TedStixon

Spin-off shows are always a bit of a risk when it comes to television. For every resounding success, there's a failure. For every "Daria" or "Better Call Saul," there's a "Joey" or a "That 80's Show." They're a gamble at best, and a guaranteed failure at worst. But every once in a while, you'll get a good one. A great one even. A new series that not only honors the show from which it branched off, but also expands the universe and is able to succeed on its own merits.

And it should come as no surprise that co-creator Joss Whedon was able to deliver just such a series with the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" spin-off "Angel." Running for five seasons on the now defunct WB, the series places its focus on the titular Angel, a vampire with a soul who uses his powers and enhanced abilities to hunt bad-guys and save the day. And thanks to a remarkable cast, a fantastically dark tone and some excellent writing, it succeeds as one of the best spin-offs in recent memory - a wonderful show that both compliments and contrasts with the original.

David Boreanaz stars as Angel, whom has just relocated to Los Angeles and spends his nights protecting random citizens from various supernatural threats. After a series of events leads to his reunion with former Sunnydale resident Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter), along with meeting several new allies, "Angel Investigations" is created - a supernatural detective agency that seeks to protect mankind and help the helpless. And standing in their way is an increasingly dangerous assortment of demons and adversaries... many with ties to a mysterious law firm known as Wolfram and Hart.

Though the name Joss Whedon has practically become a piece of profanity as of late due to seemingly unending personal controversies, he and fellow co-creator David Greenwalt really struck gold when it came to this series. While Angel certainly had his place in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the fact is the character was ripe for expansion. And this series served as the perfect platform to do so.

David Boreanaz leads the series with a strong, brooding performance that sets the tone for the overall show. He gives the character so much pathos and humanity, though also wisely shows a sense of humor in just the right places. He's just sublime. Carpenter is a joy as the returning character Cordelia. She started as an archetypical queen-bee mean-girl on "Buffy," but she absolutely shines in this series, as the character is given much more depth and a greater focus. And then there's the various supporting cast members, who are all phenomenal in their own way. Perhaps of greatest note are Alexis Denisof as the returning character Wesley Wyndam-Pryce and the late Andy Hallett as a delightful demonic ally known as Lorne. Denisof's Wesley has a magnificent character arc over the show's five seasons, while Hallett brings such a warmth to the series. I also very much enjoyed J. August Richards and Amy Acker as newcomers who join the Angel Investiations during the course of the series. Both bring a lot to their characters. And a special note goes out to the late Glenn Quinn, Julie Benz, Mercedes McNab, James Marsters and Christian Kane, who pad out the cast in supporting roles, and each give very good performances.

The tone of the series is also very important, and is one of the key factors to its success. While "Buffy" deftly mixed drama with a near constant sense of humor, and often felt much more light-hearted with the exception of key episodes, "Angel" is by contrast a much grittier, inkier series throughout. It still has a sense of humor, but it makes no qualms about what it is - this show is incredibly dark at times, and deals with heavy themes. And it works very well. This feels like a more grown-up series than its predecessor, and is just as rewarding, but in different ways.

And this is aided by the typically expert writing. Whedon's shows are often praised for their witty dialogue and clever storylines, and that is very much the case with "Angel." While some seasons may be stronger than others, it consistently feels nuanced and mature, and tackles stories that will leave you feeling quite uncomfortable and questioning what you would do in the same situation. And these stories make it a very engaging watch.

That praise being said, this series is not without its faults. There are some minor - and occasionally moderate - issues that hold it just shy of perfection in my eyes. The chief offender of which is the show's notorious fourth season, which unfortunately just doesn't measure up in comparison to the other, much more rewarding years. While I won't spoil anything, I will say that the fourth season really damages some of the characters. Almost irreparably. And it makes it a rough sit. I also feel that on the whole, the show has a somewhat greater ratio of misses-to-hits than "Buffy" ever did. Several of the monster-of-the-week storylines fall flat on their face, while certain storylines often feel needlessly drawn out and over-complicated. And it does impact my overall feelings about the series.

But those complaints aside, "Angel" is a series that I'd still heartily recommend. Despite a weak fourth season and a fistful of bad episodes, the majority of the show succeeds wonderfully thanks to the excellent cast, sharp writing and deliciously grim tone. And it easily earns an excellent 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes.) It's one of the best spin-offs in recent memory, and is still worth checking out twenty years later.

TedStixon

Despite having been born in the late 80's and having grown up a true 90's kid, I must admit that I was never particularly aware of the cultural phenomenon that was Joss Whedon's beloved series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." I mean sure, I knew the show existed, and I had watched the original movie with my older sister a few times. But that was about it. I think I was just a little too young at the time to really grasp just how massive and important the show was, and how much it appealed to audiences of all ages. But as I grew older, I found myself gradually becoming more and more interested in the series, though I never quite had the time to finally hunker down and watch it from start to finish, outside of having seen most of the first three seasons while I was in college.

However, like many others last year during the global pandemic, I opted to use my spare time while I was furloughed to catch up on movies and series that I've been meaning to watch. And "Buffy" was right at the top of my list. Over the course of four months, I gradually watched through the series in its entirety for the first time, along with its popular spin-off "Angel."

And how was it? It was as outstanding as I ever could have hoped it would be! While it may be a bit dated at times, and while some seasons are stronger than others, I was shocked by just how well it held up, how relevant many of its themes still are, and just how darned entertaining the show is. This is one iconic series that still manages to thrill and enthrall even decades later!

Sarah Michelle Gellar stars as Buffy Summers, who is seemingly just your ordinary teenage girl, worried about things like boys and homework. Except she's not just your ordinary girl - she is "the Slayer," a chosen one gifted with superhuman strength and agility, who is destined to do battle with vampires, demons and the forces of darkness! And together with her best friends Xander (Nicholas Brendon) and Willow (Alyson Hannigan), along with her "Watcher" Giles (Anthony Stewart Head), she must face non-stop adventure as her little town of Sunnydale is invaded by creatures and monsters over and over again.

While his credibility and star-power have completely evaporated due to a string of icky controversies, creator Joss Whedon and his crew of writers and directors crafted a wonderful and addictive series in "Buffy." Deftly mixing creepiness with campiness, and drama with comedy, the show is a unique blend that is deeply satisfying to watch. Especially once you get passed the bumpy, lower-budget first season and into the much more refined remainder of the show. The series tackles timeless themes that many people face as they grow and age, and does it with a refreshing sense of wit and style. And it's just plain darned fun to watch thanks to the endlessly likable characters and sharp humor. Whedon is well-known for his stylized dialogue and for injecting clever gags into his works, and it's just splendid here. The show is absolutely hilarious, which helps even out the darker moments.

The cast is absolutely fantastic. Gellar makes for a compelling lead in Buffy, and it's a lot of fun to see how the character evolves over the seven seasons as she grows and changes. Gellar really knocks it out of the park - there's a reason she's still beloved in this role. Brendon and Hannigan are absolutely phenomenal in their roles as Buffy's friends and allies in the war against darkness, and they add a lot of heart and humor to the show. Heck, at times they even overshadow Buffy - especially Hannigan. Anthony Stewart Head adds a sense of class to the proceedings and is a great deal of fun as Buffy's long-suffering teacher and advisor Giles. And a revolving door of supporting players add quite a bit to the series. Particularly notable are an excellent David Boreanez, a brilliant James Marsters, an adorable Emma Caulfield, a very likable Amber Benson, a hilarious Seth Green and a very solid Michelle Trachtenberg as various allies of our heroes who come and sometimes go over the seasons.

I also have to mention the general production of the series. While the effects are dated, and there is a definite sense of the early seasons being "super 90's," the show is typically very well put together. The cinematography is quite excellent for its time, with later seasons still holding up quite well. The music is awesomely moody and sets the tone exceptionally well. And the production and creature design is usually top notch stuff.

Now before I wrap this up, I feel I should address one other thing. There seems to be almost a mandatory and prerequisite need to discuss the various seasons in these sorts of reviews. Because everyone has their opinions over what the "best" and "worst" seasons are. And I have to admit... I do have my own opinions. But the most important thing I have to say is, I don't think there are really any "bad" seasons of "Buffy." Sure, some seasons are stronger than others, but I really enjoyed all seven for the most part, and see them all as vitally important pieces of the puzzle. So I wouldn't recommend skipping any of them, or stopping at a certain point. It's all worth seeing.

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a magnificent series that still stands tall decades after its initial release. Its themes are still relevant, its characters are still likable, and it's still a blast and a half to watch. And it easily earns a perfect 5 out of 5! Now if only we could get a proper HD remaster that maintained the original 4:3 aspect ratio and stuck closer to the original color-correction.

TedStixon

May (Angela Bettis) is a socially awkward misfit who is self-conscious about her lazy eye, and whose only real friend is an eerie doll her mother gave her as a child. Obsessed with "perfect" body-parts, she tries to forge a romantic connection with a slightly scummy mechanic (Jeremy Sisto) and later her lesbian co-worker (Anna Faris), but both fail miserably in no small part due to her complete inability to grasp interpersonal relationships. Left damaged and pushed beyond her breaking point, May decides that if she can't find a real friend, she will create the perfect one by any means necessary.

Deftly mixing a battery of tones and emotions, writer/director Lucky McKee's "May" runs the gamut between dark comedy, tragedy and pure gothic horror, and it juggles these genres with a sense of style and wit that you don't see too much in mainstream horror. It's a very cool, calculated, confident film that might just be one of the great underrated thrillers of recent memory, along the same lines as overlooked cult-classics like "Ginger Snaps" and "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon."

McKee's script it tight and concise, with characters that are defined and have a sense of depth. The pacing is excellent, with the film having a sense of deliberation that builds and builds towards the final act. And McKee's direction is top-notch. The film is beautifully told, with quirky visual touches and solid storytelling. It's a very competently made film, and it made me want to seek out McKee's other work.

Star Bettis commands the screen in a remarkable turn as our devilish and yet deeply sympathetic lead. She plays May pitch perfect - you will be repulsed and disgusted by her actions, and yet there's a deep sense of humanity to her. She's absolutely crazy, but it's not her fault. She's just as much a victim as, well her victims. I was also quite taken with Faris, who is perhaps best known for her roles in dopey comedies such as Scary Movie and the popular sitcom Mom. I've always liked Faris despite not being a fan of much of her work, and she's a ton of fun as May's very unsubtle (and very randy) co-worker with a crush. And Sisto to his credit puts in a memorable turn as the first target of May's affection. He's an odd character, and isn't very likeable, but Sisto makes the most of the part.

At the end of the day, it's a bit of a tragedy that this film is so overlooked. Even as a major enthusiast of the horror genre, I wasn't aware of the film's existence until it was recommended to me by someone and they only knew about it because it was recommended to them by someone else. It seems very much to be a word-of-mouth movie that's slowly been spreading over the last twenty years. But it's a film that deserves so much more - it's clever, sharp and extremely well-executed, and its lead is endlessly endearing despite her actions. Here's to hoping that as time continues to move on, more and more people will discover this hidden gem.

I'm giving "May" an excellent 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to a 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

I've been gradually going through the filmography of famous (and infamous) director John Waters over the past year. From his disgusting and yet odd charming early exploitation work on films like "Pink Flamingos" and "Desperate Living," through his weirdly mainstream streak with movies like "Hairspray" and "Crybaby," Waters has always been a fearless and blazing presence in the world of cinema. Unafraid to make movies about anyone and anything.

And the dark comedy "Serial Mom" might be one of his best films!

Kathleen Turner stars as Beverly Sutphin, seemingly the ideal suburban housewife with a swell husband (Sam Waterston) and two kids (Ricki Lake, Matthew Lillard). However, Beverly hides a peculiar secret from her family. And that secret? That's she's totally nuts, and is picking off their neighbors one-by-one!

The central conceit of the film is of course the humorous juxtaposition of an oh-so-perfect sitcom-style family and the fact that the mother is, well... a blithering, homicidal lunatic. Waters mines this clever premise for all that it's worth, supplying an array of sequences that range from cringey and creepy to diabolically hilarious. And it's mostly quite effective, provided you have a taste for black humor. The film also serves as a nice lampooning of the true-crime genre, which was booming around the time of the movie's release, and continues to remain popular to this day. It gives the film a nice quality where it still feels somewhat relevant all these years later.

Star Turner gives a fantastic performance as our lunatic lead. Her Beverly is both charming and off-putting... warm and yet intimidating. Turner plays it on a razor's edge, and it works perfectly for the material. Waterston is a lot of fun as her in-way-over-his-head husband. He brings a certain charm to the character. And I quite liked Lake and Lillard in their parts as Beverly's kids. Especially the adorable Lake, who is always incredibly likeable.

Waters films always have a strange quaintness to them that I've quite liked. Even his most disgusting of efforts have a peculiar feeling of being old-fashioned and storybook-like. Like a 50's sitcom gone bad. And I think that style really lends itself well to this story. Like I said above, it gives ample opportunity for juxtaposition and contrast. And Waters quirky personal touches are all over the movie.

It's not for everyone, but I'd definitely recommend "Serial Mom" as not only one of Waters' best films, but also one of his more accessible adult-oriented films. And if you like it? I'd say start branching out and checking out his weirder films like "Polyester" and "A Dirty Shame." And if your stomach agrees with those, continue exploring his filmography.

I'm giving "Serial Mom" a 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

"Anna" is never a particularly compelling film, but at the same time, I don't think it was trying to be. It seems to aspire to be just a bit of bloody, gritty fun, as we following a tough-as-nails female KGB agent through a series of twists, turns and action set-pieces. And honestly, in that respect, it's more-or-less a success. I was thoroughly entertained throughout the two-hour runtime, even as the film became more ridiculous and convoluted.

Model Sasha Luss stars as Anna, a young woman who is drafted into the KGB and trained to be an assassin, and works under a handler named Olga (Helen Mirren) and an officer named Alex. (Luke Evans) However, when she is found out by the CIA, she agrees to become a double-agent for the Americans, setting off a chain of treacherous events that will leave her torn between two nations, and struggling to find freedom

"Anna" is another entry in a long line of female-centric action films from troubled writer/director Luc Besson. From "La Femme Nikita" to "The Fifth Element" to "Lucy, " Besson certainly seems to love a rough and tough warrior woman. And while this may be one of his weaker efforts, it's still a decent bit of entertainment. Say what you want about the man given some icky recent accusations against him... but Besson certainly knows how to put on a show.

Luss leads the film with a surprisingly solid performance all things considered. This is only her second film, and I do think she has quite a bit of potential. I'm definitely interested to see where her career goes over the next few years. Mirren and Evans are good fun in their roles - especially Mirren, who really loses herself in her part and is barely recognizable. And supporting parts played by the likes of Cillian Murphy and Lera Abova are all very well-cast. Murphy in particular does an excellent job as a CIA agent whose relationship with Anna is interesting to say the least.

While Besson's script does rely a bit too much on old clichés, I actually think the overall narrative is a bit cleverer than people make it out to be. The film is told non-chronologically, with some scenes being revisited multiple times from different perspectives, and the story being told over a number of years that the film leaps back and forth between. It keeps you on your toes, and questioning everything you see. And as expected, Besson's visual direction is as eye-popping and kinetic as always. There are some really great stand-out scenes, and a small slew of excellent action set-pieces that will have you on the edge of your seat. A giant fight sequence set in a restaurant in particular was absolutely fantastic.

Where the film does fall a little flat is those aforementioned clichés and the fact that this feels like it's treading familiar ground a bit too much for Besson. Even though the narrative itself is cleverly assembled, that doesn't stop the film from exploiting many of the same old tropes you'd expect from a film like this. And like it or not Besson has made films like this before. And made them better. So it can at times feel a little anti-climactic in comparison to his earlier work. Finally, there's the fact that the movie is filled with some frankly bizarre timeline errors. Most notable is the fact that the bulk of the plot is set in the 1980's and 1990's... and yet people are using modern technology throughout the movie. It's kind of hard not to notice these issues from time to time.

Still, I can't help but say I had a blast watching this movie, and I could definitely see myself watching it again. It may not be the strongest movie Besson has released, but you could certainly do a lot worse. It aims to entertain, and entertain it does. And I'm giving it a solid 3.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to a 4 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

If there's one thing that director Christopher Landon's two "Happy Death Day" films have in spades, it's charm. Yes, the stories may be silly as can be, and I'm sure you could poke a million holes in the logic... but frankly, I don't care. Because the original film, and indeed this slick and ridiculously entertaining sequel, are just too darned enjoyable for me to mind their flaws.

Jessica Rothe is back as the long-suffering "Tree" Gelbman, and once again, she finds herself at the center of a brand new adventure. After learning that her original time-loop was caused by an on-campus quantum experiment by fellow student Ryan (Phi Vu), Tree is inadvertently sent hurtling through time and space, landing in another time loop... in another dimension. Now, Tree must work with this dimension's versions of Ryan and her boyfriend Carter (Israel Broussard) in order to try and find a way home. But things obviously aren't that easy. Not only is there a new killer on the loose in this dimension... but Tree also learns that her desperately missed deceased mother (Missy Yager) is still very much alive, putting her into a moral dilemma.

While the original "Happy Death Day" focused primarily on a horror-comedy approach by adding a dash of humor and a wonderful time-loop gimmick to a classic slasher-film formula, "Happy Death Day 2U" is much more of an overt sci-fi comedy. It plays down the slasher-horror element quite a bit and instead just has fun with the concept. It's quite a bit more slap-sticky and overtly humorous in its approach, and I think it works fabulously. It gave me fond memories of films like "Evil Dead II" and "Bride of Chucky" - movies that took their respective series into more satirical directions.

As before the cast is just wonderful. Jessica Rothe once again leads the film with an engaging and fearless performance. She's also give some surprisingly meaty dramatic scenes to sink her teeth into, and she does an amazing job. Suffice to say, these films have definitely made me a fan of hers. Vu, Broussard and other returns actors including Rachel Matthews and Ruby Modine are as excellent as ever. Especially Modine, who gets a chance to completely reinterpret her character thanks to the dimension-hopping angle of the story. Newcomers such as Suraj Sharma and Sarah Yarkin are just a blast and add a lot to the proceedings. And Yager is wonderful as Tree's mother in a small supporting role. We knew she was important from the first film, and it's a delight to actually meet the character.

Writer/Director Christopher Landon is also at the top of his game. The movie is extremely well put together, with a sharp sense of style. And it's clear Landon is having the time of his life behind the camera, with some wild comedic set-pieces and some really entertaining and experimental little scenes. A sequence in which Tree hilariously kills herself over and over stands out as one of the film's best. His script is also very tight and absolutely packed with humor and heart. He really does a fabulous job at handling the characters and their arcs, and I can't wait to see what he cooks up next.

And just like the first movie, the beating heart of the film is the emotional journey that Tree is forced to endure. And I think that's what sets these films apart. The strong character development, which is uncommon in many modern horror and genre films. Especially mainstream releases. The first film focused on Tree's journey into becoming a better person. This film expands on that, and has some great themes, including making peace with your past and learning to embrace your future. And it just... makes you feel good seeing such a great character learning these lessons.

If I had to point out any real flaws to the film, well... I definitely think this sequel will have a slightly more limited appeal than its predecessor. It's a bit more "extreme" in its approach, and I do think it might turn some audiences off. Especially if they were hoping for a more straight-forward sequel. I also think the mystery of the new killer was a little forced. I honestly would have been totally fine if there wasn't a killer in this movie, because it almost feels like an afterthought, and if anything, it kinda kills the pacing in the third act for a few minutes.

But those are just minor squabbles in an otherwise incredibly enjoyable film. Is it an award-worthy piece of art? No. Definitely not. But I don't think it was trying to be. It's trying to just be a fun movie. And I think it succeeds wonderfully.

I'm giving "Happy Death Day 2U" a very good 4 out of 5. For my money, it's just as enjoyable as the first film.

TedStixon

There has certainly been a deluge of time-loop stories lately, hasn't there? From quickly forgotten films like "Before I Fall," to quirky mainstream comedies like "Palm Springs," to popular television series like "Russian Doll," audiences can't seem to get enough of these types of projects. And possibly the best of the trend is 2017's delightfully twisted and wonderfully hammy horror-comedy "Happy Death Day!"

Jessica Rothe stars as "Tree," a troubled and sometimes selfish sorority girl who gets her kicks from things like ignoring others and having illicit affairs with her college professors. But things quickly change when she is murdered one night by a masked assailant... only to wake up and relive the same day over again... and then die yet again at the hands of the masked figure. With the help of a charming fellow student named Carter (Israel Broussard), Tree is able to surmise that she is stuck inside of a time-loop, destined to relive the day again and again until she can solve the mystery of her own murder and keep herself alive. And along the way, she'll also learn to confront her inner demons and maybe become a better person for it.

Directed by Christopher Landon from a script by Scott Lobdell, "Happy Death Day" works extremely well thanks to the wonderful cast, a good blend of humor and thrills that make the most out of the time-loop gimmick, and some top-notch character development. It's a resounding success all around, and is arguably one of the best horror-comedies in recent memory.

I absolutely adore the cast. Rothe, a relative newcomer, knocks it out of the park as our lead. I've only seen her once or twice in the past, but she absolutely commands the film. She gives Tree a good sense of depth, while also being very funny and entertaining. Absolutely fabulous performance. Broussard is endlessly likable as Tree's main ally in the film, and potential romantic interest Carter. He helps ground the movie, and is a lot of fun in his part. I also absolutely loved Rachel Matthews as the school's resident queen-bee mean-girl Danielle. It's a small part, but Matthews makes quite the impression. And of course there's a small turn from Ruby Modine as Tree's long-suffering roommate Lori. She's quite good in the film and has some juicy scenes to sink her teeth into.

The film's execution is also top-notch stuff. Lobdell's script skillfully mixes classic slasher-film scares with a keen sense of humor, creating a pretty ideal blend that keeps the audience at the edge of their seats while also piling on the laughs. The script also makes the most of the time-loop narrative in clever and subversive ways. There are so many fun little moments showing Tree's journey, and her just... having fun with the fact she keeps reliving the same day over and over again. And director Landon's execution of the material is pitch perfect. I've been a fan of Landon for a while now thanks to his other projects, and he's just the right fit. His sense of pacing and composition is fantastic, and he's able to execute the laughs and the thrills to perfection. In a lot of ways, he very pleasantly reminded me of early Sam Raimi in how he handles the material. And that's a very good thing.

And then there's the character development, which is really the beating heart of the film. In a lot of ways, Tree's growth is more important than the story. And it is just perfect. The film does a remarkably good job at establishing Tree as a very flawed and often unlikable person at the start... but then cleverly begins to dole out little bits of information suggesting it's not really her fault, and that she has a lot of pain beneath the surface. And the story goes on, Tree eventually begins to reevaluate her life in pretty fantastic ways. It may be a bit simplistic at times, but I really appreciate it when a movie is able to take us on a journey like this. Especially a horror film, which don't always have the best track records when it comes to character development.

If I absolutely had to point out any weaknesses to the film, I would say that the story perhaps takes a little too long to get going. The first few days in the time-loop can kinda drag a bit. A little tightening to "trim the fat" would have been appreciated. I also do think some of the twists and turns are a little... "convenient." But then again, the film is so much fun, I can forgive that for the most part.

I absolutely adore "Happy Death Day." It takes a simple premise - "What if 'Groundhog Day' was a slasher movie?" - and spins it into pure gold. It's arguably the best "time loop" story in recent memory, and it's just a blast-and-a-half to watch. I'm giving it a very good 4 out of 5. Definitely worth seeing... again and again.

TedStixon

Spike Lee's 2013 remake "Oldboy" is a film that I'd refer to as "good in theory." On a very base level, there's a lot the film had going for it right out of the gate. A beloved source material that held a lot of potential to be interpreted in new ways. Top notch talent both on screen and behind the scenes. A newer and wider domestic audience who would be experiencing this story for the first time. Like I said good in theory.

The problem is, while it may very well have been good in theory, quite the opposite is true in practice. Despite having potential, Lee's film ends up amount to little more than a watered down regurgitation of the iconic South Korean original. It takes the same fundamental story and retells it with any of the subtlety and wit that defined the Park Chan-Wook's 2003 film. It takes the same basic characters but removes a great deal of their humanity. It takes the setting and tone and strips away all of the exquisite style that fans of the original so loved. It essentially takes the original movie and removes everything that made it special, leaving only the hollow carcass of a very basic revenge story behind. And even without comparing it to the outstanding original, there's little here to enjoy outside of minor cosmetic flourishes.

An alcoholic advertising executive (Josh Brolin) is captured and placed in a mysterious prison by unknown captors. Left with only a television to keep him company, he slowly changes over twenty years, becoming an entirely new person. When he is suddenly released without explanation, he embarks on an odyssey of revenge, seeking the truth of why he was imprisoned... and why he was suddenly set free.

I originally intended to write this review without comparing the film to Chan-Wook's outstanding original. I really did. But the problem is that this film is for all intents and purposes a near shot-for-shot remake. The stories on a basic level are virtually identical outside of alterations and omissions to "Americanize" the experience. The basic structure is extremely close. And outside of the final few minutes, even the endings are pretty much the same. And as a result well, it's essentially impossible to discuss Lee's "Oldboy" without putting it up against the Chan-Wook film.

And pitting the two films against eachother? Well, it's a pretty open and shut case, sadly. Lee, his crew and the actors produced a film that, while technically watchable, is nothing more than a weaker, adulterated remix that often completely misses the point of the original.

If I were to point out the film's strengths, I will say that star Josh Brolin is well-cast as our lead. Though the material he has to work with is shaky at best, he dives in gung-ho and frequently delivers. I also didn't mind Elizabeth Olsen as our co-lead. She's always been a very likeable actress, and does fairly well with what she's given. And I'd be lying if I said director Lee doesn't occasionally deliver some solid sequences. A fight scene on a high-school football field comes to mind, as does the movie's prolonged imprisonment scene, which is almost as effective as it was in the original... almost. Though the less said about this movie's clunky attempt to recreate the one-shot hallway fight, the better.

As for the film's failings, I think a lot of the blame can be placed on writer Mark Protosevich. I'm sure he's a fan of the original movie, and was trying his hardest. But the script often feels jumbled and patchy. I understand that he was trying to retell the same basic plot while updating it for western audiences, but it just doesn't work. The movie strips out too many key elements that were gravely important to Chan-Wook's film, and it pokes the narrative full of holes. Things that made sense before in the original film no longer make sense in this remake. The movie is also very strange in how it's filled to burst with very minor, surface level changes that are all far worse than the original. It feels like Protosevich just wanted to put his fingerprints on the story, even when it didn't make sense. A good example being the infamous torture scene. In the original, it's a harrowing sequence that's hard to watch it's simple and elegant and rattles you to the bone. In the remake, it's boring and practically comical... the simple change from pulling teeth to cutting skin just isn't as interesting.

I also can't help but notice how much this film butchered the exquisite, stylized look and tone of the original film. Chan-wook's film was practically oozing with flair and originality. Color, patterns, camerawork... everything in that movie felt cool and calculated and specifically designed to give us a unique vision. But the remake? It's tonally and visually indecipherable from the vast majority of other "gritty" fare that pollutes screens in Western markets. It stinks of the bland mindset of "let's desaturate the colors and shake the camera a bit" that too many modern directors relay on. Nothing about the presentation feels unique in this take. It all feels shockingly, tragically by the books. And I can't help but ask what's the purpose of taking a powerhouse like the original "Oldboy" and making it blander and generic?

I also have to comment, as I have seen people saying they've heard the film is more "hardcore" or "violent." One review I read even went so far as to call it more "uncompromising." But that's only true on a very basic, very cosmetic surface level - as in, there's a smidge more on-screen blood in the American film and punching sound effects are a little louder. But the problem is, the violence in the American film also lacks the impact that the original had. You can throw all the blood you want on-screen but nothing in the American film comes close to being as visceral or effective as the South Korean original. That film knew exactly when to utilize violence for the benefit of the film, the story and the characters. When violence occurred in the South Korean movie, it had a purpose, and it hit hard. When something violent happens in the American film? It feels far too obvious and played out.

At the end of the day, it's really hard to defend Spike Lee's "Oldboy" remake. It's just a lamer attempt to parrot an already outstanding film, and it loses a lot in translation thanks to the poor script and shoddy execution. And it earns a sub-par 2 out of 5. While I'd have to say it's objectively at least watchable, it just doesn't do enough to justify its own existence in a world where the original movie exists.

TedStixon

Good old popcorn movies. They never go out of style! They're the perfect remedy to pop on after a long week at work or on a boring rainy afternoon. And director Luc Besson's 1997 sci-fi action/comedy epic "The Fifth Element" may just be one of the all-time greats! A film that is endlessly inventive and entertaining from the first frame to the last.

In the distant future of 2263, a dark and mysterious force emerges that threatens to destroy all life as we know it. And the only thing that can stop it is an ancient weapon that combines the elements of fire, wind, water and earth with a living being - a "fifth element" - to channel them. And that fifth element? A peculiar and beautiful alien clone called "Leeloo" (Milla Jovovich), who must team up with a special-forces-agent-turned-cab-driver (Bruce Willis), a sagely monk (Ian Holm) and a fast-talking talk-show host (Chris Tucker) to save the universe!

Even over twenty years later, "The Fifth Element' remains as refreshing and fun as it ever has been. The film benefits from a wonderful cast, a great tone and a deliciously over-the-top style that sets it apart from others that came both before and after.

There isn't enough that can be said about how wonderful Milla Jovovich is in the part of Leeloo. She is the beating heart of the film. She is fearless and charming, and can also kick some serious butt when needed. This is the film that made her a star, and she's just fabulous. Not that it takes anything away from the rest of the cast, though. Because they're just as good. Willis is a blast as usual, and he lends a lot to the proceedings. Holm brings a sense of class and dignity, and even gets some sharp comedic moments to sink his teeth into. And I know he's divisive in this film... but I friggin' love Chris Tucker as the obnoxious and hilarious Ruby Rhod. He's just a ton of fun. Special props also go to the always-reliable Gary Oldman as Zorg, one of the film's main villains. He's great in the part and brings a lot of life to the proceedings.

I also really love the tone Besson establishes in the film. There's a lot of big, archetypal ideas at play, and in lesser hands, it could have turned out much more dour. But Besson wisely injects the film with some wonderful humor and a light, breezy quality. In a way, I would almost favorably compare it to a cartoon. Albeit, a cartoon for grown-ups. It never takes itself too seriously, and has a massive fun-factor.

And then there's the style. And that's where the film really turns itself up to eleven! This is such a strange and unique film. There are so many wonderful details, eye-popping designs, wild costumes... you haven't seen anything quite like it! It's bold and vibrant and wondrous. Even sexy at times. This film is widely known for its insane visuals, and it's for a good reason. From the strange and otherworldly aliens to the hilariously revealing clothing to the vibrant pastel colors... Besson and his design team bring their A-game to the visuals. It's stunning.

"The Fifth Element" is one of the definitive popcorn movies. It's loud. It's vibrant. And it's a ton of fun! This is not only one of best popcorn flicks of the 90's. It's one of the best popcorn flicks ever made. Period. And it's an easy 5 out of 5.

TedStixon

Based loosely on the novels of Koji Suzuki, director Hideo Nakata's "Ringu" remains one of the most effective and unsettling of the J-Horror genre even twenty years after its initial release.

In this thriller, a reporter probes a mysterious string of deaths after they hit close to home. She soon comes to discover that one thing ties them all together - a treacherous video-tape from local urban legends containing haunting images and subliminal messages, that kills all who see it in seven days. After she views the tape and realises the curse is all too real, it becomes a race against time as she must try and solve the mystery of the video and the malevolent force that created it.

While the film may have been overshadowed in western markets by its bigger-budgeted American remake, the fact is the original film is absolutely phenomenal. It's a prime example of slow-burn terror that makes effective use of atmosphere and minimalistic thrills. Despite dealing with bigger-than-life supernatural forces, the film always feels grounded and intimate, and has a nice sense of realism. And it never relies on cheap tricks or jumps to scare its audiences - it simply has a consistent eerie tone of dread that permeates throughout the entire experience.

Director Nakata's deliberate visual guidance is absolutely sublime, as are the performances of our leads Nanako Matsushima and Hiroyuki Sanada. I also highly admired the sparse but unsettling musical score by Kenji Kawai. All in all, it really is just a perfect little creepshow, and all horror fans should definitely check it out!

And it easily earns a perfect 5 out of 5.

TedStixon

One of the definitive popcorn movies of the 90's, director Stephen Sommers' remake of the Universal classic "The Mummy" still stands tall as one of the most likable and engaging romps to come out in recent memory.

A team of adventurers set out in search of a legendary lost city in the Egyptian desert. Among them are an inquisitive librarian, her buffoonish brother, and a gun-slinging American acting as their guide. However, they are unaware that their journey will unleash an ancient and deadly force on the world, as they awaken... the mummy.

Reinterpreting the horror classic into an accessible and entertaining adventure, Sommers' film is very much in the same vein as classics like "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." It's big. It's fun. And it's enjoyable from start to finish. It's filled to burst with everything you could possibly want of a popcorn film - archetypal dashing heroes, slimy villains, swashbuckling fights, strong humor and of course a touch of romance.

Stars Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz make for a wonderful duet, with fantastic chemistry and very endearing performances. Especially Fraser, in what may be his finest role. Sommers direction is fun and frenzied, with strong camerawork and a good sense of tone and pace. And there's not enough that can be said about Jerry Goldsmith's lovely score. It's one I still like to pop on now and again to listen to while I work.

"The Mummy" is exactly what it sets out to be - a grand adventure for the audience to sit back and enjoy. It may not be great cinema. But what it is for certain, is great fun. It's a movie I've enjoyed watching for over twenty years now. And I imagine twenty years from now, it's one I'll still pop on now and again for fun.

And I can't help but give it a perfect 5.

TedStixon

"Hellraiser: Bloodline" is a bit of a conundrum. It seemingly has everything going against it. A director who removed his name from the film. A storyline that falls back on the old horror cliche of being set partially in space. A turbulent post-production. And yet... I actually kinda like it!

The film follows three generations of the Merchant family in three very different periods of time throughout history. And all have a very intimate relationship with the mysterious puzzle box known as the Lament Configuration. From the toymaker who first created the box in 1796, to an architect in 1996, to a space-engineer in 2127... the film follows their connection to the dark, demonic world of hell... and eventually the family's goal of destroying the treacherous cenobite known as "Pinhead."

Written by Peter Atkins, whom also worked on the scripts for the second and third film, "Bloodline" actually has a pretty interesting and novel approach when it comes to the series. Being told through a series of vignettes over time, the film certainly feels more grandiose than what came before, and it gives the movie a certain air of finality that I quite liked. And though he ultimately was credited under the dreaded "Allan Smithee" moniker, director Kevin Yagher does a pretty great job at guiding the story. The film is very well put together, with sharp compositions and a good pacing.

I also really enjoyed the cast. Bruce Ramsay leads the film in a triple-role as three members of the Merchant family, and does quite well at differentiating them from one another. He's a pretty solid actor all around, and he serves as a good protagonist to follow. Well... protagonists. Valentina Vargas is also a good bit of fun as a demonic princess who serves as a secondary antagonist in the film. She's sexy and seductive and adds some good contrast with the character of Pinhead. And as always is the case, Doug Bradley completely owns the film as that loveable monster Pinhead. He always brings a real sense of both class and menace to each film, and this movie is no different.

If I were to point out the flaws to the film, I would definitely say that the movie has some major issues with length and a somewhat weak third act. At a brisk 85 minutes, the movie really doesn't have enough breathing room to fully develop all three stories optimally. They're really intriguing, and I wish they were longer so we could spend more time getting to know these characters. This movie easily could have used another twenty... maybe even thirty minutes. And I do think the movie kinda starts to fall apart in the third act. As I understand, the movie's climax was completely reworked in reshoots, and you can definitely tell, because the ending feels rather abrupt and doesn't quite add up.

But still, for what it is... I actually really dug this movie. It never quite measures up the wonderful original, or the very solid second chapter. But it's a decent enough conclusion to the saga, while also leaving the door open for more stories to be told. I'd give it a mild recommendation, and a very serviceable 3 out of 5.

TedStixon

I feel I should open by noting that at one point in time, "Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth" was my favorite entry in the series. And that point in time? When I was about twelve years old and watched the first three movies for the first time on cable in the late 90's. Edited for content and for the allotted time, of course. But looking back now? It's a mildly entertaining mess.

A young reporter named Joey is in for the story of her life when she is drawn into a dark series of invents involving a mysterious pillar and the nefarious puzzle box known as the Lament Configuration. As it turns out, the demonic Pinhead is still very much alive, having fractured away from his former human spirit Elliot Spencer. And Joey must team up with the ghostly Spencer in order to try and vanquish Pinhead once and for all.

The most frustrating thing about the film is that, on a surface level, there's actually the seeds of a good story there. And in the hands of a different filmmaker, perhaps the film could have worked. There's some really solid ideas at play. Unfortunately, director Anthony Hickox seems like an ill fit for the "Hellraiser" sage. While he's proven himself capable with fun films like the "Waxwork" duology, his style just doesn't jive with the script. The film is way too flashy and overproduced, and lacks the deliberation and nuance such a story needs to flourish. It's very uneven, and at times feels more akin to a music video than a horror film. And it leaves the film feeling like a bit of a mess.

Additionally, the bulk of the cast feel very, well... miscast. Star Terry Farrell is objectively likable and may be easy on the eyes, but she has a weird tendency to over-act or under-act at peculiar times. It makes it hard to take her seriously. And then there's Kevin Bernhardt, who is almost deliciously awful as a vain, womanizing nightclub owner who becomes a pawn for Pinhead. Let's just say I wasn't surprised to learn that he got his start on soap operas. It's just unfortunate that he has such a big part. Honestly, the only non-returning cast-member to emerge unscathed is the underrated Paula Marshall, who has a supporting role as an almost "adorkable," insecure young woman that helps out Joey for a period of time. She's actually pretty darned solid.

Now, all that having been said, there is still some entertainment to be had. The movie has all of the trademark goo and gore you'd expect from a "Hellraiser" story, and series star Doug Bradley knocks the role of Pinhead out of the park once again. No matter what, he always puts in a very good performance. And the movie does have plenty of surface-level thrills. On a purely superficial level, it's still fun to watch. There's some good spectacle here and there, and a few nifty sequences where Hickox actually does a good job conveying mood. But it's just not enough to totally save the film in my opinion.

At the end of the day, "Hell on Earth" is easily the weakest of the theatrical "Hellraiser" films. It's good for a few laughs, but unless you're a particularly hardcore fan, I think it's one you may wanna skip. I'm giving it a sub-par but watchable 2 out of 5.

TedStixon

While it doesn't quite match its predecessor in terms of originality, director Tony Randel's "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" is in general a slick, satisfying sequel that builds off the first film and expands the mythology of the franchise.

Picking up shortly after the heart-stopping climax of the last movie, "Hellbound" once again follows protagonist Kirsty Cotton as she is pulled into a new conflict when her evil step-mother Julia is brought back from the dead by a devious doctor with ulterior motives. And this time, Kirsty will be forced to enter hell itself in order to complete her journey.

Written by Peter Atkins from a story by series creator Clive Barker, "Hellbound" for the most part does what a good sequel should - it takes familiar elements from the original and expands on them, while also taking the story in something of a new direction. It also appropriately raises the stakes and the scale in order to keep it fresh, and builds up the mythology of the setting and the characters. This includes delving into the backstory of the devilish cenobite Pinhead, who by this time was quickly turning into the series mascot.

Director Randel has a pretty sharp eye for composition and a good sense of pace, crafting a suitably grim experience that should appeal to fans of the first film. It's bleak, inky and grotesque in the way you'd expect from a "Hellraiser" film. And with the exception of only a few scenes that feel slightly hampered by odd choices, it really works for the most part.

And just as the case was in the first film, the cast is a ton of fun. Clare Higgins once again knocks her role out of the park, as other returning actors such as Ashley Laurence and Doug Bradley do very well in their parts. I also have to comment on newcomer Kenneth Cranham as the evil Dr. Channard. This guy almost gives Higgins a run for her money - he is wonderfully evil in a scenery-chewing performance that I just loved. It's a shame that neither he nor Higgins returned for any future films.

The film's faults primarily lay in the occasional sloppiness of the script, and the aforementioned sequences which feel odd and out of place. The story goes that the script had to be hastily rewritten at the last minute after a major cast member bailed, and you can kinda tell. Parts of the second and third acts feel very patchy and don't always add up. It may not be the writer's fault, but it's still a fairly sizeable issue at times. And as I said, Randel does very well for the most part, but there are a few scenes that feel sort-of out of place or abrupt, and thus don't work quite as well as they could have.

But despite those flaws, I think "Hellbound" is still fundamentally a very solid sequel. It's still mostly well-executed. The story is generally solid and interesting. The atmosphere is effective. And the cast is great all around. Is it a perfect sequel? No, not really. But is it a good, serviceable follow-up? Most definitely.

I'm giving it a very solid 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

While its reputation has been undeniably tainted by a slew of sequels of increasingly questionable quality, Clive Barker's original twisted tale of love, murder and interdimensional creatures still stands tall as one of the 1980's most unique horror films.

The film follows the Cotton family, as they are torn apart from the inside by dreadful secrets and supernatural terrors, all of which are tied to a mysterious, ornate puzzle-box that has the ability to open doors to another dimension... a dimension ruled by ruthless beings that are masters of pleasure... and pain.

Based on his own novella "The Hellbound Heart," Barker writes and directs this disturbing tale, and does so with a sense of class and deliberation. The film's structure is sound and effective, with information doled out exactly as needed, and a consistent sense of dread and urgency that grows throughout. And the general production, from the camerawork to the prosthetic makeup effects, is generally stirring and disgusting - disgusting in all the right ways, mind you.

The cast is also quite excellent, and all fit the material well. Of particular note is Clare Higgins in the movie's biggest part - a housewife who goes through a tremendous change and turns into a complete monster throughout the story. She's deliciously evil and does a fantastic job. I also will say that the adorable Ashley Laurence is well cast as what is more-or-less the film's main protagonist. She's instantly likable. And of course, there's not enough that can be said for Doug Bradley, who originates his iconic part of Pinhead in this film. There's a reason the character has become a horror icon. And Bradley eats up the part in a very strong performance.

If I were to say any negatives, it would be that the movie is sometimes flimsy, which honestly is to be expected from a film by a first-time director. There are a few directorial decisions that feel counter-intuitive, and a few sloppy moments peppered in. But they are not enough to detract from the film's overall quality.

"Hellraiser" is one of the 80's most ferociously unique and deliciously terrifying films. It's freakish. It's frightening. And it's definitely worth checking out. I'm giving it a very good 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to an even 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

As far as I am concerned, Guillermo del Toro is one of the few mainstream directors working today that I would consider a true auteur and master of his craft. His entire filmography feels intimate and even autobiographical in an abstract sense, and there's no mistaking his style nor his writing for anyone else. And perhaps nowhere is that better demonstrated than his stunningly beautiful, dark fable "The Shape of Water."

Set against the uneasy backdrop of the Cold War, the film follows the mute Elisa Esposito, whom works as a cleaner at a top secret military facility. When a startling new specimen is brought into the complex - an aquatic amphibian man - Elisa quickly becomes attached to it, and the two gradually form an unbreakable bond and a deep affection while she tries to plan for a way to release it back into the wild.

Inspired by del Toro's childhood obsession with "The Creature from the Black Lagoon," the film practically oozes with style while also piling on themes that are perhaps just as relevant today as they were in the time period in which it's set. At its core, the film is a multi-layered fairy-tale for adults about the struggles of marginalized groups, and about the prejudices they face in society. The film may not be subtle about it (del Toro rarely is subtle), but it's fantastically effective nonetheless. Every character has something that sets them apart - from Elisa's inability to speak, to her best friend's homosexuality, to her work friend being African American in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. And indeed, to the amphibian man himself, who is a different species but just as deserving of respect. And against them all is the film's adversary, a military colonel who serves as a wonderfully vile, moustache-twirling symbol of structure, conformity and oppression. Again, not subtle... but effective. The film holds a mirror up to society and challenges us to face our prejudices.

Guillermo del Toro is at the top of his game here as both director and co-writer. The script, co-written with Vanessa Taylor, is just delicious. Del Toro's films always have a certain peculiar melodramatic quality to them, and I mean that in the best of ways. As I said, the film is very much akin to a fable or fairy-tale, and this is definitely by design. The themes and ideas are big, as is the execution, and it works wonderfully. And the direction is just out of this world. This may be del Toro's strongest film from a visual perspective. I've always admired his brand of guidance, where the camera constantly moves like a snake around the scenes, and the actor's every move carefully mapped out. It's complex and satisfying to watch, and it sets him apart from others.

And the cast is just marvelous. Sally Hawkins delivers a tour-de-force performance as Elisa in a role that is extremely challenging and rewarding. I can honestly say I was blown away by her, and can't wait to see her in her next big role. Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer are phenomenal as Elisa's friends, who support her throughout the film. Especially Jenkins as a struggling artist who serves as Elisa's near constant companion. Michael Shannon is great, devilish fun as the film's antagonist. But I would be committing a crime if I didn't bring up Doug Jones as the amphibian man. He is just out of this world in the role. Not only is the character beautiful to look at, with some of the finest prosthetic makeup I've ever seen. But Jones himself is able to give him so much character through the use of body language alone. He doesn't utter a single word, and yet you can tell everything he is thinking and all of his intentions through movements and subtle nuances. As far as I'm concerned, he should have won the Oscar for Best Actor.

I could honestly gush over this film for hours. I was captivated when I saw it on the big screen. And I've watched it many times since on home video. It's a film that's worth seeing again and again. (And as a quick aside, if you own a 4K TV, I'd highly recommend the 4K UHD version of the film. It's quite a nice upgrade over the Blu-Ray).

"The Shape of Water" easily earns a perfect 5 out of 5. It's a stirring, effecting and heart-wrenching fable for these modern times, and one of director Guillermo del Toro's best films.

TedStixon

"Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" is one of those obscure little films that seemingly nobody's really heard of. And it's a shame, because it's a very fun satire and deconstruction of slasher films that horror fans will likely adore.

In this "mockumentary," a group of journalists led by a woman named Taylor Gentry follow a charming young man named Leslie Vernon... who just-so-happens to aspire to be the world's next great serial killer. Idolizing other figures such as Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers, Leslie has been gradually prepping for his first major outing as a murderer. And Taylor and her crew are there to document every step he takes, while also questioning his motives.

The real charm of this film comes from the fact that it's made by horror fans for horror fans. It's slick and very smart in its execution, and shows a vast knowledge of the tropes and cliches of the genre. In a lot of ways, it follows in the foot-steps of other self-aware horror satires like "Scream," and does so in the best of ways. It's a lot of fun to see Leslie prepping for all of the different circumstances and making sure to check off all the conventions we're used to as an audience - the virgin survivor, the couple who get killed during some hanky-panky, etc. I was particularly tickled by Leslie's excitement over the appearance of a "Dr. Loomis"-like character he refers to as his "Ahab."

And the cast is just phenomenal. Nathan Baesel is endlessly likable as our titular lead character, and you'll quickly find yourself rooting for him despite his evil deeds thanks to his non-stop optimism and drive to succeed. Angela Goethals is also a great deal of fun as Taylor, the journalist in charge of following Leslie's case. She lends a sense of class and helps keep the film grounded. I absolutely adored Scott Wilson in a small part as Leslie's mentor figure. And there's even some really fun supporting parts played by horror royalty, including a cameo by Zelda Rubinstein and a very entertaining recurring character - the aforementioned "Ahab" - played by Robert "Freddy Krueger" Englund.

I'd definitely give this film a high recommendation for horror fans. While I will say it can occasionally drag and that its low budget does show, the fact is it's cleverly written, sharply executed and has a fantastic cast tying it all together. And I'm giving it a very good 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

For me, "XXX" is one of those guilty-pleasure movies that you know is preposterous... but you can't help but enjoy every silly second of it. I always got a kick out of it, and if it's on TV, chances are I'll watch it.

Admittedly, it doesn't hurt that I was the optimal age for this sort-of film when it first came out. I was a 14-year-old dope who lived off cheesy action-movies, "Tony Hawk Pro Skater" video-games and reruns of "Jackass." I was pretty much the perfect target audience and ate this film right up. So no matter what, it's always gonna be a little nostalgic for me.

Vin Diesel stars as Xander Cage or "XXX," an adrenaline junkie who is drafted into becoming a new breed of secret agent by the government. His mission? To stop a rouge terrorist group known as "Anarchy 99" from unleashing a deadly chemical weapon. And he must use his unique set of "skills" to stop them.

At its best moments, the movie is still quite entertaining, and delivers a slew of gleefully ridiculous action scenes. A sequence where Xander must escape from a drug cartel's plantation during a siege comes to mind as a highlight. As does a wonderfully silly scene where Xander triggers an avalanche that he must out-race on a snowboard. This is a movie that exists purely to deliver a series of increasingly over-the-top action set-pieces and in that respect, it works quite well. I also can't help but enjoy the majority of the cast. Vin Diesel will never be a great actor, but he's infinitely likable. Asia Argento is quite appealing as Xander's version of the iconic "Bond Girl." And of course there's good old Samuel L. Jackson, who's never anything less fantastic.

Where the movie falls apart... is pretty much everything else. The movie is essentially a string of cheesy cliches. When a movie starts with a character stealing a computer-chip with vital information (which had been a played-out cliche for years before this movie was released), you know what you're in for plot-wise. It pretty much a perfect example of hack-writing. I also can't help but notice that the movie feels incredibly dated. This feels like a product of its time thanks to all the "extreme sports" references, musical choices, and even the general style. And I could see it being hard for modern audiences to connect with it - especially younger viewers who may not have been around when it first came out.

But like I said, this is a movie about dumb action scenes being performed by a likable lead. And in that respect, it kinda, sorta works.

As it stands, the movie is at best a 2 out of 5 when it comes to the quality of the writing, direction, etc. But in terms of pure entertainment value, it's an easy 4 out of 5. So I'm putting them together and giving it an averaged out score of 3. If you like your action movies with extra cheese (and maybe a little early-2000's nostalgia), it's still worth seeing.

TedStixon

The belated eighth installment of the "Saw" film series, "Jigsaw" is a bit of a conundrum in the overall franchise. It's arguably the most polished of the series, and it benefits from strong visuals and likable characters. But at the same time, it just feels like more of the same. As a fan, I was ultimately satisfied... but I wasn't wowed like I was with some of the earlier installments. It's a mostly solid sequel, and nothing more. 3 out of 5.

TedStixon

As a longtime fan of the "Saw" film series, "Saw 3D" was a heartbreaking failure on initial release. So much hype had been built up about this supposed "final chapter," and the film failed to live up to even a modicum of it. It's a messy, over-produced and under-written affair that feels more akin to bad fan-fiction than anything else. Oh, and the 3D sucked. 1 out of 5.

TedStixon