October is almost here ...

October, being the month of Halloween, kicks off a time I like to celebrate by finding new horror movies, and watching the old classics.

Please share your favorites :)

Happy Birthday: Naomi Watts, Mira Sorvino, Jeffrey Jones, Brigette Bardot

Naomi Watts- my favorite of hers is Eastern Promises..Mulholland Dr a close 2nd

Mira Sorvino- my favorite is Romy & Michelle's H.S. Reunion

Jeffrey Jones- the obvious choice is Ferris Bueller, but had a good part in Sleepy Hollow

Brigette Bardot- the french Marilyn Monroe, who brought men to the movie theaters on her sex-appeal alone...check out some old pics, or her movies sometime

Bob's preview: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The American version of Stieg Larrson's novel will be release on 12/21/11.  
I don't know how to feel about this one.  On the one hand, I'm getting sick and tired of Hollywood making watered down and/or intellectually devoid versions of foreign films.  I'm still a little mad about how bad "The Grudge" was (American version of Ju-On.)  The American version of "Shutter" was pretty sorry, too.  
On the other hand, David Fincher is directing, and I've been a fan of his ever since "Se7en."  And Daniel Craig is playing Blomkvist, and he is a good actor.  And, okay, "The Ring" was a good movie, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.


James thoughts:
My brother makes multiple good points, some of which we have both touched on in the past : Hollywood needs to leave good international cinema alone.  However, I agree that Fincher is a good director and his work is getting better and better (just read his filmography after Alien3), plus I like Daniel Craig and almost all of the supporting cast I have seen in prior films; Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Christopher Plummer, Steven Berkoff - to name a few. 
I am going to attempt to catch this one in the theaters around the holidays, my initial feeling about this one is good.  Check out the trailers.


trailer 1: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1464638745/
trailer 2 : http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3830160409/


   

Happy Birthday: Gwyneth Paltrow & Meat Loaf

Gwyneth - fav role is in Se7en
Meat Loaf- fav role in Leap of Faith

Bob, why do you like silent films? Well…

The obvious reason I like silent movies is because this is where the art of film making began. There were no standards or templates to use in making a movie, so the film makers of the time were pretty much on their own in creating works of art. I’ve praised filmmakers before on making great movies using imagination and limited budgets. Most silent films embody this quality. And, if the filmmakers of the time treated the medium of motion picture as a gimmick and did not take the art form as seriously as they did, it is doubtful that movies and television would be what they are today, or if they would even exist at all. Here are a few of my favorites.

Metropolis (1927) - This is where science fiction in film begins. Society is sharply divided between the working class and the upper class. The son of the city’s mastermind falls in love with a working class prophet who predicts a peace between the classes, which the upper class perceives as a threat.

Nosferatu (1922) - The first vampire film, loosely based on “Dracula.” I know I’ve mentioned this one before, but it’s a great film.

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920) - A strange scientist and his somnambulist friend come into town at the same time as a series of mysterious murders begin.

Phantom of the Opera (1925) - The first, and still the best, translation of Gaston Leroux’s novel. Lon Chaney Sr. designed his own makeup in his portrayal of the Erik, the “opera ghost.”

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) - Lon Chaney Sr. Also designed his own makeup in his role of Quasimodo, the misshapen bell-ringer who falls in love with a gypsy girl.

Those are just a few. Check out anything with Buster Keaton and/or Charlie Chaplin for a good laugh. Also, the films of Thomas Edison are played on the Turner Classic Movies network, so check those out as well.

belated, Happy Birthday: Sept 25 - 6 to name

Will Smith - the Fresh Prince, and former king of summer blockbusters

Michael Douglas - my fav's - Basic Instinct, Falling Down, and The Game

Catherine Zeta Jones - my fav - The Mask of Zorro

Mark Hamill - will always be Luke Skywalker, but a great role as the Cocknocker in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Michael Madsen - a Tarantino favorite, and great as Mr Blonde

Christopher Reeve - the template as Superman/Clark Kent

Happy Birthday: Linda Hamilton

I like her better in Terminator, more than T2

Full Review: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

Bob's Guide to Star Trek Films, part 3

Principle Cast: First Generation + Christopher Lloyd, Robin Curtis, and Merritt Butrick

*Basic Plot *

The movie picks up where "Wrath of Khan" leaves off.  The Enterprise is barely holding together after its battle with the Reliant, the trainee crew has been reassigned, and Lt. Saavik (Curtis) and David Marcus (Butrick) have gone to study the Genesis planet with the crew of the USS Grissom.  Dr. McCoy is losing his mental health for reasons unknown, and upon their return to Earth, the Enterprise crew learns the ship is to be decommissioned.  Kirk then receives a visit from Spock's father Sarek (played by Mark Leonard) and learns that there is a way to bring Spock back to life, and save McCoy, who we learn is carrying Spock's living essence within his mind.  They must bring the two together on Vulcan to perform the reunification.  Two problems stand in the way; planet Genesis has been quarantined and Kirk has no ship.  At the same time on Genesis, Saavik and David are trapped on the planet surface when their ship is destroyed by a Klingon ship searching for the destructive potential of the Genesis device.  To make matters worse, the planet is unstable and is working its way to self-destruction.  Kirk and his crew steal the Enterprise and take McCoy to Genesis in their mission to bring their shipmate and friend back to “life”, but are soon locked into a standoff with the Klingon Captain.

My Take

*Spoiler Alert* Even though this is the third film in the franchise, it is the first "true" sequel we see in the series, directly following the events of "The Wrath of Khan".  It doesn't seek to explore any ideas of modern times or universal ideas and concerns the way the previous two films did with the role of technology and man (ST1) or overpopulation (ST2).  Whether that is a good thing or not is in the eye of the beholder, as I am fond of saying.  For me, personally, there was nothing gained or lost with the narrative style of this picture.  You might not leave with anything to think about, but that is something you don't always need.  That being said, the drama in this picture is very high from start to finish.  It begins with Spock's death scene from the previous film and moves quickly to McCoy's growing insanity.  At the Genesis planet we have Saavik who has been reunited with her lost teacher, if only his body, which has been regenerated along with the formation of the planet.  Spock is also aging rapidly (seemingly tied to the planet’s condition) and endures the Pom Far, the burning of the Vulcan blood, which can only be relieved by mating with a female.  Even though this is not shown on screen (the movie is PG) the ritual she performs with the teenage Spock shows that she is acting to save his life.  It was interesting to me to see Spock in this state of mindlessness, since he is always so collected, even when he is at odds, as he was in the first film.  With logic impossible, he becomes more animalistic and some would say more human.

The Wrath of Khan introduced Kirk to his long, lost son David Marcus, who we learned was a scientist on the original Genesis creation team.  During the standoff between Kirk and the Klingons, David is killed by a Klingon officer, which compounds the losses Kirk has already endured, and Shatner does an excellent job in showing this.  His reaction to David's death was improvised on set and it is never known whether he meant to miss the seat and fall to the ground or if it was a highly effective ‘accident’.

This film also marks the first time we see the destruction of the Enterprise, which at the time was a monumental shock in a franchise where the ship seemed as much an “untouchable” character as any of the crew.  The audience at the time was anticipating Starfleet to change its mind and rebuild the landmark starship.  But instead, it is the final casualty of the film.  I still remember the reaction in the theater when I saw this movie for the first time.  It was as if we could feel the shockwave of the explosion in our chests because everybody gasped at the same time, even James (you know you did).  

All in all this was a pretty good Trek film.  Effects were well done and the cast performance was on par.  Christopher Lloyd was excellent as the Klingon Captain Kruge, although I will note in the scenes on the Genesis planet, it almost seemed as though he was not at 100%, maybe because of an illness or something, but on the bridge of the Bird of Prey, he was as intense as any Klingon could be.

*Interesting note*: In the Star Trek universe, the Bird of Prey was a Romulan designed ship, and the main antagonists of this movie were going to be Romulan.  But, it was decided that Kruge and his crew were to be Klingons since their kind were already well known in Trek.  The Bird of Prey can be explained by the fact that in the Trek universe the Klingons and Romulans often traded ships and technology until the betrayal of Kitomer discussed in ST: The Next Generation (Worf's father died in that battle).  But in this time line, it would be common for a Klingon to have a Bird of Prey for its cloaking device.

Oh, by the way, they save Spock.

Full Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

People in the Movie: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, Robert Englund

Director:  Wes Craven

Pigeonhole:  horror/ teen slasher

The Basics: Nancy (Langenkamp) is having bad dreams.  So are her friends Tina (Amanda Wyss), Rod (Nick Corri), and her boyfriend Glen (Depp).  They all soon realize it is the same disfigured man with ‘knives for fingers’ who is terrorizing them in their sleep.  His name is Freddy (Englund), and in his world, he is in control of what happens – life and death.  But how do you protect yourself from being killed in your dreams? 

Recommendation:  A truly must see for any horror fan.  There are some intense, scary scenes, as well as some gore and splatter, so heed the ‘R’ rating.  I first watched this when I was 12 and it gave me nightmares.  I have it as one my top 10 all-time horror films.

My Take: **spoiler alert**  Wes Craven took a very simple idea, a small budget and made one of the all time great horror movies.  The ‘teen slasher’ film has been around forever, but a “bad guy” who stalked and killed victims in their dreams was a novel twist, and the results speak for themselves.  First, and foremost the audience is immediately introduced to Freddy Krueger (although we do not know his name until a little later on in the movie) who will be become one of the best known horror movie characters to date.  The opening of the movie we see clips of him assembling his right hand glove with knife blades on the 4 fingers.  But we don’t know his motivation, or his “power”, yet…  The music of the film is "80's synthesizer", and it works.  Nothing catchy, but it provides the backdrop well, and does not distract your attention.  

The dream sequences which we see the teens being stalked are more about terror than they are about killing; simple, yet scary elements keep us on edge - the screeching of Freddy’s knives on the walls and pipes, a long centipede crawling out of Tina’s mouth, Nancy being dragged under water, Glen being “sucked” into his bed, a dank abandoned boiler room.  And as far as frightening, gory scenes go, I think Nightmare on Elm Street has one of the top ones: Tina being dragged across the walls and ceiling by an unseen force and being simultaneously cut, while Rod, who has been knocked into the corner, can only helplessly watch and scream.

Another element I like that gives the movie a bit of an edge, is that teen’s parents are visibly flawed.  Nancy’s mom is a drunk, her dad is a dismissive jerk, Tina’s mom is white trash, and Glen’s parents are the “my son is too good for you” sort.  When we learn that they all were involved in a vigilante-style murder, we are not surprised, because they are not the “perfect” parents.  The sins of the parents, of course, turn out to be the whole reason Freddy is killing their kids.

The proverbial “cherry on top” for me is the ending: Nancy walks out of her house, supposedly having taken away Freddy’s power (her fear), and everything is ok, everyone is alive and well.   But then we realize it is another dream, Nancy is being taken away in a seemingly Freddy possessed car, and her mom is yanked through the small window on the front door of the house.  Classic.     

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun:  Wes Craven based the idea of being killed in one’s dreams by stories he read in the LA Times of Khmer refugees in the in the United States who had fled from the genocide in the 70’s, later dying in their sleep from night terrors… Fred Kruger was named after a boy who bullied Craven as a child… Freddy was originally supposed to be portrayed as a child molester, however, there was a high profile child molestation case going on at the time of the filming, so it was decided to make him a murderer instead… The 2010 remake has Freddy as a child molester… this movie spawned: Nightmare on Elm St. 2, #3, #4, #5, Freddy’s Dead (#6), New Nightmare, the 2010 remake, and Freddy’s Nightmares, a TV Series… 

Happy Birthday: Phil Hartman and Jim Henson

Phil Hartman - best known for his work on SNL and doing voices on the Simpsons... played bit parts in several movies but also co-lead in a little "hit" called Houseguest starring Sinbad.

Jim Henson - originally a writer for Sesame Street, went on to write/create the original Muppets (movies and TV) and the very Muppet-like Fraggle Rock... also wrote for 2 non-puppet themes movies - Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal

Happy Birthday: 3 actors, 2 musicans

John Woo- action movie director.  My favorite of his is Windtalkers

Jason Alexander- best know as George on Seinfeld, but remember when he pimp slapped Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman?

Alex Proyas- director of 2 movies I really like; The Crow and Dark City

Also to Bruce Springsteen and Ray Charles

Full Review: Nikita (1990) aka La Femme Nikita

People in the Movie:  Anne Parillaud, Tcheky Karyo, Jean-Hugues Anglade

Director:  Luc Besson  

Pigeonhole:  Action / Drama

                                      

The Basics:  A foreign film about a teenage junkie named Nikita (Parillaud) who kills a policeman in a robbery-gone-bad, and is subsequently sentenced to death.  She is instead recruited by French Intelligence to train to become an assassin, or she can chose to have her death sentence carried out.  She reluctantly agrees and after proving her abilities her superior, Bob (Karyo), she is released on her own as a sleeper agent.  Balancing a “normal life” with her boyfriend (Anglade) and the hard edge of her “job” fills out the remainder of the film.  Language spoken is French.

Recommendation:  A great movie to see, even if you are not a foreign film fan.  You will be treated to a good mix of story, action, and wholly believable character building. 'R' rating is for violence, and drug use.   

My Take: **spoiler alert** The plot is very basic, and where this movie succeeds, in my opinion, is that depth to which Nikita is developed.  Early on we see her pure defiance and anger, but then we see hints of almost civility, playfulness and humor  when she is being trained, and later a shy awkwardness when she meets her boyfriend Marco.  But underlying these “human” characteristics we also see what she was recruited for – hard, cold instinct.  Even though we should “hate” Nikita, a cop-killing junkie who is now training to be an even better killer, there is something we are meant to like, or at least relate to when we are shown her vulnerable side.  It is also not lost on us that Bob, the smug, mentor-type boss, appears to have deeper feelings for Nikita than a superior in this agency should.

One my favorite sequences in the film is Bob taking Nikita out to a fancy restaurant, and while she initially thinks it is a reward, the evening out is her final test as a trainee.  She must assassinate someone in the restaurant, and escape.  All does not go smoothly, but that is what makes this film so entertaining, watching Nikita at work.

Another great scene is when we see Nikita looking through a rifle scope to shoot another target, while locked in a bathroom.  On the other side of the door Marco (who does not know of Nikita’s “profession”) is professing his love - while tears now stream down Nikita’s face, torn between the passion and connection to her boyfriend and the cold calculation to kill another human.   As with most foreign films, the ending is not “Hollywood”.

Final Thought/Extras/For Fun:  The title as was released is ‘Nikita’, the title as release in the US is ‘La Femme Nikita’…Jean Reno has a small part in Nikita , his name is Victor “the Cleaner”; and then in Leon -The Professional, also a Luc Besson film, he refers to his hit-man job as being a “cleaner”…  The American remake/reboot of this film is called Point of No Return (1993)…  There is a Hong Kong action film called Black Cat (1991) that follows the story line…  2 TV shows are based on the story; La Femme Nikita, and Nikita… 

Original Movie poster :

Happy Birthday : Lots!, well 5 anyway

Bill Murray - I still love Groundhog Day

Stephen King - how many horror films out there are from his book, or inspired by his books?  My favorite - The Shining.

Ethan Coen - 1/2 of the Coen brothers.  I have to say I like nearly all of their movies.  Still leading is The Big Lebowski.

Jerry Bruckheimer - producer extraordinaire.. just too many movies and TV shows to name here...

Alfonso Ribeiro - I have to give a shout out to Carlton...

Bob's Quick Look: Creature (2011)

The opening sequence of this movie grabbed my attention: a good looking woman gets fully-frontal naked at the shore of a swamp lake and goes for a swim. She then is bitten in half by what we think is an alligator. From there (or starting there, actually) it moves into a pretty standard monster film. A group of six friends on their way to New Orleans stop in a small Bayou outpost for gas and beer, and learn about the legend of “Lockjaw,” the half man-half gator thing that prowls the local swap. They are given a map by the store owner (Sid Haig) to the house where the creature lived when he was human, and they go for a drunken, sexy, scary adventure. *Spoiler Alert* Unlike my premonition that the gator man would turn out to be either just a giant sized gator or a human knife-wielding maniac, the “Creature” actually is a half man-half alligator. But the story does not stop there. Two of the friends are brother/sister, who lured the other four to the spot so that the "thing", who is actually the family’s patriarch, can mate with one of the females to keep the family going.
Sex, blood, alcohol, pot, incest and heroism; this movie doesn't aim to be much more than your typical monster in the bush horror film. This is both a strength and a weakness. Sometimes it’s good when a movie maker knows what they have on their hands so that they can budget the film accordingly. There have been several movies, such as Faust, Queen of the Damned, or other big-budget horror films that took the “Phantom Menace” approach and forwent story for effects. Creature does what it can do with its financing, and it works well with the final product. The story is pretty basic until you get to the family dynamic of the plot, that’s where it get interesting. The cast performance is what you would expect: Sid Haig is awesome, everyone else is good enough. It’s kind of cheesy at times, but a decent little horror film. Check it out if you like monster flicks.

Happy Birthday: Sophia Loren & Fernando Rey

Both international actors, and from an older generation - but both made their longstanding contributions to cinema.

Happy Birthday: Jeremy Irons & Adam West

Jeremy- favorite movie is Dead Ringers.

Adam- best known, of course, as the first big screen Batman.

Quick Look: My Soul to Take (2010)

The opening sequence of the film caught my attention; the audience sees a man in his home making toys for his daughter and unborn child, his pregnant wife is upstairs watching the news about a serial killer called the 'Ripper' who is on the loose in their town.  Wes Craven, the writer/director, does an excellent job of revealing this man's fractured personality between an otherwise normal dad and husband, to a cold, blood lusting, serial killer.  However, other than this great opening, the film has little else to offer other than a fairly predictable, typical teen slasher film.
The above noted serial killer is quickly caught in his home, after murdering his wife, wounding and killing some police personnel, plus being wounded himself.  On the way to the hospital he wounds a medic and causes the ambulance they are in to flip over into the woods near a river, and shocker - his body is never found.  This same night 7 kids are born, and now being referred to as the Riverton Seven.
16 years later the 7 kids are, of course, a mix of the typical high school stereotypes (jock, geeks, princesses, minorities, religious type) who then they start being murdered themselves.  The remainder of the movie is spent revealing who is the killer (the real Ripper or a copycat?) as more bodies start to pile up.
All in all a fairly disappointing effort, especially in light of the strong start and reasonable framework for a story.  The main actors were all newcomers or unknowns.  Also, the movie was put in 3D, which may have added "something", however, I watched it in 2D.

Happy Birthday: James Gandolfini

Obviously best know as Tony Soprano, but the first time I saw him on the big screen was in True Romance as the hitman.

catching up? full reviews we have done

movie title, year movie was out, where to look for our review on this blog

Alien, 1979, June-11
The Breakfast Club, 1985, August-11
Hannibal, 2001, July-11
Hellraiser, 1987, August-11
House of 1000 Corpses, 2003, September-11
Jeepers Creepers, 2001, August-11
Manhunter, 1986, August-11
Road House, 1989, July-11
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, 1982, September-11
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 1979, September-11
Strangeland, 1998, August-11
The Fourth Kind, 2009, August-11

catching up? quick looks we have done

Movie / year movie was out / where the review is located on this blog

American Pie, 1999, June-11
Apt Pupil, 1998, June-11
Captain America: 1st Avenger, 2011, August-11
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, 2005, June-11
Clash of the Titans, 2010, August-11
Conan The Baberian, 2011, August-11
Dead Snow, 2009, August-11
Enemy at the Gates, 2001, June-11
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hollows part 2, 2011, July-11
Less Than Zero, 1987, June-11
Nightmare on Elm St, 2010, September-11
Resident Evil: Afterlife, 2010, August-11
Revanche, 2008, September-11
Salt, 2010, August-11
Stone, 2010, September-11
The Crazies, 2010, August-11
The Fog, 1980, July-11
The Machinist, 2004, July-11
The Vanishing, 1988, September-11
Transformers: Dark of the Moon, 2011, August-11

Quick Look: Stone (2010)

I figured a movie starring Robert DeNiro, Edward Norton, and Milla Jovovich had to be worth a look, and at least worth the proverbial "price of admission".  I was wrong.  How to describe this ... I can see where the director/writer/producer wanted to go, but it ended up like a half done connect the dots picture.  I usually can find something worth at least a look in most movies, for some audience, but I cannot for Stone.

It's a drama, and the premise of the movie is this: Gerald "Stone" Creeson (Norton) is in prison doing a 15 year sentence being an accomplice to his grandparents murder - his cousin killed them, Stone burned their house down right after that.  He is up for parole, and Jack Mabry (DeNiro) is his parole advisor (he makes recommendation to the parole board and warden after multiple interviews with the potential parolee) who is a few weeks away from retiring.  Stone comes into the first interview basically pleading to get out.  Lucetta Creeson (Jovovich) attempts to seduce Jack, to aid in Stone getting out, as well.  Thus, the film's events are set in motion.

 **spoiler alert** The Creesons are portrayed as white-trash, and Mabry appears to be the straight and narrow sort, except we are shown signs of underlying problems with his family life.  Here is where the movie completely loses me - Stone, after his 2nd or 3rd interview with Jack, supposedly has an epiphany and is now at ease with himself and his place in the world.  He does not seem to even care if he gets paroled.  Jack basically comes undone - he has an affair with Lucetta and otherwise crumbles at work.  Stone is paroled on Jack's recommendation (more to be free of the Creeson's), but Jack later learns Stone is unrepentant for the arson, because of the previously noted epiphany.  Jack's house is later burned down, and while we might think it was Stone, it probably wasn't.  Jack tracks Stone down and threatens to shoot him for he arson, but Stone politely informs Jack "he won't do it".
I think, and let me emphasize "think", we are supposed to believe that Stone was truly reformed; that Jack was a borderline sociopath who is actually a lower life form than Stone; that Jack's wife was a victim throughout their marriage; that Lucetta is and forever will be white-trash; and finally that people can, somehow, connect, almost religiously to their place in the universe.  Unfortunately this movie did not connect anything together in a meaningful way that I could call entertaining, informative, or otherwise worth seeing.  

Happy Birthday: Bryan Singer

An already great director now, whose stock continues to rise.
Some of  my favorites of his : Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, and Valkyrie. 

Full Review: House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

Principal Cast: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Sheri Moon Zombie, and Karen Black
Director: Rob Zombie
Genre: Horror

The Basics: Horror Metal front man Rob Zombie (born Robert Cummings, by the way) wrote and directed this 70’s style horror film, which centers on four young, all-American coeds who, while working on a book about strange and interesting tourist attractions, come across the psychopathically twisted, yet somehow “lovable” Firefly family. On Halloween eve in 1977, the four tourists stop at a small Texas town attraction; Captain Spaulding’s (Haig) Murder Museum, Fried Chicken and Gasoline stand, where they learn the story of a local legend known as “Doctor Satan,” a former asylum doc who was lynched for experimenting on mental patients. In their search for the tree where the doctor was hanged, they come across Baby Firefly (Sheri Moon Zombie) as she hitchhikes her way home. She tells them she knows the tree and brings them home with her, after her brother shoots their car tire flat. “Sidetracked”, they instead partake in the Firefly family Halloween celebration for a little bit, but on their way out after the tire is fixed, the Fireflys attack and take the tourists hostage for a day full of torture, murder, mutilation and depravity.

Recommendation: I would recommend this film primarily for the horror enthusiast (maven, if you will). Shock and gore are elements that Rob Zombie is now known for in his films, and this one is an example, of such. As always, I’ll say, “I liked it, so go ahead and see it,” but it might be a little much to take for the casual movie fan in a non-Halloween time of year. Just being honest.

My Interpretation: Kind of like with Dee Snyder’s Strangeland, I went see this movie not only out of my love of horror films, but also because I am a fan of Rob Zombie’s music. Horror references are a-plenty in his solo work along with the two albums he did with White Zombie, so I could tell this is someone who gets the horror genre. For a first attempt at film making, this movie is pretty good.
*Spoiler Alert* It is definitely scary. Zombie does a good job of mixing the psychologically disturbing with copious amounts of blood and gore to create his atmosphere. For example, Baby and her brother Otis (Moseley) are filmed in several snippets of “home movie” footage expressing their world views using quotes inspired by the Manson family’s home video footage. Also, in the final scene where Denise and Jerry are lowered into Doctor Satan’s lair, a tape recorder is lowered in with them playing a clip of Aleister Crowley reading his poem “the Poet,” particularly the line “bury me in a nameless grave” which he speaks in a very sinister tone. The characters of the four travelers are pretty much your typical horror film clichés; a geek, an idiot, and their girlfriends, who just want to go home (which is always a good idea). The Firefly family may seem like a horror cliché from a distance, but once you get through the movie, you can see that Zombie put a good amount of creative energy in giving them life and depth of character. For example, the previously mentioned Manson family references, and scenes which the audience sees the way that the family interacts with each other. They are a close knit family unit who kill together, yet love and laugh. The characters of Otis and Baby are well rounded out individually while Mama (Black), Grandpa Hugo, Rufus, and Tiny (who is 7 foot 4), provide a good mix of comic relief and support to their tirade of carnage.
There are a good number of instances in the film that might be intended as homages to 70s style of horror, but just come off as cliché. For example, Otis makes a vest and mask out of the skin of Denise’s father, which is a reference to serial killer Ed Gein, who has been “copied” in horror movies all over the place including Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, and American Psycho.
There are also a few scenes that feel more like a rock video than a movie. For example, during the Halloween show, Zombie uses a split screen to show Jerry’s reaction to Baby’s lip synch of “I Wanna Be Loved By You.” This didn’t bother me, but I understand where some people could put off by this kind of film making. All in all not a bad movie in my opinion, especially for a debut film.

Statistics:

Cast Performance: Very good. Upon viewing, one can tell that the actors who play off of one another developed a natural rhythm and report with each other which added to their performance. I will say that this film made me a fan of Sid Haig.

Violence/Gore: Intense. A lot of blood, and scenes of mutilation.

Nudity: Moderate: It is there, but most of it is found in flashback/stock footage type scenes where the images are fleeting. There is one awesome scene of Sheri Moon walking to the liquor store in chaps and a thong.

Ambiance/Music: Very Good. Zombie does a good job of creating intensity through scene. An interesting scene of the movie takes place when Slim Whitmans “I Remember You” is played while two cops and Denise’s father are killed in slow motion by the Firefly’s.

Overall Rating: 3.75/5.0 on the Bob Kline scale.

Vampire Thoughts

Bob on Vampires in film.

In the last few years there has been a rising fascination with the vampire, and the (for lack of a better term) nature of the beast has changed greatly since I was a youngster viewing Dracula for the first time. Movies like Twilight, and shows like True Blood and Vampire Diaries have basically made it cool and sexy to be a creature of the night; and when I say sexy, I don’t mean in a forbidden way, but more in a GQ kinda way.
I remember a day and age not too long ago where the vampire was a monster and not a model. They were sometimes beautiful and alluring (and you could say sexy, I guess) but there was a darkness about them that was chilling and frightful, and you risked your own soul becoming involved with their kind.
Today’s vampires have nothing of that mystery or gothic beauty to them. Edward Cullen and Bill Compton have absolutely no darkness to them whatsoever. I’m not saying it is wrong to enjoy these works of vampire fiction. I just think that today’s audience would do well to remember the Eastern European Strigoi, the true vampire, who will damn you to the living Hell they have to endure.

Here’s a short list of vampire movies that I think stand out:

Nosferatu (1922) The first true vampire film loosely based on Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Silent and beautiful yet showing the vampire as a hideous monster.

Dracula (1931) Bela Lugosi could hardly speak English when he virtually created the visage of the vampire in his landmark film, so he had to deliver his lines phonetically, which many would agree helped to create his character as much as his chilling expressions of blood lust.

Vampyr (1932) This is one of the first sound-movies from Carl Dreyer, was a well-known silent movie director in Germany. So even though this movie about a traveler who comes across a vampire in an old inn has a sound track, it still has the feel of a silent film, which is a good thing for the movie.

The Lost Boys (1987) Okay, everyone likely knows this one, and it is one of my personal favorites too. It did spawn a couple of horrible sequels, though.

Subspecies (1991) This movie has both the hideous Nosferatu type vampire and the dashing Eastern European vampire-good guy in a battle over the lives of three American tourists. This, and it’s 3 sequels, and spinoff movie Vampire Journals are all worth watching.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009) This is the best one of the series, in my opinion.

South Park Episode 12:14 - The Ungroundable. The Twilight movie inspires the popular kids of South Park to go “vampire” which royally ticks off the resident goth kids. In his attempt to understand them, Butters becomes enamored with their nature and becomes one of them (of course he thinks he’s a real vampire.) I put this on this on the list because I think the episode is absolutely hilarious.

Those are just a few. There are lots of good ones out there. Expand your
horizons.

Happy Birthday: Mickey Rourke

Mickey looks a little rough around the edges now, but in the late 80's he was cast in movies for his sex appeal.  3 of my favorites are 9 and 1/2 Weeks, Wild Orchid, and Angel Heart.

Awesome Quotes: Vacation

"I don't know why they call this stuff Hamburger Helper, it does fine just by itself, right Clark?"

"You're the gourmet around here, Eddie."

Happy Birthday: Tommy Lee Jones & Oliver Stone

Tommy Lee Jones- my favorite role of his is in the Fugitive

Oliver Stone- say what you will about his movies, but they have carved a niche into American cinema forever. My favorite of his is Natural Born Killers

Happy Birthdays - 3 fellas

Sam Neill - know for the Jurassic Park movies, but my favorites of his are Hunt for Red October, In the Mouth of Madness, and Event Horizon

Andrew Lincoln - quickly gaining fame in the TV show Walking Dead, but had a great part in Love, Actually

Walter Koenig - best known as Chekov in the Star Trek franchise

Full Review: Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Bob’s guide to Star Trek films, part 2:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Cast: First generation + Kirstie Alley and Ricardo Montalban

Basic Plot

The film opens at Starfleet academy where Capt. Spock is preparing a new crew for the Enterprise under the guidance of his former commander and friend, Admiral James T Kirk.  Elsewhere, the crew of the USS Reliant are on a mission to find a suitable planet for scientific research, namely for Project Genesis, a rapid terraforming device that transforms a dead space body into a living world.  During a ground search of the plant, Capt. Tyrel and Com. Checkov are taken prisoner by Khan, a former rival of Kirk (from 1^st generation TV show).  Khan steals their ship and sets out on his long awaited mission of revenge.

Meanwhile, Kirk sets out on an inspection/training cruise aboard the Enterprise and is soon met by Reliant and is attacked on sight, triggering the battle royale between Kirk and Khan.

My take

This is still by far my favorite of all the Star Trek films.  The makers of the film took to heart what worked and what did not work in the first movie and used this knowledge in making The Wrath of Khan.  What results is a movie where virtually every element comes together perfectly to create a great work of science fiction.

*Spoiler Alert*

The story is very well written and deals with “real” concepts, but without dwelling on them too heavily.  For example, Kirk is dealing with the fact that he is getting older and no longer feels the same sense of worth he once had as a starship captain.  He is ready to turn the Enterprise over to a new generation (which is the exact opposite of his mindset in the first film), but life shows him that he is not done leading a starship crew.

Overpopulation was another popular subject back in the 80s, as it is today with Earth’s population nearing 7 billion.  This is where the Project Genesis fits in.  It appears as a quick and easy way to deal with the problem, but with one (potentially) major down side.  If detonated on a dead world, Genesis creates life, but as Dr. McCoy and Spock speculate, using it on a living planet would destroy all life on that world.  This is the kind of warning that H.G. Wells was known for writing about.  For example, one of his main characters created a serum that made him invisible, but the result of process made him completely insane.  And we cannot forget the story of the time traveler who sees that industrialization will lead humanity to evolve into two subspecies; the stupid and the cannibalistic.  As for the Genesis technology in Star Trek II, it represents the best intentions of science, but being stolen and used by a mad man for great evil.

One of the most famous lines in Star Trek history is found in this film.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”  The basic plot of the movie illustrates the logic of this concept beautifully in the motivations of the two kings of the chessboard, Kirk and Khan.  Kirk, being a Starfleet admiral is concerned with the needs of the many, namely his crew of trainees, not to mention the safety of any world that could be threatened by Genesis - and this is what drives him to make his decisions.  Khan, on the other hand, is only concerned with the needs of the one, himself.  His first mate even brings up the subject by telling Khan that they have already won by escaping their exile and obtaining a ship; they do not need to defeat Kirk again.  But, Khan driven by anger and blind fury ignores this advice and puts his needs ahead of his crew.  As a result, his every attack is thwarted and his crew pays the price before he does.  Finally, in an ultimate act of this concept, Spock sacrifices his own life to enable the Enterprise to escape destruction, as a dying Khan had set Genesis to explode near the Enterprise.

The first scene of the movie the audience sees is a Starfleet test called the “Kobiashi Maru”, which puts the subject into a no-win scenario to test their character in the face of death.  Again, the actions of Kirk and Khan illustrate this concept very effectively as they face their death trials head-on.  In a way, the results of their respective trials match their motivations.  Khan is fully willing to sacrifice his loyal crew to get at Kirk, and they all die in the conflict.  Kirk is willing to do what it takes to get his crew free and clear of danger, and for the most part he succeeds, with the loss of two; Spock and Trainee Peter Preston, who we find out in the extended version of the film is Scotty’s nephew.

The performance of the cast in this installment is much more spot-on than its predecessor. We still get plenty of “classic” Kirk, Spock, and McCoy with some newly found drama in their reactions to the situation of the story.  We also get Ricardo Montalban, who gives an absolutely brilliant performance as Khan, whose character’s intellect and physique were genetically enhanced during the 1990s (the character was created in the 60s, remember.) Kirstie Alley does a good job in her debut role as Lt. Saavik.  One might think that Vulcans are easy to play given their logic-driven nature, but there have been actors who do not portray this quality well at all, while Alley does a good job mixing this with the youth of her character (slipping out of logic for a second or two at a time.)

This not just a great Star Trek movie, this is a great film in general, and should be in the collection of every single movie fan out there. I’m not exaggerating. Go get it.

Awesome Quote: Superman 2

"Come son of Jor-El, kneel before Zod!"

(More than a) Quick Look: Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

This a reboot of the original Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), and one of many horror movie reboots that appear to still be flooding industry over the last several years.  Some elements are the same, and some scenes from the movie appear to be "borrowed" from the original, but there enough elements and facets that allow the 2010 version to have its own distinction from the 1984 movie. 

The Good:

Freddy Kruger (Jackie Earle Haley) has returned to being a purely evil character - the one-liners that drove Freddy and this series to a more comical tone than scary one, are gone.  Using new characters mixed with just a few old ones allows the audience to not have to do a side by side comparison to the original, plus the progression of the film is not as predictable.  Also using not-so-established actors, as the first one did, allows us to see fresh faces.

The Bad:

The scenes/clips that were "borrowed" from the first film almost felt forced, as if they had to build around these scenes with the rest of the film.  This seemed especially true when Kris (Katie Cassidy) was killed, and Jesse (Thomas Dekker) goes to jail as the suspect, then is subsequently killed while in jail (very remnant of Tina being killed and Rod going to jail and being killed).  The reveal that the teenage victims all knew each other in pre-school but then did not seem to know each other again until high school was a reach, at best, in addition to the fact that they were all molested by Freddy and seemed to forget about this, as well.  Some of the teenagers did not "seem" genuinely afraid of the situation, either.  Nancy, the protagonist of the 1984 version, is not portrayed as likeable in her 2010 character.

Side by Side :

Freddy still uses the glove with knife blades, and was burned to death by an angry mob in 2010, like the 1984 version.  He is revealed to be a child molester in this film vs. the child murderer he was labeled as in 1984.  Interestingly Wes Craven wanted the original Freddy to be a child molester, however, there were some child molestation cases going on in California at the time of production, so it was decided Freddy being a killer was the way to go.  Nancy, her mom, and Freddy are the only characters with the same names (and even Nancy's last name is different).  While Freddy in 1984 seemed more interested in terrorizing the teenagers in their dreams as it was portrayed on the screen, while Freddy in 2010 appears more interested in killing them only.  At least that is how it was portrayed.    

Being a fan of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, as well as the TV show Freddy's Nightmares, I knew I would eventually watch this movie.  Going into it with low expectations allowed me to give it the proverbial "chance".  There were no new thrills or chills, so it is tough to call it scary.  Even though there were the noted differences, the conclusion was still very predictable.  It seems as if the prodcuers and director tried hard to honor the original yet make their own movie, but could not reconcile either world.

Haley's Freddy portrayal was decent enough.  In fact, Haley is committed to at least 2 more Nightmare movies.  

I would recommend the reboot to Nightmare series fans, as much to draw your own conclusions about its place in the series,  more than a recommendation of this being a good film.  If you have never seen another Nightmare on Elm Street movie, you might actually enjoy this one a little more than a long standing fan.  

Quick Look: Revanche (2008)

This is another foreign movie - continuing my recent theme - a drama that takes place in a run down section of Vienna, then later on the rural outskirts nearby.  (Language track is in German.)  Revanche is a German word that translates to "revenge" or "second chance", which fits this movie very well in both cases.  I would say the movie unfolds very much like a Greek tragedy, where no one seems to "win".  The characters are also all portrayed sympathetically.
The story is about a down-on-his-luck ex-con, Alex, and his Ukrainian girlfriend, Tamara, who is working in a local brothel.  Alex and Tamara appear to be trapped in their low class lives, so Alex decides to rob a local bank.  This will intersect Alex and Tamara's paths with a street cop named Robert, and his wife named Susanne living out their middle class existence.  We also discover that Robert and Susanne are trying to get pregnant but are having difficulties because Robert appears to have fertility problems.
Alex commits the robbery with an unloaded gun, not wanting to hurt anyone.  As he is returning to his car, Alex spots Robert, on foot patrol, questioning Tamara who is sitting in the passenger seat.  Robert approaches from behind and forces Robert to the ground, using the still unloaded gun.  Alex jumps into the car and as they are escaping Robert fires at the car, trying to hit the tires (he later claims), but instead kills Tamara.  This is a jump off point to the rest of the movie.
Alex is ridden with guilt about Tamara needlessly dying, plus he is filled with anger and so he wants revenge - to kill Robert - for murdering Tamara (in his eyes).  Alex flees the city to his father's rural farm to "hide out", and which we find out, coincidentally, is nearby Robert and Susanne's residence.
Robert is now also filled with guilt for killing Tamara, and while the other police officers think he was justified in the shooting, and almost treat him like a hero, he begins to fall apart emotionally, and is subsequently suspended.  Alex stalks Robert over the next several weeks, and the end of the movie might surprise you.

As I have noted before when discussing foreign films, I often wonder what could be lost in translation from the spoken language to what is put in the subtitles.  While Critierion is usually tip-top for their work getting films to DVD, including the translations, I caught a few minor language-to-subtitle errors.  Nothing that changes the tempo, tone, or expression of the moment(s)... just more of an fyi.  

Happy Birthdays - several

Virgina Madsen -  my favorite roles of hers are in Candyman and Sideways

Brian De Palma - director of Scarface

Harry Connick, Jr. - my favorite role of his to date is in Copycat

Chris "Ludacris" Bridges - mostly famous as a rapper, but building his movie roles, such as in Fast and Furious sequels, and Crash (2004)

Scott Patterson - better know for his role on the Gilmore Girls, he is quickly picking up movie roles, recently in Saw IV and V

Coming Soon: Three Musketeers

Another Three Musketeers movie will be out on  10/21.
How many more versions of this story do we need?  But if  you still want to check out the trailer, here it is :

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1451924505/

(More than a) Quick Look: The Vanishing (1988)

This is an extremely good foreign mystery/drama, that I would defiantly put in the category of "must see".  (French is primary language track.)  The premise and the film are so beautifully simple, and it engages the audience to such a point - that in the second half of the film you can feel your skin crawl and the desire to want to pull your hair out at the same time.  This movie does not have any gore or outward violence, and the pace is somewhat slow moving, but deliberate- tense.  The ending you will definitely not forget.
The story starts with a Dutch couple, Rex and Saskia, on vacation in France.  They stop at a busy rest area for gas, and Saskia goes into the shop for drinks.  She is not seen again.  The tension crescendos very well as Rex, at first, is "just looking for her" at the rest stop, then slips down to that gut wrenching-ill feeling as it seems Saskia is just gone, and that something bad has likely happened.  Rex, as you might imagine, becomes obsessed with what happened to Saskia, and spends the next 3 years trying to live a normal life, even getting a new girlfriend, but still unable to to "move on". 
So now we are introduced to Raymond, the abductor.  He is not the "quiet loner" wearing all black we might expect in your typical Hollywood mystery.  He is a committed family man, with a wife and kids, but we learn as the film unfolds he is a cold, calculating sociopath.  Raymond is planning his next crime, but now becomes intrigued by Rex's obsession about Saskia.
Raymond contacts Rex indicating he knows what happened to Saskia and he will tell him, but...
The tension hits unimaginable heights here - when Rex knows Raymond kidnapped Saskia, yet face-to-face still submits to him because of his obsession to know (again) "what really happened".  The director did such an outstanding job - because, as the audience, you want to know what happened too, yet, you do not want anything bad to happen, even though you know it did.  What irony.

**Warning** I do not recommend the 1993 redo/remake of The Vanishing starring Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland.  I like both of these actors, and it was the same director who did the 1988 version, yet the on-screen product was awful.  Arguably one of the worst remakes of a movie, ever.

Happy Birthday: Colin Firth & Ryan Phillippe

Colin Firth- my favorite roles of his are in Love, Actually and Mama Mia.  I have not seen the Kings Speech, yet, which he won an Oscar for.

Ryan Phillippe- my favorite roles of his are I Know What You Did Last Summer, and Cruel Intentions 

Happy Birthday: several to mention

Adam Sandler - my favorite of his is still the Wedding Singer

Michelle Williams - Heath Ledger's ex ...I still think her best work is yet to come, but I liked her part in Shutter Island

Hugh Grant - my favorite role of his is  Love, Actually

Henry Thomas - you might remember him in E.T. as Elliott.  Remember him in anything else?  Me, either.

and a special mention to Tom Wopat, although not a movie star, per se, Luke Duke will live in our hearts, always

Why I like foreign films ...

It seems to me, having watched several foreign movies recently, that foreign filmmakers are not afraid of almost any subject matter to have characters discuss, or even put into their film for the audience to see.  They do not appear to limit themselves out of fear to how a censor may or may not react, or how a 'rating' might affect a box office turnout- unlike their American counterparts playing to the MPAA.  
It seems that American movies in the exact same genres (dramas, thrillers, etc..) appear "tip toe" around most anything having to do with nudity, sex, sexuality, or crimes involving said nudity or sex.  On the other hand American filmmakers (as well as the MPAA) have absolutely no problem with filming any sort of on screen violence (anyone see Saving Private Ryan, or Hostel?)- as long as there is no sexual component.  Bashing "puritan" values is something I will discuss later...
This is not condemning the American film industry, American directors, or American filmmakers, as inferior, far from it - I am only pointing out that many foreign films I have seen are not restrained in their storytelling, which is often visible in their American counterparts.

One notable hang up or limitation I do have with foreign movies is that I am not fluent in any other language, so I have to rely on subtitles for dialogue (I never listen to dubbed movie soundtracks), and I am fully aware that I lose the nuances of language spoken from one character to another, whether it be sarcasm, innuendo, subtile hostility, etc...

I will review several foreign films in the next few posts, let me know what your favorite foreign films are.


         

Happy Birthday: David Arquette and Larenz Tate

David Arquette known for his many goofy charactered roles- my favorite as Dewey in the Scream movies.  He now voices Skully, the parrot on Jake and the Neverland Pirates, a favorite cartoon of my son.

Larenz Tate - my favorite role of his has to be O-Dog in Menace II Society

Happy Birthday, Shannon and Dario

Shannon Elizabeth - as Nadia in American Pie, she made one of the most memorable scenes in all the 'Pie' series, making Jim strip/dance

Dario Argento- director of the horror classic Suspiria, and writer of the western classic Once Upon a Time in the West

Full Review: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Bob’s guide to Star Trek films, part 1

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Cast: First generation + Stephen Collins and Persis Khambatta

Introduction: I have been a fan of Star Trek for pretty much my whole life, which includes a time when Star Trek was a single TV show and a couple of movies.  Not the ginormous science fiction franchise it is today.  So what I would like to do is give a rundown of all the Star Trek movies that have been made to date, starting with the very first one.  Along the way I will try to provide some insight and trivia from the Star Trek universe that will help to explain some of the nuances of the films.

Basic Plot

The film opens with three Klingon battle cruisers converging on a huge blue cloud floating through space.  They fire some torpedoes into the cloud, and something unseen fires back at them, disintegrating all three ships.  This incident is witnessed by a Federation way station and the newly redesigned Enterprise, under the command of Capt. Willard Decker (Collins) is assigned to investigate the cloud.  Before takeoff, Capt. Kirk (William Shatner) convinces Starfleet command to reassign him as captain of the enterprise, demoting Decker to first officer- which he obviously does not like.  On the way to the cloud, they are met by former Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy), whose commission has been reactivated after a leave of absence in his pursuit of the Kolinar, a Vulcan discipline of pure logic.  The Enterprise enters the cloud after a brief tussle and comes face to face with a ship roughly 1000 times the size of the largest Starfleet vessel.  They come to learn the ship has only one occupant, called V-ger, who hails from a machine planet from across the galaxy, and claims its creator is found on planet Earth.  This machine being wishes to “join” with its creator and will destroy the Earth if it cannot.  The crew of the Enterprise are then tasked with finding V-ger’s creator and helping it contact said creator.

My take.

What’s interesting about this movie was that it was not intended to be a movie. It was written as a two-part pilot to a new series starring the original cast (probably due to the fact that the cartoon was a washout).  But, instead of the TV pilot, we got a movie that brought a new Star Trek franchise on the big screen.

*Spoiler alert* As a first try at a Trek film, it’s not that bad.  Not great, but not that bad.  The story was an interesting one, bringing a man vs. machine conflict into the Trek world, which was a popular concept in the eighties in such films as Blade Runner and The Terminator.

V-ger’s probe, which is a facsimile of a crew member it “took” to study, informs the Enterprise crew that as biological organisms, they are an infestation on the Enterprise (since it is a machine, like V-ger), and V-ger intends to kill them.  It is later revealed that V-Ger is, in fact, one of Earth’s lost Voyager space probes and it had amassed so much data in its trek through the galaxy that it became sentient, and it has no concept that it was created by a human, and thus believes the humans are blocking its creator from contacting V-ger.  The final resolution is the melding of man and machine into a being which transverses our universe completely into a state of pure understanding.

You know what you’re going to get from the actors in this film if you have seen the original series.  Whether that is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.  In my opinion, the first generation cast performances have become iconic in pop culture and science fiction, especially the mannerisms and well known dialogue delivery of William Shatner as Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Spock.

It must be noted, though, that several elements introduced in this movie helped to solidify the Star Trek franchise.  For example, Mark Leonard, who plays the Klingon captain in the beginning, delivers his line in the Klingon language (lines written by actor James Doohan, by the way).  MIT linguist Marc Okrand used these lines to create the syntax of the Klingon language and wrote the Klingon to English dictionary that is still used in the franchise today.  This is the first time we see the Klingons with the ridged craniums.  The audience is also introduced the sleeker, cooler looking Enterprise that would be used for five more movies.  Finally, the main theme would live on to be the opening theme to the series Star Trek: The Next Generation.

This movie had an interesting story that was held back by a slow pace and unsure writing (the ending wasn’t written until near the time it was shot,) but like I said, not bad for a first try, and worth a viewing.

*Interesting fact*  Stephen Collins, who plays Capt. Decker, would go on to star as Eric Camden in the tv show “7th Heaven.” Eric’s wife Annie was played by Catherine Hicks, who appeared in Star Trek 4.  So, both Camdens have shared a good amount of screen time with Shatner.

Labor Day Weekend Pick : Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Since it is a long weekend, watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  If possible get the extended editions and check out all the extras, you will not be disappointed.

Happy Birthday, Charlie Sheen

Remember when the funny things coming out of his mouth were in movies, like Major League?

Happy Birthday, Keanu Reeves (belated)

for Sept 2nd
He's come a long way from Bill and Ted...

Happy Birthday, Scott Speedman

I like Underworld. His Vampire/Lycan hybrid character, Michael, was an interesting concept, but I do not think they explored it enough in #2.