Reviews by Happy Vader

When I saw it for the first time, my feelings were neutral. I remember thinking, man, this is so un-like Tarantino, but after seeing it again, I liked it but I still think it's his weakest. The presentation is good, very bloody and entertaining but some scenes tend to drag on and on with no end in sight, just like a David Gilmour or Eric Clapton guitar solo. This film may not be suited for everyone but those who like great performances and entertaining dialogues, this is for them!

One thing you can't deny about Tarantino's films are his openings (Like a Virgin, Honey Bunny, Revenge is a Dish..), and, I won't lie, the opening of this film stands out as his greatest so far. It's so brilliantly, and chillingly, executed that it lays the foundations for everything that is to appear in the film: Unpredictability, long dialogue shots and brilliant performances. Speaking of which, Denis Menochet plays his character, Perrier Lapadite, almost flawlessly and can be said as the king of the opening scene even though he is sharing the screen with Christoph Waltz, an experienced actor. Nomadder how long his career goes, he will always be known as that strong and silent guy from the opening of Inglourious Basterds.

Anyway, the film is quite silly but it is entertaining and I saw it from that point of view. This is also one of those films which America wishes should've happened. So, basically, it's a triumphant film for the Americans and for others who like to think of themselves as one. Of course, in fiction one can make the other, the villain, so dumbed down that he becomes a cartoon character and the hero so pumped up, he becomes hope and this is exactly what Tarantino did and this is why I called it a silly film. If this were in real life, the plans would've been trashed from day 1 and Tarantino would've been running for his life (who knows?)

Now lets talk about the performances: Christoph Waltz deserved the Oscar for his crazy and calculating portrayal of Hans Landa. One of the best villains in the last 10 years, I must say. Brad Pitt gets so immersed in his role that he almost becomes a caricature and even though his performance was good, it wasn't better than his previous ones, so I will skip that. The best surprise was Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux. All scenes involving her were amazing and fun to watch. Great line delivery and easy-on-the-eye figure. I also enjoyed Daniel Bruhl as Fredrick Zoller and Michael Fassbender as Archie Hicox.

So, all in all, a fun flick but, in all senses, Tarantino's most weakest. Doesn't have that charm that was abundant in his previous works.

8.2/10

I remember watching it when it first came out (I was just 11 years old) and I remember loving it. When I saw just it again just yesterday my view hasn't changed one bit. Let me tell you one thing: This is directed by Guillermo Del Toro and that's one of the reasons why this film rocks. Had this been directed by Spielberg, well, this would've been E.T with a large big ape. Del Toro can make fantasy/sci-fi movies just like that. It's all to easy for him and Hellboy is one such example.

The pace of the film is brilliant and the violence is superbly detailed. Yea, that's right, none of the cartoony violence. Granted, Ron Perlman was never in my Top 10 but who could dislike him as the titular character? Just like Nicholson and Downey, Jr., he takes an uncanny relish in his role and makes use of his screen-time. Ever heard Bad to the Bone by George Thorogood? That's right, Ron Perlman fits the description. Doug Jones, who portrays Ape Sapien, is like the modern Lon Chaney. His performance equally matches that of Perlman's. Even Selma Blair was surprisingly good but frankly speaking, I like her better in the sequel and John Hurt is a fantastic actor but I felt his talent under-used in an otherwise promising role.

Now, let me make one more thing clear: horror and fantasy/supernatural are two genres in which not everyone can be convincing. Sure, they play memorable roles and have memorable moments but performance-wise, this is not everyone's strong suit. Unlike drama in which even the most in-experienced actor can work wonders, fantasy asks for more. And the reason why I'm saying this is because Karel Roden who plays the antagonist, Grigori Rasputin, gave just about one of the greatest performances in history of fantasy/supernatural movies. His screen-time is minimal but the effect is everlasting. From the start to the finish, Karel Roden owns the film and his was the best performance overall. No questions asked. From his introduction to his death, he had me transfixed and in terms of fantasy/supernatural, his performance is up there with Ian McKellen, Doug Jones and Michael Clarke-Duncan among others...

Overall, as seeing just how brilliant Ron Perlman was, he should play Duke Nukem. I mean seriously, now that would be a film worth the wait and he would be just perfect. So, Hellboy is an entertaining film and not adding it to my greatest movies list would be a shame...

8.7/10

Imagine a huge ship. OK, we will take The Flying Dutchman in this case. Now imagine some mutineers. Take 3 of them in particular and name them Tim Burton, Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan. First Burton made Batman, the king of superhero movies but he was made to walk the plank after when Raimi came up with Spider-Man 2. A new leader emerged but he was silenced quickly but Nolan's near-to-perfect The Dark Knight. Not only was Raimi made to walk the plank but he had him shredded and fed to the sharks. Looks like this leader, this Nolan, won't be shaken for a very, very, very long time.

Every genre has that game-changer, that spell-binder, that ultimate justice and this is that film. Gone are the quirkiness of the Burton movies, the gayness of the Schumacher disasters and the weepy-melo-drama's of Raimi's. This is how a superhero movie should be done; Unforgiving, gritty and totally in-your-face with a heavy dose of reality. Those who were used to to the colourful presentation and one-liners of the previous superhero movies were bought down back to Earth, none to lightly, by the matureness and seriousness of The Dark Knight. Not only is it effective but makes you think that it can happen, given the right amount of craziness and the world is currently witnessing that craziness at the moment... If you actually read the news rather than flip the pages until you've found the funny pages, you will know what I'm talking about!

This film also started an albeit-serious issue between YouTubers: Is Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker better than Jack Nicholson's back in 1989? The answer is: both are better. I may not know much about comics and the character but what I know from the surface is that The Joker is a sort of a-character who can become a mischievous, wise-cracking psycho one day and a murderous, unpredictable freak the next. Nicholson played the former and Ledger played the latter. Both were extremely impressing in their roles. Now see, Burton's main intention was to make it dark but funny and so he wrote the script for the character that way. And it worked. Whereas Nolan wanted unpredictability and steadiness and a better understanding to the character and therefore he wrote the script which better suited the realistic nature of the film. Had this been a remake then I would've participated in this debate but since it's not, I agree that both were excellent. Despite the fact that The Joker was a strong addition and it pleased thousands of fans world-wide, I didn't think it had the dominating power and the screen-charisma of Liam Neeson, who plays R'as Al Ghul, the primary villain of the previous film, Batman Begins. Maybe I'm being a little harsh because Liam Neeson is a very talented actor and by the time Heath Ledger made his mark on movies, Neeson had already appeared in great movies, giving great performances but still... it all lies in different view-points.

All in all, a very impressive movie with an excellent cast and a great trend-setter. If you're expecting sobbing and chit-chat, then you've got another thing coming...

9.0/10

It's no secret that Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is the most utterly quotable film in history. It's very cheesy too but the innovative use of technology and a wide cast of interesting character makes it so irresistible. I mean, how many imitators have we had? Were any better? No, not even the sequels / prequels. Yea, you heard me, this is the best installment in the series and always will be.

Granted, I never understood the obsession and the cult fan following and I find them to be, in the words of The Joker, boring, I nevertheless enjoyed every little aspect of it and imbibed every scene it had to offer. It introduced us to so many characters that they have a become permanent staple in pop-culture. I mean, take a look at Darth Vader. Has a villain been parodied as much as poor Ol' Vader here? Then we have Chewbacca. Truth be told, I found him annoying and him being a talking character would've been much more interesting. But of course, my most, most favourites are C-3PO & R2-D2, two of the most lovable droids in droids-history. I mean, have non-human characters been this funny and likable? No, we don't get much of that nowadays!

Anyway, on a more less pleasing note, I would like to say this: Even though it's very entertaining it lacked lyricism and rhythm. It was like as if the word ACTION was suddenly shouted and everyone, whether prepared or not, just sprang into action. It could've done times better. Also, that damn Stormtrooper Effect (word coined by Roger Ebert). It was so embarrassing to watch. I mean, everyone does stupid things in their movies but this was too much. In conclusion, this film felt like it was scrubbed and polished but with a rather light hand but still, a kick-ass movie.

Just like Transformers started an unhealthy obsession among teenage males in Megan Fox, Star Wars started a solid, unshakable fan-following and obsession around the world, no age limit. I don't like taking things to the extreme and always found the games, cartoons and comics to be uninteresting. I think I'll just stick to the movies, thank you!

9.0/10

Signalling only one out from the silent era is quite a-difficult task but I think I just found the one-film that can be considered the greatest from that era: The Man Who Laughs is perfect example of the beauty hides behind the beast. Let me explain: The film plays like a horror movie and it even feels like one but in reality, it isn't. It's a romantic movie - tragic-romance to be more clear - and uses the expressionism techniques to portray the life of Gwynplaine, or more accurately, The Man who Laughs. So, truth be told, it plays like a melo-drama but acts like a horror film.

This film, you may agree, is a classic masterpiece. With impressive cinematography, a well chosen cast and great story-telling, there's no wonder why this film is Conrad Veidt's most celebrated film. It's also very touchy and heart-breaking and the character of Dea (played by Mary Philbin) is the most beautiful character I've seen and not just by looks alone but rather from the inside too. The cruelty and curiousness in mankind has been coming for a-long time and it's perfectly showcased right here. Some might say people were more cruel back then than now but I disagree. Back then you had to pay in order to laugh at his or her's hideousness or abnormalities. Now you do it for free and anytime you want too and not only that, you also mock them, creating them as cartoon characters and then bending them as any way you want to. There you go, the now is much worse than the then!

Anyway, everything about this film is great and the one thing I like about the pre-50's films, especially horror or moody, is that just how minimalistic they just were. The character of Gwynplaine is mostly shown with his mouth-mask and sporadically shown without and even in that little moments, manages to grab your attention and print itself in your mind. I liked the dark, ominous setting and the characters of Dea and Ursus, whereas the character of Barkilphedro is the worst sort of a character I've ever seen but his performance was one of the best.

Speaking of which, most of the silent films are sped up, which feels like a Tom & Jerry episode and therefore some performances seem quite funny or unnatural but even then, I really enjoyed Cesare Gravina as Ursus and of course, Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine.

All in all, a fine masterpiece from the classic cinema and one of the greatest in German Expressionism.

9.1/10

As a team, ZAZ directed one classic movie Airplane! As solo, each directed at least one great film and David Zucker directed this. This was the first spoof film I saw and it changed my views on them completely. I used to hate spoofs / parodies like poison - maybe it was because of Scary Movie series and the other recent ones - but The Naked Gun showed me just how great and on-the-spot they just were. Although this film is nowhere near any of Mel Brooks' movies, I consider it to be one of the best spoof movies ever made and one that is genuinely funny and highly entertaining to the end. But of course, this is not Mel Brooks so it inevitably had quite tedious moments (the pen-tank scene and the statue scene with the dick) but who can forget the baseball scene? Now that's classic!

This is easily Leslie Nielsen's best role ever and subsequently, the best film he ever starred in, as the lead role. His character, Frank Drebin is one of the funniest I've ever seen and his deadpan delivery and great timing once again did the trick. Almost most of the supporting were fine but it was George Kennedy that won me over. I don't know why but his character was funny and his performance was good!

So, despite quite-tedious moments and tried-and-tested scenes, The Naked Gun is nevertheless one of the best. Too bad David Zucker is making those silly Scary Movie series now.

What hasn't been said about Alfred Hitchcock's magnum opus Psycho? Every genre - of anything - has a permanent placeholder (ex: The Godfather in both gangster and greatest) and Psycho is the placeholder for horror movies. Seriously, you name me one list which doesn't have this film as number 1. Actually, there is a list: Mine! Yes, in my book this film is number 2 only to Nosferatu which I consider to be the greatest horror film ever made... beat that!

Enough chit-chat: Psycho is a movie which is best enjoyed if you haven't the foggiest about anything in the film and I'm glad I was one of those people. Seriously, apart from the famous shower scene (which I'd only heard about it, but never seen), I'd absolutely no friggin idea of anything and believe me, when I saw it for the first time... let's just say I started watching horror movies from a totally new perspective and as for showering, I triple-check whether the door is locked or not and then I triple-check it again, just in case!

I think this is a very brilliant, well-made horror movie which is very atmospheric and spine-chilling. Now you see, horror should be made like this: intriguing, shocking, ever-lasting and top of all, entertaining. Since I'd already read the book, I was surprised to find how much it strayed from the novel. I didn't like the changes but I think it was handled correctly but of course, the book is miles better than the movie.

Then we have the performances: Anthony Perkins made a household name out of himself by playing Norman Bates flawlessly. Out of all the performances in Hitchcock-films, Perkins ranks as the 2nd or 3rd best, so you can say it was that great. Even though she was nominated, I found Janet Leigh's performance to be just average. I mean, I liked how she handled her character, Marion Crane, in such short screen time but it was OK nevertheless. The one I totally loved was Vera Miles's performance as Lila Crane, which I think the number 1 best. I've always liked Lila on paper and Vera Miles did an excellent job on the silver screen. She possesses all the qualities of a Hitchcock girl: Blonde, icy and a determined state. What do you think? Then of course we have Simon Oakland as Dr. Fred Richmond at the end of the film (the guy who reveals Bates, remember?) His performance is often ignored but I think he did a great job and he delivered his speech in an impressive manner. I'm a sucker for long scenes which involve a-lot of talking and this is one of the best...

So there you go, the greatest (second-greatest in my book) horror film ever made by a MOAD - Master Of A Director - and no-one else could've done it better. Read the book first and then see the movie and then evaluate which one was better!

9.5/10

Of course it's a silly movie but an entertaining one at that. This is one Lindsay Lohan's best performance and was very convincing behind the wheel. The supporting ain't bad either: Justin Long was surprisingly good and Matt Dillon plays an interesting villain.

I'm still not clear about the whole deal about Herbie but I don't need to know. It's an entertaining flick and perfect for boring nights or lousy days. I didn't like it much but it did have some funny moments and my favourite scene is the street race between Herbie and Trip (seriously, the Born to be Wild soundtrack was epic)... My sister's liked it and that's what counts!

6.5/10

A sequel was expected and that is what happened. The first one was quite family-friendly and energetic whereas this one was kinda weak but nevertheless remained entertaining. The storyline was fine, quite clever and the inclusion of Helen Mirren was a good move. But however, Ed Harris was a talent underused. He plays one of those villains who have a change of heart by the end of the film but even then could not bring the depth and understanding as Sean Bean had done in the previous film. Ed Harris plays your average typical villain and the character was nothing new or different. Shame really, as seeing it's ED HARRIS!

Anyway, it has one of my favourite car chase scene and although it may look kinda impossible, it was still entertaining. All in all, another reason for you to grump over how bad the film series is and how bad Nic Cage is but me, being a somewhat fan of the series, quite liked it... *just don't punch me in the face*

7.0/10

This Scott Derrickson directed flick is a sort of a horror movie that makes your hair stand on end and leaves you weak from the inside. Even though it's main root is horror, it actually is more of a drama - court-room drama to be exact and it does a superb job in handling the above fields. The thing that makes it kinda different from most other court-room dramas is that it deals with supernatural forces and a dead girl. In the others, all the things that happen, murders, suicide whatever, are done by the people of earth whereas in this case, it's the Devil himself. It deals with possession, exorcism and rituals, the very things people see it from different points of view and from different religions and convincing a majority is not easy, especially if both the prey and the victim are not present. Like I said, this film offers more than just your usual horror, it makes you think about your position. This is not for the faint of heart, believe me!

Anyway, the cinematography is excellent and all the court-room scenes are greatly scripted and well fleshed out. But the main highlight is the exorcism scene in the barn. That's easily one of the most damn effective horror moments in recent horror history and it was superbly choreographed. It's scary in all senses and it's quite painful to watch. Then we have the performances; I'm gonna call out only 2: Campbell Scott as Ethan Thomas. His sleek, professional performance of the prosecutor was the best from the film. He doesn't twitch a smile neither he winks to the audience. He does what he has to, no questions asked and none of the silly crap. His best moment is his final speech near the end of the film. Then we have Jennifer Carpenter as the titular character. Even though she appears sporadically, she gave just about the greatest horror performance from the 2000's and I mean it! When I found out that she had done most of her "demonic" bodily contortions without the aid of visual effects and everything, I was like "just give her the damn award already". This was a dedicated performance and it shows brilliantly. From the supporting I also enjoyed Tom Wilkinson as Father Richard Moore which, in my opinion, is one of the best on-screen portrayal of a Father and Laura Linney in the lead role as Erin Bruner. I liked her performance too but she has done much better than that.

So, just like before taking up a new exercise regime or diet you should consul your doctor, you should ask yourself are you ready and are you prepared? Because if you're not, it will play with your head and might leave you disturbed...

8.1/10