Frontier(s) (Frontiere(s))

Frontier(s)(Frontiere(s)) (2007) 

Runtime: 108 minutes

Directed by: Xavier Gens

Starring: Karina Testa, Aurelein Wiik, Patrick Ligares, Samuel Le Bihan

From: Europa Corp.

Here is a movie that I've heard about for quite awhile but never was able to see as it wasn't available for rental at the local Blockbuster. I finally found it at a MovieStop store in Orlando where I picked it up used for not too much money. I heard mixed reviews for the film but I never heard anyone downright hate it. Now I wish I would have, but more on that in a bit.

Maybe the newer French horror movies that have gotten a lot of praise just aren't for me, given that I didn't like how Martyrs turned out and even if they wouldn't have had those stupid plot twists I would not have cared for Haute Tension.

As for this movie... before I talk about why it was one of the most aggravating movies I've ever seen (no exaggeration), here's the plot: Some small-time hoods from the slums of Paris (including one girl) need some cash so they decide to take advantage of the political riots taking place in the city at the time and they steal some cash and drive off to Amsterdam. But one of the gang gets shot so he and the girl go to the hospital while the rest drive off to the Netherlands. They decide to stop off at a hostel (yes) in the rural countryside for the night. It happens to be hosted by a pair of trampy women and a creepy middle-aged guy. From there... but I don't want to spoil anything even though I really should for this piece of crap film.

What really got me upset was that the lead characters are ALL loathsome human beings on a near-constant basis, both in general and to each other. Seriously, all you see is them acting terrible to each other, yelling and screaming at their alleged buddies with little to no provocation. Besides that just being numbing to watch it's aggravating as it insults my intelligence to have me believe these human beings could possibly be friends with each other. You don't even like the lead girl, who unfortunately gets saddled with an abortion angle for the film. I'm not going to mention my views on that hot-button issue. I just don't know why it had to be brought in here, unless they REALLY wanted to get the audience mad at the film.

The villains, there's a secret to them I won't reveal (even though I should) but despite them just being awful people themselves and not people you can love to hate, they almost seem to be more likeable than the protagonists! That's an awful thing to say given what the antagonists end up being but it's true.

Besides not liking anyone in the movie, I just thought it was poorly made. You know, scenes that went on too long or weren't long enough, jarring editng and transitions, that sort of thing. The fact that you also had the shaky cam/way too quick editing thing going on during the action scenes didn't exactly improve my mood as I hate that sort of filmmaking.

Sure, it's quite graphic at times so if you enjoy that sort of thing... (that's why the movie wasn't shown during the After Dark Horrorfest back when that disappointing thing was around, due to its content) but I need more than that, such as protagonists I actually like, or competent direction. You get the opposite of that here and I wish this piece of garbage would have stayed in France.

I'll be back Monday night (maybe early Tuesday) with a new review, hopefully of a film I enjoyed more than this one.

So...

This week has been entirely out of whack for me. I was going to go see something on the big screen yesterday but things got in the way; today was just crappy in general so I don't feel like watching or talking about any motion pictures, except...

That is the Australian movie for a film called (at least in the U.S.) The Raid: Redemption. It's a movie from Indonesia, of all places, and I've heard some VERY high praise for it. From what clips I've seen, it could be my film of the year, no kidding. It's supposed to be in limited release starting next month. I hope it doesn't take too long to make it to Orlando, as it'll be a must-see for me.

I'll be back Friday night, this time with my usual review of a film.

The Godfather Saga (Or Whatever You Want To Call It)

The Godfather: A Novel For Television (1977)

Runtime: 434 minutes (yes, you read that right)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola

Starring: This is obvious but I'll mention it anyway: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, James Caan, etc.

From: Paramount

Here's something I've been wanting to see for years but haven't been able to, for various reasons; whether it be under the name it's listed on IMDb, AMC using the alternate title of The Godfather Saga, or something else, here is the two Godfather movies re-edited into chronological order with additional scenes added. While I know most or all of those scenes were on the DVD box set release and surely on the Blu-Ray release, seeing them put into this massive undertaking was a thing I've been waiting a long time to see. I finally got a chance from the AMC network, which happens to be a network that I think is shit compared to their original days when they were like TCM (and I could give a good Goddamn about their highly regarded shows) but I still watched them for 10 hours in a row from 8 PM Eastern time all the way to 6 AM; how I made it I don't know but I did. Sure, it took some multitasking to make it the entire way... I still call it a success.

Back in February of '10 I saw the first movie and then the second one on Blu-Ray; you can go read those reviews to get my take on those movies. It also happens that late that month the first Godfather happened to be at AMC's Universal Studios location, and I was happy to see such a classic in that way.

As for my 10 hour experience, I'll have to echo the opinion that the original story was best the way it was told. The first movie is awesome as is and the added scenes-while interesting-don't add too much. The second movie should be how it is, which is the rist of Vito Corleone early in the 20^th century along with the downfall of Michael Corleone in the middle of the century. It just worked best the original way it was told. Still, I am quite happy I got to see the alternate version.

I'll be back Wednesday night with another review.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Yes!)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Steve Barron

Starring: The four humanoid Turtles: Donatello, Leonardo, Raphael, and Michaelangelo, along with actors such as Judith Hoag and Elias Koteas

From: Golden Harvest

Yes, I'm reviewing a movie I loved as a kid (I was a HUGE Turtles fan, as many people were if you are currently in your later 20's to early 30's) but I hadn't seen in what had to be between 15 and 20 years. I'll tell you that I loved this and the sequel with the now almost-meme title of Secret of the Ooze; I saw both on the big screen. By the time the third one came out, I waited until I saw it on VHS. I thought it was crap with one of those plot points that really pissed me off at the time, back in my less critical days. One of these days I have to watch those sequels to see how they hold up. Viewing TMNT for the first time would also be interesting. By the way, the news that Platinum Dunes (i.e. Michael Bay and his buddies, known for all those shitty remakes of the past 5 to 10 years) is going to put out a Turtles movie... major sigh. I'm expecting that movie to be the diarrhea worst. Thankfully this movie doesn't fit that label at all.

I'm sure everyone knows the plot but I'll copy and paste from IMDb as at least it's short: “A quartet of humanoid turtles trained by their mentor in ninjitsu must learn to pull together in order to face the menace of Shredder and the Foot Clan.” Yep, that sums things up pretty well.

Overall, I say that a family film about this odd of a subject is pretty strange if you think about it, it still is fine as a PG movie you can watch as an adult with children. The violence will be fine to them, you don't have to worry about such thing as filthy language, and there are various things (such as lines of dialogue) which I'm sure I didn't get as a kid but I get now. Sure, there are goofy things for both kids and adults (such as them being pizza eaters or Michaelangelo in particular being a surfer dude, or Michaelangelo doing a Rocky Balboa impression) but it isn't too grating watching it as a grown up. It's a fine story that anyone can enjoy; it's an origin story that introduces everyone in a satisfactory manner. The costumes all look fine; it didn't have to be CGI for it to be effective.

The movie is darker than the cartoon as it was largely based on the original comic book; I was fine with it then and I'm find with it now. You don't have to have it be dumbed down and have it be full of buffoonery to appeal to kids. Youngsters are able to watch and enjoy things with a dark tone! Youngsters can even enjoy things that have some intelligence to them! I know that others (including people I know) have said much the same thing but I wanted to put it out there. I know I enjoyed this movie as a 9 year old and this had a dark tone and talked of such things as Raphael having anger issues and becoming distant from his pals and teenagers having to resort to crime in order to try and survive in the world. I just wanted to make it clear that you don't have to be dumb in order for children to like you.

Let me ramble on a few more things... as an adult, I realized that Casey Jones was pretty cool as a hockey stick-wielding masked man who is happy to be a vigilante. I don't know why the movie took a potshot at the movie Critters, but it did. I forgot how much of a badass Shredder was in the movie. I mean, he really is good at kicking ass, something that was usually not the case in the cartoons. And finally, in 2012 it's funny to see two guys that became famous in later years, Sam Rockwell and Skeet Ulrich, as thugs, with Sam having a much larger role.

Overall, like I said, it's not just nostalgia which is making me say that this was a perfectly acceptable movie to watch whether you are a child or a grown up. I am glad I was able to watch it, and I'm also happy this was not something that I ended up hating and thus ruining all those good childhood memories.

I'll be back Monday night with a review of something pretty interesting that I've been wanting to watch for years now.

Act of Valor

Act of Valor (2012)

30% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 87 reviews)

Runtime: 111 minutes

Directed by: Mike McCoy, Scott Waugh

Starring: Actual real-life Navy SEALs and legit actors like Roslyn Sanchez and Nestor Serrano

From: Relativity Media

Here's a movie you've heard all about for awhile, as it stars actual on-duty Navy SEALs acting in a motion picture alongside Hollywood stars; it's quite the unique gimmick and I was real interested in seeing if this was just a gimmick or something more.

I ended up watching this on Saturday night due to a last minute change in plans, but I still waited to do this review on Tuesday.

Anyhow, the plot is that the SEALs go to Costa Rica to rescue a CIA operative (Sanchez) but they soon find out that the situation is much worse than they first realized; there's a plot going on involing some bad guys (such as a Chechen rebel) who want to use suicide bombers using a rather destructive weapon to cause a lot of havoc in the United States. Drug dealers are also involved, so the action goes from Africa to the Ukraine and then to Mexico.

I know that this movie has gotten a lot of hate from the critical types, and also the people on movie messageboards who try to act all wannabe hotshots and faux intellectual types. I do understand a lot of the criticism. War is made to look simplistic to be jingoistic (although this movie is far from being as xenophobic and ethnic-baiting as those same types would like to say; I'll still call it AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! THE MOVIE, as not only is it funny but because of the jingoism), the non-actors act about as well as you'd expect non-actors to, and the plot and situations aren't always presented in the best way.

Yet, I can't say that I hated this movie. I'm not giving this movie a pass because I'm afraid to be labeled un-American if I rip on a movie all about the military and the troops. I honestly thought it was at least an acceptable time at the theatre; there's still enough entertaining action scenes to make me happy. There wasn't really anything that blew me away but at least it was fun to watch. Many sons of bitches get shot in the head! How can you go wrong there? More than one person has described it as being something like you'd expect from the Cannon studio in the 80's; to me, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But most importantly, as someone who is about as far as you can get from being fit to serve in the military, it was interesting to see them do everything using live ammunition and also real-life tactics that the SEALs do, as I had no idea about that sort of thing. Point is, as someone who knows quite a few people who went overseas to fight for various branches of the military (and not everyone made it back home), it was nice to see how chaotic life can be for those guys. They're far braver than I am.

I'll be back Friday night with a new review.

Punisher: War Zone

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

26% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 99 reviews)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: Lexi Alexander

Starring: Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, Doug Hutchinson, Julie Benz

From: Lionsgate

Here's a movie that I saw once on the big screen and then once at a drive-in; finally I watched it on Blu-Ray via a cheap disc I bought from Blockbuster. I haven't reviewed the highly unpleasant and just poorly made '04 Punisher movie; however I did review the original '89 Punisher with Dolph Lundgren that I say doesn't get the credit it deserves; I couldn't care less about the original comic book character and how it is accurate to the story and all that crap. I say it's a fun and entertaining movie.

As for this Punisher film, it's rather over the top and wacky, but it's unforgettable and I can't help but be entertained by it. After seeing it again, my opinion hasn't changed.

The story is that the Punisher (Stevenson) is facing doubts about his line of work as the guy who wipes out the bad guys in New York City while Jigsaw (West) and his brother Loony Bin Jim (Hutchinson) rise to power and cause headaches. Frank Castle also has to deal with a lady (Benz) and her young daughter.

Like I said, the movie is over the top and wacky; just look at the scene involving some people during parkour and how Castle deals with those sorts of people for how the tone of the movie is. Also, the scene where Jigsaw and Loony Bin Jim recruit bad guys to their cause as if it was a recruitment video for the U.S. Army... pretty over the top. Yet, despite the mix of wackiness throughout and graphic violence and situations, I thought it worked and despite me not being a comic book guy, I thought it worked. The action scenes are well-done and you can make out what's going on, something that sadly isn't as common as it used to be. Plus, I liked how the movie was colored; what I mean is that there are a lot of yellow and blue lights, and they're used effectively to give things a nice look.

So of course this was something that most people did not care for, at least given the critic reviews and how poorly it did at the box office; barely making more than 10 million worldwide, that's not good for a movie with a 35 million dollar budget. It's a shame that it did poor at the box office and there were many problems between director Alexander and Lionsgate while the movie was made. It at least is already developing a cult following for being wacky yet great entertainment.

I'll be back Tuesday night.

Believe It Or Not, A Soviet Union Horror Movie

Spirit of Evil (Viy) (1967)

Runtime: 78 minutes (but the version online I saw was only about 72 minutes)

Directed by: Georgi Kropachyoy, Konstanin Yershov

Starring: Leonid Kuravlyov, Natayla Varley, Aleksei Glazyrin, Nikolai Kutuzov

From: Mosfilm

Well, here's something you don't get every day from me... a review of a movie from the Soviet Union! In fact, this is the first one from those former Commies that I've ever seen; I haven't even watched the famous ones like the original Solaris. How I even found out about this movie was that I heard about it from the first time from the podcast hosted at Dreadcentral.com known as Dinner for Fiends. One of the guys on there (a hipster type, but I'll excuse that fact) mentioned on their last podcast this film, and described it as not only having crazy setpieces and camera work, but it was also like a cross between Sam Raimi and old painter Hieronymous Bosch (see what I mean when I mentioned the hipster thing?) and that sounded so weird I was delighted to discover that someone put English subtitles on it and uploaded it to YouTube. This was the first horror film from the Soviets but what a first film it proved to be.

The story is set in the 19th century (at least that's what I'll presume given that the movie was adapted from a story by Nikolai Gogol, a Ukranian writer from the early 1800's) and revolves around a seminary student who has the task of guarding the place where a deceased witch is being held until she is to be buried. He experiences some spooky things which test his faith, and oh what a battle he has at the finale when the fit hits the shan. The twist is, he met the witch, first in the form of a rather scary-looking old woman, and then in her usual form of a pretty attractive brunette, and he was the one who killed her after he saw her do some witchery.

What that guy said about the movie proved to be true. I understand the Raimi comparisons as there's quite a bit of dark humor and the tone can be pretty light at times yet there's also many effective creepy moments. Also, there were indeed some crazy camera shots that you'd expect to see in something more modern than 1967. At 72 minutes things move rather briskly so you should never become bored with it. I heard some complaints about that fact and while the second half is certainly more action-packed I was never bored with the first half.

While I think some things were lost in translation (literally or just figuratively due to the differences in culture) it still seems like a fresh and entertaining movie to watch 45 years after ther fact, even if you just heard of it now and I just found out about it a few days ago. It's rather unique overall. As it feels newer than its age, it's likely you'll enjoy it if you enjoy such things as witches and hauntings and creepy stuff.

Thus, I am glad I got to watch this one of a kind movie and enjoy its setting, the sets, the humor, and the cool musical score.

I'll be back Friday night with a new review. Will it be more foreign horror?