So I totally picked this flic up at Costco for $10, and I am happy to say that it was pretty much the best “unseen” purchase I’ve made in a good long while. The movie is relatively simple: A U.S. town is invaded by a union of European evil, and a group of seven kids run to the mountains to hide, only to be driven to guerrilla combat by the evils of their enemies. My wife put it best. “The guys just show up and then the movie is nothing but shooting.”

Yep, which pretty much makes it an awesome flic in my book. Originally, I even intended to give Red Dawn a tentative seven; but the lack of character development for the female leads and an overall lack of structure kinda knocked it down for me to 5 (out of 7)–but don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed myself watching it. The idea pretty much makes for everything I could want in a movie. I mean, it’s a plot just waiting to be re-enacted with my G.I. Joes. There’s an enemy invasion, followed by a ragtag group running to the hills like Iron Maiden, then a refusal to hide and a retaliation in full force. Plus, in the flic, the rag-tag team is led by commander Patrick Swayze, his plucky kid brother Charlie Sheen, feisty Lea Thompson, and shot-down-pilot Powers Boothe. Come on, what more could I possibly want in this movie? Well, Maybe a minotaur or some velociraptor. But that’s just silliness. I really enjoyed this flic, and I have nothing more to say about it. It’s not perfect, there’s plenty I would have changed or done differently (and I will once I play this scenario out with my joes).

I picked up Ringers at a Hollywood Video for $5, and I’m really happy I didn’t take a chance on spending more than that. It was like the price of a rental, and it was worth that much to me. i mean, I’m glad I saw it…Problem is that I didn’t think it was all that good.

Frankly, Ringers is simply a glorified fan-film celebrating The Lord of the Rings and its myriad of fans. Sure, some time is spent on Tolkien, but the bulk of the picture is spent focusing on the consistent popularity of the books during the ever-changing cultural landscape of the last 50 years–which sounds fascinating. Unfortunately, it’s not—at least not given this film’s treatment of it. It all just feels like a real mess of ideas thrown together to say, “Look, Lord of the Rings has a global fanbase of good people who come from all different backgrounds. Aren’t they (and the book they obsess over) wonderful?”. Sure, they’re wonderful, but this movie really wasn’t.

Maybe I’m being unfair. In fact, I know I am. See, I love Trekkies, which is essentially the same movie as Ringers. But Trekkies had fascinating personalities and well-communicated ideas about acceptance, obsession, and community. The difference is in the storytelling, in the examination of the persons and places being explored. It’s just a matter of execution, I guess. Trekkies was done right, and Ringers was not–at least not in my opinion.

Ringers is a poorly produced, badly edited mishmash of a mess. Both times I watched it, I was doing other things, and it was fine background noiise, but it seemed to take forever. I was kinda entertained and learned something, though, so I guess that it’s not all that bad…but I kinda did think it was. I don’t know, I’ll give Ringers a 3.

Sorry. That was kinda long

Okay, look, the trailers for Ratatouille looked like crap. No matter how much promotional stuff I saw, I just couldn’t get into it. I thought the whole concept was pretty stupid–that a rat would be a chef in a French kitchen and that he could control a bumbling chef by pulling the guy’s hair did not interest me at all. If Ratatouille wasn’t a Pixar picture, I wouldn’t have given this movie the time of day.

I did give it the time, however; and I am very thankful for having done so. It’s a good flic. It has Pixar’s trademark charm and heart, conveyed through their slick and fantastic animation. It’s a beautiful looking picture with a romanticized Paris that I am sure is 100 times better than the actual city–and if nothing else, I owe Pixar thanks for giving me this version of the city so I don’t have to bother trying to catch the other one before I pass into the afterlife. In fact, I’ll just say it right now, straight up. The best part of of the movie for me really was the visuals. Though I was engaged in the story, I still didn’t fully buy into the remote-control-chef; and at those parts, I did kinda just study the shot composition and animation more than the story itself. I was never bored, though. The visuals alone are very engaging.

So, Ratatouille get a solid 4 from me. I did really like it, even if it was imperfect. It’s yet another powerful piece of the Pixar portfolio.

In the late 90s, I got really, really into Jackie Chan. Not “kinda”, I mean “really”. I was the guy in high school who went to suncoast on his birthday in order to buy crappy c-list distribution imports of Jackie Chan movies like Twin Dragons (3 years prior to its US Theatrical debut) and My Lucky Stars. I even bought a bootleg of Meals on Wheels during a field trip in New York in eighth grade. Yeah, i was that guy. A freakin’ nut.

I’ve simmered down since that time, but I still like me some Jackie from time to time. My wife will confirm this. There have been nights we’ve been out and about, grocery shopping or grabbing dinner, and all I want to is buy a Jackie Chan movie. My love for Jackie began when I saw a trailer for Rumble in the Bronx back in the mid-nineties, I think it was a preview on VHS copies of New Line Cinema’s video-game adaptation, Mortal Kombat. Anyway, the speed, agility, and courage of the charismatic Jackie caught my eye as a youngster, and I was hooked. When I finally saw Rumble, several years after seeing the trailer, I loved it.

Fast forward to now, even more years later, when I finally found Rumble in the Bronx used at a GameStop, and I my love for the man is renewed. This is a FUN martial arts pic. I love movies about the everyman fighting bad people and becoming a hero, and Bronx is just that. Jackie Chan stars as Keung, who battles a local gang as well as diamond thieves during a trip to the U.S. It’s awesome. Chan is on fire during all the combat, and the movie is well-paced and fun as hell. It has its shortcomings. The little kid is annoying, but he does provide a few laughs, and some of the dubbing is awful. However, the overall presentation is freaking fantastic. The martial arts action is awesome, the fighting is constant, the lead chick is attractive, the villains are dudes you love to hate, and the score kicks butt. I love it.

Bam! I am giving Rumble in the Bronx a solid 7. I want to watch it again just writing about it, and that’s the sign of a CC favorite.

The Royal Tenenbuams is one of those flics I like but I don’t love, and I’m kinda sad about it. For all intents and purposes, it seems like a movie I should love. The humor is unique and, at times, uproarious (particularly when (a) Pagoda stabs Royal and (b) Royal shoots his son). The acting is stellar (particularly from Danny Glover and Angelica Houston), and the overall tone is interesting. The shot selection is fantastic, and the pace is even and consistent.

For some arbitrary and completely unfathomable reason, however, I just don’t love this movie…and I really, really want to, but I just don’t. You ever have that feeling? Like you just saw something powerful or, at the very least, really good, and you just think, “Yeah, that was good, but I don’t really dig it. It’s not my bag, even though it should be.” It’s a weird sensation, and I don’t remember ever having such an odd emotion after a film. Perhaps that was the intent of the quirky picture. I’m not sure. I think Tenenbaums is going to be one of those flics that I will never watch again of my own accord, but I will always be happy to sit through it at another’s request, because I want something in my mind to connect and give me a “eureka” moment of how I feel about the film.

I know this meview is kind of odd, and maybe that’s appropriate for this film…or maybe I’ve just formed some sort of dissonance to this motion picture and can’t express it. I don’t know. I do know that I think the flic is good, and I wished I liked it more, cause I think I should. For that, I give The Royal Tenenbaums a 5.

When people say to me, “Nicholas Cage can’t act.” I pretty much forget my libertarian “like what you want” attitude and quicly chime in, “Yes, he can. He has range and knows how to imbue characters with personality beyond the page. He can act.” Some people agree with me, some don’t. That’s cool (there’s that libertarian attitude coming back).

Anyway, the reason I argue this is because of whom Nicholas Cage was early in his career. People forget that he played a good-hearted cop, a cold-hearted criminial, and binge-drinking writer in a 3 year span, and he knocked each role out of the park, giving each character quirks and dimension. Before showing all of his range at one time, however, Cage was in comedies, particularly a little gem by The Coen Brothers called Raising Arizona. In 1987, Cage portrayed the dimwit H.I. McDunough in the film, and having watched the film recently, 20-years later, I’m reminded of just how talented this guy really is, even if he’s calmed down a bit as he’s aged. Cage’s performance in Raising Arizona may be one of the best performances of his career. It is hilarious.

In fact, the whole movie is hilarious. It’s one of my favorite comedies of all time. John Goodman, Holly Hunter, and William Forsythe join Cage in this fantastic kidnap-caper comedy; and each of them also give exceptional performances steeped in their characters. Forsythe in particular is amazing considering many of the roles he took later in his career. Maybe it’s just that Coen’s have a knack for pulling amazing performances from their actors. Whatever the reason, everyone delviers in this movie, and I love it.

It’s a very unique film structurally, given that the entire first act is told in voiceover which never returns until the denounement. It’s original in terms of the varied types of humor and comedy it blends and employs. It’s also interestingly shot and well-paced. I can’t think of anyhting it gets wrong. I really have nothing but praise for Raising Arizona. I love it.

That being said, Raising Arizona receives my highest numerical rating, a 7. No discussion. Hands down it’s one of my favorites.

The Road Warrior is perhaps the greatest post-apocalyptic action film of all time. It is a fantastic and thrilling ride, particularly in the third act. In fact, once the big chase starts, it’s pretty much a perfect movie. The action is fast-paced and energized; and characters you think get a pass because they are “cool” or “important” are all free game, with some dying deaths so abrupt its jolting–giving the chase a sense of unpredictbaility and urgency rare in action cinema. The “surprise ending” is also fantastic.

The story of The Road Warrior follows the nomadic Max, a former Australian cop whose family was murdered in the post-apocalyptic outback. Max wants to just travel on his own and reject connection, so as to avoid getting heartbroken again. He gets involved with a settlement besieged by attackers hoping to steal their oil, however, and gets roped into dangerous missions which cost him all his worldly possessions. He then goes on a final suicide run for the benefit of the colony–maybe hoping to die himself.

And that’s possibly the strength of The Road Warrior. Rarely does a film have an action hero with deep-rooted emotional issues that are never specfically explored or addressed. Many times, its obvious in action flics what the heroes psychological problems are, and the action helps him “deal” with them somehow. Not here. Max is a deeply wonded anti-hero, and he stays that way from start to finish. At times, he seems completely cold and heartless, at other times, he seems to have instinctive compassion and concern. It makes him complex and fascinating to watch.

In fact, I’d say it’s simply Gibson’s performance that carries the first two-thirds of the movie. The story, like most post-apocalyptic, is overly simple given the endless questions I had about this new world as a viewer; and while the villains look cool, they had little to no range and added little to the story other than being “the threat”.

The Road Warrior gets a very solid 6 from me. It is an achievement far above the original Mad Max, and the best post-apocalyptic action flic I’ve seen to date.

I’m so thankful I’m not a film critic. It’d be difficult to look at a movie like Romeo + Juliet and make a solid analysis of it. Luckily, I’m just a movie watcher, so I just have to react to it. My reaction: Wow.

This movie is, of course, an adaptation of William Shakespeare’s beloved play of “star crossed lovers”, brought into a seemingly modern context via the fictionalized city of Verona Beach–a sort of Los Angeles crossed with the shores of Santa Monica with the primary characteristics of each of these respective locales taken to their nth degree. In this created environment, poetic Shakespearean dialogue is able to coalesce with modern clothing, weaponry and music in a true testament to movie magic. It’s bold, intense, accessible, and utterly breathtaking.

I’m not going to go into comparisons with the play, for I haven’t read it. Nor have I seen any of the other film adapations of it. I’m in a fortunate position to have viewed Romeo + Juliet in a vaccuum, without anything else clouding it. AND I am so thankful for that. I am grateful to have experienced this legendary story thw way I did, with the vibrant life and operatic tone of truly fascinating art. Romeo + Juliet. boasts ornate, beautiful set pieces, fantastic acting, incredibly breakneck piece, a gripping soundtrack and an overall impression of complete and total immersion in a new world unlike any I had experienced prior to my viewing. It’s a highly-stylized work of great imagination and techinal prowess unmatched in its unwavering audacity to not only tell you the story but move you through it, with each moment bearing a new combination of emotions! Frankly, and I don’t say this much, but I don’t think I have ever seen a film like Romeo + Juliet and I doubt I will ever see another like it in my lifetime.

I give Romeo + Juliet an overwhleming 7.

I’m one of the few people who like Rocky 5. In fact I am probably the only person who loves it. I thought it was a good bookend to the Rocky saga, and I love the final fight. Alot of people disagree with me, and that’s fine. However, truth be told, just because I liked Rocky V doesn’t mean it was the best way to end the series. Rocky Balboa is.

For those who haven’t seen it, Rocky Balboa echoes the original Rocky more than any of the other films. With our hero a bit down on his luck and just kind of coasting, he is more like a re-introduction to Rocky than a blanket continuation of his story. Now, instead of being a down-on-his-luck guy who needs a break, Rocky is retired celebrity, coming off of a career highlighted by uncanny successes. He’s lost his beloved wife Adrian and lives in the old nieghborhood, having lost his mansion and tons of money. Now, his income comes from a samll restaurant, for which he does all the shopping. After an ESPN CG fight says that Rocky at his prime would wipe the floor with the current champion, Rocky is

I am giving Rocky Balboa a very solid 5. I think it’s a very good film, and a great bookend to one of the greatest sagas in cinema history.

Okay, here’s some honesty. I know that Robocop is more than a comic book-esque action flic. I know there’s something being said. I know director Paul Verhoven (possible misspelling there is going for something poignant, something important. I feel it to the marrow of my bones that the movie is about much more than the surface. Unfortunately, I’ve also had one helluva time honing in on what that is, and everything I’ve come up with like I’m still not getting it.

What I am getting? Well, here’s the best I can muster at present. Robocop is actually Verhoven’s attempt to comment on the overt and prominent greed of the 1980s, and the logical results of it going uncurbed. These results of course being corporate control of not only security but life and death itself, not due to consumer interest but government dependence on corporate technology. This dependence will manifest itself in a failure of the government to police the corporate organizations, who will then in turn become the law, resulting in larger dangers for society as a whole. All that to say, society is paying a big price for the techonological developments of huge businesses to make our lives a little more comfortable. It’s ultimately going to be the downfall of our society to the point wherein truly governed society will be nonexistent and all that will remain is the haves guard themselves from the enormous numbers of the half-nots. Of course, I could also be completly off, which if I am, I’d love feedback. Please, please, please, if you have seen Robocop and have a take on what is trying to be said, please comment. I would really like to be corrected or confirmed on this assessment.

Beyond all that “meaning” and “theme”, there’s plenty more to love about Robocop. The designs are sensational, with ED-209 probably serving as the best security droid in history. The action is both interesting and ultraviolent, highlighting the film’s themes while also being highly entertianing. The overall performances and execution of the story is impeccable. The movie is pretty much PERFECT structurely for this type of “birth of a superhero” story, and many of the origin stories of the last 10 years could have learned quite a bit by studying it. It’s flawless.

Taking all of this into account, I am giving Robocop a 6. I was planning on a five; but upon further reflection, it’s a really fantastic film from start-to-finish, with something important to say, even if I failed to grasp it.

I got Terminator and Robocop as an impulse buy at Target in one set for $7.50. It’s pretty much the best deal I’ve gotten on DVDs, ever.