Edward, meet Valek, Valek, eviscerate Edward

Ordinarily, a film known as a 'guilty pleasure' is one that somebody really loves but is too ashamed to admit because they know how silly it is even if it does have moments of awesomeness. Given I really have no shame as far as my tastes are concerned, film lovers, here is my confession: I adore John Carpenter's last film of the 90's 'Vampires'.

Back in 1998, Carpenter was steadily travelling down the slope of commercial decline- 'Escape From LA', 'Village of the Damned' and 'In The Mouth of Madness' had been spanked like babies at the box office (in regards to 'Madness' I really must ask why), leaving even the most steadfast of fans questioning whether Carpenter truly had what it took. When he made 'Ghost of Mars' in 2001, he all but dropped off the edge of the Earth, save for a couple of interviews and giving his blessings on the inevitable remakes of his earlier greats such as 'The Fog' (UGH) and 'Assault on Precinct 13' (very respectable!). He has since made 'The Ward' that was released without much fanfare last year (I have yet to see that), but I digress.

'Vampires' is brash, bloody, border misogynistic, and absolutely rambunctious, but in my eyes, it's a jam of a movie. Carpenter has made it no secret in his movies that he loves Westerns- he has somehow managed to slide his own homages to Hawks, Wayne and Peckinpah into almost all of his movies. Perhaps it was this film's over the top attitude that didn't win audiences over when it was released in cinemas. In response to this revelation, I say: this flick was never meant to be some deep insight of the human spirit in times of adversity- this is a popcorn movie that actually had it's fang firmly in cheek. This movie has screaming, animalistic vampires ripping through human beings like they were butter (no sparkles or lost loves here!), gaudy red blood splashing the walls of seedy hotels, macho vampire hunters weilding oversized crossbows and enormous silver tipped stakes, all to the sound of Western blues music. No, this movie ain't for everybody but to me it's tarnished gold.

Jack Crow (James Woods) heads a Vatican-funded vampire hunting squad stationed in New Mexico. These hardened mercenaries are paid oodles of money to hunt down vampire nests and subsequently exterminating all of the undead souls that live in them. Think of them as Blackwater (only perhaps with a few more morals as evidenced with these 'Rules' they adhere when it comes to efficient vampire hunting). However, despite these rules, what Jack and his team aren't prepared for is that the big bad booty vampire Daddy Valek had just about had the last straw and he comes looking for revenge...

                                 But not before he gets into trouble using velcro and a trampoline.

Small sob story- Despite some low key advertising, this movie was not shown in my hometown at the time which greatly bumed me. I had followed the progress of the movie when stills surfaced online and I was literally counting down the days. I went so far as to write to the cinema asking if they would ever screen it and they said they would show it for one night during a fucking midnight screening during a week night. WHUT? And this was a few days before my birthday- yeah, I was heartbroken. So finally, when it was released on video, all but ZOOMED into Blockbuster, watched it and love was born.

One of the best things about this movie from a horror fiend's point of view is that a great many of the effects are practical, sometimes made on the set. If you're familiar with KNB make up, you will know they specialise in some truly wet stuff, and in 'Vampires' they seriously don't lag. You get shot off hands spewing viscous black fluid, stringy intestines hanging out of bodies and thick blood geysering left and right. In perhaps one of the most greatest scenes that shows an example of this, when the ultra pissed off Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) crashes a celebration party held by the slayers, he rips through everybody in the room with relish. It's a brief sequence to be sure, but boy does it count. Another credit to the vampires in this movie is that there are no sparkles, no interviews, no long lost loves- these vampires are animals. They have long, pointed incisors, translucent pale skin with veins streaking across their flesh, claws for nails and just over all meeeeeaaannn attitudes. The only vampires that have truly matched the ones in this movie are the '30 Days of Night' vamps. I would dare to say that if Valek and his crew met the Cullens, there wouldn't even be one smidge of sparkle left on the ground because Valek's pack would thoroughly extinct them.

Now, halfway through the movie, the momentum slows down and the vampires somewhat take a backseat as it focuses on Crow and his remaining allies trying to track Valek down thanks to a burgeoning psychic connection a bitten hooker Katrina (Sheryl Lee, yes, LAURA PALMER) has (BTW, how and where Valek bites Katrina... holy heck... I bet you any amount of money that you have not seen that done in any vampire movie to date). This is perhaps where another element of criticism the movie has earned come from- there is very little physical action, but you know, the middle doesn't feel like some filler. At least it takes the time out to explain the origins of the vampires and to concentrate on Katrina's turning rather than shoves a couple of sentences in our faces and goes on it's merry way. Another factor on top of this is Katrina's treatment. She is basically regarded as an object, a piece of meat, who just happens to have what Jack needs to find Valek. She is slapped, pushed and stripped down by Jack and his second in charge Tony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin). No doubt, women who are sensitive to these matters will find this extremely offensive, and in that regard, I don't blame them, however, she is also the most human anchor we have in this movie. She may not do a lot of arse kicking or spits one liners, but her metamorphis is handled in such a way you feel her pain. As time goes on, Montoya develops a deep sympathy for her plight and defends her honor when Jack gives her a difficult time. No, it's not the most believable love story, but the fact that we can relate most to Katrina negates the idea that John Carpenter is a secret woman hater.

Another point that does demand some attention is that when the end comes,  it really is anti-climatic. I was expecting an all out battle of the giants between Crow and Valek, only to have a resolution that felt perhaps the most tacked on plot point of the movie. It's not wholly unforgivable, but come on- the movie has built up to this moment, but it doesn't deliver, a pity.

                                        This doesn't stop Woods from being a bad mofo though

Although this movie is arguably more about the slayers as opposed to the vampires, Valek and his pack still get some fantastic moments, one of them being when the big daddy himself and several of his lieutenants rise from the dirt as the sun sets. Apparently, the special effects folks formulated small box devices that the vampire actors wore over their faces while they were buried under a few inches in earth to provide them with air. Regards to not just the effects crew but also the actors- being buried in the earth, however only a few inches deep is a scary prospect, but that fear doesn't show in the sequence.

So okay, this film ultimately is very goofy and quite offensive, and really, the modest budget does show at times that you can have a good laugh at it's expense. Also, the dialogue, for all of it's heart and humor is pretty corny and eye-roll inducing, and the fact James Woods wears incredibly tight denim jeans will either make you chortle or chunder, but you know, as they say, what is one person's trash is another person's pleasure and I don't think I will ever hate 'Vampires' because it's the type of trash I consider a contemporary B-grade classic.

When Argento Met Stendhal...

ATTENTION: THE COVER ABOVE IS PERHAPS THE MOST ONLY PLEASANT THING TO DO WITH THIS MOVIE!

Although Dario Argento's recent work has not been up to scratch, however offensively entertaining 'Mother of Tears' was, the man was in his absolute prime during the 70's and 80's with films such as 'Opera', 'Suspiria', 'Tenebre'  and 'Profondo Rosso' but to name a few. As time went on, his style has become fraught with commercialism and relies primarily on shock value to grab an audience's attention. However, as with every other novelty, once the effect has worn off, we shake our heads and go on our merry way. However, during the 90's, amongst this steady decline, Argento managed to make a little-seen gem of a film that could have almost been his comeback- 'The Stendhal Syndrome'.

Detective Anna Manni (Asia Argento) works for the anti-rape squad of the Roman police. She is one of their best officers and she has been tracking down a serial killer/rapist, a search which has led her to Florence. While checking out the Uffizi Gallery, Anna is overwhelmed by the numerous works of art and she passes out. Turns out Detective Manni is afflicted with a case of the obscure Stendhal Syndrome- a strange affliction that makes the victim suffer a seizure by absorbing artwork, in Anna's case, she enters a painting and experiences the sensations the picture gives. Unfortunately, when she suffers one of these fits while in the gallery, the rapist himself, Alfredo Grossi (Thomas Kretschmann) is watching and he falls in love... you know what that means.

                                  

                                                                   It only gets worse...

Off the bat, this movie is SICK, and I mean that with nothing but love. For the first hour of the movie, Argento puts all of his talent to the fore- a compelling story, demented killers, determined victims of circumstance, gorgeous imagery and gore, marvellous, guilt-free glorious gore. Although she would later do the torrid 'The Phantom of the Opera' and the fun but ultimately stupid 'XxX' Asia Argento's work in this movie is solid and true. You are there with her every step of the way from beginning to end- you care for her and it hurts when she is subjected to Grossi's treatment. She reminds one of a stronger Hitchcockian female- vulnerable but at the same time exuding a strength that when tested can be formidable. Simultaneously, this film introduced me to German actor Thomas Kretschmann who plays Anna's foil to a T. The way he starts to gets Anna's skin even when he isn't there, how wretched he is when he plays his games with her. Kretschmann isn't a prominent actor by any means, but when he shows up in films, it's always a pleasure, even when he's playing a revolting fucker such as Alfredo. Dare I say it, Alfredo Grossi is one of my favourite villains in cinema ever, not only is he reprehensible in his actions, he's also clever, charming and attractive. Grossi is not some run off the mill killer- he is a career family man to boot. Who would believe a fine, upstanding member of society could possibly be a derranged serial killer? Another unique element that adds to the impact of the film is that, like 'Opera' it takes something distinctly highbrow (in this case, fine art) and makes it the catalyst for something quite sinister. Another matter this film deals with is sexual identity- despite Anna being a rational policewoman, she succumbs to a deeper level of psycholgical torment that makes her change not just physically, but mentally as well. She becomes as obsessed with Alfredo that he is with her, at times, it's as if he is by her side even when he is not and her attitiude begins to manifest into a different beast completely which eerily mirrors Alfredo's own. One of the many physical manifestations she takes is cutting her hair short, bulking up at the boxing ring and wearing decidedly masculine clothing.

                                         

                                                         What has happened cannot be undone

 So, that being said, remember when I said this movie was brilliant for the first hour? Well, the second hour is not so much. You see, despite his attempts at being daring and original by introducing a new major development, he simultaneously dropped his load way too soon. To be vague, Alfredo becomes more of a secondary character whilst Anna fully takes the regins, I feel this is where the film fell on it's face. If the second half had been a seperate film, it perhaps would have felt more natural, but the way Argento does it, it's as if he realized that he has let go one of the most precious commodities in his movie and has to spend the remaining 60 minutes filling it up with line after line of intrigue. It's not until the end that the movie finally re-establishes itself, but even the most attentive audience members would struggle to maintain the amount of interest required. I really wish Argento had either re-considered the new direction the movie would take, or had focused the same amount of energy he had in the first half of the movie.

To a lesser note, that I feel still needs to be said, that outside of Argento and Kretschmann's characters, all of the supporting players were quite expendable. The only other character I had vested interest in was Manni's psychologist- he managed to take a third fiddle character and made him an enigmatic yet fascinating figure in Anna's life that she turned to when she needed guidance. One character I absolutely couldn't FUCKING STAND was Anna's douchebag boyfriend. The first thing he does to Anna when she gets off the train after her doomed trip to Florence is fucking proposition her- FUCKNUT- YOUR GIRLFRIEND WAS ASSAULTED BY A RAPIST, DO YOU THINK SHE WILL BE IN THE MOOD FOR ANY INTIMATE CONTACT OF THAT NATURE?! THINK, SHITHEAD, THINK! I know I am not alone in thinking this, and finally, when Anna has enough of his selfish ways, she make him pay for it most satisfyingly that it will no doubt make you laugh if not shock you first. Can you say "PWNED"?. >:-D

I would also like to bring up the violence in this movie- despite some pretty out there moments, this movie doesn't use bloodshed as liberally as Argento's other films and despite it being a film about rape, there is no nudity (that I saw...) and thank Mephisto for that. Argento knows he is dealing with something quite heavy, and although it may seem very odd that he is showing his own daughter being subjected to such humiliation, he still treats the issue with sensitivity and he does not glamourize it. In an essense, this is perhaps Argento's most realistic film, and despite the dated visual effects (such as pills going down an oesophagus), the story is backed by many stunning moments, such as below...

                               

                                                            Merry Christmas! :-D

Overall, this movie was as solid as they come, despite it's serious misstep, and it showcases what Argento could be if he stopped making films laden with gore and little else. If he could some day make another film with a heady mix of thrills and story credibility, he could reclaim the ground his has lost in recent years and thus reclaim his old audience and claim a new one.

Rule 303

It's not often I see a film from my own country that I feel bursting pride for. You see, many of the Australian films I have watched have either been the tired 'Aussie battler' sub-genre (a likeable Aussie larakin dealing against umimaginable odds and earns a happy ending), or goofy, over-drawn comedies (the ABYSSMAL 'Welcome to Woop Woop'). If I had to make a short list of national films I have enjoyed, they would be 'Priscilla: Queen of the Desert', 'Picnic at Hanging Rock', 'Muriel's Wedding', 'Shine', 'The Castle', 'Red Hill', 'Mad Max' (I and II FTW), 'Lantana', 'Wolf Creek' and the subject of this review 'Breaker Morant'.

Very short history lesson- the Second Boer War was fought between 1899 and 1902 and within those years, the British Army enlisted Australian troops to fight within their military forces against the South Africans. One of the most famous war crimes that occured was the unwarranted execution of a South African prisoner and a subsequent execution streak of six more before a German missionary who supposedly witnessed the incident was sniped down. In an attempt to form an armistice to end the war, Lord Kitchner ordered a trial to bring Australian soldiers Harry Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton to justice in order to show that the British empire does not tolerate barbarism amongst it's own soldiers. However, this impromptu trial was very much steeped in controversy because the accused soldier's defense attorney was given only a day to prepare- in other words, this case was quite shady. Stranger still, the accused were Australian and there was no mention of British soldiers committing any atrocities though one can be certain they did. On top of that, there was evidence to show that Morant, Handcock and Witton were liable for clemency, but these items were dismissed during the trial. Were Morant and his colleagues truly culpable of this crime, or were they being used as scapegoats?

Bruce Beresford may not be a director the world is familiar with, but his works are quite distinct- no matter how black and white the subjects of his films may initially sound, he changes those colours into shades of grey and avoids didactism. In this movie's case, he doesn't flinch from insinuating the possibility that the deeds Morant and his colleagues committed occured, but he doesn't accuse them either. Rather, he shows that in war, acts of violence may have justification, in Morant's case, it was out of self defense. While there are rules of war soldiers are supposed to follow, in moments of extremity, those rules do not apply- self preservation does, in this case, the only rule Morant and his men were following was Rule 303.

                                                            Alas, Fate is ultimate.

This movie does not plea for the audience to have undying sympathy for the accused men, nor does it point the finger, and it is this approach that truly makes this film brilliant (on top of the fantastic talent). This film is a rich example of a character study during a time of crisis and uncertainty. One of the most striking features of this movie is that it involves excerpts of Morant's poetry during his incarceration that acts as a Greek Chorus of sorts throughout the proceedings of the movie. While first person narration could be construed as being unreliable, we are indeed seeing this movie through Morant's eyes and thus, we are only aware of what Morant was aware of while the rest of the events in the movie have either been taken from court transcripts and hearsay. We may not have known Morant's life up until this point, but in the film's case, what matters is what is happening here and now. Whether or not we believe it is completely up to us. If anything, rather than Morant and company's motives being in question, it is the military order of which they served that is placed under scrutiny. The British military has always been known for it's efficiency, strength and adherance to rules of engagement, but that does not mean that it is always an honorable institution, just like any other enforcement organization.

If I were a dictator, I would make you all watch this film, but since I am not and I just don't have the money or inclination to become one (:-P), all I can do is strongly recommend it, but I can promise that after you see this gem, 'Crocodile Dundee' will not be the only movie that you think of when you see the term 'Australian film'. Please do yourself a favour and see it.

For the record, I have absolutely nothing against 'Crocodile Dundee'.

Love Doesn't Always Come When Love Is Ready

Ladies and gentlemen, despite all of my perchants for bloodshed and torture and filth when it comes to film, I am a romantic. I also like Jane Austen. The way I see Austen's work is like taking a fanciful step back in time to an era where men and women relied on letters and sweet words to court each other, where both sexes dressed splendidly, took long walks across the country to breathe in the fresh air and every night was a party with dancing, pleasant conversation and hopefully catching the eye of a handsome stranger. Now, alternatively Austen's works were quite repressed when it came to the relations between men and women- very few public dances involved bodily contact between partners and society was a scrutinizing thing and sometimes it was this lack of contact that made hopes for a married life very low. In Austen's book 'Persuasion', it's protagonist Anne Elliot wanted badly to find a good husband in Frederick Wentworth, a handsome yet poor young man but was persuaded by her deceased mother's friend, a widow of all people, to break the engagement, supposedly in Anne's best interest, resulting in one of Anne's largest regrets. Destined for spinsterhood and being the overlooked middle child of a modest yet well to do family, all Anne can do is go through her life, finding solace in good company and reading. That is, until Wentworth returns from the Napoleonic Wars, a reknown captain with a considerable reputation and wealth, old feelings reignite. Can Anne and Wentworth find each other again?

                                                  A clue? YES! But not without difficulty...

Roger Mitchell's humble 1995 adaptation of Austen's novel may not have won as many hearts as BBC's adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice' (which firmly placed Colin Firth of every red-blooded woman's map of "Ohhhhh"), but it remained true to it's material and it is ultimately a solid show. There have been criticisms that leads Amanda Root (Anne) and Ciran Hinds (Wentworth) aren't beautiful or romantic enough to play the typical Austen characters, but you must realize it was Austen's intention that Anne Elliot has 'lost her bloom', and she is not the type of woman that every gentleman in the street stops to look at, meanwhile, Hinds is a commanding actor who never disappoints in whatever role he is given, isn't like Firth's Mr. Darcy because Captain Wentworth is a man who has seen the world despite some very humble beginnings. He is thankful for all he has earned and he is wary of the world and never faults in showing good manners. When Wentworth returns to England, he tries to have little contact with Anne as possible, not because he hates her, but because he loves her too much to open those old wounds. However, that does not stop him from being a very desirable bachelor in the eyes of Anne's friend, the much younger, vivacious and pretty Louisa Musgrove who has her sights firmly planted on Wentworth as a prospective husband.
Against these odds, Anne must rely upon her wit and intelligence in order to stand out.

                                                 They may not be for all of us, but they are for each other

Note: I personally think Cirian Hinds can look pretty fucking hot... just look at his Julius Caesar in 'Rome'.

Given it is a product of it's time, this adaption doesn't look as lush as others, in fact, it looked relatively dowdy with washed out colours, even the open country excursions that the characters embark on look, well... dull. I'm one of those people who love their period films to have a little more flair and unfortunately, not a lot of this show has eye catching scenery. At times, possibly due to this lack of colour, I felt myself FEELING quite sleepy. If it weren't for the story, I would have possibly fallen asleep. :-P Addtionally I felt there was a slight oversaturation of period music in every sequence. It's not that I didn't think the music itself wasn't necessary, but too many violins, piano stings and harp can lead one to think they are listening to a relaxtion tape, which can be quite distracting to an audience when they are trying to concentrate on the story on screen. Gorgeous soundtrack though.

Broadly speaking, this show was a respectable translation of Austen's prose onto the screen. While it does not possess all of the ingredients to make a memorable Austen adaptation, it is certainly not guilty of being a boring or confusing mess. Given the subject matter that love does not always come when it is ready, it offers something different from the usual "Ohhhh, Mr. Darcy!" vibe that Austen's other works have possessed. In fact, I would venture to say 'Persuasion' is much easier to relate to by the audience because the characters do not always get what they want when the want it and most of the time, that characters are too busy with other matters to focus exclusively on romance. I would daresay that this point resonates more than we think now in the 21st century, minus the morning tea, empire dresses and polite conversation.

Why The T-1000 Rocks

Without a doubt, the T-800 and T-101 as played by Arnold Schwarzenegger is what many rightly remember when the Terminator series is mentioned. Quite simply, it is impossible to see any other actor in the role. One could say that Arnold's Terminator IS the series. However, as time has gone on and audiences have demanded to see more than one Terminator rock the screen, (such as Kristanna Loken as the T-X, Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright and the various Terminators in the Sarah Connor Chronicles the only creation of SkyNet that has ever truly held my interest is the T-1000 as portrayed by Robert Patrick.


Now, some of you may say that the T-1000 was eventually defeated by T-101 (but boy it did NOT go easily!), and that factually it was not as technologically advanced as the T-X (who, let's face it, was a walking cheat code and despite all of her fancy weaponry STILL didn't so much singe a hair on John Connor or Kate Brewster's head :P) but in terms of presence, menace and persistance, T-1000 stands head and shoulders over either of them.


Allow me to list the ways...


1) Upon arrival, T-1000 assumes the identity of a cop. Rather than deck itself out in suspicious-looking biker's clothes and sunglasses and carrying a huge shotgun, T-1000 utilized a much subtle subterfuge. Think about it- cops are symbols of authority and more often than not, people are more inclined to trust them and give them information. When the T-1000 rocks up at John Connor's foster parent's home, it didn't use intimidation or pointed a gun in their faces- instead, it was able to have a regular, impersonal conversation with them regarding John's whereabouts. When they give the assassin a picture of John, T-1000 did not immediately go into Hunt mode, it gave the fosties a courteous smile and says "Thanks for your co-operation" and goes on its way.

 2) Despite its smaller appearance than T-101, T-1000 is athletic and frighteningly fast. When it gave chase to John in the shopping mall's carpark, rather than immediately hopping on a mode of transport, it pursued after the kid on his dirt bike on foot and you'd swear, if John changed gear, T-1000 would have been on the back of that motorcycle driving one of its sharp appendages through the kid's back and completing its mission before the T-101 ever had a chance to catch up.


3) Although the T-1000 is a cyborg, it has a good grip on human psychology and general common sense. T-1000 had a unique talent of sensing its surroundings through touch- generally speaking, it was a sponge which could soak up each and every little detail, nothing went past its observation, no matter how trivial. It recognised things that were significant to its targets and took advantage of them. It was also selective about who it chose to mimic during its assignment- it didn't just assume the identity of a random passerby and only ices those who it must (okay, the truck driver at the end of the movie was an exception, but the dude got in his way, damn it!). After T-101 saves John, T-1000 assumes the identity of John's foster mother (in doing so, it presumably fools the foster father). If it were not for T-101's monitoring John's phone conversation, John would have gone back to his foster home and had his goose cooked. In the mental institution where Sarah Connor is being held, T-1000 infiltrates the maximum security wing by assimilating the form of one of the guards. Toward the end of the film in the steel mill, T-1000 strikes right for John's emotional core by mimicing his mother rather than his cybernetic protector. Once again, were it not for T-1000's glitch and the timely intervention of the real Sarah, T-1000 would have done as SkyNet had commanded.


4) Sense of humour- T-1000 is an amoral machine all said and done, but who can forget that awesome finger-waggle it gave Sarah Connor when she ran out of shotgun bullets, as if to say "Tut, tut.". Pure gold. On top of that, the "Say... that's a NICE bike" is one for the books.





Don't be a tool...


5) They really couldn't have chosen a better actor than Robert Patrick to play the role. The guy does so much even when he isn't moving. Although he embodies the T-1000 as a cyborg first and foremost, he adds several hints of personality- humour, antagonism and confidence but he never plays on these things the way a regular character would. Incredible performance in a genre that is often overlooked for Hilary Swank dramas and Russell Crowe epics.


6) The name... just.. T-1000. Repeat after me. Tee-One-Thousand. Not just anybody can carry that moniker and be taken seriously.

The Case For Event Horizon

The following opinion/argument/rationalization/waste of your time is strictly my own. In no way am I speaking for any other person than myself.






Paul W.S Anderson these days could be considered Public Enemy #1 in the genre world. He has ticked off many fans with his adaptations of pre-established franchises such as 'Resident Evil' and 'Alien Vs. Predator' (though the sequel by the Brothers Strausse was infinitely more horrendous). He is a director who seems to value style over substance and doesn't appear to listen to the people who he tries to make these movies for. On top of that, as a writer, let's just say that the fanfiction I write could run circles around his, though obviously he gets paid and I don't. Additionally, he's married Action Amazon Milla Jovovich. What a prick.

But fifteen years ago, he made a delightfully vicious little movie that gave him considerable promise as a film maker: 'Event Horizon'. While by no means could it possibly be considered a bonafide classic or original (it is so chock full of references to other movies that it would make a film buff's head spin), over the years, it has gained a significantly huge cult audience and deservedly so- for all of it's homages (or deriviations) it is also a solid science fiction/horror/thriller that overall achieves what it sets out to do- to surprise, to delight, to disgust and to disturb. Let me emphasize the ways:

                                                                  
                                                                              The Cast

Laurence Fishburne. Sam Neill. Jason Isaacs. Although they were not what could have ordinarily been considered box office draws, they played their roles straight with no wink wink, nudge nudge. While this is at heart a B-Movie (and what genre movie ISN'T?), the performances are very solid that you give a damn about their characters through the progression of the movie. On top of that, nobody in this movie is super-human, which means, they can be killed any moment, something Anderson discarded in 'Resident Evil' when he conceived the glorified Mary Sue known as Alice.

 

The Ship

Come on. Look at that and tell me the ship's exterior alone isn't enough to give you the shivers. The design of the ship inside and out was inspired by the Notre Dame cathedral, one of the most beautiful examples of Gothic architecture. Circular hallways, stained-glass windows. claustraphobic passages, geometrical infrastructure, spiked hallways and dizzying angles make the ship a character in itself. Add to that Adrian Biddle's lighting talents and you have yourself a fabulous haunted house in space. Look at the evidence below:


Yes, this is a computer render, but check out the shape of the vessel, enlongated, graceful cruciform structure- beautiful



One of my favourite set pieces- the core of the ship




                                                                   The Gore


The blood 'n' guts shed in this movie really does push the envelope. Keep in mind, this was made in 1997, when gore still had the capacity to shock audiences as opposed to these days when many horror films are saturated in the red stuff. Anderson purposely chose to apply a painter's eye to these sequences using inspiration from notable artists such as Bosch and Brughel on top of some old-fashioned ugliness. Although the nasty stuff such as the visions of Hell are on screen for only a few frames, if you pause and slow down your DVD, you are gonna see some truly sick stuff. Also, it's not just the visions of Hell that will make you wince- there is an incident involving a bloody long fall resulting in a pair of seriously broken legs. OUCH. If only Anderson and co. had used this flair for cruelty when making the Resident Evil films it may have made a little more of a difference.

                                                              WEEEEE!!!!!! :-DDDDDD




The Score

Not often do you get an amalgamation of classical and techno, but Michael Kamen and Orbital's score compliment the film surprisingly well. Those familiar with Anderson's choice of music in movies may be shocked when they hear an orchestral score playing in synch with the 'ints, ints, ints' that typically bombards his movies and trailers. Kamen and Orbital have managed to convey the sense of the future along with the haunting music similar to the soundtracks of the old Hammer films.

                                                                       
                                                                       The Budget


Admittedly, while this movie boasts quite a few excellent examples of practical and CGI effects, it wasn't made on a humungous Hollywood budget, which meant Anderson and co. really needed to distribute their funds thoughtfully when it came to the production of the movie. As a result, despite not having the luxury of a long production period (once again note this was made in '97) it really milked it's positives for all of their worth and they pay off. Anderson once said that the original cut was two hours (as opposed to the much brisker 90 minutes of the released version) and in narrative terms, it had a lot more meat (no pun intended). I dunno about you, but I wouldn't have minded being on that creepy ship for longer, but money and time being what it is in Movie Land, full creative control is a paradise that only the most biggest of cheeses can afford. Below are two sequences that were filmed but not included in the final version. If you ask me, it is a shame that they weren't kept, especially the first one: brrrrrr.

In closing, I would like to say this- Paul W.S Anderson is a terrible writer but he has the wit of a brilliant PR. He knows how to sell his movies and he knows what will catch an audience's eye even if it ultimately does not make a lick of sense. But, he is also quite talented at offering up spectacular visuals which can make or break a story. Event Horizon is a fine example of this, as is the underrated Soldier and the very fun Death Race. If the man is given explicit instructions about how a story can look, he has the potential to be a widely-regarded genre film maker. What I feel he needs to do is to stop taking part in the Resident Evil films and cast his net wider. This guy didn't direct commercials or music videos- he did go to film school, he studied the craft and believe it or not, he does have a broad knowledge of film and literature. Technically he could churn out crowd-pleaser after crowd-pleaser every year if he took advantage of his strengths and aknowledged his weaknesses by getting assistance in the form of other creative minds. Right now, he really needs to listen to the audience he has lost touch with because if he continues to go down this path, eventually Event Horizon will disappear just like the titular ship.

WAKE UP, ANDERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mommie Dearest

When people think of Stephen King, they automatically conjure up his best-selling horror novels, while some may think of the uplifting Shawshank Redemption or the subtly magical The Green Mile. Although quite a few of King's works have not made a positive transition from page to screen, the ones that work are the ones that people can relate to in one way or another, in this case, it is the gritty and underappreciated Dolores Claiborne.

                                                            Bates (as always) is amazing


Directed by Taylor Hackford and boasting talent such as Kathy Bates, Jennifer Jason Leigh and David Strathairn, this film doesn't deal with the supernatural whatsoever or even a slight of hand. No, this movie investigates the issue of domestic violence, a problem that has unfortunately been plaguing lives around the world for God knows how long. Additionally, it deals with the notion that while mothers can be loving and warm people, they can also be as fierce as beasts and the lengths they will go to when it comes to the protection of their children.

  The Devil is beside her

While this film is decidedly low key in many respects, when scenes of a man beating up on his wife come on screen, they hit you hard and they stay with you throughout the movie, add to that the grainy look of the film- very few clear skies, frosty air and a distinct sense of depression that saturates every scene- it seems as if the environment has only compounded the sense of desolation Dolores Claiborne feels every day.
Now some of you may be thinking that just because there are no scary creatures and excessive blood and guts in this movie, that doesn't make it scary- how wrong you are. You see, no matter how outrageous King's work may be when it comes to dealing with the metanatural, all of his books center around the characters rather than simply the circumstances. One could say that what truly makes King's works memorable are not the monsters in the closet, but the people whose house has the monsters in the closet. King invests a lot within his characters and in Dolores Claiborne's case, it shows.


It goes without saying that Kathy Bates as Dolores once again proves why she is an actress to be reckoned when it comes to playing such a layered character with many dark secrets who wants to be heard. Her Dolores may seem like a passive punching bag at first glance, but as you follow her story, you realise that she is mother grizzly bear (sorry for the Palinism) who has nothing to lose, and that, my friends, is more than a woman, but a force a nature.

                                                              The mother and her cub


While this film came out way back  in 1995, and while it shows flashbacks that dates back to the 60's the present timeline seems indeterminate, I feel that this factor works for the idea that no matter what the timeframe, humans almost never change and in a movie that investigates subject matter as hard hitting as familial abuse, it stays with you.


I also find that this film is quite faithful to King's prose which is another thing that works in the film's favour- when you deviate from a work that you are trying to translate to an audience, you are in danger of losing the essential parts of what makes the story true. Naturally not all the characters are PRECISELY as King wrote them, but the actors ensure that they make up for what their characters don't have by adding their of flavour to the roles, especially Judy Parfitt in her role as Dolores's employer.


While it is certainly not my place to dictate what type of movies you as the viewer should watch, do give this one an honorable try- it will not be to everybody's taste, but I feel that nobody will feel this film is absurd beyond comprehension because of the fact it is about humans and how frightening they can be as opposed to run of the mill serial killers wearing hockey masks hacking into screaming virgins (thanks Peter Vincent for that one :-P).


So, will you sit down and listen to Dolores's story?

War Is A Many Splintered Thing

China, circ 1860- a powerful and destructive rebellion sweeps throughout China resulting in not only the schism of the land but of the people, in particular, three blood brothers who are torn apart from political intrigue, shadow dealings and love.


Whoa. I love historical epics because of their grand, sweeping nature, how they reconstruct worlds past and their larger than life stories. While Peter Chan's The Warlords certainly possesses all of these, what truly caught me was that is was also a character study. Jet Li, Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro play blood brothers, who long ago swore they would remain together and let nothing tear them apart, only to have their bond shattered when war breaks out. I am no expert on Chinese history, and for all I know, the story behind this film could very well be an embellishment, but damn if the human beings in this story don't ring true to the veiwers in terms of their actions and emotions. I think what truly struck me was that the three lead characters were not strangers- they were closely connected, and therefore, the things that affect one, affect all of them, abeilt in different ways. When the rebellion severs their bond, they can do nothing to remedy it, instead the rift between them grows and the power of betrayal grows too strong. You can guess that things will not end in wine and roses by the time the blood dries on the battlefield.


Now, this is going to sound awful, but I really don't have a lot of favourite Chinese films save for the occasional horror that is served up only to be remade to suit English-speaking audiences. While I will certainly agree that Hero was a gorgeous example of myth, ultimately it didn't have a terrible lot of substance. Same can be said for House of Flying Daggers. Yes, they looked absolutely gorgeous and sublime, but they did not possess rounded out characters that the audience can relate to on a deeper level, and I find that this connection, the human connection is what should truly matter when it comes to historical epics of heroism, rebellion and relations between individuals. While Jet Li has done his fair share of action, the role he has in this movie is so much more rewarding than simply kicking arse and being the Token Chinese Badass in most American movies. Andy Lau, who I've had my eye on for a while proves that he is an actor who truly does deserve international recognition because he has one of the most expressive pair of eyes I have seen and here he uses them to maximum effect. Takeshi Kaneshiro is a bit of an enigma to me- a dear friend of mine loves him (and I will admit he is kinda cute), but I have not seen a lot of his past work to truly compare it to his work here, but he delivers a fine performance nonetheless. If I ever see him in any other movies, I will be sure to pay more attention to his work.


Don't go thinking this movie is all about beauty because it ain't- this is a VIOLENT film, people die in horrendous ways, there is rape and torture, there is humiliation and the ugliness of humans in war. All the same, the content is not put in for shock's sake- it is showing the reality of war and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that it is one of the worst things humans can inflict on each other (and yet we still do it). It's also the kind of movie that makes you wonder that if you were placed in the position of betraying somebody who is close to you in a circumstance such as war, how would you feel? What would you do? What would your reasons be if you did or what would happen to you if you did not? This is the type of movie that has characters that everybody can relate to, no matter where you come from or who you are. I probably wouldn't watch this movie over and over again because it was a heady journey the first time around, but I can assure you that this film is an experience that must be seen to be fully comprehended, better yet, watch the Director's Cut to get the maximum effect of this movie.

Clash of the Titans

 Interesting little factoid for you; the lead actors Michael Sheen and Frank Langella played media showman David Frost and Tricky Dick respectively on stage together in the past. Moreover, Ron Howard said he would not have done the movie if he were not able to get the pair for his adaptation of Peter Morgan's play of post-Watergate Nixon Interviews conducted in '77 after Nixon abandoned the presidency and got a pardon from Ford.


Regretfully, I don't have oodles of money and I may never see the intensity these two men on stage replicated, but if I may be so bold, this film replaces what may have been more than adequately.








Who is the Spider and who is the Fly?


The movie is very much the cat-and-mouse, but is disguised by the world of politics and the media that hounds it at every turn. What started off as a run-of-the-mill interview of Nixon courtesy of Frost ended up to be the ultimate public eye trial of the disgraced former President resulting in a confession that most of America (and the world for that matter) wanted to hear. However, one truly fascinating feat this film (and Langella) achieves is giving Tricky Dick a face away from the public eye- the face of a desperate, ill yet proud man who tried to see justification in his acts only to see the traumatic results they caused. The way Frost, with the assistance of his producer and two little-known political hounds, who was regularly known to be a show pony of the airwaves transformed into Nixon's most worthy opponent in the media circuit surprised everybody, including Nixon himself.







Journalists or political assassins?


There truly is nothing I can say that hasn't already been said when it comes to praising Sheen and Langella's performances, and really, the rest of the principal cast should not be disregarded, however small their roles are compared to the leads. Special mention goes to Boomkat Favourite Kevin Bacon as Nixon's ex-secretary of defense and confidant Jack Brennan andToby Jones as political PR go-to Swifty Lazaar. If I may confess though, I was a little surprised to see Lucian from Underworld without his scruffy beard.







Is this even the same guy?!


Joking aside, while I'm not the person to speak with regarding politics, it's difficult to ignore the fact that the events of the film occured (give or take artistic license) and sometimes, you don't need explosions, gunfire, contrived plots and other embellishments to make an effective and suspenseful political thriller, regardless if it's source is a stage play and not a Robert Ludlum or John Grisham publication. It is a little heart-breaking too that Langella did not win Best Actor because his monologue over the phone to Sheen is one of the best I have recently heard.


Good show Mr. Howard, Sheen, Langella and co. You Are Not Crooks.


...


OT: I don't know about you, but I really do fancy Sheen, especially as Lucian:

Psychosexuality Ahoy!

While this film is not prominent with serial killers, mistaken identities and elaborate murder plots, it feels almost like a soul sister to Hitch's psychological ripper Vertigo. The usually radiant Tippi Hedren takes a very prim and proper turn as Marnie, a frigid wallflower of a woman who aspires to achieve higher things, but something within her mind is keeping her back. Many obstacles block her way, one of them being wealthy widower Mark Rutland, (a smoldering Sean Connery, two years after making heads turn and womens' jaws drop as James Bond). While it would be a crime on my behalf to give the particulars away, what results is a study of repressed sexuality, paranoia and confusion, Hedren's character being the catalyst and the central victim of all.


What is the truth and what is the lie?

While this film possesses its own self-imposed flaws, due to budget, time and film constraints for the era, this offering by Hitch is respectable, primarily due to Hedren's performance as Marnie. Here the usually glamourous actress was given the perfect opportunity to dive deep into a complicated role and she came out a champion. If anybody who remembers her admittedly awkward performance in The Birds, they need not be wary here. Save for one somewhat ungainly moment, Hedren nails the role to the wall. Sean Connery meanwhile further cemented his reputation as a compelling actor as well as resident sex bomb, whose character makes it his mission to protect, analyze and even dominate the mystery that is Marnie. Given the Hayes Code that applied to cinema back in the day, much is implied rather than shown, but I feel it works in the favour of the tale. As expected, Hitchcock makes ample use angles, colours, a fitting score by the maestro Bernard Herrmann, and well-adapted screenplay based off the story by Winston Graham.


Can she be saved from herself... and him?

One of the things that struck me most was how sexual this film was. Granted, innuendo is no stranger to Hitchcocks' works, but this one managed to be a little more overt, and the sexual tension between Hedren and Connery's characters is so thick you could cut through it with a hot butter knife and still not reach the bottom of the cake. One particular sequence was rather racy for the time, involves one apex of the relationship between Marnie and Mark that takes place on a luxury liner that toes the line between passion and an act of imposed power. It all makes for a highly fascinating, though questionable relationship between the pair and it will no doubt leave the viewer questioning the integrity of Marnie and Mark's feelings.

While it is not as famed or impersonated as Psycho, or as talked about as Hitchcock's other blockbusters, Marnie rightly belongs in the pantheon of intelligent psychosexual drama/thrillers that have become increasingly rare in this uncompromising era of over-exposure and absurd censorship, mainly due to Hedren and Connery's performances and a stimulating plot that manages to keep you interested, if not wholly invested in the proceedings. While the morals of Mark of may leave some audience members, females in particular, a little sour, what cannot be denied is how deep Hitchcock went with this one. While it may not push the boundary of psychological intensity like Vertigo, this one isn't afraid of prodding curiously at the idea either.

History, Bloody History

                                                 

It is movies like these that makes me admire foreign cinema and not the glossed over American crap that has been bombarding the industry of late.

Picture this: 1572. France is on the brink of civil war, and as a seeming last-ditch attempt to reconcile the Catholic and Protestant populations, scheming Catherine de Medici forcibly marries her daughter off to Henri de Bourbon, however, she instrumentates the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre to eliminate France's Protestants with disasterous results. During the confrontation, Margot saves several Protestants along with her husband and the mysterious La Môle, a Protestant spy, and therefore her enemy, from death, only to fall in love with him. Amongst this, de Medici and her son Henry II start to unfurl a plot for Henry to take the throne with de Medici herself behind the curtain.

 

The reluctant bride

This film, for all of it's lavishness is extraordinarily brutal and it shows by Patrice Chéreau's skill as a director as well as from her cast and crew. During the pivotal Massacre and countless assassination attempts made on both Henri and La Môle, there is ample bloodshed amongst the tragedy and passion to satisfy the gore hounds (though if you are a gore hound and you are watching this movie, you may probably fall asleep half way through, which is your problem).
Gorgeous costumes, production and historically accurate sets made this film a true treat to watch, and then there is Isabelle Adjani as Margot and Vincent Perez as La Môle... God those two look gorgeous together! While they do not spend a lot of time together in the film, you can sense the fact that Margot pines for her lover and he likewise. People have criticized that there is zero chemistry between them, but look at it from this perspective; they met through chance in a turbulent era and had to be separated for a huge amount of time. On top of this, there are many layers to the characters- Margot would ordinarily be pidgeon-holed as virtuous and moral, but here, Adjani portrays her as blunt, impulsive, desperate, naive and promiscuous. First she dismisses Protestants as sub-human, the next she wants to save their lives. Perez is very much the smouldering romantic hero, but before meeting Margot, he considers her a whore and a selfish slave of fashion. God bless the French.



Comment vous faites bébé?

Now, on a more negative side, this cut of the film runs for 136-odd minutes. Not truly that long all said and done, but sometimes, it seemed as if the film was dragging it's boots in a couple of places. Mayhap it was a prolonged lead up to affairs, mayhap it was because of the fact I needed to pee a few times while watching the movie and had to stop the DVD. Also, some of the music cues seemed a little too modern amongst the mostly classical and sweeping score. Was this deliberate on the part of the composer? Because the rest of the score was very rich and relevant to the piece and it was slightly unusual to hear an underlying techno track to particularly dramatic sequences. I dunno, perhaps I am just being too picky.

Overall, 'La Reine Margot' is a visually and textually stunning film about how history at times simply be a mirror of our own modern barbarism when not an inspiration in the past. A solid continental cast involving a young Asia Argento (one of my grrrrrls) and the ever-comely Thomas Kretschmann in small but consequential roles assist in making this film a rewarding experience to watch.

THE PHAAAAAAANNNNTOM OF THE OPERA IS HEEEEEEEEEEERE!... Or not.

                                     

Despite my wretched heart, I am a romantic. Nothing stirs me more than a touching love story, and not just the sort that happens in tragedy but also happiness, serendipity and chance. I also love my period films, you know the ones with elaborate costumes, sweeping dialogue and relationships between men and women. On the other side of the coin, I love my horror. I love any horror, not just one breed. One of the figures who I admire when it comes to horror is Dario Argento. The man is known for having a true eye for not just violence but also beauty, one of the key points being his masterpiece Suspiria. In my opinion it has never been topped by any of his later efforts, though between you, me and everybody we know, I have a huge appreciation for his over-looked yet flawed thriller The Stendhal Syndrome (also starring Asia).
If you combine romance, period and horror together with Argento's name attached to it directly, chances are you wouldn't need to sell me any further.
WRONG.

While I know and I do somewhat admire Argento for trying something different compared to his past efforts, it is pretty darn appalling. It's not because of the transgressive content (though honestly, what was Dario thinking when he cast his daughter Asia to be lovingly corn-holed by the Warlock himself, Julian Sands), or any of the gore for that matter, but it's just flat out BAD.
I am one of those people who loves Gaston Leroux's original tale, not to mention the prominent musical that have been inspired by the said work, but that doesn't mean I don't like the story being shaken up and turned on it's head, but... DAMN IT DARIO.

"WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?"
There are so many things wrong with this version that it's difficult to list them concisely. It's like Dario picked one massive pimple and the pus sprayed all over the face (sorry if you are eating as you read this). I have nothing against either of the Argentos (Asia is a girl crush of mine) and there's nothing horrid about Sands, but the female Argento and Sands just don't generate the appropriate if any chemistry between the Phantom and Christine. Okay, I can accept the notion that the Phantom represents Christine's dark side and that's what seems to get her off, but there was no build up. The Phantom simply goes up to Christine, says ''Sup?' and she falls into his arms.

What does this say about our heroine? Opera divas are easy.


DARIOOOOOOO! IT'S YOURRRRRR DAUGHTEEEEEEEEER!!!!!

And was that Prince-look-a-like opium addict really Raoul? The guy was fascinating as a damp towel and as useless as tits on a bull, not to mention rather... girly.


Separated at birth??

Another truly silly point is that it's difficult to feel sorry for the Phantom because he is not disfigured (though his clothes and hair are in urgent need of a Queer Eye make over). On top of that I was heavily reminded of The Penguin's whacky origin story in Batman Returns, but instead of being raised by penguins, some kindly rats raise him as their own and he identifies himself as one of them. Heck, he even lets the furry little buggers help him his man-jollies. HOT.


Gimme some cheese, baby.
Oh, oh, but that's not even the TIP of the iceberg, folks! We also have the following:
- A more than little unhinged rat catcher with his man bitch dwarf in a funny looking rat-catching contraption (not popular with the Phantom, of course)
- A dickhead stagehand with a stooopid big-racked whore girlfriend who decide it would be a great idea to venture into the Phantom's lair to find 'treasure'.
- I firmly believe no man or woman should not be ashamed of their naked anatomy, BUT, there is a time and a place for it. In the case of the decadent opium den sequence, old man wang and big ol' jelly rolls makes Da Boomkat sad in pants. :-(
- The Phantom's lines. "Your female smell".,"Your voice... fills me... with divine light!"... you're gonna have to try harder to get into MY panties, Phantie.
- Lack of eroticism. Yes, Phantom and Christine beast like there's no tomorrow, but there is no inherent sexiness in any of their love scenes, not even Asia or Julian's butts can save them.
- Ordinarily, I don't have an issue with a broad array of acting styles, but Asia seemed to have three emotions- confused, slutty and hysterical. I don't like seeing my girl that way all the time. With Julian Sands, well, he just isn't content to nibble on the scenery, but take enormous chunks out of it. In between that, the rest of the cast think they are in a circus, only they are not skilled artistes, but clowns. In the worst possible way. The only character I enjoyed was Christine's bad ass maid. MAN she was wonderfully snarky and vicious! The Phantom should have gone after her, screw the age difference.
- Epically bad lip-syncing. The art of lip-syncing of a complicated one. It takes many years to pull off properly not to mention commitment and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, Asia did not get any of this memo and just juts her chest up and down, looking like she is having an epileptic orgasm this side of Showgirls. Is there a doctor in the opera house?! She looks she's about to collapse!

Is there anything POSITIVE I can say about this movie without wincing?
Well, the movie, like many of Argento's previous films certainly looks gorgeous with lush lighting schemes, not to mention some rather impressive sets such as the interior of the opera house and the Phantom's cave. Additionally, there are some wonderfully gory moments involving death by stalagmites, some messy Phantom-inflicted bites and some other surprising demises that I will not spoil for you should you decide to watch this movie even after this review. Male readers may also be delighted to know that many of Asia's outfits leave little to the imagination, and that's when she's not being ravished by her disturbed lover.

When you look back at Dario's career, you will wonder 'how the heck he went from that glorious prime to this tripe?'. Yes, once again, he is trying something new and normally I would encourage that, but in this case, it was like a train wreak- it's horrid, it's absurd and there are better things to look at and enjoy... but for some reason you keep watching... then you feel dirty after it's finished.

Don't Piss Off Tom Jane

To begin, I must confess that while I do love comic books and I have a somewhat expansive general knowledge, I have not read many of The Punisher's tales. Perhaps this is precisely the reason why this movie worked gangbusters with me. Other fans of Marvel's beloved anti-hero have complained that the setting was completely wrong and the film's tone was schizophrenic and takes itself too seriously one second and goofs off moments later.

In it's defense however, I would like to put forth these points:

a) It is based on a comic book filled with mausoleum humor one moment and spectacular violence the next, so why shouldn't this movie follow suite?
b) I also know that the setting of the comic books was mainly confined to the dirty streets and alleys of Detroit (somebody please correct me if I am wrong) while the movie itself is set in the sunny Tampa, Florida. Okay, perhaps Tampa is too glamorous, but once you take out the glitz and glam from any cosmopolitan city, there is a filthy underbelly beneath it. On top of that, it was Hensleigh's own decision to set it there, despite knowing fully that it was not The Punisher's city of punishment choice.
Additionally, I have heard other viewers complain that Frank Castle didn't go on a roaring rampage with guns and brawn in tow. There is a reason why he calls himself The Punisher and not The Executioner- he punishes, which means, in the case of the movie, he ruins lives before taking them, which is more of a punishment than just inflicting direct violence onto their person. In my eyes, the Castle in this adaptation is a bit like the Count of Monte Cristo- vengeance on his mind, justice in his heart, but in this case done in the style of Peckinpah and Leone.

In this movie, all of what you see is basically what you get- it's a revenge tale that proves that revenge is a dish best served hot and reeking of gun powder. What will more than likely strike you first (and rightly so) is The Punisher himself, Tom Jane. Say what you will about the other roles that you have seen him play, but his commitment to the character is fierce- the man lobbied for this role and when he got it, he didn't rest on his laurels. He worked out six days a week under a strenuous training regime and, pardon the pun, punished himself so that he was ready to roll. And boy does it show.

                                         You so much LOOK at me wrong, there'll be Hell to pay

For the rest of the main cast, despite the archetype roles they have, they come off none the worse. Quite a few people have critisized Travolta's character for not being active enough when Castle is reaping fresh Hell upon his head. I can see where they are coming from because he always relied on his henchmen to protect him, but what you must also understand is that this Howard Saint character, and his harpy wife Livia (Laura Elena Harring) for that matter, are players, not fighters. They are the aloof Roman emperor and empress on top of a crime empire- they never felt the need to flourish a gun when they can flourish their checkbooks and bribe their way through a jam.

                                                       Emperor and Empress of Crime

A standout supporting player I find in particular was Will Patton's low-key homosexual hitman. Patton is fantastic to watch, as he always is, and he manages to give his Quentin Glass a very ambiguous edge that could have fallen flat on it's face if a lesser character actor had assumed the reigns.
As for Castle's slum house roomies (the stoner, the token fat guy and the mousy hot woman, they are as stock as expected and while their characters feel to be a forced addition, I never found their inclusion detrimental enough to ruin the entire movie. Sure, if the movie had less of them, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but what I find is that when Castle is with them, he manages to retain some sense of humanity he is on the fine brink of completely losing.
If I could complain about the character that Romijn plays though, she really needs to step off. She comes onto Castle and he's just lost his wife and child and tries to snog him. WOMAN. Give the man some space, I don't care how hot lonely you are, but leave him be, he has things to do, and you ain't one of 'em!
As stated earlier, this movie sports scenes of incredible brutality one moment and slap-stick the next, and a scene where these two come together is the house demolition/fight between Castle and The Russian. In fact, I think this scene shares a lot in common with Van Damme taking on Iceburgh in Sudden Death! It's hilarious!
Now let's get some gripes out in front of the firing squad.

KINDA SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie for all of it's humour and charm was rank with plot holes. Where did Castle go after the untimely slaughter of his entire family? We saw a man pick him up in a boat, but where did they go, exactly? While Castle kept to himself while living in the slum apartment block, surely the tenants must he noticed the stuff he was working on (armoured car, anyone?). How come the Saint family proper had no idea where Castle had shacked himself up, but characters like The Russian and Quentin Glass did? And with all of this hell being wreaked on the Saint empire, surely the cops would have been called in at some point, even if they were on Saint's pay roll? And while I know I have previous defended this point, sometimes the comic slap-stick humour was a little too ridiculous: Castle tortures a lackey with an popsicle, making his victim think it's a blow torch. Come on- if you're gonna torture somebody, if it's only to make them scared, at least put their lives into some sort jeopardy rather than fuck with their minds. These sorts of hurdles are too major to be ignored, even for a comic film of this caliber.

SPOILERS END

That being said, I must say that The Punisher was great, calamitous fun that was done with tongue firm in it's cheek and hand on the trigger. It is not the perfect Punisher film that could possibly be made, but between you and me, I prefer this one over the Lundgren incarnation and Punisher: Warzone (with Ray Stevenson as Castle) that has been recently released. While Tom Jane may not have the brutal appearance of Lundgren and Stevenson, I believe he possesses the right character balance and determination to make the character a plausible one. I really hope he makes another one because all said and done, Hensleigh's work delivered ample merit to be turned into a potential franchise.

And here, ladies (and dudes). :D