Reviews by Happy Vader

Since Misery was released in the 90's, it is, strictly speaking, not a horror film; It is a thriller film, the norm adopted in the 90's, but since the definition of horror reaches far and wide, Misery can now be said as one of the greatest horror films ever made and the 4th greatest movie adaptation of a Stephen King novel. Since it is also psychological, it almost literally compiles most of the average nightmares into one; Abandonment, waking up to a living nightmare, and sharing space with a total nutso. When you read the novel, which is brilliant as usual and very sarcastic at times, you will find that it is very complex, very cross-patterned, but when you see the film, it is very simple, very just-the-basics-please. Not that I'm complaining but actually complimenting on how Rob Reiner kept most of the book, deleted the complex parts, presented it as a simple movie, and succeeded in it.

It also has a distinct quality of making a villain out of something that usually never becomes one. The home of Annie Wilkes. The woman, well, we all know who she is. The home, however, is Annie Wilkes in an inanimate form. Warm and inviting on the outside but houses (literally) brutal going ons in the inside. It mocks Paul by the beautiful view of the outside but haunts him by the grim atmosphere of the room he is stuck in and by forbidding him to escape to freedom by its ominous nature. So basically, the heavenly abode of Wilkes and the hellish dwelling of Paul transforms itself to satisfy the former and taunt the latter. The cinematography in the parts where Paul wheels around the home was excellently done. First it shows us the (apparant) freedom, then it shows us the impossible obstacle one must go through if he is to achieve it. The music only made it memorable. A job well done, I must say!

Not only were Kathy Bates and James Caan convincing in their roles, but were also convincing to each other. Caan almost excellently passed off as a writer and Bates as a horror-of-personality character. All of their actions and words seemed convincing and the face Bates makes when she is breaking his Paul Sheldon's ankles is classic. If you freeze that frame, and the one where she is holding the knife in her hand, you've got another iconic image of horror.

Both of them - Kathy Bates and James Caan - were truly excellent in their roles, but since the former steals the show, the latter isn't really given much room to shine, but if you review the film in your head or re-visit it, then you will realize that she just could not have done it without him.

In conclusion, Rob Reiner has created an immortal horror classic, I think we can use that word now, and it is such a solid puncher that I doubt it will be forgotten that easily.

8.5/10

What can I say about this film? When I saw the trailer, I had gone and picked the most "tame" trailer which showed almost next to nothing. Not only was I disappointed but it killed off my mood, which was very high. Then, just yesterday I was reading a magazine and The Curse of Frankenstein was featured, alongside a few other Hammer masterpieces. Going against my better judgment, I decided to download it and watch it once and for all. It took all of 12 hours and it got me thinking, "Is it a sign? That I shouldn't watch it? Or is it to test my patience? Will the end result be good?" The answer is, of course, the latter. The opening score fired up my interest and by the time we meet a disheveled Peter Cushing, I was all-ears and all-eyes. Nothing, absolutely nothing distracted me for the next 83 minutes, a curiously short running time, don't you think?

I'm a relatively new-comer to the mind of Hammer. In fact, this is my first film, and I'm sure more will follow. I guess I've gotten into the pattern and style of Hammer; Rich colours, amazing music, a great cast, and beautiful (OK, busty) ladies. If you compare it to Universal's Frankenstein, - 1931 - then this film is Twilight to Lord of the Rings. It may sound harsh but that's how I saw it. I don't think a comparing is necessary as seeing how different approaches and styles were adopted by the two. The 1931 was sombre, dark, moody, while the 1957 was energetic, violent, stylish. The 1931 was built to shock - and possibly revolt - while the 1957 was done to amaze; or at least that's my deduction. Even though it doesn't stand up to the 1931, the key moments in this film, I believe, are the laboratory scenes. It looks nothing like a proper lab but since it has interesting sounds and colourful chemicals and a crazed character running back and forth, it immediately becomes more interesting than it should. For today's standards it may seem very tame, very outdated, but try to see it from the 1957 POV and it becomes probably the best thing you've seen on TV so far. The violence is also very outdated compared to today's standards where everyone is obsessed with showing eyes being ripped out. Speaking of which, the scene where Paul shoots Frankenstein - known only as the Creature - squarely in the eye is bound to send shivers down your spine and raise all of your hairs. It is gory and, of course, very artistic and immediately becomes the rewind that scene moment of the film. The other moment that challenges this one face to face has to be the part where Victor wipes the blood on his coat in an absent-minded manner, something I really wasn't expecting. It's funny how these little things, which amount to absolutely nothing in modern movies and other movies in general, suddenly become among the most goriest and violent things you've ever seen on-screen. How did they manage to achieve that effect I'll never know!

Anyway, from the performances, Peter Cushing, who plays Victor, is the true embodiment of the classic quote, "I'm NOT gonna be ignored." That's true, whenever he came onscreen, the others became almost obsolete and/or extras you normally wouldn't care about. He was so into his character that whatever he said, whatever he picked and whatever he threw, it was crystal-clear that it was not Peter Cushing who was doing it; It was Victor Frankenstein. An energetic performance that deserves to be included in (if there is such a thing) the great performances hall of fame. Robert Urguhart, who plays Paul Kremppe, was equally perfect. Although not as energetic, he marched to his own pace and performed brilliantly in that. Christopher Lee was by no means a scary presence than Boris Karloff in the 1931 film, it was almost as haunting and powerful as the 70's/80's horror icons. Since everything in this film was fast, Lee's portrayal of a stumbling, shuffling, and quite edgy, Frankenstein was superb in its own right. It was much more scarier, much more repellent. The ladies, however, were just OK, an eye candy, something the film could've survived without, like any Scarlett Johansson role; Doesn't amount to much but provides a-lot of eye candy.

In conclusion, this is one of the more better finds I've seen this week and is a classic in my book. Apart from the 1931 cast, no other cast can best the above mentioned three in their respective roles. A film that will clearly surpass your expectations!

9.0/10

The most manliest film in the world, directed by the only director to have had 3 successful back-to-back outings, and lead by cinema's most quotable action hero. So, what do you get? You get Predator. The 80's, *sigh*, the best decade for action movies. Now it's all CGI. Back in the 80's, every director's aim was to create the best action film on the market, ranging from the all-too-realistic Rambo to the implausible - but enjoyable - Commando to the legendary Terminator. Fast-forward 20 years and we get directors trying to prove just how much they can make a film squeal like a pig by (mostly) pointless CGI, cliche moments and sub-par script, ranging from the Men in Black sequels to Transformers to Skyline to pretty much every blockbuster released in the past 5 or 6 years.

Predator's first greatest move was to call in Arnie to play Dutch, the main protagonist of the film. He was one of the best actors back in the day not (only) because he could undertake any action he was given; But because he, as an actor and as a character, was self-aware. Apart from the Terminator films, he knew his films were bordering on goofy and/or silly and having a serious character to go along with it would just not cut it. Predator - by definition - is a silly film and quite irrational at times and Arnie knew better to work his mouth rather than his muscles alone. His funny, and quite-iconic - (Get to the Choppa!) -, quotes and mannerisms were evident enough that he was playing a real person, if not 100% realistic, and not just another cinematic cliche, although he does fall into that pit by the time the films comes down to its last 10 minutes.

On paper, it seems like a one-minded film and, you better believe it, it is. It only focuses on the action part. When it is time for the suspense or who-was-it part, a couple of expendables cannot be trusted to act like Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys. So they yell fuck it and spit on the ground and come to an agreement that whatever it is "If it bleeds, we can kill it", and we're steered back to the action part; Not that we ever career away from it but it brings us back there 100%. We get a-lot of explosions, bullets that never seem to end and just plain loudness. That's just the first part. The second part, however, turns into a I Spit On Your Grave comical - but enjoyable - mess.

Anyway, the Predator - the character - is one of the all-time coolest characters that only gets better in the Alien vs. Predator crossovers. Everything about the character is memorable, especially his roar. And if you think that's a dorky looking mask, you don't know anything!

In conclusion, one of the greatest films ever made, yes, but not one of the finest and one can easily lose interest right after when Anna starts to speak English. I mean, from there, things kinda went soft. Predator is a fun film that promises action + violence and it gives. Give it a try, won't you?

8.0/10

The story is insanely simple: 4 men call it a weekend and go down Cahulawassee River to witness the beauty that is soon to be eradicated for themselves. It has the typical; An overly enthusiastic, 50/50 poetic guy, one 'normal' guy, one a pessimistic, mild guy and one who never shuts up, the vocal of the group - the comic relief, in short. If this were an action film then each of these guys would've stood out like a sore thumb and would've been overly stereotyped. Had it been comedy, their weaknesses would've been the butt of the joke and the seriousness a target of mockery. No matter what genre, these guys would've been "been there, done that". But since this is a thriller film and since it pits normal guys against extraordinary, and unpredictable, - otherwise realistic - situations and corners, each character feels right at home. Every character is realistic and relatable, if not 100% likable, and one can relate themselves to at least one character, depending on their personalities. Not only did John Boorman throw the characters in the right background, but he also chose the right cast. A cast so greatly chosen that I find it difficult to replace them with someone else. Take a look at Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty, both in their debuts. Both of their characters indeed suffered the usual cliche - The most vocal gets raped and the nice guy gets killed - but since this film had the most appropriate background for them, the point hit home. These things happen in real life and the bullies - in this case, the mountain men - usually go for the weak ones first, who in this case were Bobby and Drew.

Story-wise, Deliverance is a strongly scripted film and as brutal and hard-hitting as its dangerous waters and rocky terrains. Some films drag you headfirst into the action. Some take you by the hand and take sweet time in doing it. Deliverance, however, puts a hand around your shoulder, points into the distance and says, "Do you see that, my friend?" Nothing hidden, nothing subtle, everything is right in front you. And by that I mean the opening Banjo Duels scene. It may seem a sweet moment but it actually underlines, and foreshadows, everything that is to follow, namely unpredictability. Anyway, this is a brutal flick that requires all of your nerves to watch it and you will be amazed by the realistic approach of it that you can swear the people die for real. I really wasn't expecting this film to blow me away, but by the time it ended, I was left polarized and, frankly speaking, very disturbed.

Performance-wise, all 4 of them - Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds - were great and convincing in their roles, even if the last two did take time to catch up to the speed. The best from the bunch, however, was Ned Beatty as Bobby, the guy who gets raped. Fat guys in films always get the worst deal and/or are the most hilarious of the heroes. Bobby, however, is as realistic as they come. I really enjoyed his performance and it gets better after every 5 minutes.

In conclusion, Deliverance is a solid film and seriously not for the weak-hearted. I can assure you that there are no jump-scares or ultra-violence but the rape scene is bound to give you nightmares for a-many days.

8.5/10

The film barely reaches its 10 minutes mark that it already shows very worrying qualities; cheesy, unpredictable quotes, wrong atmosphere and a pace that can be said as limping. You instantly know that it is not going to be like the other epic classics, namely Spartacus. It is only when Hector is introduced that you ease down a little and you instantly know that it is gonna be worth of your time. Hector, played by Eric Bana - who has never looked this handsome before - grabs you by the scruff of your neck and yells "pay attention to me", and you have no choice but to oblige. Hector, from his introduction to his death, remains the only character that you actually care about and find yourself rooting for, and he leaves a strong impression because of two reasons: the way he was written for the screen and Eric Bana's performance. Hector was so well-written and chemistry-wise he was so brilliant that he felt the only living flesh among hundreds of puppets and/or CGI. Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom were both hilarious in their roles, achieving something they were not hoping for. I mean, absolutely no depth to their characters, performances were off-beat and their written script was clunky and goofy at best. From the females, a large part of the actresses were good but they could've picked a better Helen of Troy than Diane Kruger. Don't get me wrong, I loved the choice as she really is beautiful but they could've picked someone with better acting skills. Someone like Lena Headey could've been a much stronger choice. @ Hollywood: Anytime you make another sword-and-sandal flick, just cast Lena Headey and you have got it made.

Story-wise, the film is quite a-rumbling mess, like a big pile of dominoes falling or Lego blocks being smashed by a ball. It is fun to watch but offers absolutely nothing. The battle scenes are great, they really are, if this film had been directed by Walt Disney or Roland Emmerich. Seriously, CGI? Come on, what's with this PG-Rated stuff? No flying bodies, no guts falling out, no blood, absolutely nothing, except for very fast, stomach-turning editing and unnecessary focusing. Come on, Ben-Hur is times gorier than this and it was released more than 50 years ago. Not to say there wasn't any blood, there was, but I wish it could've been more. Not that I'm a fan big fan of blood coming out as if from a high-speed hose but it would've suited the atmosphere of the battles. But not all battles were done with CGI. Take a look when Hector and Achilles confront each other. Two greatest of the warriors fighting each other to death. The cinematography was great and the 2 minute fight scene was hands down the best battle from the movie and one of the greatest from modern cinema. Both handled the spear, shield and the sword better than I expected.

In conclusion, even though it employs an ensemble cast (the above + Sean Bean & Brian Cox), it just didn't achieve what it was hoping for. Even though it was enjoyable I would have to say it was a miss.

7.5/10

They say the irrationality and the implausibility of the Indiana Jones franchise is the secret of the series' success. That, and Harrison Ford. I agree. What this film offers is full-cut entertainment and adds more flavour to the popcorn that's sitting beside you. This film requires no thinking, no puzzle-shifting and absolutely no deciphering; just Indiana Jones braving danger and escaping without a scratch - and becoming an instant icon. I like the character, one of my favourites, but I just couldn't connect to the film and its logic. They contrived a world - a nonsensical one at that - and then threw a character in it who was almost as goofy and had him confront danger and then had him rescued at the last possible minute. I kinda feel sorry for the movie heroes as they're never really given a chance at true heroism, bar some, like Atticus Finch and Juror No. 8, but since they appear in non-action movies I will rule them out. Indiana Jones is a hero, and nothing excites the viewer than seeing his/her favourite hero just inches away from death and being rescued or running away from it at the last possible moment. That one moment gets secured in the viewer's mind and he happily applauds the scene and the awesomeness behind it and instantly becomes a fan. Selling such a nonsensical presentation like that is easy, anyone can do it - Come up with a story, an instantly recognizable hero and have him go through a series of traps / dangers that will portray him a hero but only just. I've done that several times in my short-stories / novels, too. But why are some films more watchable than others is because of style of execution. Some execute the cliche in a unique or different manner, while the others go for the same old, same old. The execution style in Raiders is the latter, and one great example is when Indy picks up a poisoned date and hurls it in the air as in to eat it before it is caught by Sallah. Indy never once does that before and after that scene and in any other film in the series for that matter. Either they had run out of ideas or were keen on arousing tension to the scene. Either way, it lowered the bar. That's just one example, and more of 'em come later in the film. I guess a man has to throw everything out of the window and just sit back and enjoy the film and if that's the case, then yes, Raiders is quite an enjoyable flick with a-many quotable lines and fun performances.

Take a look at John Rhys Davies, who plays Sallah, one of the most lovable and genuinely funny characters in movie history, and the second best from the Indiana Jones universe. His personality, loyalty to Indy - as well as his friendship - and his deep singing voice are all positive characteristics and an instantly likable figure on-screen. Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, is a much-adored character by many but only becomes a full-admired character when fans watch Willie Scott in the sequel. Even though I have no complain against Willie (*shocking*), I must admit, I was disappointed at how a helpless woman succeeded such a kick-ass girl. Ronald Lacey and Paul Freeman played their characters memorably, the former a villainous Major Toht and the latter Indy's-rival Belloq. Both were quite impressive in their roles and I wish the former had been given more screen-time. Apart from these, all the others were either fine or stiff - mostly the latter!

So, why am I adding a film to which I've done nothing but berate in my greatest movies list? If the above factors make the film, then I must say that its intended purpose has been fulfilled and delivers exactly that. I won't be adding the sequels, you can count on that! One is enough!

7.0/10

Marc Forster is one of the 4 directors who tackled Johnny Depp and survived. The other three are Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and Gore Verbinski. One first glance the film doesn't seem much, just another film. If you peek a little closer you will notice it is as entertaining as J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan and although not as magical, still flows in the same vein. The cast is very well-chosen, wonderfully played, and the set intriguing. Marc Forster takes us behind the scenes on how J.M. Barrie got his inspiration for Peter Pan and his life-story, all wonderfully paced and warmly presented. The cinematography is not bad either, showing different levels of moods from different angles and highlighting the main focus of the scene, making it stand out so that the background, or side, activity becomes obsolete. The score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek is equally enchanting. I wouldn't say this film will go on to become a cinema classic but to those who are currently in their teens and are watching it, it will be in, let's say, 20-30 years. It possesses a certain magical quality that I hope still remains when I'll re-visit it after many, many years.

From the performances, Johnny Depp has certainly been never like this in his career. Almost a vast majority of his characters are either loud, eccentric and colourful whereas this one is quiet, too human and a gentleman. Very interesting, really. It's one of the best performances by him. Then we have Davies boys: Freddie Highmore, Nick Roud, Joe Prospero and Luke Spill. All were wonderful in their roles but of course, Highmore was the best of the bunch, being more talented and more misty-eyed. Kate Winslet was also good but she has done far better roles than this. Seeing Radha Mitchell was a good surprise. She was good, too. Dustin Hoffman actually looks better and dignified with a beard. He should sport that often.

In all, Finding Neverland is a good watch but nowhere a classic in my eyes although the combined performances of Depp and Highmore might make you call this film just that.

8.0/10

Tim Burton's films are almost difficult to criticize. He is one of the very few directors whose films I can't bring myself to criticize. As usual, this film, just like most of his others, was very fun to watch and was very entertaining. It may seem like the perfect combo ever: Johnny Depp & Tim Burton getting together to take upon themselves Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, a fun, and dark, story of inventive madness. Within minutes into the film it is clear that Burton is having too much fun; you can practically picture him smiling behind the camera and/or jumping in his seat like a school-girl, high with ecstasy. His cinematography and the beautiful set, however, were the only solace. The main problems lied in Johnny Depp and the adult cast members. Not saying they weren't bad or anything but they were just too restricted and, frankly speaking, boring in their roles. Depp was like a man stuck in a straitjacket, struggling to get out of it the whole film, which, of course, he never does. Even though Tim Burton kept things alive by his quite-amazing cinematography, even he couldn't bring the spark in the film's unassuming script. It either covered things very quickly or in a snails-pace + some of the dialogues weren't very convincing and I'm beginning to think that this film wasn't intended for mature-minds at all, or to those who can easily spot a flaw or error. It is only for children who are not fully exposed to the world of cinema and its way of handling things, I guess. My younger sister enjoyed it and that's what counts.

Anyway, let's keep this short. Freddie Highmore's performance is the main highlight here. I thoroughly enjoyed it and had a great chemistry with the rest of the cast, or at least with those who he interacts with, especially Johnny Depp. Then the other two I enjoyed were from AnnaSophia Robb as Violet and Julia Winter as Veruca. Both handled their characters in a talented and entertaining manner and you wished they had stayed on-screen longer.

Anyway, these are my two-cents. Not a disappointing film, but could've done better with a much better adult cast.

7.5/10

The Champ was a sad film. By sad I mean heart-breaking. By heart-breaking I mean in a beautiful way. And beautiful is the word that can be used to describe the performance of Ricky Schroder as T.J., in his debut. Children in movies always tug at your heart-strings but this one shamelessly pulls at it. Not only was it a beautiful performance but it made you wish that either you could go in the film or pull T.J. out to the real world just long enough so you can hug him. His crying scene at the end, widely considered as the most saddest scene in film history, is no bull. It is real and it makes you cry as if 10 onions are being peeled all around you. It is guaranteed to move even the hardest of hearts.

The whole film, however, is a good example of mixed feelings. Sure, it is very warmly directed and evenly paced but is abrupt and rocky in some places; As if like a nice evening daily walk on the beach constantly interrupted by flying footballs. Just like an old man walking down the beach reflecting his times of sorrow, or anything that would drive him to tears, The Champ mostly focuses on that part. The emotional impact of the film is so powerful that every-time a sad scene comes up, the tears literally come in droves, and by the time the end comes up, you're probably drowning in your own-made pool of tears, or if you're watching with someone else, their's, too. Because of this heavy one-sided presentation, the building of the character is left out in the open and the main cast, bar Schroder, feels isolated and although not detached, but in a quite-different pace than the film, usually slow. Despite these setbacks, the film has an antique feel and one of the best father-son relationships in movie history; The movie equivalent of Chicken Soup For the Soul series.

Remember what I said about Jon Voight in my Mission Impossible review? I still stand by it, although not as aggressively as before, but I still stand by it. I enjoyed his chemistry with Ricky and their onscreen father-son relationship but it was his sans-T.J. moments that had me worried; He was too restricted, too puppet-like, as if several people were shouting at him off-screen to go here or go there or do this or do that. Anyway, his performance, to me, is 50-50. In some cases very good, in others very restricted. Then we have Faye Dunaway. I've heard many go like, "Dude, what does the world see in her?" Tsk, tsk, you plastic teenagers living in a plastic world run by wax models, Faye Dunaway was, and is, one of the only few candidates who actually fits the phrase "Ssssmokiinngg". Sure, in this film she is not as fiery as she was in Bonnie & Clyde or as hubris-filled in Chinatown or, should I dare say it, in her female Captain Spaulding phase in Mommie Dearest but boy oh boy, she will still expand your lower garments and have you re-arrange your position for a better expansion (hee-hee. sorry!) Her performance was also very bittersweet but since she ain't no cock-a-doodie (I'm currently reading Misery) actress, it was more "Chinatown" and less "Mommie Dearest". The rest of the cast were pretty OK, some very stereotypical, some very hard to place.

Anyway, I don't exactly love the film but the relationship in this flick is so great and the emotional impact is so titanic that it forced me to add it in my greatest movies list. OK, OK, I'm doing it, just don't punch me in the face.

8.0/10

Opened the film with high expectations. Walked away disappointed. But not that disappointed that I start including it in "worst films" lists or start burning it with hate in my head. No, it was OK. It had the potential of making Ethan Hunt the modern humour-less equivalent of James Bond but unfortunately it couldn't; That honour went to Jason Bourne. Now, Brian De Palma has directed quite-few well-known films and this film looked promising but because of its lackluster script, implausible scenes and Jon Voight, it fell short. Way short, if you ask me. Jon Voight is a hilariously bad actor who has only done 2-3 good films and that too at the very start of his career. His performance wasn't in the least bit in league with the others. Not even Tom Cruise, for that matter. To me he felt like as if he was mentally deciphering the script in his head while at the same time trying to control his limbs. There was hardly any synchronization and it felt detached, not wanting to be in the film at all, as if he was missing out his favourite soap opera and wanted to finish the scene as quickly as possible.

I've long given up on action films because of their implausibility and irrational moments. I know, I know, these are the 2 factors which fuel these type of movies but I guess I'm not the right audience. But I do like to see an action film once in a while and even though Mission Impossible was a good watch, it hardly came up to my expectations.

6.5/10