Goldfinger (1964)

As a James Bond fan, I know I'm going to peeve a lot of people off by saying this, but: "Goldfinger" is not the be all and end all of Bond films. Sorry folks, but I don't think its the glorious film that everyone else seems to think of it. Is it good? Damn right. Is it the best Bond film? No. Here's why.

STORYLINE: James Bond is called in to investigate some unusual dealings with Mr. Auric Goldfinger and is asked to find out how he is smuggling gold between countries without letting the authorities know. Seems like a routine job for your awesome British spy, but Bond discovers a greater plan on hand when he finds that Goldfinger is amassing money and power to take on Fort Knox in one of the biggest capers the world has known.

PLOT 5/5: With the first two Bond films focusing on being more serious and realistic, this is the first one to truly grasp the ridiculousness of being an Action film. The budget is bigger so they went all out on everything with "Goldfinger". Of course, I give this movie props for essentially creating the blueprint for all Bond movies to come and be compared to, but really some of it is completely outlandish - but at the same time completely charismatic and enjoyable. Here we have the first Bond car complete with awesome chase and we even have our first 'official' opening credits Bond song done of the bodies of gold-painted women. The story is a little out there, a guy that as accumulated this much power seems a bit outrageous when it comes to his setup (really, you converted an entire room to explain your plan to knock off Knox when you just planned to kill them anyway?) but we'll get to that in a second. The story is actually quite interesting and will keep you glued to the screen. The final flight with Goldfinger does seem a little short and ends oddly I think though.

BOND 4.5/5: Connery as Bond is tough to get over. He just has this weird ability to be a complete dick and extremely lovable all at the same time. This one shows us a Bond that really never seems too worried (sans his bomb disarmament) and that is a bit away from the realism part. He does it well though and it's hard not to smile when he cracks a one-liner. Shocking.

VILLAIN 4/5: Here's one for the books. I'm not a huge fan of Goldfinger as our villain. Both he and his henchmen Oddjob seem a bit too cartoony for my tastes. Goldfinger is so obsessed with gold that at times it brings out a 'what the fuck' instead of intensity like it should. He even has a golden gun at the end that nobody seems to notice. He has all this power and wealth and yet he's an idiot and decides to actually go to Fort Knox himself to help out....WHAT?! No wonder SPECTRE never picked him up. The mysterious Dr. No would be displeased with his stupidity. Goldfinger does have his moments that work like any time he is with Bond on screen. The talk at the laser in particular is just awesome. I also give Goldfinger an extra point for having picked up Oddjob. Nothing says, "I want to make myself feel better as a person for being evil" than hiring a small mute Korean man built like a tank with a magic hat and a deadly throwing arm as your manservant. If you can keep someone like that in check, then you are awesome.

BOND GIRL 3/5: Again I think this is where this one suffers the most. Initially you think Jill Masterson is going to be...nope. Dead. Then maybe it's her sister Tilly...nope - death by Korean tank. Finally, towards the last third of the film, we get Pussy Galore (which ironically IS her name in the book too) who is this tough as nails pilot helping Goldfinger to get rich quick. At first, she definitely steals her scenes with a nice film presence and that tough shit attitude but then...this is a huge but...she randomly just changes her mind and then disappears from the film. What?! She has this moment with James who, to quote the film, "appealed to her maternal instincts" and, so much for that tough ass act! The character ceased to seem at all real there and just turned into a plot point for me. Sorry, you started off great and then you jumped plane...literally.

"Goldfinger" as a film is still a delight for me to watch with some charismatic performances on all sides. Even Oddjob's grunts intrigue me. The over the top approach can be a little much at times (I still wonder the statistical chance that Bond would meet Jill's sister in Switzerland) but it never really hurts it all that much. This one did succeed in creating a comparison point for the rest of Bond films (for eternity essentially) and I give it that. It's good, but not as great as some would like to think. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Thunderball (1965)

Director: Terence Young
Notable Cast: Sean Connery, Adolfo Celi, Claudine Auger, Luciana Paluzzi, Rik Van Nutter, Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn

For our fourth outing with mainstream Bond, we take on the giant scope of "Thunderball", a film that makes a love/hate relationship seem easy. Of course, we are still in the 'classic Bond' stage of the series and many fans swoon over this one too, but for me I find that too many of its flaws undermine the really good parts of this film.

STORYLINE: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Fuck yeah, it's a plane, and SPECTRE plans to steal nuclear warheads off of it! If SPECTRE is involved we better put 007 on the job, right? I suppose. The diabolical dealings of our monstrous anti-hero group have to do with holding the US and Britain ransom with some stolen warheads for a shit load of money. Why money? To do other evil shit, of course! So 007 (whom just happened to be at the right place at the right time) is sent to Nassau to investigate Largo, a very rich man with an eyepatch whom Bond thinks has some serious doings with this bomb theft.

PLOT 3.5/5: Honestly, I love this plot. It's a bit over the top considering the film feels like it wants to go more serious like the first two films (where it runs into some issues) but the scope of this film is pretty impressive. Much of the film has underwater dealings which is a new place for Bond to be badass but at times these underwater scenes drag ON and ON and ON. Even the final 'battle' at the end with spear guns and knives and random explosives feels way too slow and way too drawn out for its own good. I do appreciate the more serious tone of the film and its approach though. Although it is grand in its plot, they play it very realistically for the most part. Honestly, the reason this film loses points for plot is because of three things. 1) The pre-credit sequence is completely retarded. Really? you happen to have a jet-pack and a car that shoots gigantic streams of water from its tail pipes? WTF. 2) The pacing of this film drags on, like I mentioned. 3) The film feels like it should have been even longer. The ending seems to come very quickly. Some of the more detective things seem ridiculously rushed. Like his partner Laura - who the fuck is she?

BOND 4/5: Connery returns as Bond once again for this one. And like I mentioned prior, he is pretty awesome at the job. I like that he is once again kind of a dick in this one, for example I love that he fucks with Largo at the card table insinuating things through blatant word play. The plot suffers the character more often than not in this one as they rush through some things and drag on others.

VILLAIN 4/5: I like Largo. What kind of man keeps a personal military on hand, wears an eye patch, embroiders Octopi on everything, and keeps a lagoon of sharks on his property? This guy does. Not to mention just looking at that list makes him a probable suspect for most things evil. How can he not be Number 2 in SPECTRE?! Not to mention he keeps a giant boat that can split in two and become a speed boat. Fuck yea. Granted, the performance of Largo is solid and he does seem evil. He is a bit over the top for all the reasons listed above. His henchwomen is a solid choice though. She's a bitch first and foremost and she tells off Bond a few times. I love the scene with her and Bond in the car when she is driving him to the hotel. TEN-SION! Did I mention she is also bat shit crazy?

BOND GIRL 3/5: Oh Domino. How much better could you have been? She just kind of flounders around the film for the first chunk and only in the third act does she actually have any weight to her character. The last act is good for her character (not really) with her final conversation with Bond and the few final scenes with Largo. She would have been the worst thus far without these moments to make her character more relevant.

Overall, I enjoy "Thunderball" but of the Bond series thus far, its the weakest. Its too long, not long enough, it starts off to a pretty stupid path, and can't decide whether it wants to be corny or not. It does have a solid villain and Connery as Bond and there are great moments (including the plot) but they aren't enough to balance the film. It's good, but not that good. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

From Russia With Love - 5/5

This is perhaps one of my favorite (and best) Bond films of the series. Taking what worked on "Dr. No", "From Russia With Love" starts incorporating more of the elements that have come to be known for James Bond. This one continues to be more on the serious side and even less ridiculous than even the first film.

STORYLINE: SPECTRE returns as a force to reckon with (they were only mentioned in "Dr. No") as a plan is hatched to pit British Intelligence and the Russians against one another in Istanbul as James Bond is sent to recover a top secret decoding machine from a supposedly defecting Russian woman. Neither realize that they are just pawns in a greater game of power with plenty of identities and lives are thrown about. Can Bond overcome his pawn status and reach the other end of the board and turn the tide?

PLOT 5/5: The plot to "From Russia With Love" not only feels insanely realistic but comes across that way too. The mysteriousness of SPECTRE and their games of deception seem almost too real to be in Bond film form for this movie. This film also starts to incorporate some of the more known Bond features, most notably the addition of gadgets (although not at all out of the range of plausibility) and a dancing girls title sequence, which actually fits into the story with its dancing gypsy theme. This film is almost a character driven piece about Bond and Tania (his Russian defector) leading the stage as they steal the decoder and flee from the country. It's still far more serious than many of its follow ups which I thoroughly approve.

BOND 5/5: Connery returns as Bond for this one and follows up to his work previously nicely. He still retains a serious tone, but it would seem that filmmakers and writers decided to try and make him less cold (although that does come through in many scenes like when he interrogates Tania on the train). The attempts at humor work better here with his one liners and he seems more caring towards women too - hell, even the girl from the opening of "Dr. No" returns for a cameo here and mentions he trip to Jamaica. Connery is still as suave as ever and even more likable here. He seems to have a little more room to do his own thing here.

VILLAIN 5/5: This is actually a complicated category here. There really is no 'villain' persay in this film. Its more like SPECTRE itself is the villain. Some say that Colonel Klebb is the villain and Grant is her henchman (which seems to be the widely regarded way) but Klebb doesn't really run the show here (she is only the middleman really). She does appear a few times and has a nice fight with Bond at the end, but the film is stolen by Grant. Our paranoid maniacal hit man is both scary is ridiculously smart. He almost seems too good to be just a henchmen. When he threatens Bond to shoot him until he licks his shoe, you fucking believe him. He is this shadow that is always there and watches over shit so it goes the right way. This is also the first time Blofeld appears (well his hands do) as the head of SPECTRE and referred to as Number One. Truly I think he should be the villain of the film if there is one because even the chess master plays only a part of the entire evil of the organization. All of them though are memorable and devious as villains with Grant definitely making one of the best rivals to Bond ever.

BOND GIRL 5/5: Oh, Tania Romanov. She set standards for Bond girls to come. She is merely a pawn in this whole Russia/British plot, but her integral part in the story and chemistry onscreen with Connery is something to be impressed with even for Bond girls.

Thusly, "From Russia With Love" is not only one of the best Bond films, but a damn solid film period. It ranks at the top for sure with its insane plot movements and great acting on both sides of the line. This is one I never tire watching and is one of the peaks of the franchise. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Dr. No - 4/5

Note: Welcome to the first of many James Bond film reviews. Here's the deal: I'm not going to review these like some of my other films. Its hard to do so because I love these films with more than a normal sense that a person should. So what I'm going to do is rank the film in categories and rate each category. The overall rating is at the top but I'm going to give each 'Bond Category' it's own ranking. It keeps the review from getting too jumbled with my rambles. Okay then, lets start this bad boy rolling.

Being the first James Bond film, "Dr. No" does have a sense of keeping to the novels it was based on and limiting itself in many ways. Before the days of ridiculous gadgets and world location jumping, this film seems far more humble than the rest. Of course, it works to its benefit more often than not and comes across as a great way to start the franchise. This makes "Dr. No" not only a great place to start for new Bond fans, but allows it to be a tidbit more realistic.

STORYLINE: This mission has Bond going down to Jamaica to investigate another missing agent. He discovers that there are funny doings on the island that all trace back to the mysterious Dr. No. He teams up with CIA agent Felix Leiter and a local, Quarrel, to get to the bottom of a murderous plot to hijack American missiles.

PLOT 4/5: Of course, as I mentioned, "Dr. No" is one of the more realistic Bond films out there. It is almost more like a detective story at times than an all out action flick. We get to see how Bond works and thinks on more intimate levels showing us how he pieces together the clues and comes about to conclusions. It's a slow moving piece that really builds on Bond's instincts and intellects than it does his quick draw or wittiness. Of course it does have its over the top moments, Dr. No's mechanical hands for one or even the idea of an underwater nuclear power plant that no one seems to notice.

BOND 5/5: This is the first time Bond is portrayed by the ever suave Sean Connery. He does the film quite a bit of justice and balances the suave and the cold mechanical quite well. At times his quirky remarks don't quite work (the humor seems almost out of character for a more subtle Bond) but Connery has the look and aura of a great Bond. I do appreciate the ballsyness of this Bond - the scene with Bond and Dr. No at the dinner table and his eagerness to fuck with Dr. No's ego for example - and it lends a nice layer to the character.

VILLAIN 4/5: Dr. No is the villain of this one, if you haven't already gathered and his is a pretty nasty one. Granted, he doesn't actually show himself until the final act they do give the villain this air of untouchable power throughout the film that creates great atmosphere. When No talks to Prof Dent through an empty room with a speaker comes to mind for this. When he does show he has this wonderful sense of elegance and pure evil to him with his cut white clothes and black mechanical hands and almost ageless face. Almost as if he isn't a human combatant at all but this idea. This is added to when he mentions being a member of SPECTRE (which is only touched upon here) and in a grander scheme of pure evil.

BOND GIRL 3/5: With one of the most memorable Bond girl entrances in film history, Honey Ryder appears out of the ocean towards the end of the second act, which is odd since it is so late in the film. It's almost hard to call her a Bond girl due to this fact, but ideally, she fits more than any of the other women in the film. She is mostly a 2D character in this film (as with most women in this film) only given one scene with Bond that gives her any depth. She does have a charm in her simplicity, but she also seems pretty eager to follow this random man out of the blue. Perhaps its his charm.

Overall, "Dr. No" is a fantastic piece of culture history and a solid film after that. The plot is really the highlight here that is made even more impressive with Bond at one of his most serious moments in film and a very mysterious and scary villain. I like the more simple and detective approach to the film even if the ending gets pretty ridiculous. I'm pretty sure its not okay to just unleash nuclear explosions off the coast of Jamaica without some sort of backlash. Oh well. This is the start of a wonderful friendship with Bond and his fans. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Children, The - 4.5/5

Evil children has been done before. Hell, its been done so many times that I actually put off seeing this film for quite some time. "Orphan" filled my need for killer children quite nicely and I figured this wouldn't be as good as I could have hoped, thusly, throwing it on the back burning. Eventually, I caught some solid reviews of the film from some of my favorite critics and decided to pop it in and give it a run.

As a couple of couples and their younglings gather round for Christmas, they find that tensions start to build and the children start to act funny as they suddenly come down with an odd sickness. A rebellious teenage daughter and her family find themselves at odds with each other and the fucked up kids as they desperately try to piece together what is happening.

I was immensely impressed with this low budget British film. Although it took a bit for the film to get going, all of the character work and establishment of setting and plot at the start up paid off when it started to really burn off later on. "The Children"'s director, Shankland, does a pretty solid job throwing in old school Horror elements into a relatively modern style to give us a little of the best of both worlds here. Significant tension mounts considerably through the beginning and mid sections before a final act that borderlines on the slasher element and it swiftly moves the flow of the film into them. The visual style was striking in its mixture and a solid and vague story adds a lot of 'what the fuck is going on' frustration to the audience and characters (all of it in a good way).

The flaws of "The Children" were fairly minuscule in comparison to what it accomplishes. Some might find the vague story of the 'illness' that suddenly nails the kids to be a flaw, where I found it to be a nice use of the real time aspect of the film and adds to the isolation element. I can see it being an issue with some, so there if fair warning there. My one complaint with "The Children" has to go with some of the acting which on the whole was quite good, but there were some iffy moments here and there. Not a whole lot that I felt was not going to pay off here and I appreciate that.

Now, killer children stories have been done to death in the Horror genre, but "The Children" takes a tried and true formula and makes it really stick with the viewer. I'm not sure how this film won't make you fear children by the end. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Children Of The Corn (1984)

Director: Fritz Kiersch
Notable Cast: Peter Horton, Linda Hamilton, R.G. Armstrong, John Franklin, Courtney Gains, Robby Kiger, Anne Marie McEvoy, Julie Maddalena, Jonas Marlowe, John Philbin

There are a handful of horror franchises that probably shouldn’t exist. Children of the Corn is one of those. It’s not that the original 1984 film is a bad one, it’s actually held it’s own in the 30+ years since its release, but it’s a series that has taken a massive nose dive in quality that it should never have existed past a few sequels. With a horrendous made for TV remake and an upcoming sequel that Dimension seems reluctant to ever release, it was a wonderful reminder through this latest Blu Ray edition of Children of the Corn that strikes a chord for horror fans. It’s a reminder that this series wasn’t always a black hole of horror creativity. Featuring a nice new 2K version of the classic film and a slew of special features to go with it, this release showcases the film nicely for established fans and those looking to perhaps dig into the franchise for the first time. It’s a film that wears some of its flaws on its sleeves in obvious ways through its budget constraints and strange third act, but it’s also one that does some admirable things too and deserves a refreshing look.

G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra (2009) - 2/5

2 stars might be a little much for this cluster fuck of a movie. I mean, someone must have sat down and said to themselves, "I bet we can rival "Transformers" in shitiness." Honestly, "GI Joe" tried, but since the action kept my attention well enough and it had ninja in it (+ one star for any film with ninja) it still deserves 2 stars. Other than that though, man oh man, did this movie decide to be bad.

I think that firstly we have to look at the script. Yeah, I know, what script right? The focus is placed so firmly on the action that any kind of logical progression of script is pretty much on back burner the entire film. It does have a story of sorts and it goes like this: one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers teams with with a brilliant and diabolical scientist to create a nanotechnology that can...well do anything, naturally. Eat metal, mind control, erase all sense of humanity, create living metal tissue, eat flesh, and, of course, allow a rather senseless plot to have a 'logistical' reason to be completely random and illogical. So a secret group of the world's best military men and women (deemed GI Joe) have been put to the test to stop these evil doers by destroying as much as possible, using ridiculous amounts of top secret technology, and never even think twice that perhaps they should ask questions before shooting...shooting some more...shooting even more...and blowing shit up. There is some twists and turns as we find out that our main man, Duke, so brilliantly played as a frat boy with muscles by Tatum, finds out his ex-fiancee now deemed The Baroness (I'm pretty sure in the original that Duke and Scarlett had a thing not Baroness) is a bad guy and willing and able to kick the shit out of him. Really, since that story line was pretty thin and week it was just a plot progression moment that didn't work but since it allowed for him and her to blow shit up, we can bypass. We also get some rather pointless back story with some of the other characters that isn't worth explaining since it mattered nilch in the end cause most of you will tune out of the rather poor dialogue (and some of the worst one liners in history...not even bad good) because, all together now, there's shit blowing up! As you can tell I was rather impressed with the story.

Now that we've deemed the script as a rather waste of time and thought, lets move onto what's most important. Shit blowing up. Now, I'll give this a solid star for this. Won't lie, I like watching general mayhem even if its beyond any logic. Like why do the bad guy blue energy guns (not lasers more like sound wave cannons...whatever) blow some shit up in big fiery balls but others just knock things in the air? Are they like phasers with different settings? Phaser set to 'fire'. Phaser set to 'knock shit into air'. That goes with most of the action in the movie. It's so inconsistent in what everyone is able to do that if you tried to think about any of it, you had an brain hemorrhage. Accelerator suits? Why the hell wouldn't you use those all the time? They seem pretty much indestructible and if you always had one guy in your squad with them that would be awesome. But again, why make logic when we have to move towards a new action scene. And location. Fuck consistency, lets have these guys travel from desert, to North Pole, to Paris, to DC, to random forest, two complexes, to - oh fuck it. It doesn't matter where, there's always shit to blow up anywhere. Even icecaps as it turns out. It's okay though, it will keep your attention. And get us a dollar for the rental - sucker.

Wow, my review is getting long. Hang with me though, there's more to be addressed. Let's move onto my final point. The cast. When I first saw the cast I was like...'alright, I can go with this'. Turns out I was wrong. I couldn't go with it. The acting was AWFUL and the casting was SHIT. I'm not sure who thought Tatum was a 'leader figure' but his take on a rather dumb Duke with girlfriend issues made me want to rip out of own spleen and throw it at the screen. Ripcord is played off as a side kick character too often than not, of which the humor in the movie was far too bottom of the barrel to even chuckle at, who gets almost no character work expect for the fact he has the hots for Scarlett with a seemly disinterested Marlon Wayans in the role. Scarlett is a bullshit side character as are many of the other Joes played by actors who don't know if they should playing their role or lines seriously or with cheese. The only true casting good call was Ray Park as Snake Eyes. And then they gave Snake Eyes an awful character design (he has lips! Fuck that noise!) and rush his character back story. Dammit, guys, that one could have been easy. I gave you star for one of the worst Ninja designs ever! They're lucky I love ninja.

So I gotta go with "GI Joe" kept my attention with its illogical jumps that I tried to figure out and with random things blowing up, but God forbid, if you try to think about this movie, you may die from stupidity. One star for blowing up, one star for ninja (even poorly executed ones). They should have let Stallone do "GI Joe". I'm sure "The Expendables" next year will do a far better job at making a cheesy action movie for me to love.

Now, I'm going to try to haggle with the Red Box machine to see if I can get my money back for it renting out crap. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Blood: The Last Vampire (2009) - 1.5/5

I sure can pick them lately. Ironically, I was pretty excited to this one. Not into Anime at all, but the story of "Blood: The Last Vampire" has intrigued me so when it became a live action film, I got my hopes up. Of course, then it wasn't in stock anywhere in town and I ended up renting. Good thing too, as it really wasn't worth the dollar I paid for it.

Of course, it didn't help I got my hopes up for it. Directed by the guy that did "Kiss Of The Dragon" with Jet Li, with some bad ass ninja and vampires - it was a horror/kung fu fan's dream come true...on paper. Conceptionally, its still a very cool story, but it pretty much failed on every level of execution. Damn. It's harsh, but true.

I think the film's first mistake was its awful pacing. The focus was placed so firmly on the style of the film and its action sequences that they forgot, oh yeah, there's a damn story in here! Consistently throughout the film, the dialogue is rushed through to get the plot cruising so they can get to the next big sequence which is almost always an action scene. The acting doesn't help with the pacing either, Allison Miller fumbles her way through the film and poor Jun (whom plays our vampire slayer, Saya) feels awkward with expressing herself in English. The language definitely feels foreign coming from her and coupled with the poor dialogue - everything just feels shoddy. We also get tons of randomness in this film. The film tries to give us some back story to Saya that feels out of place when it shows up and far too much like exposition for the sake of padding the film then it does allowing us to see our anti-hero's life. But that isn't all folks.

So if the story is poorly constructed and poorly expressed, who cares, right?! We have a ninja lady killing fucking vampires! Who needs backstory with a concept like that?! Unfortunately, even in this area "Blood" fails hardcore. The action sequences are far too Americanized for their own good (lots of quick zooms, moves, and edits that butcher most of the actual choreography) and the over-the-top style only works in some cases. The ninja fight in the forest with her trainer comes to mind when it didn't work. Ninja pop from every corner without any logistical reason and even...burrow through the leaves?! I can only go so far even with this story, guys. By the end of the film I was so done with its style and poor editing that I didn't care about the fight sequences anymore. Where is the integrity for classic kung fu?!

Not to mention that this film has some of the worst special effects I have EVER seen. At first, I was going with some of the cheesy effects, writing it off on the low budget, then they had these CGI vampire/demons that looked like something from a direct to video release in 1994. The entire fight with the vampire on the truck in the chasm was hair tearing poor. Oh damn, whoever did the effects should go back to school.

I would like to say that this film just didn't convert from Anime to live action well, but since I never saw the Anime, all I can do is blame this movie for being far too shitty for its concept. How could you go wrong with Ninja and vampires?! Well, don't answer that, cause I just saw it. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Fly, The (1986) - 4.5/5

There are science fiction movies that make you think. There are science fiction movies that will move you emotionally. Then there is "The Fly". David Cronenberg's new vision of the classic 'science gone wrong' film, is both fascinating in its science/thought provoking concepts but also endearing and horrifying in its examination of the human psyche and its representation of the human life. Yeah, it's pretty much the perfect science fiction film.

In this 1986 adaption of one of the greatest Sci Fi golden oldies, we have an eccentric and entirely enduring scientist Brundle (played by a riveting Goldblum) whose dabbling into the world of teleportation go hideously awry as his genetic make-up is combined with that of the common housefly. Ironic as it sounds, this is not the heart of this tale. No pun intended. As much as that concept could carry its own weight in film, this is more or less a love story with science fiction circumstances. Brundle falls for the reporter that is doing the exclusive on his work (Geena Davis) and its their relationship and odd chemistry that is the true core of what makes "The Fly" an amazing film.

David Cronenberg remains one of my favorite directors of all time. This film (despite its nuances) is perhaps his easiest film to really sink your teeth into and I suggest it for newcomers to his style. The surface value of this film is pretty straightforward with wonderful performances from the entire cast and a very distinct directing style. Like I said though, its that hidden and subtle depth of the human condition mixed with the amazingly clever dialogue (particularly from the eccentric Brundle) that makes this film work over 20 years later.

On top of its stellar writing and facinating story, is the science fiction part. Brundle's transformation from man to fly is grotesque and intriguing. The special effects are brilliantly done and hold up to this day (fuck CGI when you do it this good) and by the end of the film (and at the end of his humanity) the viewer is both horrified with the occurances as much as they are enthralled with them. The concepts are ingenious, I'm not much of a science nerd and I'm sure there is plenty of plot holes in the thinking, but using that in combination with the rest then "The Fly" is almost never faltering.

This is one of the greatest science fiction film's ever made. Cronenberg makes them like no one else, and "The Fly" has surpassed its greatest judge - time. Highly recommended to everyone. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Bangkok Dangerous (2000) - 4.5/5

There is just something about the Pang Brothers' style that I can't get over. I pretty much enjoy their visceral visual style in almost everything (their writing tends to be hit or miss and some of the projects they take evoke a solid "what the fuck were you thinking?!" from me - cough "Forest Of Death" cough), but I always seem to find something I love about their work. That includes their original (they also directed the watered down remake) "Bangkok Dangerous".

"Bangkok Dangerous" tells the tale of deaf/mute professional hitman, Kong, as he suddenly finds himself no longer taking life for granted as his world starts to unravel right before his eyes. He falls in love with the pretty pharmacist on the corner drug store, his best friend Joe and Joe's girlfriend find themselves entangled in betrayal, and his own remorse for those he has harmed comes tearing through his psyche. All of this leads him down a path of redemption as he finds that he has few chances to right the wrongs of his life.

It's a damn ballsy story to say the least. Having your protagonist as a deaf/mute is a pretty chancy move considering that he essentially has no dialogue to build his character with or to build a relationship with the viewer with. In fact, Kong never even uses sign language in the film and yet is able to communicate very clearly what is going on. To say the understated, the acting in this film is amazing. Kong is heart tearingly sincere in his work (even without dialogue - so when he finally tries to speak at the end it brings tears to your eyes) and the supporting cast is stellar - with particular nods to his best friend Joe who is absolutely riveting on screen with his kinetic intensity.

All of the great story elements and great acting is just amplified by the visual wizardry of the Pang Brothers. They have this modern and yet old school approach to everything, giving the film this almost fantasy effect whilst never losing that grimy super realism. The low production value of the film also gives "Bangkok Dangerous" an almost grindhouse raw feeling that supports this dirty realism of storytelling. The Pang Brothers utilize what they have very well with this film including all of the negative space (silence for the most part) to create an atmosphere that is engaging. This is one of their best.

"Bangkok Dangerous" is one of those films that remind us of the duality of life. The story is just as heartfelt and sincere as it is ruthless and intense. It's unfortunate that the remake was unable to transfer some of these elements over (it has its moments) and will be the version everyone sees. I picked up my copy of this film ridiculously cheap (like 6.99) so I advise anyone who is a film fan to see this movie. 

Written By Matt Reifschneider