I really, really–really, really, really, really, really–wanted to like Lady in the Water. I even sat through it twice. Yes, twice. The first time I saw it, I had NO expectations, NO pre-conceived ideas, NO nothing. I just wanted to watch the new M. Night flic. It didn’t do it for me, but I really wanted it to…so after being left confusingly dissatisfied, I decided to take a second look at the film, just really trying to get it and see what I missed…and you know, I don’t think I missed anything.

The story is fine. It’s not stellar, but it’s fine. The shot composition is excellent. Even the tone is strong and consistent…but for some reason, some vague and indiscernible reason, the usual formula M.Night uses to make magic just didn’t coalesce this time. It just didn’t work for me. I really wanted it to, I did. I sincerely did. I wanted to be “that guy” who likes Lady in the Water and has a solid list of his own reasons why. I wanted to tell everyone to give it a chance…But I cannot be that man. I cannot do it.

Look, I’m not gonna throw all sorts of hate and say Shyamalan is a bad director. He’s a great director..and writer for that matter. But this was a misstep, which is fine, all directors are aloud to have misfires and many of them do. I just have to call it like I see it. I really didn’t like Lady in the Water despite my fervent attempts to do so…so I gotta give it a 2.

Land of the Dead is one helluva zombie picture. It’s a social commentary from legendary horror director George Romero that examines class structure, communal fragility, and the power of the people. Of course, this is also subtext below it being an insane gore fest that follows a variety of characters in a post-apocalyptic zombie wasteland.

Dude, bottom-line, for real. This is an awesome film. It delivers everything I want in a zombie pic–the gore, the guns, the action, and the surprises; PLUS it also features interesting characters, a consistent pace, serviceable story, and a powerful message. In fact, I don’t know what else a person could want in a horror film–there’s nothing else I would want. It truly uses the medium of the genre in order to convey some important ideas, like that the rich provide the middle class with entertainments simply to keep them pre-occupied about the social injustice around them–such as the rich’s use and abuse of the poor. Furthermore, the movie contends that the poor could overtake the rich and elite, simply through brute force and numbers, if only the poor would unite and do so.

It’s ideas like these, coupled with the common denominators of horror films, that make Land of the Dead an epic horror flic. It’s the type of horror flic that makes the genre worth watching. I am actually going to be a little generous and throw Land of the Dead a 7. As I wrote about it here, I realized just how much I truly liked it. It’s fantastic.

Okay. First things first. My whole life, I really haven’t cared all that much for Superman. He’s not my superhero. I know that some people think he’s the bees-knees, but for me, he’s always just been a little dull. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, “Batfan”, and I don’t think I’ll ever be converted into Superman’s camp. Second, despite my apathy toward Superman, I am fascinated by him. Superman is more than “a” superhero. In many ways, he is THE superhero. In a lot of ways, he is the standard by which other superheros are measured, and for some reason, he is still as iconic as ever, nearly 70 years after his creation. So while the character of Supes isn’t my favorite, I find the IDEA and CONCEPT of him fascinating.

It’s for this reason that Look Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman is a great documentary for me. I really dig it. It’s not a deep and insightful look at the Man of Steel, it’s simply a re-telling of his history and evolution in pop culture, citing both the high’s and low’s of his creative journey through various media. It’s not an objective look at the events, it’s an adoring overview of them–as if to say, “even at the worst moments of Supe’s history, we still loved him.” And that’s totally cool. It covers the golden age of Superman on Radio and Television, to misfires like the made-for-TV Superman Musical, and later adaptations like Lois & Clark and Smallville. The film looks at all of these different incarnations, paying particular attention to the best ones while acknowledging the lesser ones–all the while remaining excited about the character of Superman himself. So, if you decide to watch this thing, don’t look for a “documentary” of the more analytical approach. This is the type of documentary that is a 90+ minute commercial for the character, not a deconstruction of him. Those kind of film’s are great when you appreciate the subject, and I dig superheros, so it worked for me. To be honest, I DO like Superman more having seen the documentary. I really do. so not only did it work, but it accomplished its mission.

So what kind of Meview do I give Look! Up in the Sky? Well, I bought it, and I look forward to putting it on as background walla in the future, and I really did enjoy it and learn from it…how bout a 5. I think that’s fair for the Man of Steel–even if he isn’t my favorite superhero.

Live Free and Die Hard is a fun time at the movies. Bruce Willis jumps onto a plane, then leaps off of it. He punches an Asian chick in the face. He launches a car at a helicopter. It’s good fun. At least, I think so. I know some people will think it’s too political, too over-the-top, too whatever; but I felt that it was the type of fun and ridiculous action movie we haven’t see since Conair–it’s a flic that knows it’s off the wall, and it’s fine with that, so it just ups the humor and the bullet-count and keeps running with a plot that should’ve ended in 45 minutes.

And that’s the only real problem I have with Live Free or Dire Hard. It could have been nonstop action at a breakneck pace for a solid 90 minutes, but instead goes for what feels like much longer, with major lulls for travel time, conversations about the fragility of technological realm, and whatever else they threw in to not shoot action sequences. Frankly, I think they had to this, becuase it looks like most of the action set pieces would have run them into the millions, each, so they needed som cheap scenes for filler.

It’s a sad fact, too; for if they trimmed 40 minutes out of the movie and kept it moving at a furious clip, with action sequence after sequence, it would probably be one of my favorite movies ever. The action is that fun and exciting. Bruce Willis continues to play McClain as a BAMF with an attitude; and he’s just as charismatic as he was in the first. Justin Long was okay, and Timothy Olyphant played a cool and calculated villain whose controlled response to McClain creates an interesting ying-to-ying-dynamic but makes him a little stilted.

Also,to anyone who thinks the PG-13 rating detracts from the necessities of the film, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. The film still has that great humor and action the series is known for, it only lacks the F-bombs (which are fun but not essential).

I am givng Live Free or Die Hard a solid 5 out of 7. It’s a fun time at the movies.

Lionheart is my favorite Van Damme movie. I love the concept, and the execution was as good as I could expect from an eighties action movie.

The story of my affinity for this film is a long and drawn out one, but I will offer the cliff’s notes here. Some years ago, my buddy Phil and I heard from a mutal friend that there was this Van Damme movie with crazy fight locales and lots of action, kinda like Bloodsportbut different. So, Phil and I spent the better part of an afternoon trying to rent the movie. I think we went to about a half-dozen video stores in search of it, but we could find nothing. Finally, we checked a nearby store to which neither of us had a membership, to see if the film even existed. It did, and Phil opened an account at said store just to rent this Van Damme movie about which we heard such powerful and joyous things. We watched it, and it was everything we had hoped for.

Now, several years later, I watched it for the second time, and it has lost none of its potentcy. Van Damme plays, Leon, a legionairre serving his term in North Africa. He gets a message that his brother was brutally assaulted, and his sister-in-law and niece are inundated with medical bills. Leon flees the legionarre’s and runs for the US, only to land in NYC instead of Los Angeles as he intended. In NYC, he becomes involved in underground street fights to earn living money. With the help of former fighter, Joshua (who alone makes the movie a 5 [he’s like Rudy Ray Moore’s little brother]), he makes his way to L.A. and continues to fight in order to help his sister-in-law and niece survive the rough financial realities of widowhood, whilst also being pursued by agents from the French Foreign Legion. During the course of the movie, he kicks ass like Roddy Piper when he’s all out of bubble gum (to those who caught the They Live reference, I salute you).

The acting and story devices are all secondary, so I won’t get into them. This movie is about illegal, unlicensed fighting that rich people pay to watch; and frankly, it is the only movie on the subject I’ll ever need to see (unless a documentary comes out and I find out this kind of thing is real–if that’s the case,that documentary may become my new favorite movie, dethroning the beloved Roadhouse). The movie is about fights, and the fights are awesome. One takes place in a drained pool, another in a racquetball club, and another in a makeshift ring in a mansion. Each of these, among others, showcase Van Damme’s trademark legwork, with plenty of elbows and punches to beef up the action. From start-to-finish, I love this flick. it is an awesome example of the no-holds-barred style of eighties action movies, with loads of one-liners and goofy side characters you come to love despite themselves.

Lionheart is one of my all-time favorite movies and receives a 7 from me. It’s just that fun, worth every punch, kick, and scream. This film is rated R for language and brutal violence.

UPDATE: UNDER THE NEW RATING SCALE DELEVOPED 2/16/07, Last of the Mohicans retains a 4.
Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you, Readers and Friends. Today, I mourn the loss of the Native American lifestyle, and I wonder, “How in the heck did Frenchman and Brits ever take over the New World? Looking back, they should have lost. Badly.”

Last of the Mohicans is an adaptation of the James Fennimore Cooper novel of the same name. I did an 18-page paper on the book when I was in high school, didn’t remember much, and what I did remember seemed off from what happened in the movie. This was actually a good thing because it essentially allowed me to view the movie untainted. The story of the book follows three frontier warriors, two Native Americans and one white man raised by Native Americans, as they track and repeatedly rescue two daughters of a British general during the French and Indian War. The film is masterfully directed by one of my personal favorites, an insanely talented guy by the name of Michael Mann (who also did Heat, Collateral, and Miami Vice). The movie won an academy award for sound (I think).

As much as I wanted to love this movie and call it one of my new favorites (which is the case ANY time I watch a movie for the first time), it’s really not. In fact, I would say this is one of Mann’s weaker offerings—making it still good, but not great. The film was so repetitive. The woman are in trouble, the warriors rescue them. The women rest, the warriors rest. The women are in trouble, the warriors rescue them, The women sleep, the warriors watch them over them. The women are in trouble…etc, etc. Granted, when the women are in trouble and the warriors fight, things are entertaining. The fighting in this movie was great, and the cinematography was awesome; however, I found myself thinking “Oh, great, a chase, we’ve seen this. Oh, wow, another ambush.” several times over the course of the film. Some people may actually love the repetition because it gives the movie a good pace and steady momentum, but a movie’s momentum should increase and heighten as the film continues, not remain constant.

The moments in between the chases and fights are interesting. The dynamics between the characters, though somewhat shallow, are always intriguing to watch, and the politics of all players of the colonies pre-Revoluitonary War are fascinating. The French, the English, and the Native Americans are all shown to be both good and bad.

What really killed this movie for me was the ending. In my opinion, the film was very anti-climactic; and while I enjoyed seeing frontier-warriors kick the hell out of barbaric, self-serving, and greedy men, it all felt very forced and stale. The music at this part in the film didn’t help much either, which is sad considering how good it was the rest of the movie.

Bottom line, Last of the Mohicans gets a 4 out of 7. It’s good, and I think most people will enjoy it. Some may even love it. That’s awesome, to each of you, I salute you; and I hope you have Mohican action figures on your shelf. This wasn’t really my bag. I kinda connected with it, but I had to work fairly hard to do so. The movie looked great, moved fine, but felt repetitive and stale by the end. If you really love it, shoot me a line or leave me a comment and let me know why.

SONG OF THE POST: “Speed Me Towards Death” by Rob Dougan, from the Album, Furious Angels.