place in the sky. In this way, lumbering characters like Sentinel or Thor just don’t do it for me. I pretty much can’t even use them. My rhythm is too fast for characters such as those.

(Image taken from: Cinemablend.com)

But again, I think this all comes down to the rhythm of how you play MvC3. Some might prefer that slow paced style of attack. I just don’t. In that way, MvC3 is a very unique fighter in that it actually develops around you rather than you developing around it, which is fascinating. I never thought that that would happen with the new control scheme.

And about that new control scheme. I was initially worried that this game was going to play too much like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, which I wasn’t too fond of. But this is MvC through and through, and the unlimited playability of the franchise returns with this game. As I mentioned before, there’s a new special attack button that can be used to either strike or knock enemies into the air. In that way, the game still actually retains the four button format but alters it slightly, making it much easier to cobble together combos, but still satisfying because of the aforementioned air game, which can lead to ridiculous combos once you ease into it. The only problem that I have with the controls is that for some reason, they seem to fail me whenever I’m getting my ass handed to me. It’s like, unless I’m dominating a match, I’m getting demolished, so there’s no balance in-between for me. I’m screwed.

The new X-Factor tries to rectify that though by giving you a fighting chance. When you hit all of the face buttons at the same time, you can get a limited amount of time to make a comeback with much stronger attacks and mobility. Still, I don’t feel as confident in this game as I did in the previous MvC's. In those games, I felt that no matter how low my health got, I always had a fighting chance of winning. But with this game, I just feel like my controller is working against me sometimes. I wonder how it would play out in the arcade. It might be better. Or maybe even worse.

(Image taken from: Cinemablend.com)

But it’s hard to stay mad at a game this pretty. If you remember from my previous article, I complained that I didn’t like the new visuals. And while I still prefer the hand-drawn look, I have to say that these visuals have finally grown on me. The specials look pretty spectacular, and all of the old moves from the last game, like Iron Man’s “Repulsor Blast” look really spiffy now with the new colors. The backgrounds are also pretty nifty and add a nice touch, especially the Ghost and Goblins stage. That said, all the things going on on-screen can get a bit too chaotic at times. So much so that you sometimes don’t know what’s even going on during the game. But I think that has always been a part of the fun with the MvC series—the visual overload.

In closing, MvC3 is another classic from Capcom, with only a few nagging issues that may just be my own problem. I definitely say pick it up though if you’re any sort of self-respecting fighting fan. The fate of two worlds hangs in the balance!



Players: 1-2
Platform(s): Xbox 360 (reviewed), PS3
Developer: Capcom
Publisher: Capcom
ESRB: Teen
Rating: Four stars out of five

Review: Faster

(Image taken from: cinemablend.com)

What happened to you, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson? You were supposed to be the next big action star, man. You were supposed to be the next Ah-nold. But instead, you made vapid, uninspired movies like Race to Witch Mountain, The Tooth Fairy, and *shudder* The Scorpion King. How could you let your fans down like that? But hey, what’s this? You have a new, action-packed thrill ride of a movie with you holding a gun and looking all menacing on the cover called Faster? Really? No way, man! Is it any good? Hey, why are you making that face all of a sudden? Well, is it? Oh…I understand. It’s not, is it? Oh, man, Rock! Why’d you have to go and do this to your fans again? Huh, man? Why? Whyyyyyy!

The Movie: One Star


For a movie called Faster, this piece of garbage starring the Rock sure does move pretty damn slow. When I originally saw the trailer for this in the theater, I actually, no lie, edged up in my seat and got really excited. As a WWF (oh, I’m sorry, WWE) nerd who thinks wrestling reached its peak in the Stone Cold/The Rock era, I really had high hopes for the man who would later drop “The Rock” in his name and just go by the title of Dwayne Johnson. But, man oh man, has that legend, who could at one point in his career raise a single eyebrow and make the whole world swoon, let us all down. Faster, I’m afraid to say, is no better than The Scorpion King. And while I know that that last line must have gotten you saying, “Come on, man. It can’t be THAT bad,” it actually is. Faster is really and truly awful. I’d even say that it’s WORSE than The Scorpion King. Okay, I take that back. Nothing could be that horrendous.

But seriously, Faster is pretty bad. And why is it so bad? Well, because it’s just so damn forgettable. The key reason for this is because nobody in this film even needs to be in it. The Rock plays a character named Driver -- just Driver. He’s released from prison and immediately goes on a killing spree for the people who killed his brother. But you know what? If you put in, say, Skeet Ulrich, or Wesley Snipes, or, hey, I don’t know, Steven Seagal, you would have pretty much the same exact movie. At least with this script, you would. The Rock probably has less than a 100 words to say in the film, and none of it is interesting. Silent waters run deep, I know, but why put a charismatic man like The Rock in a movie where he pretty much just shoots things and walks away? That’s like putting Johnny Knoxville in a movie about taking safety precautions and not having a single wink at how ironic that would be. It’s like that, but worse. At least that might be kind of interesting.

This movie is beyond boring. There’s a lot of gunplay going on here, especially when a man who only goes by the title of “Killer” comes into the fray, but the bullets being fired aren’t exciting in the slightest. And that’s because I don’t care who lives and who dies in this film. I don’t care if The Rock finds comfort or if he’s dead inside after killing his foes. I don’t care if Billy Bob Thorton, who just goes by the title of “Cop” (man, they really stuck to that "nobody has a name" concept), tracks down The Rock and stops him. I don’t care about any of it. All I care about is the fact that The Rock, a man who actually showed some promise after The Rundown, has made another boring film. Is it any wonder why he’s supposedly going back into wrestling? It’s because he realizes that movies are just not for him. Whoever his agent is, he should have been fired a long time ago. The Rock should not be making movies like Faster after this many years in the business. Down the line, we’ll all secretly still hope that The Rock finally does an action movie where he kills somebody and then utters some really corny one-liners, but it looks like that day may never come. Faster puts the nail in the coffin.



The Disc: Two Stars

The special features on this disc may be brief, but they actually add a little something to this abysmal package. Well, at least one of them does. On the whole disc, there are only two special features, and calling them two is being generous. One of them is an alternate ending, and the other is deleted scenes. Both of them give you the ability to hear the director talk about the scenes before you watch them, but his words aren’t necessary. All he had to say was, “We cut this for space and time,” and that’s it. Everything else he says, like the deleted scenes themselves, is superfluous.

The “Alternate Ending,” as I mentioned earlier, adds a little something to the film. I think they actually should have kept it in. The director says that test audiences weren’t pleased with it, but I don’t believe that for a second. Any test audience that actually stayed awake long enough to see the end, had to have liked it better than the theatrical ending. The theatrical ending sucks. Without spoiling it for you, the “Alternate Ending” has a great deal more action in it, and is truly, truly ridiculous, which is what The Rock should have been doing all along. I’m tired of The Rock shying away from outrageous action in his films. It’s why The Rundown was pretty awesome. It was the kind of crazy that works.

As for the “Deleted Scenes,” they were deleted for a reason. None of them are necessary, and they definitely deserved to be cut. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone, not even for a rental, but if you liked it (seriously?), then I think you should see the alternate ending. It definitely adds something to the film.


Faster Details
Length: 98 min
Rated: R
Distributor: CBS Films
Release Date: 2011-03-01
Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Billy Bob Thornton
Directed by: George Tillman Jr.
Produced by: Joe Gayton, Dara Weintraub
Written by: Tony Gayton & Joe Gayton
Visit the Faster Official Website

Review: Hatchet II

(Image taken from: Conemablend.com)

Original article can be found here: http://www.cinemablend.com/dvds/Hatchet-II-5097.html

The original Hatchet was fun. Was it the worthy successor to Halloween and Friday the 13th like it was being presented? No. Not even close. There’s just something about Victor Crowley that’s not as iconic as Michael Meyers or Jason Voorhees to me. But still, it was fun, and Hatchet II is a worthy sequel that’s even more gruesome than the original. That said, is it so violent that it deserves to be unrated? Not hardly, but all that and more is talked about on the extensive commentaries, which make this one DVD worth picking up if you’re a fan.

The Movie: Three Stars


Didn’t see the original Hatchet? Well, that sucks for you, since this one takes place immediately following the original. We’re once again with Marybeth (this time, played by Halloween-famed Danielle Harris rather than Tamara Feldman), battling Victor Crowley on a boat. The confrontation ends and we’re once again in New Orleans, literally only a day apart from events that happened like four years ago in our own time. Surprisingly, slasher-film wise, not much has really happened in our time, and it makes Victor Crowley’s return a welcome one for the slasher fans who really missed him. Personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of Crowley. He always looked like a demented version of Sloth from The Goonies to me. Anyway, Victor Crowley’s still alive, so that means that you can expect more blood and creative ways for people to meet their maker, just much more of it this time.

A complaint that a lot of people had with the original was that there weren’t enough kills in it. And while that might have been true, that didn’t really bother me. What bothered me was the character himself. Victor Crowley, with his deformed face and goofy overalls, isn’t very scary. A stalker is much more horrifying when you don’t know what they look like. And unless that stalker has a horrific backstory like Freddy Krueger, than a mask is always preferred. But Victor Crowley doesn’t wear a mask. He stalks around the woods and kills people in sadistic ways. The fans will of course eat this up, but those who didn’t like the original won’t be won over by this one, and that’s just fine. Because Hatchet II isn’t meant for newcomers. It’s purely meant for the fans. Why else would fan-favorite Tony Todd (the one and only Candyman) return, but this time with a much meatier role? I’m sure the fans requested it, and director Adam Green happily obliged.

In many ways, this is one of the most fan-serviced movies I can think of. Instead of explaining things for those who never saw the original, the mythology is built on even more, which I’m sure will leave newcomers out in the cold. This is both one of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the film -- it can’t stand on its own. The various murders (from a massive chainsaw to the privates of two unlucky characters to a guy getting buzzed in the brains by a motorized sander) are only impressive when you take into account how few deaths you had in the original. I could imagine that it would make for a rather underwhelming experience for anybody who has never seen the first one. Even so, this movie is not for those people, and if you were a huge fan of the first, then you’ll love this one just as much. It’s a good sequel, and fans will definitely approve.



The Disc: Four Stars

The special features are what make this disc worth owning. “Hatchet II: Behind the Screams” is a half-hour documentary on the making of the movie. If you have any interest in learning how Hatchet II was made, you can’t go wrong with this one. It’s all fairly detailed, from the sets to the characters that interacted within them.

There are also some trailers for the movie, but that’s not what you’re interested in. What you’re interested in are the two commentaries, and they definitely deliver, both in their own separate ways.

Usually, with commentaries recorded by multiple parties, I’ll tell you to listen to one over the other. But on this disc, they’re both pretty interesting. On the “Production Audio Commentary" track, we learn about duck-poop-infested waters and about all the major horror icons (Lloyd Kaufman!) who make appearances in the film. In the “Cast Audio Commentary" track, we get to hear stories about what it was like working on the set and also, toward the end, a lengthy discussion about how the film became unrated in the theaters and the fight that went on because of it. It’s all really fascinating stuff and definitely worth a listen. Pick it up.