Reviews by Happy Vader

Had Mel Brooks not directed High Anxiety then this would've been his greatest directed flick. Unfortunately, Frankenstein will forever be no. 2 to Anxiety in my book. If you look at the poster, it gives off the feeling of a cheap porno mess. If you look at the title, it sounds like as if a 9 yr. old juvenile delinquent stumbles upon the legendary lair of Victor Frankenstein, or something similar, and becomes a child prodigy, with a lot of mayhem and chaos stemming from his work, or rather failures. Well, that's what the title "promised" me and, boy O boy, how wrong I was proven just by 5 minutes into the film. As soon as Gene Wilder started talking, it was clear to me that he was the perfect choice and that he would keep me laughing throughout the whole film, which he did, and when he was joined by Terri Garr and Marty Feldman, the laughs doubled, tripled even.

Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder's writing was so sharp that it was clear they were trying to make the horror into funny, and funny into rolling-on-floor-laughing funny. And it stops there. It doesn't even attempt to go beyond that point, beyond where you might roll your eyes instead of your whole body and mutter to yourself, "Man, that wasn't funny at all. One of the other factors is the stability of the film and how it excelled in covering up itself as a 30's horror. Man, methinks this is one of the best love-letter ever given to the yesteryear cinema by one of the best geniuses. A laboratory, long accepted as the *true* place for mayhem, has now become in this film a place for comedy, iconic horror tropes such as lightning and spooky sounds are now used for comedic purposes, and sidekicks are no longer only faithful but achingly funny, too, something Brooks later revisited in High Anxiety with Brophy.

The film starts off in a mixed-feelings manner but quickly gains its pace when the medical student stands up and asks the question the second time. From there you know it will be worth every minute. But, however, they indeed wobble, if for a short period, during the whole Frankenstein meeting the little girl part. That didn't seem like a scene connected to the film. But for the second time they recover themselves immediately after when they follow it up with the scene involving Frankenstein and The Blind Man. Not only was it utterly hilarious but also one of Brooks's greatest genius moments. Oh, and let's not forget Gene Hackman's on-the-spot improv line "I was gonna make espresso."

Performances by everyone were great and everyone left you impressed one way or another. Even though the main spotlight is shone upon Gene Wilder all the supporting cast make excellent use of what little ray of light that comes upon them, creating rewind-that-scene moments and distinct characters.

In conclusion, this may probably be the last film I would add of Mel Brooks, the other three were Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles and High Anxiety, but that doesn't mean I will stop re-watching them. His humour I can relate and love going back to. Granted, there are some moments which are expected and quite-dragging but since it was directed and (mostly) written by Brooks, the style of execution keeps you from hitting the pause button and calling it quits - something you might've done had it been directed by someone else.

8.5/10

If you manage to round up every Ridley Scott fan and present them all of his movies and ask them to single out his best work, they will narrow it down to two: Alien and Blade Runner. Then, even though they won't be told to do this, they will form two groups and will call themselves Team Alien and Team Blade Runner, and only then we will be able to identify Ridley's magnum opus. You will also notice a tall, scrawny guy standing under the Team Blade Runner banner. Yup, that's me. I think this film is his magnum opus, and one of the greatest achievements in movie-making. What hasn't it got? A solid cast, a beautiful score by Vangelis and superb directing.

OK, I'm gonna go graphic and colourful on this: The story weaves around the never-ending rainy city like a snake, which is handled by a deranged poet of sorts. It almost has a Disney Prince quality to it but the darkness and the moody atmosphere keeps it from going down that road. Vangelis's beautiful, striking score feels like as if the film is feeding you some surreal, goodness-knows-what pills and everytime his score, or part of it, comes up, the awesomeness of the film doubles. Since the film has excelled in passing itself off as neo-noir, it can be said as the true heir to the 40's neo-noirs. Blade Runner is technically a book in movie form. Every camera change is akin to turning a page in a book, and the anticipation one feels while reading a book can feel it in this film, a rare feeling I must say. Some of the scenes and the way they are shot are so gorgeous that you can't help but imprint that scene in your mind so you can review it over and over again. Take a look when Deckard hunts down and shoots Zhora; the setting, the mood, the kill, everything is so prophetic, in a sense, and the music plays like muses mourning her death and at the same time mocking the logic behind the moment. Another moment is when Batty hoists Deckard up on the roof and goes into his soliloquy mode; not only it is haunting and mesmerizing but is also a great testament on how powerfully emotional and grabbing screen moments can get. It is only the ending that has baffled many viewers and, frankly speaking, me, too. It has also raised a haunting, and much beloved, question of all time: Is Rick Deckard a Replicant? My two-cents are unfortunately not worth their price, so I won't even try.

The more I see this film the more I'm reminded of the fact that this film reminds me so much of Velvet Underground's debut album and Jim Morrison's poetic lyrics. This is something that can be declared off as silly but that's just me... I guess. Anyone else got that feeling? Or similar to it?

From the performances, all the actors were brilliant and their characters were very well written. The one, however, impressed me the most was Harrison Ford as the protagonist Rick Deckard. By that time he had established himself as a leading icon through his roles as Han Solo and Indiana Jones in two of the biggest movies ever made. Since I'm often reluctant to march to the same beat the whole damn world is stomping to, I will say that I found him more relatable and human in this film than the other two, and his performance amazing. Even though I like Solo and Indy, they came off as irritating adult-pricks running across in a world that can be categorized as irrational or non-sensical. Not this one, though. Rick Deckard was in a world that can be categorized as "Our world within 100 years" or in other words, realistic, through the attitudes and behaviours. Deckard had more character, more depth, more human factor in it, not some one-liner one-second comic relief guy. Harrison Ford's approach to his character may seem lazy at first but he makes it simple for us to enjoy yet complex enough to leave you scratching your head. This is one film he should be remembered for, not the other two, in my opinion. The reason why I'm praising his performance above all his others is because he bought a certain degree of realism to Deckard and perfectly mirrored the image of the world around him into his character. A great achievement I must say, totally great. From the supporting, Joe Turkel was also convincing in his role as Eldon Tyrell. I like actors who are able to express through hand movements or have great flow in them. Turkel displays it here. Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty was equally hypnotizing. I'm not usually a fan of tragic villains / heroes but Hauer bought a depth of understanding to him, making him a favourite for many viewers worldwide. The rest of the cast were good, too, but hardly to the above casts' level.

The one thing that prevents me from calling it perfect is (it is rather silly) because it is cyberpunk, and I'm not too keen on cyberpunk. I'm more of a steampunk fan. Yea, that's one -punk I can relate to. Cyberpunk doesn't really cut the mustard with me, it just skims over. Steampunk is more dignified, more adventure-esque and more thrilling to watch. Had this film been steampunk it would've been time better. Come to think of it, why can't they remake it as one? (If you want to throw tomatoes, please warn me first)

In conclusion, one of the greatest films ever made and a must watch. Blade Runner was one of 80's greatest moments!

9.0/10

I believe that when discussing the awesomeness of Ridley Scott, the argument always, and I mean always, comes down to just two films: Alien and Blade Runner. Both masterpieces in their genre (both are sci-fi) and both are some of the greatest films ever made. I seen and heard of this conversation so many times that there should be a Team Alien and Team Blade Runner now, so that fans can finally stick to one side and come up with which film is more widely adored. "Which side is this reviewer with", you may ask: Well, I'm more of a Blade Runner fan myself, so there you go. But this film ain't bad either, its just that Blade Runner has a far better story-telling with gorgeous effects and a great soundtrack!

Anyway, now to Alien: Can I offer a piece of advice? Do not watch the director's cut version. Watch the original version, it's much, much better whereas the director's cut version is kinda clunky and unprofessional. I had the unfortunate luck of watching it in the former the first time but what the hey! The opening is quite-memorable and takes its time to familiarize ourselves with the ship and the characters but the film comes to its true pace when they investigate the Alien ship. From there, the awesomeness and the epicness snowballs, from Kane's iconic chest-bursting to the final confrontration of Ripley and the titular character. Even though the Alien appears only sporadically, it's mere 2-second appearance is enough to scare the shit & hell out of you. And it's of little surprise it should do so because the Alien is designed by none other than H.R. Giger, the king of modern-surrealism and sci-fi. He has created one of the most aggressive and legendary screen creature to date and surely one of the damn iconic, if you ask me. Everything about the creature is perfect and they only get better in the sequel, Aliens.

That concludes the creature, now the humans: Everyone were great in their characters but it was Ian Holm as Ash that impressed me the most, followed by Yaphet Kotto as Parker and then Harry Dean Stanton as Brett. All the others were great but not to the level of the above three, even Sigourney Weaver. I'm sure you'll agree when I say that she was times better in the sequel. I liked the fact that all the characters, bar Ripley, die by the end of the movie with the titular character shown only for a few chilling seconds, delivering the kill or otherwise!

In conclusion, Alien is a solid movie and deserves all the attention it got and is getting. Definitely a must-watch if you're a Ridley Scott fan!

8.5/10

Two-minutes into this film and you have already fallen in love. When the film ends, the feeling is akin to waving your bestest friend goodbye at the train station, with the tears and handkerchiefs and all. It is timeless, one of the many films which constantly changes the batteries in its watch. It never once ages, nomadder how many times you watch it, it just never does. It doesn't feel like you're watching a film but rather listening to a family member, or a wise person recounting his story to you. You can feel the love, anger, sadness, happiness and whatnot and it actually makes you part of it, as if you're but one of its extras.

However, the film is today widely unappreciated by youngsters solely on the grounds that it beat Citizen Kane to the Best Picture Award back in 1942. Oh you balled-up teenagers, doesn't it clearly show which film was more appreciated back then? Anyway, I don't know why do you make a big issue out of this when you yourself yell about that Academy's don't prove the worth of a film. Citizen Kane did not win; does that make it a less valuable, or less important, film? Well, I don't see you shouting otherwise. So... there! How Green Was My Valley is highly recommended and a nice, warm, family-friendly film doesn't get any better than this.

John Ford was one of those greatest directors of yesteryears who was often competed against and used to secure a fairly good position, in the top 5 probably. Granted, he is not in my top 5 but remains one of my favourites, mostly by through this film. The directing is warm and smooth, like someone laying a blanket over you when you're sleeping, or adjusting your pillow for a better ease of rest. He knew his way around the story and showed us not only what he wanted to see but things we wouldn't have seen had another director taken over. The great directing, coupled up with the enchanting music and perfect narrating by Irving Pichel make up 80% of the success of the movie.

Performance-wise, the remaining 20%, every major cast were great. Take a look at Sarah Allgood and Donald Crisp, who also won the Academy Award. Their performances are convincing, easy to watch and easy to relate to + their chemistry is quite-impeccable. Loved every second of their screentime. Then we have Roddy McDowell in one of his well-known screen-roles, as Huw Morgan. A great performance, in fact one of the best I've seen. Following them is Walter Pidgeon, one of the best old cinema actors, as Mr. Gruffydd. It may not be a performance worthy of a standing ovation, but it is worth noticing all the same.

In conclusion, How Green Was My Valley is a very pleasing and heart-warming film that will make you wanna re-visit it again just to experience that feeling all over again. A must-watch!

9.5/10

There is this saying "All roads lead to Rome". That line, however, can be re-phrased as, for this film, "All roads lead to death". The less you know about something or someone, it might kill you. The more you know about something or someone, it might kill you. The world in this film is dominated by a nihilistic madman, a weary, weather-worn sheriff, and a man who stumbled in the wrong frame, thus leading the film into a gritty, violent and unpredictable game of cat 'n mouse. More like T. Rex and sheep. The main themes in the film, there are two, are uncertaincy and paranoia. And these two are highlighted by the repeated uses of coin-toss, motels, doors, and money, the main reason for both.

The Coen brothers handled this film so perfectly that I was left mightily impressed, even though I favour There Will Be Blood more, this films' most strongest rival back in 2008. I guess I'm gonna get into the Prestige/Illusionist argument here. Both films are impressive but Blood had a much better sense of character and surrounding in it, whereas No Country was more interested in the suspense and unforgiving nature of Chigurh. Not to say this film was flawed, just that Blood was better, that's all.

Anyway, the Coen brothers have given us a 20th Century Jason Voorhees with a heart of The Terminator in Anton Chigurh, one of the only few characters who was amazing both in paper and on reel. Chigurh is the de facto ruler of the world he is thrown in and the Coen brothers wasted no time in letting that fact be known. The people in the movie fear Chigurh; What the viewer fears most is his captive bolt pistol, the coolest weapon to be shown on-screen since the Auto 9 in RoboCop. Man, you don't wanna be in the receiving end of it, believe me. The only weapon, probably, to strike fear even in statues in the night when its bullet goes sizzling past by. Anton Chigurh is not only cinema's most creepiest villain, but also one of modern cinema's most feared and most relentless. He kills just like a heart beats; it is his only way to pass the time when he is awake. I bet when he is taking his 40 winks he's probably killing sheep in his dream, or goats in his nightmares. Javier Bardem played him to perfection, to the absolute zenith. With the creepy hairstyle, unique weapon of choice and his oddly good looks (yes, he is good looking, thank you very much), he made Chigurh an iconic character of modern times that will go on to become of all time in a few years. A humourless character in a humourless world. What else do you want?

Josh Brolin was convincing in his role, too, but he couldn't reach to the level of Bardem, no matter how hard he tried, but it was an impressive performance nonetheless. Tommy Lee Jones is a prime example of a love/hate relationship. I like him in some, dislike him in others. This film is the former. I feel like this is what he is cut out for and nothing else. He nailed the Southern accent in this one, something he has done in several other movies. I believe he should just play sheriffs from now on. With Southern accents, of course. Then we have Kelly MacDonald, who was a good eye candy but her performance is nothing to ignore; she is actually better in this than all the other roles she has done. Woody Harrelson is always a welcome. He is one of the only few actors to have achieved the "Dude, you should never leave the screen, even for a second" status. His short appearance, which ends in a memorable death scene, not only puts a smile on your face but makes you go like "Yo bitches! I just saw another Woody Harrelson movie... now I gotta see more", and this is why I'm downloading Zombieland next.

In conclusion, No Country For Old Men is a ferociously violent film that focuses solely on the dark side of action and none of the light side; the one-liners, one-second comic relief and all that.

9.0/10

The Road is what you get when you mix Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Stalker and I Am Legend. It is one of the most harshest movies I've ever seen. The bitterness, coldness, reluctance and lack of soul in the environment is so real that it makes it your actual surroundings and pricks at you from all sides. Most films are about a dysfunctional family in a once-perfect world, but this one is about a once-perfect family in a world that has grown tired to continue. It has given up. What you have is what you have, you won't be getting any more, and that is why The Road is the greatest dystopic post-apocalyptic film ever made, if not for all time, then of the decade (2000-2010). It has all the familiar touches of dystopia and adds its own touches: this is a world where running, cannibalism and ammunition are the only ways to survive and where seeking refuge in a house is the most dangerous mistake. It is also where death is most discussed about over the dinner table, and not how was the day at the office or when is the next dentist appointment due. The full frontal, sharp-as-tacks depiction of how our world can become is not only scary but a living nightmare. It's like as if the fog of Silent Hill took over and personified everyone's innermost desires / secrets / fears and spread it over the world like a blanket.

The direction was awesome, as it showed you exactly what you wanted to see and was quite artistic. It felt like as if it was running on the same vein as the cinematography in Stalker. Anyway, John Hillcoat has created such a great film and calling it a "masterpiece" or "classic" would be too hasty, as it was just released 3 years ago, but I have a feeling these 2 terms will be undeniably used to describe this film. It is a also a good testament on how great films can be with a simple storyline and how memorable it can be if executed brilliantly.

From the performances, Viggo Mortensen was the heart and soul of the movie, but it was Kodi Smit-McPhee who actually "carried the fire". He was a warm and welcome find in my sporadic new-actors hunt. His innocent quality and behaviour proved just the thing in a world cancered with cruelty and harshness. Not only I thoroughly enjoyed his performance but he was so 100% convincing in his role that my heart went out to him. His crying, the look of fear on his face, the amazing chemistry he shared with Viggo, everything was so real that he became less a character and more a real person, a friend, at each passing second. Such a wonderful performance like this can hardly be duplicated, by him or anyone else. Now I'm gonna keep an eye out for him in Let Me In. From the supporting, Charlize Theron ain't no-one to sneeze at. She makes all her short screen-times her own. She leaves no elbow room for others and was equally brilliant as the other two. Robert Duvall, on the other hand, was a welcome surprise. Since it had been a long time that I'd seen any Duvall film, his short appearance was quite memorable in its own right.

In conclusion, a memorable film with memorable moments and memorable acting. It has a lot of emotional value than 10 films combined and a lot thought-provoking scenes that will make you ask yourself; What would I do?

9.0/10

There is something oddly attracting about a film that is filled with an all-star cast. Something reeling, that you just have to download it and watch it, no matter what. Such was the case when I saw the cast list for Hannah and Her Sisters. Since it was filled with an interesting cast and because I was in the mood to watch a Woody Allen film, I picked this one and I don't regret the decision at all. Frankly, I'm a newcomer to Allen's films because I find his comedy style a little hard to digest; I mean, I saw Annie Hall and the last half of Zelig on TV but I found them quite-difficult to follow as his humour and mine don't match. So, I put him, and his films, off my mind and focused on other comedies. It was only when I saw this film that I noticed that his comedic style is actually understandable but one needs to be in the right mood to understand and/or appreciate. I don't know about the appreciate part because I'm still new to his movies and maybe I could get to that part later on, who knows. I observed that he had created characters that would live in a real place but breathe in a fictional one. It felt like as if the story was created around the characters and the characters were created around the surroundings, which each having a permanent background or location. All this is meant as a compliment because I found the story to be well written, the pace great, and the characters likable. The comedy was the same but the approach was a little unorthodox. Anyway, I have a feeling that no matter how many Woody Allen movies I'll watch in the near future, Hannah will always remain as my most favourite.

Since everyone was perfect in their respective roles, it would be imprudent to call out just one or two. I mean, everyone so fully connected to their characters that they not only understood it perfectly but also added a little bit of their own charm, their own distinct style to them, and that created fully-functional, breathing characters. No cast member was out of tune. Everyone was in perfect league with each other and I thoroughly enjoyed the chemistry between Michael Caine and Mia Farrow.

Even though it left me entertained it quite-failed to leave an impression on me. What I mean to say is that I enjoyed the film and its hooks grabbed me but failed to reel me in. I guess I won't be visiting Allen's films very soon. But despite all that, it is still going to my greatest movies list!

In conclusion, Hannah is a good entertaining film that gives more than just a story; It is practically a study of the mind of different personalities and how they clash / interact with each other. Or at least that's how it felt to me.

8.5/10

Hate to say this but this film starts off as a badly tuned guitar. The opening 25-30 minutes are clunky, loud and unmemorable. Only when Leone passes the half-hour mark does he find his true ground and plays the rest of the film in a memorable and we-all-love-to-love fashion. Westerns have largely been nitty, gritty, ruff, tuff and violent, and this film is no exception. Three characters with little or no soul in them start off an epic journey to find a stash of gold buried in a cemetery. This is the third time we're seeing The Man With No Name and the second time Angel Eyes, but they suddenly become just faces at the arrival of the newcomer, Tuco. Not only he makes us forget about the others but demands your utmost attention and concentration. Leone's Western characters have always been interesting and/or mysterious but none has been like Tuco here; Wild, cruel, sadistic, practically all of the 7 deadly sins and then some. You get to see so many different sides of him and they change so rapidly that if you were feeling remorseful of him in one scene then you were feeling hostile towards him 20 seconds later. Since the other two speak, in contrast to Tuco, very little, the latter makes all the gaps in the film interesting.

Just like the previous two films, this one is too violent and gory. What I like about this film is that everything seemed authentic. Every gunshot sounded real, every fall was convincing, every piece of clothe seemed lived in, every character and their mannerisms seemed bloody perfect and all that. Virtually everything felt real, as if you travelled back in time in a time-machine.

In the performances, both Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef were great in their roles but it was Eli Wallach that stole the spotlight. His character, although unlikable, was the most human and Wallach played him so seamlessly that he should've been nominated for an Oscar. The supporting and the minor were fine but they were better than most extras and/or supporting cast from other films. They were also in harmony with the film and kept it going.

In conclusion, this film plays like an explosion at the blood factory and is a great example on how to make a simple story entertainingly complex. Don't just watch this installment, watch the full trilogy.

8.5/10

On the surface, 500 Days of Summer seems like an another pop-culture filled film about two young adults meeting and falling in love shot in a TV commercial-esque manner or a very, very long music video. Peek a little closer and you will realize it is intelligent, funny, suave and colourful. And totally different than most other comedy-drama's of its time. Two different personalities meet and often clash with each other. One believes in love and the other doesn't. There are so many similarities between this and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind that I think 500 Days is a prequel to it, which of course, it's not. The energy of the film is unmissable and the characters are very well written, both major and minor. I now understand fully the hype behind it and I'm now in love with it, totally. Even though it is mostly comedy, it manages to cram in many other genres in its 95 minute running time. The best 95 minutes I've ever seen, for that matter.

I mean, now this is a very sophisticatedly made film with two extremely well written and well acted characters in the lead. Either you end up hating them or loving them, you cannot say the journey you spent with them was boring. The supporting duo's, McKenzie and Paul, contribution to the film is also unavoidable. Loved their characters and the things they said. So basically, 500 Days is like watching a magician on-stage; His main aim is to leave you speechless but manages to make you feel otherwise as well.

From the performances, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt gets a thumbs up from me. His portrayal of Tom Hansen reminded me of Jim Carrey from Eternal Sunshine and Edward Norton from Fight Club. He handled it greatly and stayed true to his character till the very end. An impressive performance indeed. Then we have Zooey Deschanel as Summer Finn. This is the first time I'm seeing her on-screen and I must say, I was taken aback by her tackling of the character. She bought a lot of shade and mood in her character which reminded me of a young Ginger Rogers. From the supporting, Matthew Gray Gubler and Geoffrey Arend, as Paul & McKenzie, respectively, were awesome. They were very fun to watch and each had their funny moments.

In all, 500 Days of Summer is a very intelligent comedy-drama film that will leave you pleased. That being said, they should now make a sequel; 500 Days of Autumn.

8.0/10

The main reason why 8 Mile was a delight to watch was because of the cast. They weren't perfect in any way and that's why I enjoyed watching them. Everyone was convincing in their characters the boy, oh boy, was the chemistry great. 8 Mile is the third Curtis Hanson film I've seen and his second best so far (first being The Hand That Rocks the Cradle) One of the other reasons why I enjoyed this quite-flawed film was because of its easy watching. Unlike the other swearing-at-machine-gun-speed films, this one is quite attracting rather than being a repellent one. The cinematography is great, the and rhythm and flow may seem interrupted at some moments but was executed in a nice manner and Eminem was not only surprisingly good in his role, but also had a great chemistry with the rest of the cast, something I wasn't expecting.

8 Mile, unlike Get Rich or Die Trying, which has 50 Cent, is alive and energetic. It is with a message and a story. It has soul and emotion under the abrasive attitude. Unlike Get Rich..., this film was much better and deserves to be ranked higher. In Get Rich..., 50 Cent was trying too hard to act serious and there he made a mistake. He was focusing so much on acting that all soul, all charisma, all understanding to his character was lost. 50 Cent was just a person running across the screen. In short, Get Rich... was cliche. But you won't find any of that here. Eminem has his character in check and wherever he may disappoint you in certain moments of acting, he redeems himself in the rapping scenes, which he excels in big time.

Speaking of which, the main highlight of the film is the "showdown" between Xzibit and Eminem. Both were so good and created such a funny scene. Loved it.

Granted, Eminem is not gonna become Hollywood's next Cary Grant any time soon but he does have potential to become a "named" actor if he appears in more movies. Despite the many faults , he actually did an amazing job and was at ease in his character. From the supporting, I enjoyed Mekhi Phifer, Omar Benson Miller, De'Angelo Wilson and Evan Jones. Some part of me wants to see all them together once more in another movie, even though De'Angelo Wilson passed away in 2008. Then we have Brittany Murphy as Alex in one of her best screen roles. In her relatively short career she managed to give us some of the best performances in some of the best films and 8 Mile is one of them. May not be one the greatest but certainly a delight to watch. All the rest were just OK.

In conclusion, 8 Mile may not be a must-watch but try to when you get the time. A pleasing film indeed!

7.5/10