Rush Hour (1998) Review

Title: Rush Hour
Year: 1998
Director: Bret Ratner
Country: US
Language: English

Though it’s only 24 years old, Rush Hour (1998) would certainly not be a movie that could be made today. Chris Tucker gets away with far too many racial slurs mocking asian stereotypes. Heck, China would probably make Tucker (or his 2022 equivalent) an enemy of the state.  Is it a worthy watch despite this? Lets find out!

Jackie Chan was already a star in the US, thanks to Rumble in the Bronx, but it wouldn’t be until Rush Hour that he became a household name. The logic in teaming up Tucker & Chan was that Tuckers’ explosive use of English would compensate for Chan’s lack thereof.  The idea was a huge success as Rush Hour was a box office sensation. 

At the time I enjoyed the movie, and I do find parts of still entertaining, but time has made much of the dialogue cringeworthy. In addition, having seen more Jackie Chan flicks, I feel like his action is held back. There are too many cuts & his fighting is reduced to very short spurts. Chan is best when its a long fight with very few edits. 

Rush Hour shows “the best” (I suppose?) of Chris Tucker, but only provides a fraction of Chan’s true talent. Please watch his other movies (Drunken Master) for a true martial arts masterpiece. 

The Scorpion King (2002) Review

Title: The Scorpion King

Year: 2002

Director: Stephen Sommers

Country: US

Language English

Do you smell what the Scorpion King is cookin’? In 2002 “The Rock” was one of the biggest stars the WWF ever had. He was paving his way into Hollywood & a big question we all had on our minds was, “Could he be the next big action star?”

A desert warrior (Dwayne Johnson) rises up against the evil army that is destroying his homeland. 

The answer...eventually became a resounding yes? This anticipated prequel of The Mummy (1999) was a good beginning for The Rock, even if the film as a whole was fairly terrible. The action scenes & polished set pieces, highlighted the actor’s physical presence & presented a fair amount of his natural charisma. 

The story itself was meandering, lazy screenwriting. This guy is called The Scorpion KING; he even appears as half-man, half-scorpion in The Mummy Returns (2001), but the film does nothing with that premise. 

While The Mummy (1999) was a brief return to Indiana Jones’ like action adventure, Scorpion King is very run-of-the-mill, straight to dvd action. It was good for The Rock, but I imagine he would have liked to start his career on a higher note. 

The Mummy Returns (2001) Review

Title: The Mummy Returns
Year: 2001
Director: Stephen Sommers
Country: US
Language: English

Previously in my review of The Mummy (1999) I said that it reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark, being that it was a fun action film from a bygone era. It was weird to say, but "they don't make em like they used to." By 2000 Hollywood was getting smart in regards to sup hero films. With XMen (2000) and Spiderman (2000) being very successful, it was only a matter of time before they'd rule the silver screen. For now, we had a brief era of films that were reminiscent of 30's matinee serials. 

The mummified body of Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) is shipped to a museum in London, where he once again wakes and begins his campaign of rage and terror.

Most notable for being Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's film debut, The Mummy Returns is a swashbuckling well-choreographed action film that features more polished fighting than The Mummy (1999) The nonstop cliffhangers are appealing for a short while, but do get tedious as time goes on. The script isn't as good this time around. thus the characters are less-likeable and we are less invested in them making it to the next action set piece. 

There's less attempt at horror this time around & far more hit and miss comedy. Unlike in The Mummy (1999) we never feel like our characters are in any real danger. Heck, we know they can beat him as they already did so in the last movie. While the previous picture caught fire with its imaginative plot; this feels like a retread over familiar ground. 

At times the special effects are dozens of steps back from anything made at that time, did you SEE CGI scorpion Rock? 21 years later and people are still making fun of how bad it looked. The Mummy Returns is not a worthwhile endeavor, even though the action is up-to-par. Even if you go for movies solely for the action, why would you see this one when you can see Rush Hour 2? 

The Mummy (1999) Review

Title: The Mummy 
Year: 1999
Director: Stephen Sommers
Country: US
Language: English

An extremely loose remake of the 1930's Universal Horror classic The Mummy (1932), this version  was made near the end of Hollywood's era of the "carfree" action/adventure films. See, in the 80's- late 90's action movies were, for the most part, mindlessly fun experiences. This all changed when The Matrix (1999)  made gritty nihilism action popular; the rise of superhero films like X-Men (2000) didn't help. It may be odd to say, but I miss the wackiness of this bygone era of action. 

At an archaeological dig in the ancient city of Hamunaptra, an American serving in the French Foreign Legion (Brendan Fraiser) accidentally awakens a mummy who begins to wreak havoc as he searches for the reincarnation of his long-lost love (Rachel Weisz).

I...like this movie? Is that blasphemous to say? It's a fun, imaginative action/adventure epic that reminds me of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) The cinematography, stunts, choreography and visual effects are over the top in a "they don't make movies like these anymore" way. Though it's not always successful at its genre shape-shifting, The Mummy did have many moments that excitened, frightened and made me laugh. 

The production design and costume design both do a great job at higliting both the period of time (the film is set in 1926) The score does a terrific job at keeping pace with the insanity that is thrown on screen; from a person getting eaten alive by beetles, to a mountain of sand swallowing horses whole. The actors do a tremendous job; Fraiser is a believable hunky hero & Weisz is the hot damsel in distress. Boy meets Girl meets Undying Sand Mummy. 

If you're a film snob like I am, you might be hesitant to call this film a "classic" but damn is it a good popcorn muncher. Forget The Matrix, this is the definitive action movie from 1999. The Mummy (1999) ought to be more well regarded. 

Batman (1989) Review

 Title: Batman

Year: 1989
Director: Tim Burton
Country: US
Language: English

In the 1980's comic book adaptations were God-awful, Howard the Duck (1988) levels of awful. Batman has also been a bit of a cultural joke considering the campy 1960's television series starring Adam West. It was thanks to Alan Moore and Frank Miller that Batman was transformed into a more brooding character, whose inner turmoil made for great stories about good and evil. Tim Burton, who had directed quirky gothic pictures like Beetlejuice (1988), was a decent choice to helm this film. 

The Dark Knight of Gotham City (Michael Keaton) begins his war on crime with his first major enemy being Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson), a criminal who becomes the clownishly homicidal Joker.

Grossing $400 million in 1989, Batman became a cultural phenomenon. It made an immediate impact on people & in many ways is still the ideal vision of our superhero. Tim Burton created a Gotham with gothic, almost German expressionist architecture; every building looms menacingly, every street has an atmosphere of danger. The noir shadows look surreal and adds to an imaginative set design. 

Batman is so clearly Burton's vision. It's impressive to see such a big mainstream film have a director's trademarks all over it. Jack Nicholson's over the top performance as The Joker is also pretty memorable. Infact he completes his role so well, that many people get upset whenever its announced that somebody else will play the Joker in future batman movies. 

Batman (1989) has the right combination of acting & visuals, but in terms of story and pacing its a fairly run of the mill Hollywood movie. There are plenty of fun moments, particularly when Nicholson is on screen, but it can crawl to a snail's pace & there isn't much emotional depth or nuance. Still, Batman is still a fun popcorn flick. 

Batman Begins (2005) Review

Title: Batman Begins
Year: 2005
Director: Christopher Nolan
Country: US
Language: English

 Tim Burton's Batman (1989) brought the titular comic book hero to the cinemas in a gothic macabre light that had previously been only imagined on the pages of DC Comics. That run of films, which had a variety of actors play Batman, ended when the goofy slapstick of Batman & Robin (2007) ruined the franchise. It would be nearly a decade until audiences warmed up to the idea of caped crusader again; this time Christopher Nolan would direct a trilogy. 

After training with his mentor (Liam Neeson), Batman (Christian Bale) plans to rid Gotham City of its underworld corruption. 

Batman Begins was certainly the beginning of transitioning comic book movies from silly genre flick into serious cinematic works of art. It is a compelling, moving narrative that is full of depth and nuance, while also being entertaining enough for mainstream audiences to enjoy. The tremendous amount of work that goes into Batman's character arc finally makes way for some dramatic thematic storytelling. 

While previous Batman movies relied on set design and practical effects to win over audiences, Batman Begins presents more mature scenarios & gives a realism to both his emotions and outside world that was previously unseen. Christian Bale gives a well rounded interpretation of the character that feels relatable on an emotional level. He highlights the deep underpinning psychology behind Batman's motivations. 

Batman Begins is a decent film, that is unfortunately completely eclipsed by The Dark Knight (2008). I doubt, if people were given a choice, they'd choose Begins over its sequel. This movie walked so superhero films made after it could run. 

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003) Review

 Title: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Year(s): 1997-2003
Creator: Joss Whedon 
Country: US
Language: English

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was part of a unique time in television where strong female characters ruled. The late 1990's to Early 2000's saw Xena: Warrior Princess, La Femme Nikita, Charmed, Alias and The Dark Angel among others. Their cultural impact was enormous; reaching up to four million viewers per episode and having hundreds of tie-in products. I started revisiting the show thanks to Rev Rachel Twigg's fandom being so infectious. 

A young woman (Sarah Michelle Gellar) , destined to slay vampires, demons and other infernal creatures, deals with her life fighting evil, with the help of her friends.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an inverse of the typical horror movie trope; the hot blonde doesn't die by the monster therein, but becomes a kickass heroine. In addition to fun genre storytelling, we get a quirky funny series that isn't afraid to tug at our heartstrings. Damn, some of these episodes, which often is loose subtext for the troubles of adolescence, are incredibly relatable. Even if we don't slay actual vampires in our lives, we are trying our best to slay our fears. 

As the seasons go on, Buffy the Vampire Slayers grows darker as our main character- and us- gets older. From teenager to adult, the show effectively gives us more complex themes of identity, responsibility and more complex moral issues. Buffering the Vampire Slayer is a great podcast that goes into a deep dive about the introspective nature of the television series. 

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a worthy re-watch. Though visually the show is starting to look a teeny bit dated, I feel like newer generations would find Buffy very entertaining and would certainly be able to sit through all 7 seasons. I'm slowly becoming a bigger fan as I find more episodes to dissect. 

The Dark Knight (2008) Review

Title: The Dark Knight 
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Country: US
Language: English

In 2007 the internet was buzzing about Heath Ledger being cast as the Joker for the upcoming Batman movie The Dark Knight. Many people were furious, stating that Ledger was bound to fail and that only Jack Nicholson could touch the role. Admittedly, I did not have my hopes set high because, at that time,  I only new him from A Knight's Tale (2001).  Thankfully, to everyone's surprise, Ledger played the role incredibly well. 

When the menace known as the Joker (Heath Ledger) wreaks havoc and chaos on the people of Gotham, Batman (Christian Bale) must accept one of the greatest psychological and physical tests of his ability to fight injustice.

With the assistance of Batman Begins (2005), The Dark Knight (2008) finally helped comic-to-film adaptations become serious mainstream cinema with artistic merit. Christopher Nolan merged the crime thriller with a superhero popcorn flick, creating a classic that even the snobbiest of film connoisseurs can admit they enjoy. Nolan's symbolic narrative asks us grand questions and have us pondering about the meaning of good & evil, and what it really means to be a "good person" in a tough society. 

The practical special effects, such as flipping a semi-truck into the air, are remarkable. The cinematography, by Wally Pfister, is awe inspiring. The score is memorable, at times it plays randomly in my head. The set design & makeup are Oscar Worthy. While the script can be convoluted at times,  much of it works and helps bridge the gap between "art" and "entertainment". 

Obviously, the Joker is the standout character and Heath Ledger's performance will go down among the best in Cinema history. Every little mannerism was carefully crafted by the master actor. He deserved his "best supporting actor" Oscar. Dark Knight is certainly a film I've watched more than a few times. 

Batman Returns (1992) Review

Title: Batman Returns 
Year: 1992
Director: Tim Burton 
Country: US
Language: English 

Do YOU like penguins? Those furry tuxedo wearing flightless birds that make excellent emperors? How about penguins with bombs strapped to them, sent to murder the children of Gotham? Yeah, this film gets pretty dark! Batman Returns (1992) is the second-and last- Batman film Tim Burton would direct and Michael Keaton would star in. You like Goth batman? This might be the most goth Batman to ever goth. 

While Batman (Michael Keaton) deals with a deformed man calling himself the Penguin (Danny DeVito) wreaking havoc across Gotham with the help of a cruel businessman, a female employee  (Michelle Pfieffer) of the latter becomes the Catwoman with her own vendetta.

All of Tim Burton's films are about quirky characters who live in otherworldly places that are not completely alien, but do have a distinct visual style Batman Returns is a feast to the senses because of its stylish set design and remarkably offbeat set design. There are very few films that have the "feel" that Batman Returns does. Unfortunately, there is not much else of substance to this work. 

The plot unwinds in an inconsistent off-putting way because of its poor pace. Character development seems non-existent and any message Batman Returns tries to convey is lost in Burton's poor handling of the script. Can you remember much of the films' contents? I can't. I did think Danny Devito was an excellent choice for The Penguin. He makes the character an iconic villain, even though he makes the baddie a bit too pitiful. Batman is struggling against this guy? Really? 

Batman Returns is most notable for THE SEXIEST CATWOMAN EVER. The fetishist costuming, combined with Pfieffer's natural beauty really shaped by views as a young lad. Unfortunately, due to its PG-13 Rating, I suspect they had to cut down much of the films' erotic tones. Still, it's a worthwhile endeavor just for the catty scenes. 

Batman Forever (1995) Review

Title: Batman Forever
Year: 1995
Director: Joel Shumacher
Country: US
Language: English

Sandwiched between the Tim Burton era of Batman (!989-1992)  and the Christopher Nolan era of Batman  (2005-2012) Batman Forever (1995). and to some extent Batman & Robin (1997), belong in a comic book movie void that is not viewed favorably with either fandom. I was the perfect age for Batman Forever however; I was too young for the more gothic Batman Returns  (1992) & by the time Batman Begins (2005) was released I felt too old to enjoy superhero movies. 

Batman (Val Kilmer) , and eventually Robin (Chris O'Donnell) have to stop Two Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the Riddler (Jim Carrey) from taking over Gotham. 

Batman Forever has a cookie cutter story that is neither impressive nor offensive. It's the Hollywood 90's superhero story designed to be entertaining in a "turn your brain off & guzzle down popcorn" kind of way. It is fairly visually impressive (relative to superhero flicks at the time) & its set pieces are more appealing to me than the CGI filled scenes of the MCU. 

Nicole Kidman is an intoxicating love interest. I can see why Val Kilmer's Batman would be entranced by her. It's far more believable than Maggie Gyllenhaal in Dark Knight (2008). The villains are not very well rounded, but I must admit I was entertained by Jim Carrey's Riddler. The costume Jim Carrey had to wear, in addition to his wacky mannerisms, made this Riddler a very memorable character.  Kilmer does a great job at showing a more vulnerable caped crusader. 

Batman Forever is an easy watch that ought to make a few moviegoers nostalgic for their quirky childhoods. Despite its weak script, the film proves to be a stylish and efficient flick that is deserving of a rewatch. 

Batman & Robin (1997) Review

Title: Batman & Robin
Year: 1997
Director: Joel Schumaker
Country: US
Language: English

Near the end of his wrestling career, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defied Vince McMahon's wishes and starred alongside California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator (1987). In that film, Ventura had "no time to bleed."  This movie would spark a lifelong friendship, and a collaboration that would span to more films; The Running Man (1987) and, perhaps less notably due to the part being a small cameo, Batman & Robin.(1997).    

Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) wants to cool the Earth. Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) wants to make the world more green. These are the terrible forces that Barman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell) must stop.  

Joyless nerds have ranked this is "the worst comic book movie ever made" and while it's no...uh... (*thinks of a comic book movie that can be taken as serious art) Black Panther? I feel that this campy, goofy as all hell movie IS  a fun, worthwhile watch. There aren't many films with this cartoon-meets goth- visuals and it's fun to see the villains represented by their set design. Mr.Freeze has a palace that looks like a snowglobe, Poison Ivy looks like she came off the set of Little Shop of Horrors. 

Audiences often complain about the amount of puns in Batman & Robin, neglecting to point our that Marvel movies do the same thing with varying degrees of success. I'd rather have Mr.Freeze tell me it's "ice to meet you" than sit through whatever Thor's dialogue was in Endgame.  No comic book movie will get an Oscar for its screenplay. Batman & Robin is compelling because it's a visual & audible spectacle, even though many scenes (such as Batman fighting hockey goons) can be the movie equivalent of a train crash. 

"What killed the dinosaurs?"
"The ICE age!"

Alright everyone, chill. Batman & Robin is far from being the ideal Batman movie, but if we view it as a descendant of the silly 1960's Adam West show, rather than the more serious version of the caped crusader then perhaps we can find more enjoyment out of it. I was 6 when this film was released and boy, did Uma Thurman's depiction of Poison Ivy leave an impression on me. 

Earth (1930): Ukraine's Best Film

Title: Earth
Year: 1930
Director: Alexsander Dovzhenko
Country: Ukraine
Language: N/A 

Alexsander Dovzhenko's Earth has been hailed as a masterpiece of silent cinema for over half a century. Dovzhenko, considered cinema's "Poet of The Ukraine", shot this picture in the Ukranian city Poltava with cinematographer Danylo Demutsky. The film is anti-authority to its core; Stalin wanted collectivization & Divzhenko created a picture that opposed it.   

 Earth is about peasants owning their own land and tilling it as they please, for themselves, and the problems they come across in the process. It is anti-Soviet because it explores the many issues that come with revolution. 

"Collectivization" was Joseph Stalin's attempt to control agriculture as the Soviet Union industrialized. This meant breaking the power of the landowners ("kulaks"), consolidating individual land, and making collective farms with high yield quotas. The collectivization policies made everyone poorer, lead to lower production levels and ultimately resulted in the Ukranian holocaust known as Holodomor. 

Opening with shots of ripening wheat fields, rippling in the wind of the Ukrainian steppe, Earth is full of beautiful, poetic cinematography that highlights the natural imagery of the Ukraine countryside. The vast plains and dark skies, combined with innovative use of close-ups & long shots give this picture a very dream-like quality. This is a snapshot of Ukraine before Russia got their greasy hands on it. 

The editing is remarkable, giving Earth a very avant-garde feel, The narrative, though disorienting due to various montages, highlights the humanity of the kulaks and proves to be a powerful force for humanity. 

Perhaps intended to be propaganda, Earth was too artsty and ambiguous for the Soviets to embrace. One film critic at the time deplored it for being a  “kulak film,” and wrote: “Counter-revolutionary obscenity! That’s how low we have sunk."  Earth truly is a beautiful film. See it to upset Putin!

The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) Review

Title: The Tragedy of Macbeth
Year: 2021
Director: Joel Coen
Country: US
Language: English

Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play. I loved learning about it in school; my teacher introduced me to foreign cinema by showing my class Akira Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation Throne of Blood (1957). Since then I've seen Orson Welles' Macbeth (1948), Roman Polanski's Macbeth (1971), and Shakespeare in the Ruins' live performance of Macbeth in 2012. Upon hearing that Joel Coen was making an adaptation starring Denzel Washington, I knew I had to see it immediately. 

Scottish lord  (Denzel Washington) becomes convinced by a trio of witches that he will become the next King of Scotland, and his ambitious wife (Frances McDormand) supports him in his plans of seizing power.

The black and white cinematography, combined with the minimalist production design, and unique use of lighting give the picture a remarkable surreal atmosphere reminiscent of German Expressionism. Joel Coen's Tragedy of Macbeth highlights the weird dream-like nature of the original written material. Shakespeare wrote about witches, madness and ghosts. this ain't exactly Downtown Abbey.         

The stagey design of the film makes each monologue feel compelling. Denzel Washington does a tremendous job as Macbeth, giving the character far more vulnerability than we've seen in previous versions. Frances McDormand is easily the best Lady Macbeth I've come across. Her facial expressions give us a wealth of knowledge regarding her characters' intentions. 

While I like Throne of Blood more, I must admit that Joel Coen's adaptation of Macbeth is masterful. The use of Shakespearean language can be off-putting for many; there were certainly times I was struggling to understand what a character was saying, but this film is certainly a worthwhile endeavor.