V: The Original Miniseries (1983) and V: The Final Battle (1984) -

V: The Original Miniseries (1983) & V: The Final Battle (1984)
Creator: Kenneth Johnson
Directors: Kenneth Johnson (Original Miniseries), Richard T. Heffron (Final Battle)
Writers: Kenneth Johnson (Original Miniseries and Final Battle), Craig Buck (Final Battle), Diane Frolov (Final Battle), Peggy Goldman (Final Battle), Brian Taggert (Final Battle)
Starring: Marc Singer, Faye Grant, Michael Ironside, Mickey Jones, Thomas Hill, Michael Durrell, David Packer, Neva Patterson, Blair Tefkin, Michael Wright, Jason Bernard, Jenny Sullivan, Diane Civita, Denise Galik, Sandy Simpson, Eric Johnston, Jenny Beck, Jane Badler, Sarah Douglas, Richard Herd, Andrew Prine, Frank Ashmore, Robert Englund, Peter Nelson

Up until last weekend I had never seen V: The Original Miniseries (1983) or V: The Final Battle (1984). I had heard that it was a good miniseries but since I knew the major plot developments I didn't think there was any real reason for me to watch. I also assumed that it would just be cheesy '80s sci-fi with no real substance. However, when Syfy ran both miniseries in their entirety last Sunday I decided it was time to finally give it a shot. I was actually very surprised by how good it was. There were a lot of sociopolitical aspects to the miniseries that I had not expected. Before watching it I had expected that I would get bored by it and not finish it but I ended up watching all ten hours and, for the most part, really enjoying it.

Of the two, The Original Miniseries is far superior to The Final Battle but they both have entertainment value and are worth seeing. I don't know if I'd recommend sitting through all ten hours in one sitting though. Breaking it up a bit might be a good idea.

As most people know The Original Miniseries begins with very human looking aliens (called Visitors) coming to earth promising to help us make our world a better place. It does not take long though for their true intentions (and appearances) to become known to the world, even if many in the world choose to ignore it. Soon, in a rise to power that mirrors the Nazi take over of Germany, the Visitors have taken control of the whole planet and begin to suck it dry of all its vital resources.

Science Fiction is always at its best when it manages to have a real world message hidden in the story. You may not be able to get people to sit through a miniseries about the Nazi's taking over Germany but you can teach them the same lesson by turning that story into science fiction and replacing the Nazis with alien lizards. For the most part this is a story about how history will continue to repeat itself if we do not learn from it. And if their is one thing humans have a hard time doing, it is learning from history.

The miniseries also touches on issues of tolerance and racism. The Visitors are not your typical 2 dimensional villain. They are not just a race of bad people doing bad things. There are some that are bad, there are some that are good and then there are some that are just following orders. Having some of the Visitors as good characters gives the human characters a chance to look at their own prejudices and hopefully learn something about themselves.

For the most part the acting and the writing are all done very well. There probably aren't any Oscar worthy performances in here but there were no really bad performances either. The actors played their parts well enough to be believable and that is good enough. I do have to take a moment to mention Robert Englund though. It was so strange to see him in this because the character he plays is so naive and innocent and it is hard to see him going on to later play Freddy Krueger. Until watching this I had never seen him play a character that was actually a good guy and he does it so well.

For the time that the miniseries was made the special effects were also pretty good. By today's standards some of them look kind of fake but they manage to hold up enough to not be as laughable as some special effects from the same time would be. The makeup effects still hold up rather effectively in my opinion though. Anytime skin is ripped to reveal the reptile underneath, it looks fairly realistic. It certainly isn't perfect but it doesn't look anywhere as outdated as you would expect.

As abundant as the social commentary was in The Original Miniseries, The Final Battle seemed to drop most of that in favor of more and bigger action sequences. The writing and the storytelling also started to get much sloppier. The Final Battle mostly consisted of characters getting captured and then getting rescued. This scenario was repeated a few times during the three episodes of that miniseries and honestly it got a little repetitive and went on just a tad bit too long. And to be quite honest, the ending of the series doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.

Now, even though commentary is not the main focus of The Final Battle, it does manage to have a few things to say here and there. Since this part of the story focuses mostly on the resistance fighting The Visitors, there are several human characters in the film that are quite willing to sell out there own people just so they can live a little bit more comfortably. With people helping The Visitors we get a good look at just how far people will go when they are given a little taste of power.

Overall i would say that I really enjoyed the entire V miniseries. The Final Battle was certainly not a great conclusion to The Original Miniseries but it was still enjoyable to watch. If they had cut The Final Battle down to two episodes instead of three and cut out the part at the end with the sparkling little girl it probably could have been a lot better. I am certainly glad that I finally took the time to watch the series though. It was far better than I ever expected it to be.

Rating V: The Original Miniseries (1983): 8/10


Rating V: The Final Battle (1984): 6/10


...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Nosferatu (1922) - F.W. Murnau - live music performed by Silent Orchestra

Nosferatu (1922)
Director: F.W. Murnau
Writer: Henrik Galeen (Screenplay), Bram Stoker (Novel)
Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder, Alexander Granach, Georg H. Schnell, Ruth Landshoff, John Gottowt, Gustav Botz

I've said it before and I will probably say it again but one of the things I love about living in Washington D.C. is the number of great movies that I get a chance to see on the big screen. Every year around Halloween the AFI Silver Theater in Silver Spring, MD has a showing of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922). What makes this show really awesome though, is that it is done with live musical accompaniment performed by Silent Orchestra.

Now I really want to sing the praises of Silent Orchestra because they provided an amazing musical score but I want to start with my feelings on the film. I promise to tell you all about the musical score (and where you can listen to it) by the end of the review. Trust me, I would never leave my loyal readers hanging.

By today's standards Nosferatu (1922) is not really what you would call a "scary" film (If Shaw Girl can sit through it then it isn't scary, love you babe). However, the film does have a rather haunting atmosphere and the character of Count Orlok is sufficiently creepy. In this film F.W. Murnau managed to create a number of scenes that have been seared into film history as some of the earliest (and eeriest) images of horror put on film. The parts in the film where the audience is just shown the shadow of Orlok are just amazing. The image of his shadow climbing the stairs and the opening the door to Ellen's room is one most memorable images from era of German Expressionism. The way the shadow makes his limbs look even longer than they normally appear in the film give that moment such a disorienting feeling.

The story itself (an unauthorized adaption of Bram Stoker's Dracula) is very well told although a bit different than the source material. It is obviously shortened to fit into the length of the film but the essence of the story is still there. The characters, although a bit over the top at points, are portrayed well and for the most part faithful the to story. Even if in some instances multiple characters are combined into one or removed altogether for the sake of timing. The character of Van Helsing (Professor Bulwer in this version) does seem a bit less important in this version of the story than in others though.

The character of Count Orlok is quite a different vampire than what a modern audience is probably used to. Count Orlok has a very demon like appearance in this film. To be perfectly blunt, he is rather ugly. He has long fingers with sharp nails. He has a bald head with pointed nose, ears and chin. He is not the handsome, suave Dracula that has been portrayed in later incarnations of the character. While I also love Bela Lugosi's version of Dracula I think that Max Shreck does an amazing job creating a very memorable and scary version of the character.

Now, as promised, I have to talk about the amazing musical score that was provided live by Silent Orchestra. They manage to create a musical score that not only fits well with the film but also works for the time period in which the film would have been shown. They provide so much more than your typical piano score that is heard with most silent films. They embellish the score with sounds that probably would not have been used when the film was first played in the 1920s, however these sounds do not feel out of place at all (Not at all like the time I saw Laugh, Clown, Laugh (1928) and the musical accompaniment consisted of Beatles tunes). Everything about the score works perfectly with the film and being able to hear it live is an amazing way to see the film.

If you would like to hear the score that Silent Orchestra provided it can be found on the Image Entertainment DVD of Nosferatu. I highly recommend picking up the DVD if you are a fan of the film. However, if you are in the Washington D.C. area then you should check out the show that the AFI Silver Theater does every Halloween. You'll have to wait until next year for that but now that you know about it you have no excuse not to go. (By the way, I swear I am not a shill for the AFI. I just love seeing movies at that theater and I think everyone should experience it.)

Rating: 8/10

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Alien (1979) - Ridley Scott

Alien (1979)
Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Dan O'Bannon (Story & Screenplay), Ronald Shusett (Story)
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Yaphet Kotto, Bolaji Badejo

It should come as no surprise to anyone that reads this blog that I am a movie fan. I am also a fan of movie theaters. Even with the advent of really good home theater systems I still think that nothing beats seeing a great film with an audience in a theater. That is how movies were designed to be seen and it really is the best way to see them. Of course this is all assuming you can find a really good theater that isn't overrun by rowdy teenagers. Luckily I live pretty close the AFI Silver Theater and the E-Street Landmark Theater. Both of which tend to show films that don't draw in the rowdy crowd.

Why, you may ask, am I talking about my love of movie theaters in what should be a review of Ridley Scott's suspense masterpiece Alien (1979)? That would be because the AFI Silver recently showed a screening of Alien and it really is one of those movies that works best on the big screen. It is one of those films that creates such a great atmosphere that it just doesn't feel the same watching it in your living room, no matter how great your TV and sound system are. The film also has such a unique visual style and seeing it on that giant theater screen really makes that style shine.

Alien is arguably one of the best horror/suspense films ever made. Everything that happens in the film is designed to build up the tension. From the claustrophobic settings, the eerie set design, the slow reveal of the actual alien, and our heroine in Sigourney Weaver, everything about the film just works great. Ridley Scott doesn't waste his time with cheap scares that most horror movies use (ok, so there are a few jump scares but they never come across as cheap). He slowly builds the tension in the film until everything hits a boiling point and all hell breaks loose.

The designs of the the alien environments in the film and the alien itself are simply some of the most amazing science fiction designs ever created. HR Giger created an extremely terrifying looking alien that managed to become a cultural icon. His designs for all the alien environments gave them a perfect other world quality. Everything looked very alien and strange but still seemed to have a realistic design with real purpose in mind. It didn't seem like it was just thrown together to look cool. It just managed to look cool while still looking like it could be an alien environment that actually exists.

Because of how great the set designs are, the film manages to avoid another trap that most science fiction films fall into. After 30 years, Alien still manages to have and interesting look to it. While there are some minor things that look dated (computer interfaces and such) the film as a whole has aged very well. The film makers put enough thought into their set designs that there aren't many things in the film that make it obvious that it was made in the late '70s.

On top of the tension and the great set and creature designs the film also works because of how well the actors work together in the film. Everyone in the film plays their role perfectly and they work together well enough that they seem like a crew that has been together for a long time. This really helps to create a feeling of realism in the film which just helps to add to the tension. The film manages to also create what would become one of the best action heroines in film history. Sigourney Weaver played Ripley in a total of four Alien films and she managed to be a complete bad ass in all of them. She created a very strong female action heroine and avoided many of the cliches that normally come with that.

There tends to be a lot of debate when it comes to this movie and its sequel, James Cameron's Aliens (1986). Many people find the sequel to be the better of the two films while many others believe that you can't beat the original. I fall into the camp of people that prefer the original film. While Aliens is a really good action film it can't hold an candle to the atmosphere that Ridley Scott was able to create in Alien. Personally I can find something to like in all the films of the Alien franchise (excluding those Alien vs Predator movies) but none of them even come close to touching the greatness that is the original Alien.

Rating: 10/10

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006) - Scott Glosserman

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)
Director: Scott Glosserman
Writers: Scott Glosserman, David J. Stieve
Starring: Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethals, Robert Englund, Scott Wilson, Zelda Rubinstein, Bridgett Newton, Kate Lang Johnson, Ben Pace, Britain Spellings, Hart Turner, Krissy Carlson, Travis Zariwny, Kane Hodder

I had heard some pretty mixed things about Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006) so I put off seeing it for quite some time. The premise of a documentary film crew following around a serial killer like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger sounds like one of those things that could turn out really bad if not executed just right. In the end Behind the Mask does more right than it does wrong and turns out to be a pretty interesting take on the horror genre.

What the movie does best is completely deconstruct the horror/slasher movie genre. It picks apart the conventions that have existed in every slasher movie since they have started. Why does the killer stalk and kill these kids? Why do the kids in these movies act the way they do? This movie follows the killer around through-out his preparations for his killing spree and we find out just why the killer always has the upper hand in these movies.

However, we also see what happens when all the careful planning on the part of the killer goes all wrong. The movie takes itself completely seriously during all of this though and I think that is one of the things that pretty much makes it work. Even though the film takes itself so seriously there is also quite a bit of humor in the movie. However, most of the humor seems to stem from just how serious everyone in the film is about everything that seems so ridiculous to someone who has been watching horror movies for years.

The character of Leslie Vernon is one of the things that makes the movie really work though. He is an interesting character and he is able to draw in the audience. He doesn't come across as just some 2-bit, 2-dimensional, copy-cat serial killer. He has a good back story (some real, some made up) and truly seems to believe in what he is doing. I think that is probably the best part of the character, he doesn't see anything wrong with what he is doing. It seems as if he thinks that he is providing a service to the world by killing off these teenagers.

Now the one thing that didn't really work for me in the movie was the documentary approach. Well the documentary approach does work for the most part but the director chose to not stick with that style through the entire film. There is a lot of inconsistency in the movie with the documentary style. Early in the film the documentary style is dropped completely when Leslie Vernon is attempting his first kill. Later in the film when Leslie makes another kill the documentary crew stays behind and this time we get everything from their point of view instead of seeing what Leslie is doing.

The jumps between documentary and dramatic styles of filming didn't really make a lot of sense and brought the movie down for me a little bit. I can understand why the film makers chose to do this but it brought me out of the film every time the point of view changed. I honestly would have liked the movie a lot better and found it a lot more clever if the film makers had used the documentary style for the whole film. I am sure they could have found a clever way to still show most of the things that they showed.

Overall I did really enjoy the film though. It did a great job of pointing out why people still love horror movies in spite of a lot of the flaws that most of them have. While this film does point out all those flaws and cliches, it also seems to revel in them just the same. It understands that we think it is completely stupid for the heroine to run up stairs instead of out of the house but that we still want to see her do it. We want to see the killer chase her around and we don't want it to end quickly, there is just no fun in that. We, as fans, need the people in horror movies to make the occasional stupid decision or else most of these movies would be over before they started. In the end the only real problem I had with it was the inconsistency with the style but that didn't completely stop me from enjoying the movie.

Rating: 7/10

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Eh... The Movie was Better II: 2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) tends to be a pretty polarizing film. Just mosey on over to the IMDB message boards and you'll see how much discussion the film generates. Of course some of this discussion tends to devolve into one person saying the film sucks and then another person telling them that they are an idiot and just don't understand great cinema. While I love the film I am not one to insult someone that doesn't like the movie.

Now, I bring up the arguments that this film generates for a reason. Sometimes these arguments will end with someone telling the person that didn't understand the movie that they should read the book. Arthur C. Clarke chose to explain a lot more in the book than Stanley Kubrick did in the movie so reading the book would therefore make the movie easier to understand. This will ultimately lead to someone saying that if the movie were any good then you wouldn't need to read the book to understand.

While I somewhat understand this point of view, I think it is doing a great disservice to the film to say that you have to read the book to really understand the film. In my opinion 2001: A Space Odyssey very easily stands on its own as a great film and needs no more explanation than what Kubrick chose to give. In fact for many years I specifically avoided the book because I didn't want that to color my interpretation of the film.

I finally broke down and read the book... well I listened to the audio book (I need something to do during my commute to work). The book does indeed go into a lot more detail than the movie does. I don't think it tells the reader much that can not be inferred from watching the film. The film chooses not to lay everything out on a platter for you and assumes that you will be intelligent enough to figure some things out for yourself.

While the book is certainly an intelligent piece of science fiction, I would say that it explains just a bit to much. I felt that having a complete explanation for where the monoliths came from detracted quite a bit from the story. I thought the film gives a pretty good idea of the purpose of the monoliths without giving a complete history of the civilization that left them for us to find. While I guess I can understand why someone might like having that gap filled in, I personally like having it left open to interpretation. While I had never given much thought to the entire history of the aliens that left the monoliths, I believe that the film does give enough information for the reasons behind the monoliths to be figured out by a viewer that is paying attention.

The book also goes into a bit more detail when it comes to reasons for HAL's malfunction. In fact the book comes right out and gives a entire explanation for why HAL went against his programming and starting killing off the astronauts aboard the Discovery space craft. However, again this is another thing that doesn't really need to be told to the reader. Honestly I prefer not having a full explanation because it allows you to come up with your own theories about HAL. Some of the best discussions I have seen about this film have been about why HAL chose kill the crew of the Discovery.

Both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had said that one of their intentions when creating 2001 was to create a story that would ask more questions than it answers. While I do believe that both version of the story to succeed in this goal, I think that Kubrick's film was much more successful at this than Clarke's novel was.

Now, I do not necessarily fault Arthur C. Clarke for giving explanations for things that were left ambiguous in the film. Of course a novel is always going to be more detailed than a film, it is just the nature of those two mediums. I just find that the things Kubrick left out really helped add a nice sense of mystery and intrigue to the story. While most of what is missing can be inferred by someone that is paying attention to the film, I like the fact that it is still up to me to fill in these gaps.

Adding these details to the film would have just led to unnecessary verbal exposition and one of the things I love about this film is just how visual the story telling really is. Visual story telling is something that has been missing from film for quite sometime. Filmmakers tell us everything we need to know through dialog instead of actually using the visual nature of film to show us these things. I always enjoy a movie that expects its viewers to actually pay attention to what is going on and act as more than just a passive viewer. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those films that you must allow yourself to become fully absorbed in before you can really enjoy it.

I believe that when it comes down to it the film version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is just a more memorable experience than the novel. Seeing the film in at theater a couple years back is one of my most memorable movie going experiences of my life. While I enjoyed reading the book, I don't feel that it is going to stay with me the way that the movie has. The film is one of the most beautiful things ever put on celluloid and is often listed as one of the best movies of all time. While Clarke's novel is good and a interesting read, it doesn't even come close to being one of the best science fiction novels of all time. Clarke is a very talented writer but when it comes to this story the film version is what is going to be best remembered.

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Frankenstein Blog-a-thon: Closing Thoughts

Over the course of the past two months I have watched a total of eleven films based on Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. They all had very different ways of bringing the story to life with some varying degrees of success. I've quite enjoyed seeing all these different versions of the story and even though there are still more Frankenstein movies that I have not seen, I feel that it is time to bring this Blog-a-thon to a close. Honestly, as much as I love the story I think I have burned myself out on Frankenstein for now.

It didn't really surprise me that my favorite of the bunch was Frankenstein (1931). It is a very well made movie and Boris Karloff is great as the creature. Bride of Frankenstein (1935) follows behind at a close second. I know a lot of people actually prefer Bride but to me it added some unneeded camp that actually detracted from the story in my opinion. It did however manage to have a lot of heart and add some interesting elements to the story.

I would say that Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969) was probably the most unique of the Frankenstein movies that I watched. It took a very different approach to the story in that there was no actual creature and the story focused more on Victor Frankenstein. While I wouldn't rank it as one of my favorite Frankenstein films, I appreciate the unique approach that it took. It managed to keep a lot of the feelings and themes of the story in tact even though it vastly changed the plot. I guess in the end it is more of a sequel to the known story of Frankenstein than it is an adaptation and in that way it works very well.

I would say the biggest surprise of this Blog-a-thon came from 1992 Frankenstein TV movie starring Randy Quaid. While this was not actually a very good version of the story it did a couple things that really impressed me. First, Randy Quaid was incredible as the creature. In my opinion he gave an even better performance than Robert Deniro. The other interesting thing this version managed was to create a unique method for the creation of the creature. The creation method employed by Victor Frankenstein had not changed much since the 1931 version of the film but this version managed to take a chance and do something unique and interesting.

I think the most disappointing version I watched was Frankenstein: The True Story (1973). I had kind of assumed from the title that it would follow the book more closely than the versions that had preceded it. This version ended up taking just as many liberties with the stories as every version that had come before it though. The only difference here was that the changes made to the story in this version were not at all interesting. Overall it was just a very boring telling of the story. It wasn't quite as bad as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) but then that one was never meant to be a serious attempt to adapt the story.

There are still a few more versions of Frankenstein that I need to see. Eventually I would like to see the rest of the films in the Hammer Frankenstein series. Andy Worhal's Flesh For Frankenstein (1973) is also on my list of Frankenstein movies to eventually see. The Bride (1985) starring Sting was also recommended to me and I will hopefully get around to watching it as well. There was also a TV movie based on Dean Koontz's Frankenstein novels starring Parker Posey that I would like to watch as well. In that case though, I may try to read the books first and see how they are.

Also, while doing my research for different films to watch during this blog-a-thon I ran across rumors of two Frankenstein remakes in the works. It seems that both Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are on the list of films to be remade. Any news out there about these movies is strictly rumor so there isn't much to report on them. However, I did find one of these rumors to be very interesting. Apparently Guillermo del Toro is interested in putting his stamp on the story of Frankenstein. I would actually be quite interested to see what he does with the story. He has a unique visual style that I think would be great and he seems like the kind of director that could put his own interesting spin on the story.

I've really enjoyed watching these films and writing about them for this blog-a-thon. It was the first time that I really put a lot of long-term effort into creating something for my blog and I think it turned out really well. I was really glad to see that I got a pretty good response and that has made me want to do another blog-a-thon at some point in the future. I'll just have to think of another topic that would be as awesome as Frankenstein.

So, thank you all my wonderful readers for checking out the Frankenstein Blog-a-thon. I hope that now that it is over you will still stick around and see what else I have to say about other films.

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>

Frankenstein (2004 - Hallmark Miniseries) - Kevin Connor

Frankenstein (2004 - Hallmark Miniseries)
Director: Kevin Connor
Writers: Mary Shelley (Novel), Mark Kruger (Teleplay)
Starring: Luke Goss, Alec Newman, Julie Delpy, Nicole Lewis, Monika Hilmerová, Donald Sutherland, William Hurt

Over the past couple months I have watched a whole lot of Frankenstein films. The Frankenstein Hallmark Miniseries (2004) is the last one on my list for my Frankenstein blog-a-thon and is probably the one to most closely follows the story told in Mary Shelley's novel. It seems that great care was taken to adapt the novel as faithfully as possible. However, as we've learned with most Frankenstein movies before this, following the story from the book does not always make the best movie.

This is definitely not a bad version of the story but honestly it isn't anything special either. The acting, directing, set design and writing are all passable but there isn't anything that makes them stand out above any other Frankenstein film. I enjoyed it while I was watching it but I really have no desire to ever revisit the film.

While the film isn't really bad, the one thing that kind of makes it hard to enjoy is the long running time. This was originally aired as a television miniseries and after awhile it just starts to get kind of dull. Towards the end of the film I found that even though most of the acting and the story were passable, they were only passable for so long. There wasn't really enough here to carry a movie of over 200 minutes.

There isn't really a whole lot to complain about in the film but there also isn't really much to praise either. It is one of the films that sits right in the middle; It isn't bad, it isn't good... it just is. Because of that this is probably going to be a pretty short review. I will say that for a TV movie it handles most things better the 1992 version starring Randy Quaid. However Randy Quaid made a much better monster than Luke Goss.

While I found the acting from Luke Goss to be just fine in the film I didn't much care of this portrayal of the creature. I understand that in this version of the film they were trying show that the creature is not really a monster but is gentle and kind. I think they went to far with this though. One of the problems was that they didn't make the creature at all monstrous looking. This is a problem when people are supposed to be shunning the creature because of how different and ugly he looks. The creature just looks far too normal for it to be believable when people start running away from him for no other reason than his appearance.

"Oh no! Run a away! Its a tall guy with blotchy skin and long hair!"

The creature also seems to become articulate must faster in this version of the story than in any other. His transition from a creature with no idea of who he is or where he came from to an intelligent creature isn't really fleshed out enough in my opinion. This is kind of disappointing because of how long the film is. It seems they could have taken a lot more time to flesh out this part of the story.

When it comes down it this is a okay version of the story but there isn't really much to it. I am not sorry I sat down to watch it but I don't see myself ever sitting down to watch it again. In the end most of the film is just rather forgettable and that could probably be one of the other reasons that this review is running so short. If the movie just isn't that memorable it is going to be hard to find any to really write about.

Rating: 5/10

...Click Here to Continue Reading This Post >>>