No Man's Land: The Rise Of Reeker - 2/5

As if "Reeker" wasn't complicated enough with all of its loose ends and odd twists of plot, the prequel/sequel "No Man's Land: The Rise Of Reeker" certainly makes it even more complicated. In some ways, this second film is better and worse than the original and evens out to sitting at about the same level. Is it as clever as the original? Not at all, but it does have a bit better execution for the screen.

A local sheriff around Death Valley is about to hand off his role as chief to his newly appointed son. When a group of casino robbers turn up at the diner where they are having a peaceful lunch, things turn ugly. And smelly. Now a group of local townsfolk, our two police heroes, and some of these robbers are out to find a way to survive one another in a strange variation of the world...and survive the wicked mechanical wrath of...the REEKER!

The one thing that made the original one so watchable (use that term loosely) was its clever story and wicked twist. Since we already know the twist, this film seems rather boring by the time we get into it. Not to mention the film doesn't know if it wants to be a sequel or prequel with its first opening scene showing us how the Reeker came to be...sort of. Thanks for half answering one of my questions from the first one, sequel! It then of course jumps to present day, which must be after the first one considering how it ends, and sort of fucks with your time line a bit too much. What the hell is this? This gives us 10 minutes showing us how the Reeker came to be...sort of...and you can subtitle it "The Rise Of Reeker"? Misleading!

Since the story line and clever twist are not there, then it has to be better executed right? Well that's a sort of too. At least it doesn't look like a made for TV movie this time around. In fact, the acting (in general) has improved even if the characters aren't near as charming or well built this time around and the special effects have taken a few steps up. There is a wicked scene where a few characters find themselves bound to the area by invisible walls (one by trying to drive a car through it!) and the overall gore and kill scenes are a bit better even if some of them come out of left field. None of these are spectacular elements to "No Man's Land" but they do improve over the original in many ways.

So really, "No Man's Land" sort of reverses the strengths from "Reeker" and still isn't able to top it. It just sort of matches it and decides 'eh, that's enough'. Not a great film by any means, but once again not a horrible way to spend a night on the couch with a low budget horror film. Would have loved to see it try to add something even more to its twisty premise instead of some minor details.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Reeker - 2/5

"Reeker" was somewhat of a challenge for me. Despite all of the solid things about this low budget 'smart' horror film, I innately felt as though the film was not all there. Like its smelly and fast moving villain, "Reeker" is fleeting with finishing anything off. It starts with some great ideas, throws in a solid twist at the end, and even gives us some fairly cheer worthy protagonists, yet as the credits rolled there was a void where all the connections didn't quite come together...least of all make sense.

A group of college students are off to the biggest party of the year and road tripping through the desert seems like a smooth idea. If you are a horror fan, you know that this is not the cast. After their car breaks down at away ward cafe and gas station, these young folk find that their world seems a big different. No one else is around and a mysterious smell keeps coming up. A smell of death. A smell of the REEKER!

There's a smart idea buried in "Reeker". It's fun, Stephen King style idea that carries the film for the most part. It carries it through it's hit or miss acing (although an appearance from Michael Ironside earned this film a bit of merit) and it's hit or miss 'made for TV' look and directing. It was this mystery to its plot that really kept me watching despite feeling as though it didn't make a lick of sense through the first two thirds of the film. This is truly the highlight with its interesting twist that made "Reeker" worth the watch.

Beyond that though, this film feels only half way there. As I mentioned, the acting is hit or miss with some charming performances, but nothing to write home about and the directing/design for the film flounders by the numbers for this kind of film. The dialogue can be rather silly (particularly from the ditzy character Cookie) and doesn't quite cut it when it comes to intriguing.

The biggest flaw comes in the form of its twist though. It's a great idea that is played out (and explained) to answer those nagging questions, but it doesn't answer all of them. It's still a flawed ending. I loved the idea, it just needed to answer ALL the questions and not just some of them. I don't want to give it away (it is the highlight of the film), but it left me with more questions than it answered. Particularly with what was the Reeker anyway?

It's a fun low budget and fairly clever film, it just doesn't quite have the slick writing or execution it needed to jump it up into the 'impressive' category. It was fun and a solid way to waste a late night on the couch, but after it was done I craved for it to be so much more. Now let's see how it's sequel/prequel holds up.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

XXX - 1.5/5

"Welcome to the Xander zone!"

Yeah, you and I both know that its not a good catchphrase, but the sheer absurdity of that line in "XXX" makes it one of its better bits of dialogue instead of the run of the mill spy jargon with an generation X spin that makes up the majority of this Bond knock off. I'll admit, there is a bit of that 'its so bad I was enjoying myself' to this obvious franchise kick off flick, but even so, my logic and keen sense for bullshit made "XXX" only what it was...James Bond for the half wit youth of America.

Xander (Diesel) also known as 'X' is always doing the most insane stunts. He has his own internet release for all of his stunts where he stupidly does 'X game' (oh my God, there's a trend running here) style stunts like parachuting out of a stolen car as it plummits off an insanely high bridge. His nose for analyzing situations through the adrenaline just so happens to make him a target for NSA to recruit to become a secret agent. After being forced to test for this position (by being left in the middle of a drug raid in a foreign country no less), he finds himself stuck in the middle of a conspiracy lead by the secretive Anarchy 99 society which just may...da da dum! END THE WORLD!

"XXX" tries so damn hard to be a James Bond film that by about a half hour in, it just wasn't even funny anymore. Of course, this film lacks a bit of the sophistication of Bond even at his worst and despite being entertaining with its high octane and illogical action sequences, the film is just tries so hard. It's like watching little kids play soccer where all they do is chase and kick the ball out of sheer excitement. No strategy. No plan of attack. Just a whole lot of little kids screaming and kicking a ball. That's what "XXX" is like. It tries so hard to be something that is far too big for what it is. All it does is run around screaming and blowing things up...to somewhat of an entertaining charm if not sad for the most part.

The plot's absurd. The dialogue is horrid and even Vin Diesel's strong screen presence can't necessarily save it from sinking lower and lower into unintentional hilarity. Rob Cohen seems to embrace the action portion of the film so fervently that he forgets to add substance to style for his directing. It's like the good idea of crafting a new franchise to be a young America's new spy hero is too much of a struggle for any one in this film to handle without going insane with the concept, but not being able to express it.

Thusly, "XXX" remains as a film with some oddly intriguing actions sequences of no logic (He decided to take out a communications tower by trying to out snowboard an avalanche that he makes? In what world is that even a fucking choice?), but little of anything past that. It has a few charms here and there as one pities it for trying so hard, but really its just a horrid Bond knock off in the end. Definitely looking forward to the second one....I guess.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

13 Assassins (2011) - 5/5

"Take Up Your Sword."

Takashi Miike is the chameleon of directors. The guy not only has a stunning output of films (in 2001/2002 he put out 15 separate projects, for example), but the range of these films is just as ridiculous. Everything from the dramatic horror of "Audition" to kid's films to "Sukiyaki Western Django". The man does it all, which is the reason that his remake of "13 Assassins" was so high on my list to see. He proved he can do samurai films previously, but could he craft the ultimate one?

Lord Naritsugu is a cruel politician in Feudal Japan. His lust for blood and women has created a rift between him and his half brother, the Shogun. Not looking to lose face in a nation that has been peaceful for some time now, the skills of Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho), a previously feared samurai who now spends most of his time fishing, is asked to assassinate the half brother. Shinzaemon builds a team of skilled samurai, ronin, and a tracker to set a trap for the politician before his connections become too powerful to touch him.

To be quite frank, I've never seen the original film this is based on. Judging from the sheer power and grace of "13 Assassins" though, the original has to be good, because "13 Assassins" is a slow burning character driven epic journey into the days of the samurai. The first two thirds of this film are spent giving us a sense of the burden that these honorable men hold on their shoulders even in a time of peace. Even though there is only a little time spent on each of our team members and the various 'villains' of the film, there is a distinct character to each that is achieved through a fantastic script and some of the best acting I've seen thus far this year. The plot treads along at a brisk pace (although it's simple, to give us all the information we need to actually cheer for their cause takes some time so it has to move quickly). This portion of the film seems talky and atmosphere driven, but it's well built and a stark difference to the last part of "13 Assassins".

The final third of the film is goddamn epic. The assassination of the politician is built on the idea of these 13 well skilled men going against an army of over 200 in a village built on traps, explosives, arrows, blood, mud, and so many shiny sharp swords that one has to let their jaw drop at the sheer magnitude of the sequence. Modern directors take note: with a solid set piece, great stunt work, acting, and a solid sense of pacing...you don't need CGI to make action pieces epic. The blood rains down in drenches as the body count soars and the awesomely staged choreographed fight sets and explosions destroy the atmosphere in the first two thirds with a bang. This final throw down (which has to clock in at 40 to 45 minutes, I swear) is simply awe inspiring.

Miike did it again. The man knows how a film works and he cooks "13 Assassins" to a perfect combination of history lesson, dramatic redemption, horror (it is a Miike film so expect some very disturbing moments), and the sword fighting epic. Although the film may throw off some of the newer audiences with its slow build, it's completely worth the watch as it effortlessly displays this riveting tale.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

One Damned Day at Dawn... Django Meets Sartana - 1/5

Two of the most popular spaghetti western characters come head to head in one film! This is a euro film fanatics wet dream! This is the biggest cinematic crossover since "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man". Wait... are you telling me this is an unofficial sequel to both franchises? To top it off its directed by Demofilo Fidani, nicknamed the 'Ed Wood' of Spaghetti Westerns. Yea I'm afraid this is going to suck...

Well a stranger comes waltzing into a town without a sheriff, takes up the job and with the aid of another stranger decides to take on a local gang.

Director Demofilo Fidani (hiding under the pseudonym Miles Deem) was known for making spaghetti westerns faster and cheaper than anyone else. This process also ensured his products would also be far worse than his counterparts. I'm talking about non-existent production values, poor camera work (including constant shaking and awkward zooms), cookie cutter plot, blatant continuity errors, and obtrusive musical cues that abruptly cut out. All around just rotten filmmaking. There are a few atmospheric windy shootouts towards the end but that's about it.

The cast is good with genre heavy weights Fabio Testi and Hunt Powers cast in the our title leads. However thanks to Fidani's nonexistent direction and plot there are not given much to do. Come on Fidani! If you're going to go to the trouble of making of film cashing in the Django and Sartana names then give them something to do that's MEMORABLE! Fidani allows Power's Django character to dress and look like the famous character Franco Nero popularized in "Django" but other than that his character acts completely different. Don't even get me started on the Sartana character. Testi plays Sartana... but it's not even revealed to be that character until the very end. Up until the end one would never expect it as this character is as FAR from Sartana as one can get.

Even though this is an unofficial follow-up to both the Django and Sartana spaghetti western franchises, director Demofilo Fidani could have still had fun with the ridiculous cross-over by giving audiences something fun and memorable, even over-the-top but he fails miserably. Both characters are completely different if not near so to their previous film incarnations and are not given much to do in the lame, cookie cutter plot. It may not be Fidani's worst film I've seen but "Django Meets Sartana" gets the dubious honor of being one of the worst spaghetti westerns that I have witnessed that's for sure... which is a damn shame when looking at the promising title.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Bloodrayne - 1/5

Well. Let's see. Where do I start? Let's talk about "Bloodrayne". It's uh...well...ya see, this film...well...it's...just so incredibly fucking bad. Words cannot aptly describe the crap that emanates from your television screen when it's playing "Bloodrayne". There is just this...void where a film should be. With the cast in this film and the great story based on a killer video game as a leaping point, I mean, how could this film go so absolutely wrong?

Oh yeah. There I see it. It says it's directed by Uwe Boll on the credits. Yep. That's it.

Three vampire hunters (including Michael Madsen and Michelle Rodriguez) scour the country side during the Dark Ages to find if there is truth to a myth, that a cross bred vampire/human would help topple the very powerful vampire Kagan (Kingsley). They find their myth in the form of Rayne (Loken), a rather good hearted, but violent half breed being used as a freak in a traveling circus. When she slaughters half of her holders in a blood frenzy, she then takes to the road being chased by both the vampire hunters and the henchmen of Kagan.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. You mean you take the really awesome concept of the video game based in Nazi occupied World War II and you completely change it to a cheesy medieval setting? What?! Then you take the very cool character Rayne and dumb her down into a complete idiot? Double what?! Then you completely bastardize your own film? Triple fucking what?! This film is a just a mess from the get go with its awful plot, worse script, and horrid execution. It's a wonder that Boll was ever to get a cast like this.

My next point just happens to be about the cast too. All of this great cult actors are given horrible costumes, hilarious wigs/hairdos, and atrocious dialogue. Michael Madsen looks fucking ridiculous. Not to mention all of the half assed acting from everyone only makes the script look as horrible as it really is. No cover up here. Let's embrace this film for every awful piece of writing it has! Not to mention the fading in and out of the accents.

Uwe Boll is a genius though. Let that be know. This guy has the inane ability to take great video games with concepts and completely shits on them in film form. "Bloodrayne" is no exception. His awful directing is only made worse by the film's horrid editing and no matter how many fully nude prostitutes or random scenes of pointless gore once can put in it saves the film from being abysmal in any way.

I'm done with "Bloodrayne". This film is pretty much a disgrace to how the video game should have been put on the big screen. It's crap from its script, to the acting, to the directing, to the editing, and far beyond that. It's, honestly, one of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of watching. That being said...let's move on the the sequel!

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Hobo With A Shotgun (2011)

Director: Jason Eisener
Notable Cast: Rutger Hauer, Molly Dunsworth, Brian Downey, Gregory Smith, Nick Bateman

"I used to be like you. A long time ago. All brand new and perfect. No mistakes, no regrets. People look at you and think of how wonderful your future will be. They want you to be something special, like a doctor, or a lawyer. I hate to tell you this, but if you grow up here, you're more likely to wind up selling your bodies on the streets, or shooting dope from dirty needles in a bus stop. And if you're successful, you'll make money selling junk to crackheads. And don't think twice about killing someone's wife, because you won't even know it's wrong in the first place. Maybe... you'll end up like me. A hobo with a shotgun." -- The Hobo

The fact that grindhouse films are finally coming back in all of their retro ultra exploitative charm certainly makes my day. With the likes of some famous cult directors touting the genre, films like "Machete" and "Hobo With A Shotgun" are seeing the light of day. Which is certainly to our benefit. "Hobo With A Shotgun" handedly captures that early 80s grindhouse vibe with its over the top gory action filled ways and the entire time I sat at the theatre, the smile never left my face. Is it a film that's going to change your outlook on life? Hell no, but like any self respecting grindhouse feature this day and age it certainly will entertain you to no end.

A hobo (Hauer) arrives in Hope Town (referred to as Scum Town and Fuck Town for most of the film) to start a new life. His dreams of starting his own lawn mowing business are throw to the gutter as he begins to spiral into the heinous crimes committed by the mob honcho The Drake (Downey) and his two screwy sons Slick (Smith) and Ivan (Bateman). When he earns enough money to buy his lawnmower, the hobo decides that a good yard keeper isn't what the city needs...so he buys a shotgun instead and starts to distribute justice one shell at a time.

Here's the beauty of "Hobo With A Shotgun": it's not beautiful at all. It distinctly embraces its dirty low budget look and style, focusing down on the sheer brilliance of its idea and more than impressive directorial style. Low budget can be the birthing place of creativity in film and "Hobo" certainly succeeds at this. The coloring is classic with its bright vibrant (emotional) colors and the camera work is clever as hell. Not to mention that the script fully enhances the oddly comical plot and details it with some of the greatest quotes and dialogue ever written. I could seriously quote this movie all day long and it never loses its vibe (one of my personal favorites "When life gives you razor blades... you make a baseball bat, covered in razor blades."). In all honesty, if you love that old 80s look and feel (they even use keyboards for the score!) then this film is a must see.

Is there anything really wrong with this movie? No, not really even though some scenes were disturbing enough even to make me cringe, the school bus scene is hilariously fucked and this film certainly knew what it wanted to be and grabbed it by the balls and drug it to its high point. This makes "Hobo With A Shotgun" one of my favorite films this year. A high recommendation from this reviewer.

"You and me are goin' on a car-ride to hell... and you're riding shotgun!" -- The Hobo

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Alien Resurrection - 3.5/5

Let me stand firmly in the middle here and say that "Alien Resurrection" is just a good film. It's fun, has some solid humor, and it's entirely easy to enjoy and appreciate for its quirkiness and action. That being said, it's also my least favorite of the "Alien" franchise (if you don't count the theatrical version of "Alien 3") and lacks some certain elements that made the series great to begin with. An entirely entertaining film that just lacks the artistic flair to make it all smoothly blend together.

Ripley (Weaver) awakes 200 years after her death as a clone. Hell of a way to open a synopsis. She is under the watchful eye of a large military who has taken liberties to rebuild her so they can pull the the baby Queen Alien from her that she carried in the last film. After separating her from the Alien, they begin to breed the monster in hopes of discovering many uses from this foreign creature. Bad idea. With the help of a pirate crew, Ripley has to survive another Alien outbreak and perhaps discover that she may not be as human as she once was.

If you thought that "Alien 3" was the end of the franchise, they did kill off the 'anchor' of the series, then you owe me $10. Nothing is ever "final" in Hollywood and "Alien Resurrection" is proof of this. How do we do it? Well its science fiction so lets just clone her! Does it make sense? Not really, but whatever. In fact, there is a lot about "Alien Resurrection" that doesn't make sense. That's part of the fun of it. This film definitely takes a lighter look at the series and established a dark humor tone to the film to balance out its action sequences and horror motifs. This lends to a film full of quirky characters (Ron Perlman and the villain from "The Crow"...score!) and rather flavorful sequences that may not be all that logical, but are fun to watch and entertain you. Wanna see what an Alien looks like underwater? Why the hell not. With the visual style of the director and its fun script (that is most obviously Joss Whedon with its quirk and quips), "Alien Resurrection" certainly has its charm to it.

Yet, there is something distinctly disappointing about this fourth entry. Let's break it down into three things. Firstly, Ripley is somewhat awkward here. I'm all for franchises, but I would have been perfectly happy for them to just move on without her. Don't get me wrong, I love the character, but having her be this odd combination of Alien/Ripley who loves to make awkward moments by sniffing people or making bad jokes. It's just not the Ripley from the first three I have come to know and love. Secondly, the tone of the film is completely different. Although "3" definitely went for the atmospheric horror vibe of the original, "Resurrection" went for the action aspect of "Aliens". The difference? This one lacks any kind of tension. It's fun and entertaining to watch things blow up and Ron Perlman spout off obscenities, but there is never that dire need to survive here. No epic dread that encapsulates the plot. It is what it is, take it or leave it. Lastly, the final act. Throughout the film they dabble with the DNA mix up on Ripley and we get to see some interesting aftermath concepts, but the end 'hybrid' Alien just is way too far out there. I'm not sure if its the design or how it seemingly comes from left field, but it didn't work for me. It gets a little out of hand and weird (with Brad Dourif doing his initial narration even more so) and it just seemed way too comic bookish.

Thusly, we are left with "Resurrection", an Alien film that is sure to entertain with its quirkiness and fun vibe, but doesn't compete on the same level as the rest of the franchise. I still enjoy the film for what it is, but comparing it to the rest leaves one feeling a bit unfulfilled. Upon further reflection, this film certainly feels like a transitional film for the series, looking to start it off in a new direction. Yet, it was the last one (thus far) of this franchise. A shame to end it on this note really. Not a bad film. Not a great film. Just a straight up old fashioned good one.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Gatling Gun (1968) - 4/5

I have been interested in seeing "Gatling Gun" (aka "Machine Gun Killers") for a number of years now as cult director Quintin Tarantino has stated on multiple occasions as it is one of his favorites of the genre. Finally, after all this time I finally got my hands on Dorado's wonderful DVD release and now I can honestly say it was well worth the wait.

During the height of the Civil War Mr. Gatling, inventor of the first machine gun, unveils his top secret weapon only to have it stolen and himself kidnapped. Now a wrongly accused Yankee is secretly set free from prison to solve the mystery before the south get their hands on the weapon which could change the course of the war and history along with it.

I found the espionage plot to be rather engaging as it involves spies, kidnappings, and war time politics all wonderfully wrapped up in a spaghetti western backdrop. It's an detective story that will appeal as much to fans of espionage thrillers as spaghetti westerns and for that alone this has qualities not present in many other euro westerns.

The acting overall is really good for a low budget Italian film despite the film not really having a major star of the genre in the leading role. The dubbing also doesn't hinder the performances too much. The direction by Paolo Bianchini is also sure handed as he keeps the tension rising until the final act when all the loose ends come tied nicely together. The only aspect that annoyed me about the plot was the score. That's not saying it's a poor score as it isn't it's just more suited for an Italian swinging sixties Giallo murder mystery as opposed to a gritty Spaghetti Western.

I put off buying the Dorado DVD of this film for a long time as I was annoyed by the companies previous releases I purchased. Their releases of the Agent 077 trilogy ("Mission Bloody Mary", "From the Orient with Fury" and "Special Mission Lady Chaplin") and "The Man From Oklahoma" had the picture ratios screwed up so everything was stretched vertically, like it was an 2:35.1 ratio stretched to 1:85.1. Thanks to a friend for getting this for my birthday I am happy to say the company has shaped up as the film is properly framed in beautiful anamorphic widescreen format. It's a wonderful DVD of a rather obscure Spaghetti Western that is a must-see for fans of the genre.

Note: The Dorado DVD release is also completely uncut containing footage not originally released in the United States. This few extra minutes of footage is presented in Italian with English subtitles. Thanks Dorado! My faith in your company has been restored!

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Tron - 3.5/5

Seems like I'm the only one out there that didn't grow up watching "Tron". The computer fantasy film was ages ahead of its time in 1982 and with the sequel edging its way into my viewing queue, it was time to finally watch the original. Although its obvious that its special effects were the focus of this film, the story, as simple as it is, is quite effective and enlightening even here almost 30 years down the road.

Flynn (Bridges) is out to get what is his. After being let go from a huge new computer company by a boss that stole his arcade game designs (Warner), he is out to retrieve his rightful property. With the help of an old girl friend and her new beau who happens to still work at the company they break in to get some evidence. Flynn comes up against a massive self aware computer program called Master Control Program who zaps Flynn into the circutry of the computer realm. There Flynn must compete against the evil MCP in a series of deadly games, align with a security program Tron, and find a way to get out before he's killed.

What makes "Tron" so interesting is how relevant it is now. The ideas of 'users' controlling programs (or computer versions of themselves) in a fantasy world where these programs live out their lives and struggle against an oppressing rulers is so far ahead of its time its stunning. With the creation of Facebook and "World Of Warcraft" that easily parallel the concepts from a film in 1982, its weird to think that this film is nearly three decades old. It's like prophecy or some shit.

As for the film itself, it's not entirely great. The concept is certainly greater than the product. The visuals were stunning in 1982 with its computer effects and painted in neon colored spandex outfits (that more than hurt the eyes with its black and white backgrounds), but the story does lack some pizzazz. Once Flynn gets zapped into the Grid and the fantasy elements begin to take fold as a modern fairy tale then the movie starts to really move at some good pacing and fun speeds. The real world material leaves a bit to be desired though with some charismatic performances but lackluster arcs and basic story lines with little to no motivation. Then again, its far more fun to watch light cycle battles for this reviewer to begin with.

"Tron" is a fun and inspiring film that shocks with its concepts and awesomely built fantasy elements. The character work and some rather weak dialogue certainly remind us that its a Disney film and the motivations that get us to the fantasy realm seem rushed and rather silly at times, but the film still sparks with a chemistry that makes it worth the watch. A definite surprise to this reviewer with its solidity.

Written By Matt Reifschneider