Reviews by Happy Vader

Known for starting the Disney Renaissance, this is yet another hit for Disney and has all the ingredients blended perfectly: Fun, frolly, music and a great (and suggestive) fun-loving heroine in the lead with fun supporting characters in the rear. This is undoubtedly one of their strongest works and one that can be used as an example to point out the greatness of Disney. However, unlike most others, it's very sexual and hormone-filled kids might see it from a totally different way. You know, Ariel and the rest of the mermaids. Speaking of which, Ariel is a sure-fire icon of Disney and one of the best female protagonist and Jodi Benson's V.O. provided a-lot of personality to the character and her portrayal was very fitting. If Ariel had been given another personality, then she would've been very weak and unlikable.

The songs are great although I personally think the whole Under Da Sea should not be shown to kids because of its, er, quite-sexual imagery and some of the lyrics (Darling it's better, down where it's wetter)... seriously, Sebastian?

So, The Little Mermaid is an enjoyable flick and very fun to watch!

8.6/10

All right, this is what happened:

Mel Brooks, after a wild night somewhere, was walking home when he got assaulted by three men who are now recognized worldwide as ZAZ. They announced that they are the new kids in town and he, Mr. Brooks, should either leave town quickly or stop making parodies. Unfortunately, this shook up Mr. Brooks so much that he failed to make another hit and as for ZAZ, their first hit... was their only hit and started a rather painful legacy. (look at the spoof titles of the last 5 years and you will understand)

You see, this is a TCM-Halloween case right here. The former may have invented the modern-slasher genre and and may have laid down the blueprints but the latter took it to great heights, thus becoming the poster-film of the said genre. Same case here: After the success of Blazing Saddles, it was clear to everyone that Mel Brooks wouldn't stop and he dominated the 70's... but unfortunately, modern-parody / spoof, to me, lived and died in the 70's with a few last shots from the 80's and virtually none from 90's to current date. Airplane! made a much bigger impact and has almost become the true definition of the spoof film and hey! who can blame them?

All right, the jokes are quite-original, although some are repetitive, but it's the interesting supporting characters and inventive dialogues that really steals the film. I really liked Lorna Patterson as Randy and Julie Hagerty as Elaine. They both provided good performances and made their characters very interesting and fun to watch. But of course, the lion's share goes to Leslie Nielsen as Dr. Rumack and Lloyd Bridges as Steve McCroskey. Both are unmatched and unparalleled in their roles. Their performances, line-delivery and screen presence make up 95% of the film's backbone. Airplane, just like any-other spoof film, also offers surrealism and I'm gonna signal out one: The last half of Rex Kramer's introduction. Man, that's surrealism at its best!

So all in all, Airplane! is a satisfying movie and offers good entertainment but I enjoy Mr. Brooks's movies more...

7.9/10

Judgment Night, probably, in all senses defines the term under-rated and/or virtually unknown and I go like, why? Why is it that no-one has reviewed this film here? The 90's was cluttered by suspense and/or thriller films and Judgment Night is one of the better results out of the factory. The story-line is simple but it is executed in a rather impressive manner: 4 friends, males, rent a RV to go to a boxing match, making it a boys-night-out but it turns horribly wrong when they decide to take a short-cut. What starts off as a fun trip turns into a violent, take-no-prisoners cat & mouse game. The cast is very well chosen. Even for a (then) relatively new actor, Stephen Dorff handled his character in a good way whereas Emilio Estevez was totally top-notch, like he is always. Jeremy Piven, although a much better actor nowadays, handled his character quite-well too and seemed rather professional doing it whereas Cuba Gooding, Jr. really gave an overstated performance and I think he has done better performances than this (Jerry Maguire, Boyz 'N the Hood). However, the number 1 best performance was by Denis Leary as the main antagonist, Fallon, who reminded me of a toned-down version of Norman Stansfield and a charged-up version of any classic Bond Villain and he made his character quite-memorable and one of the damn best on-screen villains I've seen although he suffered from, just like any other, the typical cliches which Hollywood shamelessly oozes. I have to admit that only few people actually look good while holding a gun and appear very convincing and Denis Leary showed just that and his demise is arguably one of the best... it's not much but the way he falls and the way his death is shown is so untypical: The guy nearly-always screams all the way down and it has to be in slow-motion but this has none of that... on a further note, just like his habit of playing memorable characters, Peter Greene once again does the trick!

The cinematography is great although it is nothing new and it's something you've seen in countless other movies. All in all, the setup and the story is good, keeps you on the edge of your seat and the dialogues suit the film and the performances by everyone are fine, especially Denis Leary and Emilio Estevez. I like this film because of it's suspense and the death-scenes. They somehow seemed plausible... OK, I admit, cliched, happy? I would love to see the same cast in another film or maybe even a remake...??

Further exhausting the review, this film also has probably the worst (somewhat) stock-character in history: The earphone guy... you know, characters who plug in their earphones and, in a comical fashion or not, start lip-synching to the song(s), totally oblivious to their vicinity and only after when they see the damage the earphones, somehow, come off their ears and they start running... I don't know why but I hate those stock-characters (also seen in The Terminator and Deathly Hallows and a few other movies)...

8.8/10

Released near the end of the so-called Disney Renaissance, this Tony Bancroft directed cartoon shows us why Disney was a monster, and I do mean a huge one, in the 90's. Most of Disney's strongest works were in the 90's and not mentioning Mulan would be a shame. The animation is very fluid, the concept is good but, even for a cartoon, seemed to steeped in fantasy and by-chance events. I've also read in several places that many critics were not happy with the songs and I heartfully disagree. The songs, in my opinion, are one of Disney's best efforts to date and each fits the scene perfectly. The music is superb too, especially the Mulan's Decision score... beautiful!

I enjoyed almost everyone's V.O., especially Ming-Na as the titular role (remember her from Street Fighter?) and she bought a-lot of verbal warmness and realism to her character and made Mulan one of Disney's best heroines. From the supporting, I enjoyed Eddie Murphy as Mushu, a dream role for many. Since the advent of Robin Williams, the fast-voice-over technique was adopted by many and Eddie Murphy still stands out as one of the best. I somewhat liked Miguel Ferrer's V.O. as Shan Yu, the main antagonist. Maybe because he wasn't given enough screen-time? I think Goran Visnjic might've been a better choice.

Now, the film starts off brilliantly, has great moments and one-liners but it loses its focus and stability badly, very badly, from the point where Shan Yu finds out Mulan is a girl. From there everything seemed hurried and rushed, as if the crew wanted to finish it off quickly. And the ending, well, totally different from other Disney works and it was just OK, could've done times better.

In conclusion, I enjoyed it and it has great songs and stands up against most of the previous Disney productions, although not all and is the second-last greatest Disney production ever... the last was Tarzan, released one year later.

8.5/10

Never has a sequel been so pumped up, so exciting, so over-the-seat, so AWESOME as Hellboy 2: the Golden Army. Director Guillermo Del Toro has done it again, ladies & gentlemen. The CGI was much better this time around and the whole presentation was one exciting trip.

However, I do have one qualm: Prince Nuada. The character was weak. Not to say that I didn't like Luke Goss's performance, it was quite good, but the character was very weak and not the least bit intimidating. In short, Nuada was just another Hollywood cliche. I personally am a fan of villainous characters with intimidating and dominating screen-time power and what Grigori Rasputin emitted in the previous film, Nuada lacked in this. Even though the fight scenes were spectacular, they seemed too similar to what Jackie Chan might do in his movies and that was, in my opinion, quite a setback but nevertheless, highly fun to watch!

Another thing is that I kinda liked Selma Blair's performance this time around, although her line delivery was a little off at times. So, all in all, a worthy sequel and worthy of being watched and it embraces the modern culture and you also get to see Hellboy laugh... which is something.

8.5/10