PHANTOM OF DEATH (1988) - Review

Phantom of Death

Crime/Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 30 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Gianfranco Clerici, Vincenzo Mannino, and Gigliola Battaglini
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato
Produced by: Pietro Innocenzi

Cast:
Michael York
Edwige Fenech
Donald Pleasence
Mapi Galán
Fabio Sartor
Antonella Ponziani

How do you catch the uncatchable ...

Like most Italian filmmakers, Ruggero Deodato's body of work seems to be more and more derided as his career progresses. Perhaps derided is too heavy a word, but for whatever reason, the vast majority of Deodato's more recent films are either ignored completely or not taken as seriously as his earlier films, which have since gone on to be everyone's talking points concerning his career. Like his contemporaries Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento, perhaps it was due to the dying film industry in Italy that caused his more recent films to be cheaper in quality and seen only by a select few of diehard fans and horror hounds. But also like Fulci and Argento, Deodato has had some really stellar pieces of work in his later years that unfortunately have gone on to be unfavorably ignored by most, even more so than his masterpiece films like Cannibal Holocaust and House on the Edge of the Park have. Phantom of Death remains one of Ruggero Deodato's finest works.

Despite a career that spanned many genres, by 1988 Deodato was known as a heavy hitter in the horror circuit mainly due to the notoriety of his film Cannibal Holocaust. Knowing this, he did not shy away from horror and made such films as the enormously powerful rape/revenge flick House on the Edge of the Park and the fun, backwoods slasher film Body Count. Because of his Italian heritage and because of his being such a large name within the horror world, it seemed perfectly logical that Deodato would eventually try his hand at making a giallo.

Phantom of Death serves as the director's first attempt at the giallo subgenre, and it remains an extraordinary entry - mainly due to the fact that it takes every rule and convention of that subgenre and bends and breaks them, effectively turning the giallo on its own head. Deodato had succeeded in the past doing this with the rape/revenge subgenre, and here his brilliance shines through again. In every giallo, we as an audience are left scratching our heads wondering which of the characters introduced to us on the screen will end up being the killer by the film's conclusion. In Phantom of Death, Deodato plays with this expectation - effectively jarring his target audience - by showing them within the film's first twenty minutes exactly who the killer is. Not only that, he tells viewers all of the killer's motives - keeping no secrets whatsoever. One might think this genre bending might ruin the fun most gialli have concerning the cat-and-mouse game played by the killer and the film's investigative figure, but Phantom of Death keeps this fun genre trope, even making it more interesting by showing the audience all the cards early. By giving the killer a disease which rapidly ages his appearance, the audience knows who the killer is and why the police can't catch him - and yet this is precisely why we share in the frustration that they can't catch him. It's not because like them, we can't figure it out - but rather that we're already two steps ahead of them with the killer waiting for them to put all the pieces together. This showcases why Ruggero Deodato may be one of the most underappreciated talents in cinema of all time - his ability to create a fresh and brilliant story within an already established, and perhaps even tiring, subgenre.

Also showcasing Deodato's brilliant direction is the film's ability to create some really tense, or perhaps intense, moments. The killer shows himself early on to be an unpredictable maniac driven to madness by his disease. Keeping this in mind, the audience becomes uncertain as to when the killer will strike. Deodato does a fantastic job allowing tensions to build in every scene, and scenes like a stakeout gone wrong in a forested park, a parking garage attack sequence, and the moments leading up to the film's final confrontation are powerful and undoubtedly will remain in every viewer's mind as standout moments.

The performances are terrific, more so than the film's B-budget would suggest. Michael York does an excellent job showcasing a man falling deeper and deeper into madness, and his capability of portraying this role is so effective that even without the brilliant makeup effects, one gets the sense that they'd believe his character to be rapidly aging anyway simply due to his mannerisms and alterations in speech. Donald Pleasence is at his absolute best - on par with his performance in John Carpenter's Halloween. Like the killer, Pleasence's character Inspector Datti is driven slowly to madness, mainly due to the frustration that he cannot find the maniac he has been chasing for so long. It is rare that Pleasence ever emotes excessively in films, and even in this film his demeanor is mostly cool and collected, but in the few moments where his character breaks and bursts into fits of rage and anger we as viewers are shown why, like Deodato, Pleasence was an enormously underappreciated talent. Edwige Fenech is excellent too, but unfortunately she is not given much screen time. The scenes she shares with Michael York, however, are wonderfully executed and the chemistry between the two feels genuinely authentic. Italian horror legend Giovanni Lombardo Radice - who had previously starred in Deodato's House on the Edge of the Park - has a cameo in the film as a Catholic priest.

Pino Donaggio, who had previously contributed the score to other Deodato films, composes the soundtrack and the music is on par with Donaggio's greatest of works. Having worked with Brian De Palma on the suspenseful giallo-tribute Dressed to Kill, Donaggio is well aware of how to incorporate music to increase tension. The film utilizes both melodic tones typical for lighter moments and heavy synth-oriented pieces typical of thrillers and horror films of the 1980s. Despite the film's lower budget, Giorgio Di Battista does a good job with the cinematography, and even the film's production design seems ritzy and expensive.

Despite all of its great qualities, Phantom of Death has one fatal flaw: a poorly conceived conclusion. With most of the film's tension being generated between York's killer and Pleasence's inspector, the viewer feels that this terrific game of cat-and-mouse is going to come to a brutal and bloody climax - or at the very least an intense moment of confrontation, akin to perhaps something like The Boys from Brazil. Instead, the ending that we are given is a weak one that feels almost as if it had been a last minute write in - a last ditch solution to a problem that the filmmakers were having during the entirety of the shoot.

For whatever reason, Ruggero Deodato has expressed distaste for this film. This may be due to the film's rushed conclusion, it may be due to a particular performance (he allegedly did not want to work with Fenech), or perhaps something else. Who knows? It isn't something one should concern themselves with, though, considering Deodato also praises his own film Dial: Help which remains unquestionably one of his worst motion pictures.

Phantom of Death is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant entries into the giallo subgenre mainly due to its visionary direction allowing it to bend and break every genre convention. A terrific score, brilliant performances, and some really killer (if you'll pardon the pun) makeup and special effects work, the film manages to overcome its flat conclusion and remain one of the greatest films ever made by Ruggero Deodato, a man who deserves so much more respect than he has received.

9/10

THE CONJURING 2 (2016) - Review

The Conjuring 2

Horror/Mystery/Thriller
2 hours and 14 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Carey Hayes, Chad Hayes, James Wan, and David Leslie Johnson
Directed by: James Wan
Produced by: Rob Cowan, Peter Safran, and James Wan

Cast:
Vera Farmiga
Patrick Wilson
Frances O'Connor
Madison Wolfe
Simon McBurney
Franka Potente

The next true story from the case files of Ed and Lorraine Warren

Perhaps whenever a film boasts in its tagline that it is based on a true story, it should put quotation marks around the word: true. If you genuinely believe Hollywood's use of this tired tagline I would remind you of the Coen brothers' film Fargo which boasted this claim and was later admitted to be one hundred percent fiction. That being said, the tagline is probably the least problematic thing about James Wan's The Conjuring 2.
I wanted to like this movie. I loved its predecessor, and most of the reviews that I had read seemed quite favorable, and yet there was still a little voice in the back of my head warning me not to get my hopes up. Considering I've seen enough horror sequels (or sequels in general) to know that they can never, and have never, lived up to the potential of their predecessors, I should have listened more to that little voice - I would have been considerably less disappointed.
If the credits are any indication as to what went wrong with this highly anticipated sequel, one needs to look no further than the number of writers. Films utilizing scripts (most of the time) that are accredited to several writers feel either too convoluted or fragmented in overall tone. The Conjuring 2 suffers from the latter problem. The fingerprints of several writers not able to rally around one simple idea are all over this film. The film flows from 1970s horror/nunsploitation (yes, that is a genre, look it up), to classic ghost story chillers by way of The Amityville Horror, and it even utilizes the more modern idea of the Slenderman-like being by way of the "Crooked man". In the end, the story is a mess.
The film begins with the Warrens' investigation into the Amityville haunting (an admitted hoax) and even this feels like an unnecessary start. While it sets up the film's supposed antagonist, it treads too much upon deeply explored horror territory (much like the problems its predecessor had with The Exorcist). From here the film fumbles and tumbles from jump scare to jump scare in typical fashion of its director. The problem this time around though, is that the scares are not even masterfully executed the way they had been in The Conjuring. As one angry reviewer put it, "There's only so many times an audience is going to jump at a door being slammed in the night."
Another reason why The Conjuring was successful in what it tried to accomplish was its very minimalistic feel in regards to its specters. Ghosts were hardly shown, and when they were barely any makeup effects seemed to be used. The Conjuring 2, perhaps given a larger budget, trudged in the opposite direction in regards to this. Its antagonist, a demonic nun, is shown in its complete entirety every time it is seen (starting from the first few moments of the film). By doing this, the villain loses its power to scare the audience effectively throughout the picture. The film's other villains are also completely ineffective. The spirit of an old man looks nothing more than a grumpy old man that your family invites over for holidays out of obligation, and the Slenderman doppelganger, the Crooked man, is so poorly executed, the CGI used to construct him looks cheap, rubbery, and like something from a Roger Corman produced Syfy original movie. It's a cheap move, is poorly executed, and when it's all said and done it is disrespectful to the film's audience.
The actors do an okay job, but even Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson seem like they are simply going through the motions at this point - as if their hearts aren't really behind these performances. The film drags and this doesn't help, allowing more time for the audience to pick up on this lack of enthusiasm given to their roles. (The hokey Elvis impersonation by Patrick Wilson is cringe-worthy).
Perhaps the most interesting aspect in regards to the film is its examination of these "true" ghost stories as hoaxes. At one point, Ed and Lorraine Warren are on a TV talk show to discuss the Amityville haunting with a professor who calls them out as supporters of this fraud. It clearly makes the Warrens (although, Ed more than Lorraine) uncomfortable and adds an interesting level of reality to the film: the everyday conversation of do ghosts exist, and are people like the Warrens simply there to exploit people of their fears for their own fame? This is somewhat later brought up again through Franka Potente's character, also a paranormal investigator, who tries to expose the main case as being a fraud. Unfortunately, this subplot is swept away in both circumstances as quickly as it is brought up. The story might have been much more fascinating if this debate had been its focal point.
Demonic nuns (by way of The Devils or Demonia), creepy old men (by way of almost every Stephen King story), a cheap, rubbery, CGI ripoff of the Slenderman, performances delivered without any enthusiasm, and a fragmented and uninteresting ghost story are the ultimate downfall of James Wan's highly anticipated sequel: The Conjuring 2. Viewers looking for cheap thrills will leave more than likely satisfied with this two hour Frankenstein's monster of a film. Horror and genre aficionados, however, will leave with a very dreadful air of dissapointment.

3.5/10

RONIN (1998) - Review

Ronin

Action/Adventure/Crime
2 hours and 2 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: J.D. Zeik & David Mamet
Directed by: John Frankenheimer
Produced by: Frank Mancuso Jr.

Cast:
Robert De Niro
Jean Reno
Natascha McElhone
Stellan Skarsgård
Sean Bean
Jonathan Pryce

Anyone is an enemy for a price.

Most action films ignore the idea of a well-thought-out, intelligent storyline. Like zombie films, they don't ask their audience to read into the realism behind what is being told. Instead, they offer a kind hand to movie goers and ask that they come with them for the next hour and a half to two hours for a thrill ride of something that won't stimulate you intellectually, but will undoubtedly be a fun and entertaining experience well worth the price of admission. Most action movie junkies don't ask for more than a good shootout, or a thrilling car chase to keep them happy. The thing about John Frankenheimer's Ronin is that it is a refreshing addition to the action movie canon in that it is incredibly thrilling in regards to its jaw-dropping action sequences, but it is also a highly intelligent, well-thought-out story that is bound to keep whoever watches it hooked on its MacGuffin centerpiece ... what was in the case?

Knowing that action fans aren't necessarily looking for a wordy espionage thriller - or something along the lines of Fred Schepisi's The Russia House - Frankenheimer understood that this intricate thriller needed some impressive action sequences to keep these fans satisfied. And boy, did he ever deliver. Ronin is filled with some of the most impressive car chase sequences that have ever been conceived - surely, just as impressive as some of the grittier carsploitation films that were pumped out of the 1970s. The narrow and windy streets of both Paris and Nice are perfectly utilized to the fullest of their extent, causing every turn taken by the film's heroes and villains to beg the question in the audience's mind, "Is this where it will end?" The innovative use of such a daring setting can perhaps only be rivaled by Peter Yates' use of San Francisco in his 1968 film Bullitt. But not to be out shined by the film's car chases is perhaps the film's shootouts. Marvelously choreographed in the heart of the French Riviera or on the streets of Paris - Frankenheimer once again masterfully uses the film's locations to the film's advantage.

These action sequences and car chases are captured masterfully by director of photography Robert Fraisse. Fraisse understood that the fast paced action demanded to be seen in all its glory and each shot captured is done with a steady hand. These sequences were then cut together by editor Antony Gibbs using quick cuts, none lasting more than maybe one or two seconds unless called for. This combination of steady, well-framed shots with quick cuts brings the speed and adrenaline behind these sequences directly to the viewer while simultaneously allowing them to see everything that occurs - not missing a single moment.

But of course what makes Ronin such a unique film is its level of intelligence in regards to its plot. The entire story, if any real negative thing can be said about it then it is this, is a very standard and generic heist story. The first twenty minutes involve the characters discussing what they will steal, the heist occurs, double crosses happen, and the protagonist must make things right in the film's third act. While this goes along with the simplistic nature of the action genre, Ronin is unique in that it is perhaps the only film up until its time to center the stereotypical heist storyline around the idea of a MacGuffin. The entire film, the audience - along with the majority of the characters, including the protagonist - don't know what it is they are stealing. This question becomes quickly irrelevant, focusing the audience's attention away from the heist, and back to the interwoven subplots that are the cause of all the stereotypical double crosses and betrayals. It's a genius plot device that Frankenheimer, again, masterfully exploits.

The film's characters are perhaps a bit lacking, no real characterization is given in regards to any of them - and makes certain scenarios in the film seem a tad unbelievable, for example, the implied fling between De Niro's character and Natascha McElhone's feels unnecessary and like a last minute addition to try and add some depth to their characters. Despite this lack of depth to the characters, the actors handle their own and deliver some truly impressive performances. Specifically, Robert De Niro and Jean Reno as the film's two protagonists. Given their character's lack of depth, it's truly a testament to these great performers' capabilities that sooner rather than later they have the audience siding with the both of them completely. Equally impressive is Jonathan Pryce as the film's IRA-agent-gone-rogue antagonist. Pryce has even fewer scenes than De Niro and Reno, and yet he still delivers a truly compelling performance that allows the viewers to gasp in anticipation of something bad to come every time he is present.

There is a last minute twist to the film that affects mainly De Niro's character and while it doesn't entirely detract from the quality of the film - it does make one wonder if it had been excluded from the final cut, would Ronin have suffered in any way in regards to its own quality? Perhaps it was added by Frankenheimer, writers Mamet and Zeik, or maybe even suggested by De Niro - but whatever the case, this denouement feels like a last minute addition to add yet another stimulating plot twist.

While it will most likely never be remembered as one of the greatest contributions to cinema, Ronin is a surprising film that is as intellectually stimulating as it is entertaining. The action sequences are beyond impressive - even more so now in the era of CGI. We're becoming so used to computer-generated action sequences that when we do come across films with impressive practical effects, it becomes apparent that that is truly the more impressive route. The storyline is intricately woven, but never once loses its level of intelligence - something that is unique to find among action films. And its impressive cast deliver astounding performances despite very little given to them in regards to characterization. Ronin remains, to this day, a truly astounding film.

8.5/10

MEAN STREETS (1973) - Review

Mean Streets

Crime/Drama/Romance
1 hour and 52 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Martin Scorsese & Mardik Martin
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Produced by: E. Lee Perry & Jonathan T. Taplin

Cast:
Robert De Niro
Harvey Keitel
David Proval
Amy Robinson
Richard Romanus
Cesare Danova

You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets...

Mean Streets was a Scorsese film that over the years had gotten away from me. I had seen it at some point in either high school or middle school and didn't remember it making an impression on me the way other Scorsese films like Casino, Goodfellas, and The Departed had. I even recall being slightly disappointed by this given my admiration for not only Scorsese but for Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel (who in my opinion is still one of the most criminally underrated actors of all time), and even David Carradine who has an interesting cameo within the film. All this being said, I'm incredibly glad that years later I've revisited Mean Streets.

It is by no means a perfect movie - and it is far from being Martin Scorsese's greatest achievement (I'll save that title for Taxi Driver). The storyline at times seems to almost lose its way down various digressions that perhaps a more fitting title would have been Meandering Streets. Some of the supporting performances are far from believable - Amy Robinson hardly keeps up with the raw talent of her obviously gifted co-stars. And the film's conclusion, if one could call it that, is hardly that at all. It leaves the viewer with the knowledge that whatever were to happen next in this story would absolutely be the most interesting part of this tale. Despite all of these set backs, Mean Streets is not the worst thing Martin Scorsese has graced audiences with (the Cape Fear remake comes to mind ...).

Unquestionably, it is the performances within Mean Streets that make it a fascinating film to watch. Understandably, most discuss Robert De Niro's performance within the film. He is bombastic, a wild card, and a hopeless case that the audience can't help but liking despite a knowledge of his destiny being solidified from the very first moment we're introduced to him. While De Niro showcases his immense talent, it is Harvey Keitel who delivers the most intriguing performance of the film. Keitel's character Charlie immediately has the audience's sympathy. He is in many ways, just as hopeless a case as De Niro's Bobby Boy - but Charlie is a much more tragic figure. His inability to release Johnny Boy from his friendship and ultimately his protective tongue, and his relationship with Amy Robinson's character Teresa - a forbidden romance - immediately plagues the audience with sorrow for this helpless case. Keitel handles this type of character with such an incredible talent, he would later go on to perfect this tragic hero figure in the film Bad Lieutenant. 

As stated before, Mean Streets' storyline does suffer from it's wandering a bit, but the moments where it remains incredibly sharp and focused are truly outstanding. If anything, the film served as a learning experience for Scorsese to later perfect the tragic story of a New York outcast in Taxi Driver. It's fascinating to see how this auteur cut his teeth and shaped his style within the film. Moments where the camera glides through red-lighted bars past wiseguy conversations instantly brings to mind the cinematography of Goodfellas. The scene with David Carradine - one where the gore is downplayed (probably due to the film's low budget) but the violence is still quite heavy - brings to mind some of the most shockingly violent moments of Scorsese's film career (I instantly thought of Joe Pesci's final moments in Casino). It shows that at even a very early stage in his career, Scorsese had an excellent handle on violence within story and how it affects both the viewers and the overall narrative.

There isn't much to say about Mean Streets. It is an intriguing film to watch and to pick apart. One can easily find the moments that are pure Scorsese, but one can also see moments where the director strayed, failing and learning from the experience as evidenced in later films. It remains a film that is better than most directorial debuts simply due to the performances of its two leads and of its supporting cast. It is far from Scorsese's best and even farther from being his worst.

7/10

ALIENS (1986) - Review

Aliens

Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
2 hours and 17 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: James Cameron
Directed by: James Cameron
Produced by: Gale Anne Hurd

Cast:
Sigourney Weaver
Michael Biehn
Paul Reiser
Lance Henriksen
Bill Paxton

This time it's war.

I want to begin this review with a disclaimer by saying, I get it. Aliens is flashy, it's violent, it's action-packed, it's full of more than capable performers, and its story doesn't ask the audience to pay too close attention to detail. Aliens is just the kind of movie that has earned its praise from audiences who still shell out cash to see whatever summer CGI blockbuster has been released or anything Michael Bay has to offer. That being said, as someone who praises Ridley Scott's Alien as one of the most brilliant motion-pictures ever conceived - Aliens is not a film that has earned my praise - and it probably never will be. So, if you are someone who adores James Cameron's sequel and will only find yourself becoming infuriated that somebody else out there disagrees with you - this review is not for you. If, however, you'd like to hear the flip side of your coin of praise, then by all means, read on.

I've often drawn comparisons to John Boorman's disastrous sequel Exorcist II: The Heretic when discussing Aliens. It may seem shocking, and I will concur that Boorman's film is significantly inferior to Cameron's, but I draw the comparison because both films seem to have a reckless handling of what was established already by their predecessors. Probably - and if we're being honest, this is the most likely explanation - it was because of the filmmakers' egos.

Aliens begins 57 years after the final moments of Scott's film. Our heroine, Ellen Ripley, is rescued and brought to safety by the very "Company" that nearly six decades ago had approved her death order, saying her and her crew were expendable in bringing back the xenomorph life form. Ripley is humiliated and ridiculed by a board of Company members, who do not believe her story and revoke her piloting license because of it. This would work extremely well if Cameron had solidified that this were a coverup by the Company. Instead, he decides to go down the "group amnesia" route. When the Company informs Ripley that her story is impossible because a colony of people lives on the planet where they found the xenomorph, it destroys the idea that this is a cover up. If the Company knew the alien was there, it would have either a) sent an extraction team to recover it after the Nostromo was destroyed, or b) sent the colony to the planet, and then immediately sent them out to the alien spaceship. Instead, the colony lives just as unaware of the aliens on their planet as the Company has now become for two decades. This "group amnesia" plot hole makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is even more problematic when Company man Burke revives the idea of trying to bring back an alien at the expense of his protectors.

I'll skip over the lack of logic in Ripley's character agreeing to go back, or her being present not far from where the creatures are first encountered (if she were an "adviser" to the mission, couldn't she have just stayed behind on the spaceship - and wouldn't she have opted to do so given the traumatic events of the first film?), and instead jump to where the marines encounter the xenomorphs. Hundreds of xenomorphs should have had no problem tearing through twelve marines, one Company man, a traumatized ex-space trucker, and a little kid, in a matter of minutes. In Alien, just one xenomorph killed an entire crew within hours. It is true that they were unarmed, whereas the marines have weapons. Despite this, hundreds versus twelve to fifteen, and the knowledge of the creature established by the first film, deems it impossible for the lengthy survival. And even if they got lucky in the first encounter by escaping, surely they would be killed by the overwhelming number of creatures in the second. Perhaps Cameron, like the antagonistic Company, had amnesia and forgot the character of Ash's words in the first film. He was asked "How do we kill it?" to which he directly and promptly answered, "You can't." For something that cannot be killed, the marines sure do make it seem easy.

Cameron also disregards the xenomorph design by artist H.R. Giger from the first film. Sure, the basic elements are there - but there are some surprisingly different elements to Cameron's xenomorphs. For starters, the adult creatures lack the big translucent dome upon their heads. Cameron has stated this was removed for practical reasons, and that the performers in the alien suits couldn't move as easily with the domes upon their heads. But it seems to be more of Cameron's ego than a practical issue that caused the change to happen. Bolaji Badejo, who played the xenomorph in the first film, managed to move surprisingly well with the dome upon the head of his costume. If one can recall, he's even squeezed into tight places at times, camouflaged with the mechanics of the ship. His movements seem almost more demanding than the ones of the xenomorph performers in Aliens. So, the change more than likely occurred because Cameron wanted to leave as much of his fingerprints upon this franchise as he could, regardless of whether or not it disregarded anything set in place by Ridley Scott's film or H.R. Giger's designs.

The chest-bursting phase of the creature has also been changed, with the addition of arms. In Scott's film, this stage of the creature had no arms or legs, looking more cobra-like than anything. Since there is no logical reason for the addition of the arms, Cameron, again, more than likely changed Giger's designs so he could lay claim as a creative force behind the creature. If it seems that this is a stretch to say Cameron's ego caused all these changes, I implore you to watch Aliens again. There's even a moment of self-adulation within the film where the android character of Bishop is discussing Cyberdyne Systems in regards to the manufacturing of androids. Cyberdyne Systems is the fictitious company in Cameron's film Terminator also responsible for robot/android creation. Its presence in Aliens is both illogical and unnecessary and serves only the purpose of Cameron shoving his name as an auteur down the throats of the audience so that they'll walk away feeling he is responsible for so much of the creative elements behind this franchise.

Part of the reason why Scott's Alien is so horrifying is because it plays with the idea of man's fear of the unknown. So much is not known about the creature in the first movie. Where did it come from? Is what we see the final stage of its metamorphosis? Why does it kill, is it merely to kill? The creature is hardly ever completely shown, hidden in shadows and by close ups, so that much is left to the imagination of the audience to conjure up. Cameron's film seems to ignore this successful idea of our being afraid of the unknown, and serves up its audience on a silver platter reasonable explanations to what was left to the imagination of the viewers of Scott's film. Which leads me to the queen xenomorph. It makes sense given what we knew in Scott's movie - but it is completely unwanted and undoes that fear of the unknown already established. We didn't know where the eggs came from until Cameron's movie, and once we do our fears are squashed with an "Oh, well that makes sense," moment. The queen xenomorph itself is another example of Cameron's disgustingly large ego and attempt to leave his signature on the design of the creature. Giger, the original xenomorph artist, had absolutely nothing to do with its design. Cameron could have easily consulted Giger to conjure up some sort of queen alien. Instead, he opted to design it himself. Why? Well, I think that's been thoroughly answered.

There is one moment in Cameron's film that manages to earn respect given that it plays with some of the same fears that Scott did in his movie. The scene where Ripley and Newt are locked in a room with two of the face-hugging xenomorphs is utterly terrifying. It may not play with the fear of the unknown - a fear that, at this point in the film, has been thoroughly squashed by Cameron's egotistical additions - but it does certainly play on the fear of animals or insects. Plenty people have a fear of being trapped in a room with a spider - something that the face-hugging xenomorph does rather look like - or animal that would attack them. Cameron, in all fairness, does a good job playing with the audience's fear in this scene. Had he explored this more thoroughly then perhaps Aliens wouldn't be such a travesty. Unfortunately, this moment within the film is brief, and it doesn't do enough to overcome the damage previously mentioned against the first film that Cameron has done.

Aliens is a movie that is flashy, it's action-packed, its story doesn't require too much attention be paid to it, and it is exactly what most audiences look for in a quick thrill of a film. But upon a deeper examination, James Cameron - driven by his disgustingly large ego - rewrites many of the rules and establishing factors already set in place by Ridley Scott, H.R. Giger, and the writers of the first film, Alien. Like most sequels, it is unnecessary. Perhaps, one might say, Aliens isn't meant to be looked at so analytically. It is a film that asks you to just accept what it has to say and go along for the ride. If the first film had been a less superior motion-picture than it is, I could accept that, and maybe wouldn't be as harsh on Cameron's film. But because Alien is, and always will be, one of the most innovative, groundbreaking, brilliant, frightening, and all around perfect motion-pictures of all time, I cannot accept Aliens as being the brilliant sequel everyone claims it to be.

1/10

CARLITO'S WAY (1993) - Review

Carlito's Way

Crime/Drama
2 hours and 24 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: David Koepp
Directed by: Brian De Palma
Produced by: Martin Bregman, Michael Bregman, and Willi Bär

Cast:
Al Pacino
Sean Penn
Penelope Ann Miller

In his world, you got to shoot your way out. He wanted out. He'd do anything to get there.

After the critical and financial success of his two previous gangster films Scarface and The Untouchables, there was not much of a need for director Brian De Palma to return to the genre. Many could have seen Carlito's Way at the time as his "nothing further to prove" film. De Palma at this point in his career was already a highly regarded auteur, mainly due to his two previous films mentioned, but also to the success of his Argento-esque thrillers like Sisters (a tribute more to Hitchcock than Argento) and Dressed to Kill (one of the few films of De Palma's I find myself detesting). That all being said, when you know what you're good at why not stick to it? Indeed, Argento himself never strayed from the genre of horror, so why should De Palma feel obliged to never return to crime thrillers?

The result is stunning. Carlito's Way proves that whatever magic was going on for De Palma's career in the 1980s had not been lost by the 1990s. His re-teaming with both Al Pacino and Sean Penn is dynamite and he proves that he is a director capable of tackling complex narratives, and that he can effortlessly infuse human elements into stories that on first glance wouldn't merit such components. The script is wonderfully written, coming from a source material certainly helps, but understandably a great deal was changed from the adaptation process and also in the final film from the screenplay. The characters are believable, and surprisingly likable (except for Penn's - which is arguably the point), the story and violence levels are realistic but still thrilling, shocking, and entertaining, and the dialogue is fluid, slang-like, and at times almost musical with how easily the expert cast recites it.

Many claim De Palma appropriates ideas from Hitchcock, and that Hitchcock's fingerprints are all over his movies. I never found this to be the case, with perhaps the exception of Sisters which is very much a Rear Window homage. De Palma, to me, always seemed to be a student of Dario Argento, or that he appropriates more from Argento's oeuvre than he does Hitchcock's. Dressed to Kill, with its black gloved, straightedge wielding killer, is very much a callback to such Argento gialli as The Bird With the Crystal Plumage and Deep Red. De Palma's unique framing of shots and playing with colored lighting also brings to mind Argento's bold vision in both Suspiria and Inferno.

Carlito's Way is no exception to this Argento-De Palma relationship. The film's first sequence of action, involving a shootout in a dive-like pool bar is photographed in a manner that only a student of Argento could envision. Carlito sees the knife wielding killer, moving in tension building slowmotion, across the room in the reflection of an adversary's sunglasses towards his cousin - before the knife ultimately slashes the victim's throat. The sequence is truly one of the best ever captured by cinematographer Stephen H. Burum. Later sequences such as a rainy voyeuristic sequence of Carlito watching his former lover Gail performing ballet call to mind moments from both Suspiria and Inferno. These moments of homage do not hurt the film, because what De Palma does is utilize lessons learned from Argento's canon by understanding what worked in his movies and applies them to this much larger, studio released picture. It's no different than anything Tarantino ever does with his films and his favorite filmmakers.

The cast is remarkable, and each performer pushes the other to knew levels of talent by bringing out the best in each other. Unlike his leading role in De Palma's Scarface, Al Pacino brings a sense of charm to the film's troubled hero. He is a rough man, someone who has killed and done horrible things, but there is never a moment within the film that the audience does not like him. We want Carlito to succeed even though we know, given who he is, that it is impossible - and when this inevitability is realized by the film's conclusion it is absolutely heartbreaking. Sean Penn's character is the utter reverse of Pacino's. As the cagey lawyer/gangster Kleinfeld, Penn's character is one of the few in the story that is unlikable from nearly the start of the film. Despite this, the audience can't help but have a sense of understanding for why Kleinfeld is how he is. His character has been bullied and pushed around by wise guys his entire career, so just as Carlito's fate is inevitable, Kleinfeld's becomes understandable - even if it does make him problematic and unlikable. The supporting cast, including John Leguizamo and Luis Guzmán are all terrific and hold their own in scenes with Pacino and Penn. A cameo by Viggo Mortensen is surprising, but he too proves to be a real titan of a performer, going toe-to-toe with Pacino in terms of likability and playing the "tragic figure". Perhaps the film's only bad performance is by its leading lady, Penelope Ann Miller, who, honestly, isn't at all that bad. She does well in what scenes she has, but she never really shines through the way the rest of the supporting and main cast do.

The film, being set in the 1970s, has a terrific soundtrack, sets, and costumes. The disco clubs, dive bars, mansions, offices, and back alleys all look like they fit the era. The suits and dresses are flashy - perhaps less so than the Miami-set Scarface - but again, are impressive and fit in with the era the film is intended for.

Carlito's Way may not be Brian De Palma's best film, but it is unquestionably one of his better films. He proves that he is a true master of the crime genre by weaving an interesting story, getting his performers to deliver outstanding performances, and by appropriating techniques from other auteur filmmakers, mainly Dario Argento, that have worked in the past and work just as well - if not better - in the finished result.

9/10

BLADE II (2002) - Review

Blade II

Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 57 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: David S. Goyer
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Produced by: Peter Frankfurt, Patrick J. Palmer, and Wesley Snipes

Cast:
Wesley Snipes
Kris Kristofferson
Ron Perlman
Leonor Varela
Norman Reedus
Luke Goss

When Evil Strikes, One Man, Still Has The Edge.

After arriving on the scene in the early 1990s with his inventive vampire film, Cronos, Mexican director Guillermo del Toro went on to prove himself a creative force within the horror and fantasy genres. Early del Toro films like Mimic and The Devil's Backbone still remain possibly the director's best. Given his inventive nature and pleasant responses from both audiences and critics, it was inevitable del Toro would be given an opportunity to take the reins on a big budget studio motion picture. That opportunity came in 2002 with Blade II.

Given how "Mormonized" (del Toro's words) the vampire genre has become, Blade II offers a unique story and take on the largely stale mythology. The story, while obviously a complete work of fantasy, offers reasonable explanations within its own universe, allowing for the more fantastical ideas to seem completely plausible (again, within its universe) while not seeming far fetched or desperate. The idea of different species of vampires combating with one another seems logical to viewers given the course of nature and natural selection within the real world, and rather than seeming outlandish, the storyline feels more intelligent than most comic book offerings. Are there some plot holes? Absolutely. No big budget blockbuster is without them, but most are so miniscule that the overall flow of the story and entertainment value is hardly ever diminished. That being said, the film stumbles over the storyline of the first Blade film immediately, ignoring the events of what happened with Kris Kristofferson's character, Whistler, and coming up with its own explanation instead. It's a big retcon that threatens to disengage any major fans of the first movie - but it later does become forgivable as Kristofferson's heavy presence throughout the film becomes enjoyable.

For a superhero movie, Blade II is quite artfully photographed. Cinematographer Gabriel Beristain does a terrific job lighting and setting the tone. The vampire underworld is lit using opposing colors like reds and yellows contrasted with blues and greens. The color scheme brings to mind the lighting of Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre. These colors are heavily desaturated, giving the film an overall grindhouse (or arthouse, if you prefer) quality that no doubt was del Toro's vision given his exploitation influences. Within the industrial world, Beristain chooses a more whitewashed, ultra bright lighting pattern that works well and pays homage to much of the cinematography of the first Blade movie.

The film's effects work is impressive, although some of the CGI is now dated and rubbery in appearance. Del Toro and editor Peter Amundson do well in trying to cover this up with both quick cuts and interesting lighting arrangements - including a blinding back lit fight sequence, and using minimal lighting in fight scenes located in sewers and an abandoned church (interesting location for vampires to comfortably fight). The practical effects work, however, is far more impressive and even allows for some of the distasteful CGI to be easily forgiven. A student of the Italian Godfather of Gore, Lucio Fulci, del Toro goes for the jugular and allows for the blood and gore effects to be the centerpiece of the action sequences. Given the ultra-violent nature of the first Blade, del Toro was wise to keep his film a bloody and gory entry. The most impressive practical effects being seen during a reaper-vampire autopsy scene. In another nod to Nosferatu, the make up effects of both the reaper-vampires and Thomas Kretschmann's character are stunning, and call back to the reptilian figure of Count Orlok in the silent film classic.

The film by no means deserves to be applauded for its performances, but it also is not in any danger from being underacted. Wesley Snipes clearly has fun playing the film's anti-hero, and his fun becomes infectious. His banter with Ron Perlman's character is enjoyable, and earns many of the film's much deserved laughs. Kristofferson (whose presence in the sequel can only be explained by logic via films like Highlander II: The Quickening) is perhaps even better in this movie than he was in the first Blade. His extended screen time allows audiences to remember why Whistler is perhaps the most favorable character in this universe - his fully human qualities. Norman Reedus, surprisingly, isn't as impressive as other works have proven him to be, but he doesn't embarrass himself by any means. Much of the vampire supporting cast is decent to bad, but even the worst are allotted a short amount of screen time. The two outstanding performances of the film are delivered by Thomas Kretschmann, as the eugenic-obsessed leader of the vampires, and Luke Goss, as the patient-zero of the reaper-vampires. The two share a brief moment of screen time but it is perhaps one of the film's greatest moments.

While it is far from being perfect, Blade II is an excellent action movie and both a refreshing take on the vampire and superhero genres. Its inventive story does have its problems, but these are minor in comparison to its realized vision and entertainment aspects. In a world full of wide-audience reaching PG-13 superhero movies, Blade II carries on what its predecessor set in place - that hard R rated comic book movies can do just as well with fans if the right people are at their helm.

8/10