“Zardoz” (1974) [R]

     While “Zardoz” is an entertaining tale, it’s all too clearly a film of the seventies because of its odd cinematography and way of storytelling. It has beautiful scenery and sets like none other; it also has a wardrobe with styles and colors that could only be a product of the seventies. This movie’s best quality—one which only a smaller percent of pictures carry—is that it poses many great questions about both society and religion. However, the way in which the story is told can somewhat confuse some of the audience at times.

     The exterior scenes in this film are stunningly done, showing landscapes of grass and rolling hills, along with a few of the scenes set in eye-catching forests. These scenes draw the audience in with such beauty, but can occasionally cause the viewers to forget what’s really going on in the story. There are times when watching the outdoor sections that it will seem like watching a Fantasy tale instead of a Sci-fi story. The sets on the indoor scenes are amazing, especially for the time it was made. They were perfect illustrations for they utopian town where Sean Connery’s character ends up for most of the movie.

     Nonetheless, scenery and good landscapes alone don’t make good movies. In “Zardoz,” the wardrobe chosen for the actors was nothing short of diverse. There are three different groups in this film: the Eternals, who live eternally in a utopia called Vortex; the Brutals, who are uncivilized and are told by their god that when they die they will go to Vortex to be with the Immortals; and then there are the Exterminator-class Brutals who fight and kill other Brutals in war. The Brutals’ costumes seem like cavemen-style hides, and the Eternals’ wardrobe consists of futuristic gowns and shirts. Although the Eternals’ costumes do look futuristic, their colors are too much like the colors regularly worn in the seventies, therefore losing the sense of a futuristic movie.

     Of all the entertainment that comes from this film, the best of it all is how “Zardoz” raises questions about many things. It is a question of religion, showing a sort of false religion that is exposed for what it really is. It also brings up many questions of society, defying the norm by setting the Exterminator-class Brutal played by Sean Connery into the utopia of the Eternal’s civilization. With all of its controversial inquisitions, this movie seems more like a “thought” movie mixed in with an Action/Sci-fi tale. It’s an entertaining show; however the way in which the story itself is presented can confuse some of the audience. There are times when the movie cuts to another scene, and at first some viewers won’t understand what’s happening until they catch a certain part of dialogue, or see exactly where the characters are. All in all, it’s worth at least giving it a chance.

     My overall rating: 3 out of 5

“No Country for Old Men” (2007) [R]

     Based on Cormac McCarthy’s book of the same name, “No Country for Old Men” has got to be one of the best movies made in a long time. There are so many interesting things to talk about in this film that it’s hard to pick a place to start, but it has to be done. To begin with, this is without a doubt one of the best tales of good versus evil, all while being set over a sort of modern western when the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss, has to flee from and fight a psychotic killer known as Anton Chiguhr, who prowls the Texas outback area. In his portrayal as Chiguhr, Javier Bardem does an impeccable job, especially considering this was pretty much his big break into well-known theater. This is also one of the few films to go to go so far against the grain, and does that very well.

     There are many times throughout the history of stories, movies included, where the basic premise is a telling of good against evil. Many of these stories should be familiar to everyone; however this tale in particular takes it to the next level. The fight between good and evil has never been presented in a more perplexing way than in this film. Set in the style of a modern western, the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss, discovers something he shouldn’t and is then forced to match strength and wits with the psychotic villain known as Anton Chiguhr. Full of edge-of-the-seat suspense, the viewers can only guess how this incredible motion picture turns out.

     Before this movie, Javier Bardem wasn’t very well-known in popular cinema; however it would seem that this one has landed him a very nice place in popular culture. He is now being sought out for roles in various movies, and this is obviously because of his astonishing ability to portray the Chiguhr character. Bardem truly embraced Chiguhr, and makes the audience fall for his act as what would seem to be a complete lunatic. The audience won’t be able to even tell that he is a normal person in real life because of how amazingly he convinces viewers that he is the character.

     There are, of course, many different ways people can think of on defining how something can go against the grain of what is average. They can say that there are many movies these days that do that, and I would disagree with this. What I consider to be going against the grain in cinema is a film that is ground-breaking in nearly every aspect of which it can be spectated. This movie is one of few, especially these days, which truly does break ground into something that can lead the future. “No Country for Old Men” requires only one thing of its audience, which is for them to think further than what is simply presented in front of them and enlighten themselves to an idea the movie discreetly provides.

          My overall rating: 4.8 out of 5

“Once Upon A Time in Mexico” (2003) [R]

     2003 was a decent year for the cinema industry, with the finishing of the “Lord of the Rings” and the beginning of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series. At the top of the list of the best movies of 2003 is the Robert Rodriguez film “Once Upon A Time in Mexico.” It is the conclusion to his “El Mariachi” trilogy starring Antonio Banderas, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, and Mickey Rourke. Each of these actors gave incredible performances, although Depp almost steals the show with his witty character. It is almost too obviously a tribute to Sergio Leone’s “Man with no name” trilogy, and does a very good job of being a sort of hats-off to Leone’s trilogy. The script was incredible and clever with coatings of dark humor. If there’s any reason not to watch this show, it would be that there are a few scenes that are not for the queasy types.
     This movie couldn’t go wrong with the major cast that it had. Antonio Banderas returns as the “el mariachi” character and shows that he will never tire of the role. Dafoe and Rourke also give amazing enactments as the greedy and murderous villains. However, Johnny Depp nearly steals the spotlight as the entertaining character. He plays an F.B.I. agent whose debut to the trilogy is this final installment. His performance as the agent is possibly one of his best yet and will forever stay near the top of that list. It’s not by actor’s roles alone, however, that makes this film an exciting one.

     In the sixties Sergio Leone released a trilogy of westerns known to many as the “Man with no name” trilogy which features Clint Eastwood. The third in that trilogy is entitled “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” and it was a turning point for spaghetti westerns throughout the world. Rodriguez’s “El Mariachi” trilogy is clearly his tribute to Leone’s own trilogy, and “Once Upon A Time in Mexico” is the most interesting one from Rodriguez. His trilogy is much like Leone’s because it too is very western style, and it features actors who can easily portray the “tough-guy” act. Another similarity between the two trilogies is that each installment doesn’t really have much to do with their sibling installments; each one is its own movie, and they do well on individually.

     As I always say, one of the most important things to look for in a movie is how well the script is written, and this one is incredible. Full of clever and dark humor, it could almost be read as a story by itself. There are several ingenious gadgets which belong to Depp’s agent character, and he makes devastating and slightly comical use of each of his gadgets. The dialogue and action competes well with many top-of-the-line productions, and the story itself is almost a tragic sort of action tale. The tragedy and suspense hides around every corner of what might be Rodriquez’s best movie to date. There is, although, one thing about this picture that may lessen the number of its audience. A few gruesome scenes in the film are not recommended for queasy movie-goers.  Those scenes aren’t necessary to the story and can be avoided by watching the edited-for-television version if all else fails.

          My overall rating: 4 out of 5

“From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996) [R]

     “From Dusk Till Dawn” is a turn in filmmaking for Robert Rodriguez. It was the first of his movies to have vampires. The screenplay is commendable, along with the fact that this picture was one of the first to change genres halfway through and the cinematography was experimental to say the least. The one disadvantage to this film is that it is too similar to other Rodriguez movies, which shows that he makes incredible flicks, but only does so with one type.

     The screenplay of this film is commendable for its action and its surprises. Written by Quentin Tarantino, the script has action that almost never stops. The movie is meant to be action-packed, nothing else, and it answers to that call. It also contains a few twists and turns for the viewers; if for some reason the surprises don’t hold enough of the viewer’s interests, then the action most certainly will keep their attention.

     The genre for this show is a little more difficult to pin down than it is for others. The story starts out as a crime action and takes a major turn about halfway through. Just when the audience gets used to watching a movie about criminals on the lamb, it changes like an animal going one direction and suddenly deciding to go completely the other way. It changes into a horror film when the criminals find themselves in the company of vampires. Such an interesting twist can make or break how well the viewers will enjoy this movie.

     Robert Rodriguez showed the world some of his best cinematography with this movie. He made sure the cameras shot everything just the way he wanted and when it came time for the edit he set the filming in the perfect order to compliment the story and give the audience the full view of everything that happened. He also used it as a chance to do some experimental cinematography which led the way for some lower end directors. This new style of filming was to make the audience feel as if they were in a video game during the high-paced action shots; it works incredibly well with Tarantino’s screenplay.

     The main weakness of “From Dusk Till Dawn” is that it is far too similar to other works that Rodriguez and Tarantino have done. They have time and time again proven that they can make intriguing crime action features, which will tell movie-goers, one thing: they need to show that they can do well on other types of motion pictures as well. After watching many other Tarantino or Rodriguez pictures people can begin to get the idea that they enjoy making only action thrillers. This is all well and good, but truly amazing filmmakers throughout history have been able to show that they are adept at many different styles. Although this movie was one of their first takes on horror stories, it just has too much in common with their other projects.

          My overall rating: 2.5 out of 5

“Reservoir Dogs” (1992) [R]

     This story of a crime that goes wrong and the shocking aftermath is a groundbreaking film. As Quentin Tarantino’s break into the writing/directing world, this movie has an incredible sequence setup with flashbacks, and the cast, who all gave stunning performances, brought the crime drama together. There is only one thing about this show that can eat away at the viewer’s experience: there was too much cursing in the dialogue. Even though this movie is about criminals, the dialogue went overboard with it.

     This was Quentin Tarantino’s gateway into the world of famous writers and directors. It was released during a time in which there were other lesser known directors making their way to fame, and out of that group, Tarantino was one of the few that have continued on to make even more interesting movies. He seems to have gotten a big influence from classics like Stanley Kubrick’s “The Killer” and Martin Scorsese’s “Goodfellas.” He also took the familiar crime genre and converted it into a psychological thriller. However, it wasn’t only his main idea of the story that made this film into the amazing drama that it is.

     The way in which the movie is set up and structured helped the intensity of the plot as well. Tarantino put the story in a sequence filled with flashbacks, which gives viewers the action of the present and the background of what had happened before the start of the movie. The way the show jumps from present to the past and back again was pioneering for others, and has since then become more popular. The structure for this film is complex, yet easy to follow, allowing viewers to quickly grasp the concept and feel compassion for the characters.

     Truly a masterpiece, this film wouldn’t be as good as it is without the actors. Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, and Lawrence Tierney are just a few of the main actors that helped bring this thriller together even more. They all gave superb performances, fitting in the last piece of the puzzle that made for one of the best crime dramas yet to be seen. There was, however, only one slight problem with the film, and that was the amount of swearing in the dialogue. Now, the story is one of criminals, so viewers will expect bad language to an extent. Although some cussing is necessary for the characters, the dialogue went too far with it. Aside from that, this is an intense and fast-paced drama that changed the world of movies for the better.

          My overall rating: 4.5 out of 5

“The Mummy” (1999) [PG-13]

     “The Mummy” is certainly one of the more intriguing movies of the past fifteen years. It draws viewers in with an interesting screenplay, many connections to Egyptian mythology, and attention-getting visuals. Considering the date and the underdeveloped computer effects that were available when this movie was made, there aren’t any bad things to find in this movie except that it doesn’t stand up to the original “Mummy” of 1932.

     One of the most important things to look for in a film is its screenplay and this movie has an interesting one. The screenplay shows an amazing combination of drama, action, horror, and even romance. Few movies combine so many different genres and styles, and the creators of the screenplay have succeeded in doing exactly that. Its screenplay isn’t the only noteworthy factor of this film, either.

     The creators of “The Mummy” threw in many connections to actual Egyptian mythology. They used several real locations of Egypt including ones with great mythological ties in their history. Dialogue also includes more than a few mentions to Ancient Egyptian mythological names. The references made in this film shows that its creators studied up some on the myths of Ancient Egypt.

     Another thing the creators of this movie used to further enhance the viewers’ experience is their use of computer effects and visuals. This means even more than what it sounds like because of the more restricted and underdeveloped computer effects of the time. As many commendable things in this movie as there are, the one underlying truth is that it simply does not stand up to the original 1932 version. The original “Mummy” will always be the better one, although the newer version isn’t all that bad.

          My overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

“G.I. Joe” (2009) [PG-13]

     The 2009 “G.I. Joe” live-action remake has its high points and its low points. Much like original “G.I. Joe” cartoons, it is full of overly dramatic plotting villains and incredibly futuristic gadgets. However, those are the only thing it has in common with the cartoons. The movie itself is great for a summer movie, especially if the viewer doesn’t know much about the original cartoon. The lower points to this film is that it doesn’t follow close to any of the original stories and Channing Tatum who played Duke seemed too much like a boy-band singer to play the normally heroic character.

     There are only two things the movie shares with the cartoon version. One is the portrayal of the plotting villains known as “Cobra.” In the cartoons they are terrorists seeking global domination. The movie does a good job on portraying Cobra in that very same way. The other similarity between the two is the factor of futuristic gadgets. However, none of the technologies in the movie are anything like the ones in the cartoon. These are the only connections between the cartoon and the live-action remake.

     If viewers are looking for a good summer action film, they will find one in this movie. It’s enjoyable for a summer flick and is meant to be pure action, nothing else. It does a great job of entertaining simply with nonstop action. Because it has nearly nothing in common with the cartoons viewers are better off with this movie if they don’t know much about the cartoon. This live action reboot makes an exciting movie if the viewer is looking for something filled with action.

     For what few good things there are in this movie, there are bad things that go with them. First of all, most big fans of the original cartoon usually won’t enjoy this movie too much. It strays too far from the original cartoon and barely does justice for it. In addition, Channing Tatum, who played Duke, was the worst possible choice the makers of this movie could have picked. He was too much like the “pretty-boy” type to play the courageous hero Duke. There’s not much enjoyment to be found in this movie for true die-hard “G.I. Joe” fans.

          My overall rating: 2 out of 5

“Pandorum” (2009) [R]

     “Pandorum” is certainly the best sci-fi/action/thriller I’ve seen this far. It takes an already known story and turns it on end. This film is packed with action and horror—both physical and psychological—will change the way any viewer watches sci-fi movies. Filmed with an amazing futuristic cinematography style, the only bad thing about this movie is that it can get old after several viewings.

     The story for this film takes a basic principle is that of being lost in space in a broken ship with no contact to the outside. The familiar story is turned on its head by giving the characters amnesia at the beginning, from which they slowly recover throughout the movie and little by little discover the truth to the reasons for their journey. This action sci-fi turns the genre itself over by making it a psychological thriller.

     Full of incredible action, this movie doesn’t miss a beat. Dennis Quaid did such a good job on this film, he proves once again that he can play any character and make it believable. The action never stops; fast and heart-pumping, it pulls viewers into the world of the movie. In combination with the Dennis Quaid’s incredible performance and psychological horrors of this movie, the action gets the viewers as close to the fright the characters experience as possible. Not a minute of this movie isn’t scary-good.

     In addition to the story and the action, the visual effects are so great, not a scene goes by without some interesting visual special effect. Even the cinematography itself seems to be one big effect. The way it was filmed simply adds to the futuristic impression given through the whole movie. The single thing wrong with this movie is that the viewers will know what happens after the first couple viewings and the story can get old after several viewings.

          My overall rating: 4 out of 5

"Gamer" (2009) [R]

     For viewers who enjoy “surrogate” and “fight-the-system” movies, “Gamer” is the one to watch. It keeps viewers’ attention by changing the style at nearly every turn. .The film, along with Gerard Butler’s performance, gives an incredible depiction of video games made real. The overall story was good, but has been done many times before. It is, however a grabbing restatement of “fight-the-system” stories.

     This movie has style changes around every corner. One minute the viewer thinks it’s a serious sci-fi action movie, and the next minute it seems full of comedy. It’s as though it was made to keep the viewer guessing. The near-constant changes to the style grab hold of viewers’ attention before the first ten minutes of the movie are up, and it doesn’t let go until the credits scroll.

     Butler’s job on this film and the cinematography both work together to show amazing depictions of live action video games. Gerard Butler did some of his best work in this movie and once again proves to be a very talented actor. The cinematography on scenes of the live video game is noteworthy as well. They depict action sequences and computer effects that are similar to video games of today.

     The story itself was a good one, although it has been done countless times before. The basic idea of the story is too similar to “The Running Man.” One of the few differences between the two is that instead if the contest being put into a television show, it is put into a video game. In fact, the main good thing about it is that it shows that “surrogate/fight-the-system” stories still haven’t gotten old. Overall, the movie is an enjoyable retelling of a story done many times before.

          My overall rating: 3 out of 5