Recent Topics

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 15, 2024, 09:39:33 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Members
  • Total Members: 54
  • Latest: zappman
Stats
  • Total Posts: 111911
  • Total Topics: 4497
  • Online Today: 157
  • Online Ever: 323
  • (January 11, 2020, 10:23:09 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 122
Total: 122

Member's Reviews

Blade: Trinity, a review by RossRoy


Blade: Trinity
 
Original Title: Blade: Trinity
Year: 2004
Country: United States
Director: David S. Goyer
Rating: R
Length: 122 Min.
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1
Audio: English: Dolby Digital Surround EX, English: DTS ES (Matrixed), French: Dolby Digital 5.1, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo, Commentary: Dolby Digital Stereo
Subtitles: English, Spanish

What they say
Blade (Wesley Snipes) returns as the ultimate vampire hunter in the explosive third and final film, Blade: Trinity. For years, Blade has fought against the vampires in the cover of the night. But now, after falling into the crosshairs of the FBI, he is forced out into the daylight, where he is driven to join forces with a clan of human vampire hunters he never knew existed - The Nightstalkers. Together with Abigail (Jessica Biel) and Hannibal (Ryan Reynolds), two deftly trained Nightstalkers, Blade follows a trail of blood to the ancient creature that is also hunting him, the original vampire, Dracula.

My Thoughts
And this is the conclusion to the trilogy. Again, they play on the superhero side of Blade, which I already I like. Having Dracula in there as the first pureblood was a nice touch, and I like his true form! Kind of explaining the mutations seen in Blade 2.

As usual, it's a rather simple story, and they don't try to overdo it. It's an Action-Horror movie, and they stick to it. They're not trying to get a big emotional response (well, a little with Zoe (the little girl), but nothing too serious), it's just action for the sake of action. And I like it like that.

I found Ryan Reynolds a little annoying as Hannibal King, but I'm guessing it's the way the character is written that I don't like, more than him in particular. Jessica Biel is, as always, her incredibly sexy self as Abigail Whistler.

Rating:

(From RossRoy's Random Viewings on October 8th, 2008)

Member's Reviews

Foreign Correspondent, a review by Jon


Foreign Correspondent (1940)
4 out of 5




An impressionable, but passionate American newspaper reporter (Joel McCrea) is sent on assignment to Europe, to get a real story about rumours of war. In London he meets representatives of a peace organisation, and is soon drawn into a kidnapping conspiracy.

Foreign Correspondent, Hitchcock's first proper American film, is easier to describe as an early version of North By Northwest (coming soon, to a thread near you! ;D). At heart it is a breezy spy caper, huge in ambition and jet-setting across several locations. And I hate to bang on about it, but if Fleming was inspired by Secret Agent, he must have been absolutely convinced by this. The plot could easily be used as a Bond story.

It's notable for being Hitchcock's biggest film so far. He really lets loose with his new American producers and the difference in scope from previous pictures suggests he was pushing himself. The joy being that it never feels like he's over-reaching, in fact it often has the wonderful sense that the screen isn't big enough! An Amsterdam sequence in particular is superb, moving from a wonderfully composed scene of umbrellas and trams into a thrilling chase, ending in a huge windmill and the end set-piece in a plane is a true thrill ride with yet another excellent use of models, way ahead of its time. It's much more exciting than a lot of modern action films, because Hitchcock still understood the importance of suspense, even when moving fast.

It does flag in the middle with a silly sub-plot that kills the pace (although it does give more screen time to the brilliant George Sanders) and I was especially disappointed because it fell into the trap of my pet hate of American movies from this era: marriage proposals. It hamstrings every film it happens in! The barest suggestion of attraction must be validated by marriage. Within seconds of Joel McCrea and Laraine Day admitting mutual affection, they're discussing a honeymoon. Ridiculous considering the plot they were mixed up in. It has to be the Hays Office ramming this moral crap down American throats and I can only assume that in a rare moment Hitchcock was caught out by the rules, or realising he must toe the line to get the resources he came to Hollywood for in the first place. For a while the film seriously suffers because of it.

I've enjoyed Joel McCrea from the wonderful Preston Sturges movies, like Sullivan's Travels, and here he was very funny (the hat sequences are especially good), if a bit too dumb, even though that was the point. An American who can deal very well with what is right in front of him, but is ignorant of the bigger picture would be a political metaphor about America's flawed "wait and see" attitude at the beginning of World War II, just as much as the Europeans who are shown to work in shadowy corners, suspicious of each other and even unable to share languages, allowing themselves to be overrun.

In that sense, this is an astonishing film. Considering that it was directed by an Englishman in 1939, who must have felt real pain at what was happening back home, it is humble and focused, while still being masses of fun and aggresive in its set-pieces. It's always exciting, but there is a definite change of mood when war is announced. Heroes and villains alike still have their plotlines to run, but now they do so with grim resignation that their efforts mounted to nothing. Also, it's interesting that Hitchcock refuses to slip into an easy good versus evil commentary. The final scenes will really make you think, even while a torture scene will make you squirm (despite it not being on-screen!). And the very last moments sent a shiver down my spine. I hope it did so to a few people at the time.

This should be a five star Oscar winner, but that bloated middle section derails it. But it's still a better film and a far more important film than Rebecca. That got its Oscar for playing safe and not upsetting anyones naive political motives. Rebecca is still a great film, but not a Hitchcock film.

Alternative review: "A masterpiece of propaganda, a first-class production which no doubt will make a certain impression upon the broad masses of the people in enemy countries." Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

:laugh:

(From Alfred Hitchcock Marathon on May 22nd, 2009)

Member's TV Reviews

Angel Marathon, a review by addicted2dvd


Angel: Season 3

15. Loyalty
Original Air Date: 2/25/2002
As Fred and Gunn try to juggle their personal and work relationships, Wesley uncovers more information about the prophecy and approaches Holtz in hopes of preventing it.

Guest Stars:
Stephanie Romanov
Laurel Holloman
Jack Conley
Wendy Davis
Keith Szarabajka

My Thoughts:
A good episode that brings the storyline further. Even though it is beyond silly... I had to laugh at Wesley talking to the big hamburger.

My Rating:

(From Angel Marathon on March 14th, 2010)