Retro Puppet Master - 1/5

Still in need for money, Full Moon decided to unleash another dismal sequel into their Puppet Master franchise. What number do you think this is? No thanks to the title no one wouldn't know without a little research that this is the seventh entry. Also what is up with the title? Adding the word "retro" doesn't automatically make your film more "cool". To top it off the filmmakers decide to make the phrase "Puppet Master" one word again in the opening titles even though all the previous films, other than the first film, made it two words. Grrr...

Full Moon here decides to make another prequel in the franchise which oddly enough is a prequel to Puppet Master III which in turn was a prequel. So we have a prequel to a prequel? I think the universe just imploded from the very thought! The film opens with Guy Rolfe as Toulon talking to his puppets and reminiscing about the past so cue in the flashback music. So the rest of the film takes place while Toulon as a teenage and how he obtains the secret to reanimate puppets. However the people (or things) he stole it form aren't too keen on it so they send some cloaked people to get the secret back.

Since this is a "prequel to a prequel" (it hurts my head just saying that), our original "lovable" puppets are not in the majority of the movie so fans right away may be a little disappointed by this aspect. We instead get "retro" versions of them, which simply means early, more primitive wooden versions. Richard Band's original Puppet Master theme is also surprisingly absent which in turn may disappoint fans. I for one welcomed the new score as watching seven of these damn movies in a row made his catchy score grow old really fast.

The plot is just completely forgettable and to be honest I had a hard time staying awake for the damn thing. Every once in awhile a bad computer special effect (yes, Full Moon has started to find the power of bad computer generated special effects) would start to wake me up by totally pissing me off. Also the cloaked demon humanoids tailing Toulon and giving him hell remind me a lot of the cloaked Aliens from Dark City. It shouldn't surprise me though as it seems the Puppet Master franchise as resorted to ripping off better films. Typical there are a lot of continuity errors when comparing this to the other Puppet Master films but by this time I don't even care about that anymore.

Fans will no doubt feel totally disappointed with this sequel and all I have to say is SHAME ON YOU! Did you really expect this to be any good? I went into this film expecting shit and that's exactly what I got. Full Moon was making nothing but shit by this time so why should a Puppet Master sequel be any different? I will give them credit for trying to give us something different with this sequel it just a damn shame it was so poorly executed. It comes out being just as bad as Curse of the Puppet Master but at the same time it's a helluva lot more forgettable. I recommend skipping it.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Curse Of The Puppet Master - 1/5

I believe Charles Band went home after work one day depressed about how his company Full Moon Entertainment was floundering. You see after their partnership with distributor Paramount Pictures fell through the company was on a slow decline that was starting to speed up. The dissolving of their partnership put an end to many of Band's movie plans including the planned Puppet Wars trilogy so he the company was in need of cash. He probably opened a beer, put up his feet and clicked on the TV only to see the 1973 film Sssssss playing on cable. This started turning the wheels in his head and he thought if instead of a man trying turn his daughter's love interest into a snake, what if it were a puppet? Bam he has a new idea to revive the now defunct Puppet Master franchise so the next day he met with his writers and banged up a script by lunch time. This is how I believe this miserable cash-grabbing sequel came to fruition.

As you can tell there are MANY problems with sixth entry into the Puppet Master franchise and the first is that the plot is a complete steal of Sssssss, even the ending! The only difference is instead of a snake, it's a puppet! The second problem is that the film is under budgeted so in turn many other problems spider web form this. Out of this spider webbing of problems, the first to hit you over the head is the use of stock footage from the previous Puppet Master films played off as new material. I can see low budget sequels using stock footage from previous films as padding in flashback form but to play it off as new material, that just a whole new low! Flashes of watching Deathstalker sequels came pouring into my mind! What even irks me more is that the stock footage from Puppet Master II even has those annoying wavy lines seen on the poor DVD transfer!

Another problem is continuity. Other entries in the series is guilty of poor continuity but not this very lazy extent. First the film brings back puppet characters that were CLEARLY destroyed in previous films without even an attempt at the lamest explanation. This is just an unacceptable and an insult to fans. Another problem that arises from the low budget is the effects. Gone are the wonderful David Allan stop motion sequences and all we are left with are stiff, poorly manipulated puppets.

To a lesser extent, another problem I have is the title. It just bugs me when franchises start to go all wonky with the title structures (Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street are just a few examples). The first entries were straight forward with numbers so why change it now? Was Full Moon embarrassed they made six films but then again only diehard fans would be interested in this film anyway. Again, not a huge problem but it still bugs me.

If I had to praise the film on one aspect it would be that Full Moon decided to have actual artwork made for the promotional material. Most of the video artwork for their films at the time looked like cheap Photoshop crap so it's nice to see they actually had nice artwork to match the previous entries. That's it! That's the only aspect I can praise this film on is the damn cover artwork.

Overall I just felt this was a cheap-jack entry made with no intention other than to squeeze some money out of the fans in order to keep the company afloat. They took the plot of an old horror movie, slapped in some stock footage and under the Puppet Master moniker and called it good. Though I hated the film this is surprisingly not the worst film in the franchise as a few more are unbelievably worse. To be honest I only own this film as it came in my Puppet Master box set, otherwise I would say the hell with it and sell it on eBay to another unsuspecting victim.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Puppet Master 6 (HA!) Trailer

Puppet Master 5 - 2/5

It can be difficult to write reviews on the second sequel of two that were filmed back to back as it is basically the same film just not quite as good. Though Puppet Master 5 is a lot like the fourth film, it still stands on it's own enough to make it worth reviewing. Like other back-to-back sequels, it comes out not as good as the entry before but not enough for me to dock the film any star rating.

Taking place right after the events of the last film, our computer genius and his girlfriend are being questioned by the police for the murders caused by the gremlin like Totems. While he is tied up with the legal system, his boss decides to get his hands on the puppets as their workings could revolutionize the world, and his pocket book. So he hires some goons that predicable get slashed by our puppets but our puppets soon come under attack by a new, stronger, meaner Totem so our puppet Blade must break their new master out of the police station to come to the rescue.

The plot surprisingly holds well on its own, a problem that usually affects back-to-back made sequels especially Full Moon ones. Trancers 4 & 5 and Subspecies II & III really feel like one movie split into two and thus each film lacks a proper beginning, middle and end. Puppet Master 5 does have some of these faults but not near as severe as the before mentioned films making it still understandable to watch some time after the last entry.

The production values, for a Full Moon production, are good and again comparable to Puppet Master 4. Returning director Jeff Burr again gives this film a slick look and our returning cast are acceptable. Then again with these films our cast isn't the important part and again the Puppets steal the show. The puppet Torch, who was absent in the last film, makes a quick appearance here coming out of nowhere and then disappearing almost as fast as he appeared. Don't toy with me like this Full Moon! Torch is my favorite puppet and he deserved to be in Puppet Master 4 & 5 and this cock teasing just pisses me off!

Since the film is so much like Puppet Master 4, the same problems arise and again my main beef is the still the alternate dimension lead by the demon lord Sutekh who still looks like a Power Rangers villain. I took my anger out on this aspect in the Puppet Master 4 review so I won't delve into it again.

Puppet Master 5 really marks the end of the classic Puppet Master era. It was the last entry made when Full Moon was still a strong direct-to-video company, it was the last Puppet Master film to be originally distributed by Paramount (the good years of Full Moon) and it was also the last film to feature the great stop motion effects by the late David Allan. It was even advertised to be "The Final Chapter" when original released but we all know Band couldn't let a cash grabbing franchise die and five, count 'em five, more sequels would get made and all but the most recent one don't come near the "goodness" of the first five entries and most are damn near unwatchable. Part 10 (Axis of Evil), which is the best sequel of the post-Paramount era of Puppet Master films, still lacks the magic that the original five had. Casual fans are recommended to stop here. Even though I'm a casual fan, I still found myself forging on suffering on for the sack of warning other potential viewers.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Puppet Master 5 Trailer

Superman Returns - 3/5

Twenty Years has passed since Superman IV and filmmakers were confident that the memory of Superman III, IV and Supergirl had faded so they thought it due time to make Superman V. Wait a minute, they can't call it Superman V as that would mean they would have to acknowledge the existence of III and IV and they don't want those memories coming back and filling people's heads, hence we get the more marketable and forgettable title Superman Returns. When news came out about Superman Returns, people were confused on whether this was a sequel to the original Christopher Reeve franchise or the start of a whole new series. When Batman Begins came out some people were under the impression it was actually a prequel to the 1989 Tim Burton film but SURPRISE it was the start of a whole new series. Hey, it gets confusing out there with sequels, reboots, remakes, and such so I can easily see why people didn't know. Superman Returns is the fifth entry into the original Superman series but it does throw a little wrench into the system. It completely ignores the events of III and IV and is a direct sequel I and II. If you're a fan of the franchise and didn't know that fact then you would also be extremely confused.

Thankfully the film's title sequence returns to the roots of the series by being larger than life and it's great to hear the old John Williams Superman theme again. After the amazing title sequence, the film's plot seems to pick up a few years after the events of Superman II with Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane moving up the corporate ladder at their newspaper job. However it seems that Clark Kent and Lane are a little at odds end because apparently they tried a serious relationship, which resulted in a child thus the relationship ended. Superman, having what seems to be a midlife crisis, goes back to his childhood farm to spend some time with his mother (this is where it's get confusing for people who don't know this film ignores the events of Superman III and IV as Superman's mother died in IV and thus he sold the farm). He finally finds his peace but his arch nemesis Lex Luthor (now played by Kevin Spacey) as gotten out of prison and he plans to make Superman's life a living hell by kidnapping his son and Louis Lane.

X-Men franchise creator/director Bryan Singer actually stepped down from the third X-Men movie to write and direct this film (perhaps a bad career choice) so we all know to expect a more seriously taken Superman film. Comic book based movies of today are taken far more seriously then their older counterparts. Being a fan of the original Superman movie the new tone shift was a little hard to get used to. I mean a film about a man that can fly and shoots lasers from his eyes is going to be serious and dramatic? I have a hard time taking this kind of material seriously but again I don't think the more cheesy approach like the first film would work today either.

The original two films boasted great special effects for the day and this is no different as the visual effects are stunning and it's much more believable today to make it look like a man can fly. The problem is we don't get interesting characters to match the visuals. Brandon Routh is our new Superman and to be honest he feels like a completely different person. Sure he looks like Christopher Reeve but his portrayal of the character is off by a long shot. Kate Bosworth as Louis Lane is also completely unmemorable and I miss the cockiness of Margot Kidder's original portrayal. Kevin Spacey, on the other hand, is an interesting replacement for Gene Hackman and thankfully he makes Lex Luthor the one interesting character to keep the film from collapsing under its own weight.

Is Superman Returns better than III and IV? Oh by far but it still feels like something's missing. First of all it's too confusing for audiences as they don't know what they're going into. People thinking that's a completely new Superman film and think it has nothing to do with nor have seen any of the original movies are going completely lost as unbeknown to them they are seeing a fifth part of a franchise. Fans of the franchise could also be lost as the plot ignores III and IV and to top it off, thanks to its serious, darker tone, the film also feels completely different than the original series and to be honest it doesn't even feel like a sequel thanks to its tone shift. It basically feels like a sequel disguising itself not to be one. As a result the film did poorly at the box office despite not being a horrible movie. To be honest the filmmakers would have been better off, oh I hate this term, "rebooting" the franchise as it has been far too long since the series originally came to an end so newer audiences don't remember them. But if they did that instead then I probably wouldn't be reviewing this film and that task would have been left up to my brother who gets first dibs on reviewing recent remake/reboots.

Bonus Rant: I hate how they changed the colors of Superman's outfit. The blue is darker and the red is more maroonish. Was this an attempt to show the films darker more serious tone by toning down the bright, vibrant colors? Perhaps but it still annoys me.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Superman Returns Trailer

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace - 2/5

After the box office failures of both Superman III and Supergirl, producer Ilya Salkind said "TO HELL" with the franchise. Normally a franchise would just be dead, and every right the Superman franchise should be, but one little independent production studio decided to buy the franchise to continue the series. What production company would be dumb enough to spend bucco bucks on a dead franchise that would no doubt fail again at the box office? None other than my favorite production company Cannon Films. Cannon, a company notorious for making bad business decisions, even bought the franchise rights before they even secured Christopher Reeve in the role of Superman. Knowing they couldn't make another sequel without him, Reeve was basically able to demand anything he wanted. First of all he wanted to come up with the story and second Cannon had to finance his next film project (which ended up being Street Smart), not to mention the extremely high salary Cannon ended up having to agree to pay Reeve. With Reeve finally secured, Cannon forged on to make Superman: Episode IV - No Hope (sorry, I just had to make a Star Wars reference).

In the late 80's the cold war and threat of nuclear attack remained rather high so Reeve got the bright idea to come up with a plot to have Superman get rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world. Yes, the Superman series has degraded into making public service announcements. In his "quest for peace", his plans become foiled when his arc nemesis Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman returning also for a hefty paycheck) decides to make "Nuclear Man" out of DNA from a strand of Superman's hair.

Nuclear Man, oh hell, where to I begin with this guy. Originally Nuclear Man was supposed to be the evil clone of Superman also played by Christopher Reeve, which makes sense since he was crafted from Superman's DNA. Apparently Reeve wasn't too keen on this idea later because he fought an "evil" version of himself also in Superman III. So instead of even casting someone that somewhat looks life Reeve, they decide to cast some long flowing blond haired model. Hmmmm.... he came from Superman's DNA? BULLSHIT! Nuclear man also speaks in Gene Hackman's voice and even can grow long, razorblade finger nails (Freddy eat your heart out). Nuclear Man's weakness is that he can only function when light is present so we all know Superman is going to find some easy way to defeat him.

Some of the writing is so bad that many of the sequences are poor carbon copies of the original. An example is a scene where Reeve reveals, again, to Lois that he's Superman by forcing her off a building (why don't you give her a heart attack Superman!) and he then proceeds to fly her around to show off, just like in the first film... only shitty.

So the writing is bad and so is the Nuclear Man villain, what else could be bad? The special effects that's what! Cannon originally green lit Superman IV with a high budget but during filming, the company was going through some financial trouble so they decided to slash the budget and in that crunch the special effects got the brunt of the beating. With the lowered budget they couldn't afford to hire the same special effects house that did the previous films and had to go for a cheaper substitute and it shows. Even the opening credits (though better than Superman III) still pale in comparison to the first two films. The special effect of Superman flying at the camera is also recycled over and over again as they couldn't afford to shoot a new angle. You can even see cables carrying superman in many shots where in the first films they went to great lengths to hide them. That sequence I mentioned earlier with superman flying Lois Lane around, yea that sequence suffers too from the shitty effects and it's actually interesting to compare that sequence to the similar sequence in the original Superman as it is amazing how shitty effects can get in 10 years. Effects are supposed to get better, not worse!

It's always great to see Reeve as the Man of Steel and it's wonderful to have Hackman back but Cannon proves yet again they can't make a huge box office success by cutting drastic corners. Superman IV bombed so bad at the box office (like we all knew it would even before it was even made) that it proved one of the final nails in Cannon's coffin after the huge bombs of Lifeforce and Masters of the Universe. On a technical level Superman IV is a worse film than III but to be honest I enjoyed it more. It's more ridiculous but all that badness (that only Cannon is so wonderful at providing) made me actually enjoy it whereas III just annoyed me. Hey, at least it's better than the spin-off Supergirl! Though this entry was equivalent of running over an already dead horse, another sequel would be to come 20 years later with the 2006 release of Superman Returns.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Superman IV Trailer

Superman III - 2/5

Superman III was the first Superman movie I saw and what a horrible way to get my cherry broke by a franchise. No wonder I hated the Superman movies so much when I was younger! After viewing Superman III I hated the whole franchise without even seeing the first two parts and actually refused seeing them for years due to III lingering in my memory. Superman III just further proves to never judge a movie by its sequel (or remake for that matter). Now after viewing the Superman movies again in order, I STILL HATE THIS MOVIE, though at the same time I have learned to like the first two films.

Right away we know we are in trouble with this sequel as it doesn't have the grand opening title sequences like the first two had. The opening credits are shown at the bottom of the screen during the outrageously dumb opening sequence and are ghostly and hard to read as they are quickly swept away. Where's my grand titles and music? The opening sequence doesn't help things as it shows Superman as Clark Kent leaving work only to have Murphy's Law go apeshit all around him. I'm not kidding as anything that can go wrong does! It's a chain of events, started by unknowingly by klutz Kent, as one bad thing leads to another and soon we even have some guy drowning in his car as he ran over a fire hydrant! Yes that is as dumb as it sounds. Thankfully Superman finally realizes what he caused and saves everyone. We then get introduced to a new character, a reluctant computer genius played by Richard Pryor. What is Richard Pryor doing in a Superman movie your asking? More on that later. Pryor is a guy down on hard times until he gets hired by a computer company and finds out that he has the uncanny knack to program and build computers. Noticing a glitch in the system, he is brought into a meeting with the companies owner (Robert Vahn, feebly filling in the villain role for Gene Hackman) and he convinces Pryor to help him build a supercomputer to change the Earth's weather patterns all in the good name to make a profit.

In the mean time Superman, over his crush on Lois Lane no doubt because he fucked her in the last film, decided to take a little time off and heads back to his home town where he meets an old school mate, cue in the love interest theme! He also finds time to save kids about to be run over by combines and to put out oil refinery fires.

The main problem with this sequel is they attempted to go with a more comical approach and it backfires so hard that the engine falls out. The addition of Richard Pryor makes this film forget to laugh at its own joke. Nothing against Pryor as he was a comedic genius but he has no business being in a Superman movie. His character is also focused on almost as much as Superman himself! Apparently in an interview Pryor said he wanted to be in a Superman film so the filmmakers decided to write a sequel around him... hence those writers deserve to be sent to Krypton's "Phantom Zone" along with the likes of the writers of the Supergirl spin-off.

Another problem is our villain Robert Vaughn. I like Robert Vaughn and he usually plays villains well but here he is just a boring, uninteresting carbon copy of the Lex Luther character from the original. Sorry guys, this villain sucks! Also where the hell is Lois Lane in this film? Part of the first two films' charm was the banter between Kent and Lane and she is mysteriously MIA and only appears in a few scenes. According to interviews, Margot Kidder and Richard Pryor were so coked out on set that they would disappear together only to be found fucking each other. She also was very vocal about how the producers were wrong about firing Richard Donner on Superman II. No wonder they decided to basically write her out!

I don't always hate movies that I give 2 stars to. Hell I actually enjoy a most of them even though they are bad. Though Superman III is a movie I gave 2 stars I will admit up front I didn't enjoy it and in fact it annoys the living shit out of me. This sequel just makes me cringe and I can't believe that the director of the surprisingly good Superman II was responsible for this. The franchise still forged on after this with the even worse Supergirl spin-off a year later as well as two more Superman films.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Superman III Trailer

Superman II - 3.5/5

Superman II is regarded as one of the best sequels ever made. To be honest, it is, but Superman II should not be this good! First of all it's a sequel and sequels aren't usually supposed to be this good to begin with and second of all the film was plagued with production problems including the replacement of director Richard Donner (director of the original) with Richard Lester half way through the production. According to Director's guild, a director must direct over half of the film in order to obtain the directing credit so in turn Lester had to go back and re-film many of the scenes already shot by Donner. Again, how the hell did the film not turn out a disaster? Superman II proves that the man of steel is strong enough to keep the film together and the franchise strong... for now.

With Lex Luthor safely in prison, it was time to introduce a new villain. A villain strong enough to match superman's strength. How do they heighten the odds.... by introducing three of them! Our villains in this film actually made their first appearance in the beginning of the first Superman movie when they were being banished to the Phantom Zone. Here they break out of their flat, square prison (I don't feel like explaining so just make sure to watch the first film) and start making their way towards Earth. While on Earth they begin having fun with their heightened powers and start reeking havoc. Superman in the mean time reveals his true identity to Lois Lane and is too busy trying to score with her to take notice. Our villains eventually call out Superman and it becomes a special effects spectacle as they battle it out.

Knowing of the films rocky production before I watched the film, I came out flabbergasted as I couldn't tell the film had any production problems. Usually films with these type of productions suffer as the film will end up feeling rushed, or poorly edited or the feeling that two creative minds were at work. Not with Superman II and it feels a lot like the first film proving director Richard Lester was the right man for the job (at least for this sequel) for replacing Richard Donner.

Like the first film however there are plenty of dumb moments that tend to grate my nerves just a bit hurting my liking for the film. The part that does it in for me has to the "kiss of forgetfulness." After revealing his true nature to Lois Lane and then bedding her, in turn gaining her love, he then thinks it best that she doesn't know his true identify so he gives her a kiss that has the ability to make her forget. First off a kiss that makes people forget and second a kiss that only makes people forget a specific item in their memory just rubs me the wrong way. It's BULLSHIT! She remembers everything other than the fact that he is fucking Superman! Also if Superman has this uncanny ability to "kiss and forget", then why the hell doesn't he use it more often? Just like the rotating the earth backwards aspect, he should use this all the fucking time! Well maybe he does when he just wants to get lay Lois without all the emotional connection. He just reveals himself as Superman to her, lays her, kisses her to make her forget, and does it again the next week. Perhaps Lois Lane is Superman's "friend with benefits" and she doesn't even know it! Then again I digress.

Superman II may not be as good as the original but then again not many sequels are. It however comes close despite its rocky production and to be honest it's probably as good of a sequel to Superman as we could get. It still has all the same cheesiness and dumb moments of the original but at the same time being highly entertaining with it's silly charm.

A different version of the film got released in 2006 called Superman II - The Richard Donner Cut. Warner Bros went back and edited all the footage that Richard Donner shot with a handful of material Lester shot. I have not viewed that version so I cannot give my opinion but from what I have gathered from fans, it still isn't as good as Lester's edit. If I find it for a good price I will make sure and pick it up but I am hard pressed to believe it could be any better than this.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Superman II Trailer

Superman (The Movie) - 4/5

In the late 70's, a light-hearted adventure film captured the imagination of the film going public by going against the dark nature of all gritty films that filled the theaters prior. The film became a sensation and soured to becoming one of the biggest money makers of the decade. No not STAR WARS, Superman fool!

Based on the DC comic book series of the same name, producer Ilya Salkind and director Richard Donner teamed together to bring us an extremely large scale production. They even included a cast as large as it's extremely high budget. I'm talking about Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Margot Kidder and of course the late Christopher Reeve as the "man of steel."

For those not familiar with the story of Superman, here's a quick recap as told in the film. Superman's home world Krypton is about to be destroyed so his parents send their baby across the galaxy where he lands on Earth. On earth his abilities are super human and he can fly, move faster than sound, etc. He is found by a farming couple and raised to manhood. When an adult, he gets a job with his alter ego Clark Kent at the Daily Planet newspaper where he falls in love with his co-worker Lois Lane (Margot Kider). Every day he finds time to change into Superman in order to save people from their doom. All goes swell until super smart criminal genius Lex Luthor (Hackman) and his bumbling side kick Otis (Beatty) decide to make some money by threatening the world with some stolen nuclear missiles. Now it's up to Superman to save the day without revealing his true identity to his secret love, Lois Lane.

Everything about this production is grand and the opening title sequence and the wonderful score by John Williams shows you right away that you're in for something really special. The production values, the cast and the direction are all tops! The special effects for the time were as good as they could get and kids could really believe a man could fly. The film does have a long running time but there is a lot of back story to the character that needs to be told so I never felt the film was too long and director Richard Donner kept the pace moving well.

The film however is very cheesy, perhaps too cheesy for modern audiences. It rides that fine line between "light-hearted adventure" and "silly" but it works making for a damn entertaining film. If the film was made today it would no doubt be done seriously, perhaps too seriously like a majority of comic book based movies today. Hell, the recent fifth entry in series Superman Returns took the serious approach and was a box office bomb proving that approach might not work either.

The film however does have plenty of dumb moments that can grade on my nerves sometimes, even though I try to be very forgiving with the film. First of all Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman's alter ego Clark Kent. Though he is perfectly cast as Superman, his portrayal of Clark Kent is a little too dimwitted and klutzy for my taste. Yes I understand he's trying to make sure people don't make the connection between him and Superman but COME ON! That "dumb" aspect of the Kent part of his personality could have been played down a bit. There is also a sequence towards the end of the film where Superman looses a loved one so he flies around the worlds so fast, changing the rotation in order to turn back time. First of all changing the Earth's rotation will not turn back time and second, if it's that easy to prevent an event, why wouldn't he change the earth's rotation more often. These are just a few of my gripes with some insanely dumb moments.

Superman (or known sometimes as Superman: The Movie) is well made, extremely fun film that is hindered by numerous dumb and dimwitted moments. If it weren't for these moments I might have given the film 4 1/2 stars but they did bug me enough to knock it down half a star. Many people that are fans of today's dark, seriously taken comic book adaptions will no doubt find this cheesy, perhaps too cheesy, and dated to truly love. I find those aspects part of its charm. What's even more odd is I have never been a fan of the comic book character of Superman as he seemed too "superhuman." He is so powerful that I had a hard time believing anyone could actually be a threat to him. Even without being a fan of the character, the film still won me over and people at the time were also won over by its lovable charm as four sequels and a spin-off would come in the years to follow. Sadly most of those follow-ups would lose the charm.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Superman Trailer

Seedpeople - 1.5/5

I can't really bitch too much about a movie called Seedpeople. With that title and poster artwork you gotta know that you're going into a cheesy monster movie. The question is how cheesy and does it transcends into the "so bad it's good" category. Well, it's close, but it's just a seedling away.

The film not surprisingly is a complete rip-off of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (pick which ever version you want) about some comets (that end up being giant seeds) that crash lands near a small town. The alien seeds which begin to sprout into large flowers that have pulsating "vagina" like parts that spew gallons "semen" all over unlucky folks that come near them. I'm not kidding as the special effects guys went all out to make this thing look sexual, so much that the "semen" spewing actually made me a little nauseous. After getting hit with the white goo, people emerge as little fanged monsters that have the incredible ability to morph from human to monster in a split second (what I don't get is when they morph into humans they somehow also morph into clothes). A geologist comes to town to study the meteors finds the comets to be seeds and a young girl at the bed and breakfest he's staying at starts noticing changes in local townfolk. Soon he catches on and he has to stop the spread of the seeds before they...dun, dun, dunnn.... TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Everything cliché about monster movies and paranoia is thrown in here. We even get the predicable love triangle aspect! The film also rips off Invasion of the Body Snatchers so much that it even has the people taken over show NO emotion. COME ON! You might as well called it BODY SNATCHERS CASH-IN for Christ sake! Our little fanged monsters are also each unique and with names to match: Shooter, Tumbler, and Sailor. This is no doubt a marketing campaign by producer Charles Band to maybe try to sell some merchandise like his other films. Sadly Seedpeople wasn't that popular even with the Full Moon Entertainment crowd so no merchandise or sequels would follow.

This is hokey beyond belief but sadly it just doesn't quit transcend that barrier of "so bad, it's good" category and it just ends up being bad. I still didn't find it a waste of time as it does entertain just enough to keep attention but I only recommend this feature to the most die hard Charles Band/Full Moon fanatic. A definite step below director Peter Manoogian's earlier schlocky classic Demonic Toys.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Seedpeople Trailer

Good, The Bad, The Weird, The - 4/5

I find it strange that the Eastern cultures somehow are able to give us the best Western films in the last few years. First we had the over the top combination of Spaghetti Western and Samurai film "Sukiyaki Western Django" and now we have "The Good The Bad The Weird". Although not near as much Eastern influenced in its style, this Korean Western is tongue in cheek enough to make its odd combination of Western cliches, humor, and modern action sequences mix just right to give us a hell of a ride through an old time where dusters were common and the blood shed from six shooters was plenty.

When an odd duck train robber, The Weird, (Kang-Ho Song) finds a highly wanted treasure map on a train heist he finds himself in the middle of a chase to find this mysterious lost treasure. Caught between the hunt of a good bounty hunter, The Good, (Woo-Sung Jung) looking for a reward for his head and that of a sharp shooting and evil gun for hire, The Bad, (Byung-Hun Lee) whose after the map, he has to run for his life and find the treasure as soon as possible. When the three men find themselves caught in the crossfire of gangs, their own pasts, and the Japanese army its a gun fight to the finish that will settle the score and see who gets the treasure once and for all.

What really makes "The Good The Bad The Weird" such a thrilling fun filled ride into the wild west of the east is its affinity for using every Western cliche in the book. Whether its the opening train heist, the shanty town showdowns in the rain, the horse chases loaded with stunts, and the general endless bullets that fly about from its many, many action sequences, this film contains its all. It has even has a duel at the end between the three men. If you love your Western's for these things, then this is a must watch film.

This amazing amount of overused western moments is given new life though through its amazing and stylistic directing. Although the performances are great (at this point its hard to argue with Kang-Ho Song and his awesome choices of films including "Thirst" and "The Host"), its this modern and slick style of presenting its rather overused story and plot elements that makes this movie stand out. The long and winding camera shots fulled with stunts and the fearless approach to having characters stare down the camera for their monologues makes for a fun and impressive ride through this land of outlaws. Ji Woon-Kim has one me over again with a whole new genre. *Note: He also directed the fantastic gang film "A Bittersweet Life" and the psychologically disturbing Horror film "A Tale Of Two Sisters" both of which I recommend.

Although the plot sometimes got a little too off balance with its odd moments, like the random drug scene in the brothel, this film has a pacing that is to die for. Its a fun ride with its decidedly slick attack on the Western genre and a definite must for fans of the genre or any of the parties involved in its making (director especially). Highly recommended for us genre film fans out there.

BONUS PRAISE: The score for the film is so odd in its use of keyboards, synths, and guitars to give us your 'classic' Western sound that I'm not sure whether to question the sanity of the idea or praise it for its ballsy move. As a Bond villain once said though, the difference between insanity and genius is measured by success. I consider this score a success. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider