Welcome to the Genetically Crazed Emporium of S. BlizZzard, the future movie Director-Writer-Producer-Actor you going to hate to love, and now you bitches know and knowing is half the battle. Recommending which movies you should see, skip, buy, or rent,. Writing with an unbiased look of movies, giving snippets of the history, genre placement, and trivial info about the movies. Favorite movie genres; Horrors, Sci-Fi’s, Thrillers, Dramas, Classics, and Comedies.
thefunniestpost: thefunniestpost!

thefunniestpost:

thefunniestpost!

(Source: ForGIFs.com)

Thanks so much for following, legend! x

No problem 

horatiofresh: This is my new favorite reason to bring a sharpie to the grocery store.

horatiofresh:

This is my new favorite reason to bring a sharpie to the grocery store.

This was good but cant beat the original Like I said in the original “Dawn of the Dead” review, this remake is alright but it’s a new type zombie and iffy story, so it’s kind of a slap to George A. Romero’s face. This movie has some new ideas, and good story, acting, and direction, but it’s not better than the original, nor dose it have the high survival aspect (that the audience wants) for the survivors, because its 4 survivors vs. 15+ survivors, in the original you really feel for the characters, not so much in the remake. The zombie baby was a good idea, but you still got those people who can’t come to terms with the idea of zombies taking over, seen with Mekhi Phifer’s character, along with other secondary characters. The movie also doesn’t explain how some of the zombies got into the parking lot, and ends on a negative, at the very end we see them all get eaten, but in truth, that’s what would happen, which leads to “Land of the Dead” nicely, a buy/renter 4.5 out of 5 (8/10).BlizZzard

This was good but cant beat the original Like I said in the original “Dawn of the Dead” review, this remake is alright but it’s a new type zombie and iffy story, so it’s kind of a slap to George A. Romero’s face. This movie has some new ideas, and good story, acting, and direction, but it’s not better than the original, nor dose it have the high survival aspect (that the audience wants) for the survivors, because its 4 survivors vs. 15+ survivors, in the original you really feel for the characters, not so much in the remake. The zombie baby was a good idea, but you still got those people who can’t come to terms with the idea of zombies taking over, seen with Mekhi Phifer’s character, along with other secondary characters. The movie also doesn’t explain how some of the zombies got into the parking lot, and ends on a negative, at the very end we see them all get eaten, but in truth, that’s what would happen, which leads to “Land of the Dead” nicely, a buy/renter 4.5 out of 5 (8/10).

BlizZzard

This movie is really good and shows that George A. Romero still has it; the only bad thing about this movie is that it is an end to a good franchise, supposedly, but I digress. This movie also reprises two adversaries back together King Koopa and Luigi Mario (Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo) .This movie is just as good as the first one in the franchise, good story, acting, twists, directing and visuals. One of the most memorable parts was the zombies walking out of the water as steam rises, as they reach the city. This movie also dose a great job of showing the development from “Day of the Dead”, where the zombies are growing smarter, die off from hunger, and the survivors have developed a system; a team of hunters, barricaded inaccessible city, that is protected by a river, which did work until the zombies figured out where the human meat was, a buy/ 5 out of 5 (10/10).Tangent- This is the order that these movies take place at:“Night of the Living Dead” “Diary of the Dead” “Survival of the Dead” “Dawn of the Dead”“Day of the Dead”“Land of the Dead” both “N.o.L.D.” and “Diary of the Dead” take place at the same time when the original outbreak occurs, but in two different location, dawn of the dead is a couple of months later, day of the dead is mouths to years later from the original, land of the dead is years later.BlizZzard

This movie is really good and shows that George A. Romero still has it; the only bad thing about this movie is that it is an end to a good franchise, supposedly, but I digress. This movie also reprises two adversaries back together King Koopa and Luigi Mario (Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo) .This movie is just as good as the first one in the franchise, good story, acting, twists, directing and visuals. One of the most memorable parts was the zombies walking out of the water as steam rises, as they reach the city. This movie also dose a great job of showing the development from “Day of the Dead”, where the zombies are growing smarter, die off from hunger, and the survivors have developed a system; a team of hunters, barricaded inaccessible city, that is protected by a river, which did work until the zombies figured out where the human meat was, a buy/ 5 out of 5 (10/10).

Tangent- This is the order that these movies take place at:

“Night of the Living Dead”

“Diary of the Dead” “Survival of the Dead”

“Dawn of the Dead”

“Day of the Dead”

“Land of the Dead”

both “N.o.L.D.” and “Diary of the Dead” take place at the same time when the original outbreak occurs, but in two different location, dawn of the dead is a couple of months later, day of the dead is mouths to years later from the original, land of the dead is years later.

BlizZzard

Wow that was unexpected. This was a great movie, it had an excellent twist, good acting, good story, good visuals, and great directing, this movie could have been scarier, but I think it’s scary enough and gives the effect desired, having a lot of scary moments like the house sounds, the kids in the mask, and the psychic part. That scenes could have been scarier if the ghost kids would have been seen, following her, but not shown on the tape, the audio of the kids crying and screaming wasn’t enough, to portray true terror. I also couldn’t figure out what happen to the kid, until the end, which shows how good the directing really was, one qualm with this movie and other alike, I found, is that the husband, wife, child, family member, etc. that is reaching out and has a problem, this is never believed nor helped th story. Another qualm is that they don’t fully explain what happened to the orphans, or who killed them. The first part of the ending was really good, and was very well done to convey what was unexpected; furthermore the second part (the reveal part) was really good, you start to get what happen to her son, from the first or second clue revealed. The third part of the ending, is kind of sad if you really think about it (not going to ruin the end), but it is what she wanted and it’s not a negative, which it could have been, but a positive in a matter of perspective. She wanted her son back, a renter/ buy 5 out of 5 (9.6/10).Tangent: this is another good movie from Guillermo Del Toro, but like Pan’s Labyrinth and many other foreign movies, I think the subtitles take away from the action, movie, expression, and emotions, but then again it conveys a better story, is more exhibitionistic as an art form, and probably wouldn’t be as good in English, because you’re not use to the stars or culture so you focus on the story more coherently. Another thing this move is missing is Del Toro’s well crafted, developed, and designed creatures and characters like in “Hellboy” and “Pans Labyrinth”. It was all right the 5 really came from the fact that the acting was good, the visuals were good, the directing was good and generally a good movie, but it could have been scarier.BlizZzard

Wow that was unexpected. This was a great movie, it had an excellent twist, good acting, good story, good visuals, and great directing, this movie could have been scarier, but I think it’s scary enough and gives the effect desired, having a lot of scary moments like the house sounds, the kids in the mask, and the psychic part. That scenes could have been scarier if the ghost kids would have been seen, following her, but not shown on the tape, the audio of the kids crying and screaming wasn’t enough, to portray true terror. I also couldn’t figure out what happen to the kid, until the end, which shows how good the directing really was, one qualm with this movie and other alike, I found, is that the husband, wife, child, family member, etc. that is reaching out and has a problem, this is never believed nor helped th story. Another qualm is that they don’t fully explain what happened to the orphans, or who killed them. The first part of the ending was really good, and was very well done to convey what was unexpected; furthermore the second part (the reveal part) was really good, you start to get what happen to her son, from the first or second clue revealed. The third part of the ending, is kind of sad if you really think about it (not going to ruin the end), but it is what she wanted and it’s not a negative, which it could have been, but a positive in a matter of perspective. She wanted her son back, a renter/ buy 5 out of 5 (9.6/10).

Tangent: this is another good movie from Guillermo Del Toro, but like Pan’s Labyrinth and many other foreign movies, I think the subtitles take away from the action, movie, expression, and emotions, but then again it conveys a better story, is more exhibitionistic as an art form, and probably wouldn’t be as good in English, because you’re not use to the stars or culture so you focus on the story more coherently. Another thing this move is missing is Del Toro’s well crafted, developed, and designed creatures and characters like in “Hellboy” and “Pans Labyrinth”.

It was all right the 5 really came from the fact that the acting was good, the visuals were good, the directing was good and generally a good movie, but it could have been scarier.

BlizZzard

Really, I was so excited that there was a remake, but then I found out that there was no George A. Romero, no theater release, no originality, AND NO SLOW MOVING ZOMBIES, who the hell said lets make this movie, but lets not make it good, lets not make logical scenes and just sh*t all over the original. Granted Day of the Dead the original was my least favorite movie, of the living dead franchise, but its still a good movie, so how could so much go wrong, ill tell you, you get people who don’t care about sh*t, who are convenient, and will be puppets, and do whatever you say. This movie did have minor good moments, but bad script, acting, the directing was fair, and they do make some references to the original, so kudos on that. Tangent= could somebody please explain to me how a zombie gets hit, with a full speeding car, and gets up and runs, or crawls up a wall on to the ceiling, not possible and rigor mortis would set in and that’s not George A. Romero’szombie type. Nick Cannon can’t act, and why is their always harlots, in the movie, and why cant people ever comprehend their situation in a zombie movie, the dead is rising, run, move, hit the brain, hide, be quite, don’t let your guard down ever, maybe its to easy to have some zombie knowledge like real people have. I’m a big zombie movie fan, so big that I wrote a paper about in college, but that means nothing, I’ve seen a lot of them and I’m a purist for these movie, but that means nothing too, but some movies are just so bad, made wrong, to generic, cheesy, or so impossible to believe, that I can only dislike the movie. I wanted to like it but it wasn’t there, and if you’re going to make a remake or a revision of an original idea, then it better be; as good or better, which many have failed to do, like this movie.2 out of 5 (4/10), don’t waste your time seeing it, watch the original. BlizZzard

Really, I was so excited that there was a remake, but then I found out that there was no George A. Romero, no theater release, no originality, AND NO SLOW MOVING ZOMBIES, who the hell said lets make this movie, but lets not make it good, lets not make logical scenes and just sh*t all over the original.

Granted Day of the Dead the original was my least favorite movie, of the living dead franchise, but its still a good movie, so how could so much go wrong, ill tell you, you get people who don’t care about sh*t, who are convenient, and will be puppets, and do whatever you say. This movie did have minor good moments, but bad script, acting, the directing was fair, and they do make some references to the original, so kudos on that.

Tangent= could somebody please explain to me how a zombie gets hit, with a full speeding car, and gets up and runs, or crawls up a wall on to the ceiling, not possible and rigor mortis would set in and that’s not George A. Romero’szombie type. Nick Cannon can’t act, and why is their always harlots, in the movie, and why cant people ever comprehend their situation in a zombie movie, the dead is rising, run, move, hit the brain, hide, be quite, don’t let your guard down ever, maybe its to easy to have some zombie knowledge like real people have.

I’m a big zombie movie fan, so big that I wrote a paper about in college, but that means nothing, I’ve seen a lot of them and I’m a purist for these movie, but that means nothing too, but some movies are just so bad, made wrong, to generic, cheesy, or so impossible to believe, that I can only dislike the movie. I wanted to like it but it wasn’t there, and if you’re going to make a remake or a revision of an original idea, then it better be; as good or better, which many have failed to do, like this movie.

2 out of 5 (4/10), don’t waste your time seeing it, watch the original.

BlizZzard

Opening Thoughts:This movie was not bad, for being almost as old as me, but it has been such a long time since I first saw this movie that it was like watching a new movie. This movie was pretty good still, some what imaginative, but not my favorite Arnold movie, a Renter/ Watch on TV, 4.5 out of 5(8.3/10).Story:Spoiler: The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, California, in 2017, where a Richard Benjamin (Arnold Schwarzenegger) morals and values, get in the way of him doing his job, killing 1500 unarmed Men, Women, and Children, so he chooses not to do it, and he is thrown in a prison program, as an iron worker, and has been falsely given the name The Butcher of , due to the rest of team killing the 1500, and framing him, he escapes, kidnaps a women in his brothers old apartment, to get out of California, she gets away, gets him arrested again, his meets a with a the worlds top rated show “The Running Man”, show about “Stalkers” killing criminals in a arena, show’s host named Damon Killian, who gives Richard a ultimatum, go on the show or his friends will I his stead, he dose, and Killian put his friends on the show anyways, the girl who was kidnapped, starts putting thing together about the truth, and gets caught, and throw in the arena with the other three, and then the must survive, the stalkers, to get out of the arena.The movie is an 80’s movies so it’s going to have some cheesy moments, and one liner’s, but I felt this movie could have really gone some where, maybe if they stayed to the original novel by Stephen King as Richard Bachman, which has the events take place in different cities, instead of an arena. The movie is slightly good rollercoaster, you kind of feel for the characters, and you want the truth to come out, so Richard Benjamin can clear his name, but it seems like almost everybody in 2017 post-apocalyptic American has lost their morals, and doesn’t care about human life or their neighbors anymore, but the police have become less lethal, basically the movie said to me that Americans will/are puppets, and have blinders on, not realizing the value of Human life, truth, morals, values, until the end of the movie and also that if you’ve got technology you rule the world.Visuals:Its 80’s, so you get what you get, but that’s not another excuse, the visuals are expectable, there was nothing special to talk about, but I’m tainted by the cinematography and CGI of today’s movies, so their can be no comparison, modern will when.Acting:And a again 80’s, but the acting was not bad, but was some what cheesy and of course Arnold has to have one liners, especially “I’ll be back”, in some his movies, but between the one liners the acting was good, I believed that they could have been the characters, but some of it was hammed up, it’s the 80’s.Directing: The directing was fair to good, nothing special really.Tangent: I know it was the 1987 but they could have been more imaginative with the futuristic look, clothing, technology, but I guess back then they didn’t think computers would as big as they are now, and there was no internet yet, but that’s no excuse, look at Blade Runner, it came out in 1982 and looks like The Fifth Element, which cam out in 1997, and what I consider the number one futuristic movie, second Equilibrium, then Aeon Flux. Another thing is that in the movie they say “The Running Man Show”, is the highest rated show ever in history, but once again this was before American Ideal, the E. Network, Bravo Channel, and the whole fad of reality shows, in this decade, I guess if everything’s under censorship and that’s only show on television, then it could work. Additionally this movie didn’t fully explore what happen, if other cities are like the future L.A, in the movie, why things were under censorship, they do alluded to there still being braches of the government, and some people being able to live comfortable still, but they never explain anything, so I guess we are suppose to know or make up the rest. The whole thing I’m getting at is that the movie doesn’t feel like a post-apocalyptic world in 2017, its 2008 now and about to turn 2009, so that’s 8 years away, I’m thinking we can do better then what’s in this movie, but they way things are going, in America right now, we might be, lets just hope not. As I was watching this movie, in my head I was thinking that they should and probably will make this into a remake, like thy are doing with Death Race, but lets just hope they do it right, and make it a big budget Hollywood, epic movie, and not cheesy like the original, or go with the original novel, and explain sh*t. Another problem was, why in everyone of these movies the main character and the women, always fall in lust by the end of the movie, not everybody falls in lust after a big moment in their life.BlizZzard

Opening Thoughts:

This movie was not bad, for being almost as old as me, but it has been such a long time since I first saw this movie that it was like watching a new movie. This movie was pretty good still, some what imaginative, but not my favorite Arnold movie, a Renter/ Watch on TV, 4.5 out of 5(8.3/10).

Story:

Spoiler: The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, California, in 2017, where a Richard Benjamin (Arnold Schwarzenegger) morals and values, get in the way of him doing his job, killing 1500 unarmed Men, Women, and Children, so he chooses not to do it, and he is thrown in a prison program, as an iron worker, and has been falsely given the name The Butcher of , due to the rest of team killing the 1500, and framing him, he escapes, kidnaps a women in his brothers old apartment, to get out of California, she gets away, gets him arrested again, his meets a with a the worlds top rated show “The Running Man”, show about “Stalkers” killing criminals in a arena, show’s host named Damon Killian, who gives Richard a ultimatum, go on the show or his friends will I his stead, he dose, and Killian put his friends on the show anyways, the girl who was kidnapped, starts putting thing together about the truth, and gets caught, and throw in the arena with the other three, and then the must survive, the stalkers, to get out of the arena.

The movie is an 80’s movies so it’s going to have some cheesy moments, and one liner’s, but I felt this movie could have really gone some where, maybe if they stayed to the original novel by Stephen King as Richard Bachman, which has the events take place in different cities, instead of an arena. The movie is slightly good rollercoaster, you kind of feel for the characters, and you want the truth to come out, so Richard Benjamin can clear his name, but it seems like almost everybody in 2017 post-apocalyptic American has lost their morals, and doesn’t care about human life or their neighbors anymore, but the police have become less lethal, basically the movie said to me that Americans will/are puppets, and have blinders on, not realizing the value of Human life, truth, morals, values, until the end of the movie and also that if you’ve got technology you rule the world.

Visuals:

Its 80’s, so you get what you get, but that’s not another excuse, the visuals are expectable, there was nothing special to talk about, but I’m tainted by the cinematography and CGI of today’s movies, so their can be no comparison, modern will when.

Acting:

And a again 80’s, but the acting was not bad, but was some what cheesy and of course Arnold has to have one liners, especially “I’ll be back”, in some his movies, but between the one liners the acting was good, I believed that they could have been the characters, but some of it was hammed up, it’s the 80’s.

Directing:

The directing was fair to good, nothing special really.

Tangent:

I know it was the 1987 but they could have been more imaginative with the futuristic look, clothing, technology, but I guess back then they didn’t think computers would as big as they are now, and there was no internet yet, but that’s no excuse, look at Blade Runner, it came out in 1982 and looks like The Fifth Element, which cam out in 1997, and what I consider the number one futuristic movie, second Equilibrium, then Aeon Flux. Another thing is that in the movie they say “The Running Man Show”, is the highest rated show ever in history, but once again this was before American Ideal, the E. Network, Bravo Channel, and the whole fad of reality shows, in this decade, I guess if everything’s under censorship and that’s only show on television, then it could work. Additionally this movie didn’t fully explore what happen, if other cities are like the future L.A, in the movie, why things were under censorship, they do alluded to there still being braches of the government, and some people being able to live comfortable still, but they never explain anything, so I guess we are suppose to know or make up the rest. The whole thing I’m getting at is that the movie doesn’t feel like a post-apocalyptic world in 2017, its 2008 now and about to turn 2009, so that’s 8 years away, I’m thinking we can do better then what’s in this movie, but they way things are going, in America right now, we might be, lets just hope not. As I was watching this movie, in my head I was thinking that they should and probably will make this into a remake, like thy are doing with Death Race, but lets just hope they do it right, and make it a big budget Hollywood, epic movie, and not cheesy like the original, or go with the original novel, and explain sh*t. Another problem was, why in everyone of these movies the main character and the women, always fall in lust by the end of the movie, not everybody falls in lust after a big moment in their life.

BlizZzard

Opening Thoughts:The ending was memorable, the sword part, was the one part of the movie I have remembered, all these years since I first saw the movie. I really like this Arnold movie, it’s almost my favorite one, in this one, it’s not cheesy, and it shows Arnolds acting ability, Robin Tunney’s troubled and indiscreet sexiness acting ability, and Gabriel Byrne’s Sinister acting ability. I kind of got the “Pull-in-Ratio” (copy written). A buy it/ rent it 5 out of 5/ (9.7/10) -Spoilers-Story: The story takes place mainly in New York City, during the New Years period/holiday, days before the year 2000 Millennium, occurred, an ex-cop named Jericho (Arnold Schwarzenegger), but he’s still in a force, the movienever mention which one. The second main character is Christian York (Robin Tunney) who from the time of her birth has the mark of the Lucifer on her, and as she grows up she has had visions and nightmares, as she put it, of “The Man” (Gabriel Byrne) (listed as this on credits), the vision are of crazy things that happen around, and the nightmares are of “The Man” sleeping with her. Which if it were to happen in reality, would cause the gates of Hell to open, and thus the apocalypses would happen, fast forward to the 1999, which is where Jericho come into the picture. He became an ex-cop, a non-traditional way, his wife and daughter died/murdered, from a group of people who he testified against, thus losing his faith in God, making him a drunkard, heavily medicated, and borderline suicidal. As he and his partner protecting an investment banker, Jericho begins to become delved into a world he doesn’t understand, nor believes in. This is where Christian and Jericho’s paths cross, delving further in a religious world. Jericho, probably seeing Christian somewhat as the essence of his deceased daughter, and helpless, begins the journey of father figure, savoir, lethal Christ-like (there’s a certain scene, in the movie, that backs this up), of Christian. So basically the Devil and his followers, simultaneously, along with the Vatican Knights, and Holy men, from New York, are after Christian, one to kill her, one to save her, and one to apprehend her for devilish deeds, and Jericho is the only one standing in all their ways. Visuals:A lot of nudity, mainly women’s breast, but if that’s alls your into in movies, well its got it but the movie is actually good, I guess some would say its an added bonus, but that’s not why I like the movie, my vice is more the entire women’s body, but that’s a really whole other big tangent, but I digress. The movie had some really good visual moments, the end swords scene, the helicopter scene, the multiple fire scenes, plus the aspect of the Devil, was really thought out, he peed gasoline that traveled, he fire proof, his blood was black. Along with his control of fire in candles igniting higher, we he enters churches, made me think that’s what would happen if the devil where to enter a place with fire already lit, in actuality the whole movie is visual pleasing, but there was some bad CGI, the Devils real appearance was bad, not the invisible part, but the end part, but its 1999, as was the matrix so I guess, its okay for both movies, seeing as it wasn’t now, with our more advance, realistic CGI.Acting:The reason why I like this Arnold movie so much is because he’s not saying cheesy lines, it’s a more of a Drama then an Action movie, so there’s more of a different acting style he has to encompass, but there’s still classic bad ass, beefy, strong, savior Arnold, which is always good, and it’s equally balanced. Plus, like I have said on my other review, I like when an actor jumps out of their traditional stereotypical role and into a different mix. His acting was convincing majority of the movie, and was a believable ex-cop, who lost his family, and has to save a girl from the Devil. Gabriel Byrne was really good in this movie; he really portrayed a sinister, evil, unstoppable, devilish “possessed” character. He personified facial express, deeds, movement, talking, that made me believe he was the devil incarnate. Plus his look is that of one whom the Devil would look like, Nice looking, debonair, well kept guy whose devious, and could get any women he wanted from a look of touch. Robin Tunney also did a great job, which was mainly to be a scared, young woman, who has been troubled by visions/nightmares, all her life, but at the same time trying to act and be normal, she was also believable. She also had to play, “indiscreetly”, her desirable sexiness, that would allure the devil to pick her for his “wife”, or gate to the Apocalypses. From the Craft as Sarah, I didn’t really get that, it might have been the blonde hair, but in this I wanted to sleep with her too, it could have been the make-up, hair, hair color, mannerisms, clothing, I don’t know, but what I’m getting at is, I see the allure, of the Devil and Casting Director of Christian/Robin Tunney for this movie. Directing: The directing was very good in this movie, this could be seen in the action scenes, between the Devil and Jericho, and the character build was good to, the movie flowed very nicely. Plus he had nudity, not that, that’s a criterion for me for a good director, but it dose make it realistic, a person not going to always covered, or clothed at all time like some movies have done, so he dose get point and meats my criterion for realism in a movie. Tangent: I hate New Years holiday, the song, but the movie isn’t about that, it merely explores one way the world was suppose to end, at the turn of the century, but we cant truly relax, in the terms of the Apocalypse, because the end of the world, is suppose to take place at the year of 2000, 2001, 2007, 2011, and 2012, depending on what you’ve read and believe, we’ve surpassed three apocalyptic years, and if we make it to 2013, then the whole Apocalypse foreseen, was uneducated speculation, but like this movie I believe one turn deserves another, meaning that with chaos has to be order, one side of the spectrum needs counteracting side, so if the apocalypse were to occur, then there’d be something or someone to stop it, but if you think like an Evangelical (I’m Roman Catholic), when the “end of days” occurs, there the first stage of Heaven, the normal Heaven, what ever in your head you envision it to be, then the second stage, the recreation period, but I’ll spot, talking about my philosophies of Religion, because my thoughts take a little from all Religions, and that would really be a tangent. I also, even though it would have cliché, would have like to see the somewhat traditional Diablo look, with the horns and maybe some reddish color, the one in this movie threw me off a little. I also didn’t think the Devil could enter a church, because it holy land, but he dose say in the movie that he can stand being church, and a priest says he cant see inside a church, so I guess he could enter a church. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author mentions the Old Testament story of the destruction of Jericho as an outward display of faith, which if you seen, or see this movie, at the end I see this saying, alluding to what happens to Jericho. There may be some other stuff I missed, that’s in the bible, but I’m not too religious so I won’t get everything.BlizZzard

Opening Thoughts:

The ending was memorable, the sword part, was the one part of the movie I have remembered, all these years since I first saw the movie. I really like this Arnold movie, it’s almost my favorite one, in this one, it’s not cheesy, and it shows Arnolds acting ability, Robin Tunney’s troubled and indiscreet sexiness acting ability, and Gabriel Byrne’s Sinister acting ability. I kind of got the “Pull-in-Ratio” (copy written). A buy it/ rent it 5 out of 5/ (9.7/10) 

-Spoilers-

Story: 

The story takes place mainly in New York City, during the New Years period/holiday, days before the year 2000 Millennium, occurred, an ex-cop named Jericho (Arnold Schwarzenegger), but he’s still in a force, the movienever mention which one. The second main character is Christian York (Robin Tunney) who from the time of her birth has the mark of the Lucifer on her, and as she grows up she has had visions and nightmares, as she put it, of “The Man” (Gabriel Byrne) (listed as this on credits), the vision are of crazy things that happen around, and the nightmares are of “The Man” sleeping with her. Which if it were to happen in reality, would cause the gates of Hell to open, and thus the apocalypses would happen, fast forward to the 1999, which is where Jericho come into the picture. He became an ex-cop, a non-traditional way, his wife and daughter died/murdered, from a group of people who he testified against, thus losing his faith in God, making him a drunkard, heavily medicated, and borderline suicidal. As he and his partner protecting an investment banker, Jericho begins to become delved into a world he doesn’t understand, nor believes in. This is where Christian and Jericho’s paths cross, delving further in a religious world. Jericho, probably seeing Christian somewhat as the essence of his deceased daughter, and helpless, begins the journey of father figure, savoir, lethal Christ-like (there’s a certain scene, in the movie, that backs this up), of Christian. So basically the Devil and his followers, simultaneously, along with the Vatican Knights, and Holy men, from New York, are after Christian, one to kill her, one to save her, and one to apprehend her for devilish deeds, and Jericho is the only one standing in all their ways. 

Visuals:

A lot of nudity, mainly women’s breast, but if that’s alls your into in movies, well its got it but the movie is actually good, I guess some would say its an added bonus, but that’s not why I like the movie, my vice is more the entire women’s body, but that’s a really whole other big tangent, but I digress. The movie had some really good visual moments, the end swords scene, the helicopter scene, the multiple fire scenes, plus the aspect of the Devil, was really thought out, he peed gasoline that traveled, he fire proof, his blood was black. Along with his control of fire in candles igniting higher, we he enters churches, made me think that’s what would happen if the devil where to enter a place with fire already lit, in actuality the whole movie is visual pleasing, but there was some bad CGI, the Devils real appearance was bad, not the invisible part, but the end part, but its 1999, as was the matrix so I guess, its okay for both movies, seeing as it wasn’t now, with our more advance, realistic CGI.

Acting:

The reason why I like this Arnold movie so much is because he’s not saying cheesy lines, it’s a more of a Drama then an Action movie, so there’s more of a different acting style he has to encompass, but there’s still classic bad ass, beefy, strong, savior Arnold, which is always good, and it’s equally balanced. Plus, like I have said on my other review, I like when an actor jumps out of their traditional stereotypical role and into a different mix. His acting was convincing majority of the movie, and was a believable ex-cop, who lost his family, and has to save a girl from the Devil. 

Gabriel Byrne was really good in this movie; he really portrayed a sinister, evil, unstoppable, devilish “possessed” character. He personified facial express, deeds, movement, talking, that made me believe he was the devil incarnate. Plus his look is that of one whom the Devil would look like, Nice looking, debonair, well kept guy whose devious, and could get any women he wanted from a look of touch. 

Robin Tunney also did a great job, which was mainly to be a scared, young woman, who has been troubled by visions/nightmares, all her life, but at the same time trying to act and be normal, she was also believable. She also had to play, “indiscreetly”, her desirable sexiness, that would allure the devil to pick her for his “wife”, or gate to the Apocalypses. From the Craft as Sarah, I didn’t really get that, it might have been the blonde hair, but in this I wanted to sleep with her too, it could have been the make-up, hair, hair color, mannerisms, clothing, I don’t know, but what I’m getting at is, I see the allure, of the Devil and Casting Director of Christian/Robin Tunney for this movie. 

Directing: 

The directing was very good in this movie, this could be seen in the action scenes, between the Devil and Jericho, and the character build was good to, the movie flowed very nicely. Plus he had nudity, not that, that’s a criterion for me for a good director, but it dose make it realistic, a person not going to always covered, or clothed at all time like some movies have done, so he dose get point and meats my criterion for realism in a movie. 

Tangent: 

I hate New Years holiday, the song, but the movie isn’t about that, it merely explores one way the world was suppose to end, at the turn of the century, but we cant truly relax, in the terms of the Apocalypse, because the end of the world, is suppose to take place at the year of 2000, 2001, 2007, 2011, and 2012, depending on what you’ve read and believe, we’ve surpassed three apocalyptic years, and if we make it to 2013, then the whole Apocalypse foreseen, was uneducated speculation, but like this movie I believe one turn deserves another, meaning that with chaos has to be order, one side of the spectrum needs counteracting side, so if the apocalypse were to occur, then there’d be something or someone to stop it, but if you think like an Evangelical (I’m Roman Catholic), when the “end of days” occurs, there the first stage of Heaven, the normal Heaven, what ever in your head you envision it to be, then the second stage, the recreation period, but I’ll spot, talking about my philosophies of Religion, because my thoughts take a little from all Religions, and that would really be a tangent. I also, even though it would have cliché, would have like to see the somewhat traditional Diablo look, with the horns and maybe some reddish color, the one in this movie threw me off a little. I also didn’t think the Devil could enter a church, because it holy land, but he dose say in the movie that he can stand being church, and a priest says he cant see inside a church, so I guess he could enter a church. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author mentions the Old Testament story of the destruction of Jericho as an outward display of faith, which if you seen, or see this movie, at the end I see this saying, alluding to what happens to Jericho. There may be some other stuff I missed, that’s in the bible, but I’m not too religious so I won’t get everything.

BlizZzard

totalfilm: Sesame Street Fighter Click through to see Elmo Bison, Oscar Blanka, Dhal-Grover and loads more! (via Kotaku) A double throw back

totalfilm:

Sesame Street Fighter

Click through to see Elmo Bison, Oscar Blanka, Dhal-Grover and loads more!

(via Kotaku)

A double throw back

Likes
Following
Follow me