Dead In Tombstone (4 Stars)

For me Danny Trejo is the ultimate B-Movie actor. He's rough, he's tough, and his gritty face instils fear whenever he walks into the room. Is he a good actor? I don't know, but I don't care. If he were any different he wouldn't be Danny Trejo.

In this film he plays Guerrero de la Cruz, the head of the ruthless Blackwater Gang. The film introduces them with their wanted posters. dead or alive, they're wanted for huge sums of money. They're told about a large amount of gold stored in the bank at Edendale, Colorado. It comes from a newly discovered thick vein, but it's being held until a legal dispute about the ownership is settled. That's not a problem for Guerrero or his men. If it doesn't belong to anyone, they can take it for themselves.

When they break into the bank they get a shock. It's much more gold than they expected, piled up on the floor, too much for them to carry. Guerrero is practical. He says they should pick up as much as they can carry and ride off. His gang mutiny. They don't want to leave any gold behind. Apart from the gold in the bank, the gold mine is still active, so they say they want to stay and take over the town. Guerrero's brother Red appoints himself the new sheriff on the spot. Guerrero protests, so Red and the other gang members shoot him on the spot. The next day they rename the town Tombstone.

So Guerrero is dead? Yes. He wakes up in Hell, where he's being tortured by the Devil, who's played by Mickey Rourke. How many actors have played the Devil? At the moment I can only think of Gabriel Byrne and Will Smith, but there must be many, many more. Guerrero makes a deal with the Devil. He promises to kill all six gang members if the Devil will bring him back to life. The Devil agrees, adding his own conditions. Guerrero comes back to life on the first anniversary of his death, and he has to kill the six men within 24 hours.

Unfortunately, Guerrero isn't equipped with any super strength or immortality. He's just a man, and he can be killed again.

It's a dark, brutal film. It isn't just one man against six. His previous gang members have hired dozens of men to back them up.

The film was released direct-to-video in October 2013. Despite the poor reviews, I think it's a good film. Danny Trejo meets the Devil in the Wild West? What else does anyone want?

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Picture Claire (3 Stars)

This is an unusual crime thriller made in 2001 starring Juliette Lewis and Gina Gershon. I say unusual, because so many random coincidences are used to advance the plot. I don't necessarily dislike the use of coincidences in films, but this film has far too many.

Claire is a young woman who lives in Montreal. She helps the police by telling them about drug deals going on locally. Good for her! More people should help fight drugs. Unfortunately, there are consequences. The dealers set her apartment on fire. She decides to run as far away as she can. A few months earlier she met a photographer called Billy Stuart. She posed for him, and they became lovers, for a short time at least. When he returned to Toronto he asked her to accompany him, but she refused. She spoke no English, so Toronto would be like a foreign country to her.

Having nowhere else to go, she travels to Toronto. Billy isn't at home, so she goes to a donut shop two doors away. She gets into an argument with a man called Eddie, because he's unwilling to give help to someone who can't even speak English. She goes to the toilet, and while she's out of the room the man's ex-wife Lily comes in and strangles him to death. Claire leaves, not even seeing the dead body on the floor, but the donut shop's owner describes Claire to the police as the probable murderer.

So far so good. Claire returns to Billy's apartment and picks the lock to get in. She finds out that Billy is living with someone new. Sorry, Claire, it was your own fault for not joining him in Toronto when you had the chance. Billy comes home with his new girlfriend, so Claire climbs down from the balcony to the apartment below, which just happens to be the apartment where the real murderer lives.

The motive for the murder? Eddie was a jewel thief. He had diamonds that he didn't want to share with his fellow gang members. Lily took the diamonds after killing Eddie. But while in Lily's apartment, Claire took Lily's purse with the diamonds.

So the police are looking for Claire. The jewel thieves are looking for Lily. Lily is looking for Claire. Claire is stumbling round Toronto, with no idea why everyone is chasing her.

Just one more coincidence. Claire lost her shoes while climbing from the balcony, so she visits a pawn shop which has shoes in the window. The pawn shop owner is also a fence. The jewel thieves suspect him of having the diamonds, so they've killed him. Claire walks in and finds a dead body. She keeps getting deeper into trouble.

There are many other details, but I'll stop there. The film has a lot in its favour, such as the atmosphere and the good acting, but the plot is too unfeasible.

The film has unusual cinematography. At dramatic moments the picture breaks up into multiple frames. Some of them are different events, the present mixed with flash backs, while others are different angles of the same event or a single picture broken up into frames. I made 60 snapshots in a two-minute sequence to show how the frames develop, but it would be a bad idea to include them all here. It would give too much attention to a film that doesn't deserve it. The three screenshots below are representative.

It's an interesting film, but too adventurous for its own good. I enjoy the experimental cinematography, but the plot relies too heavily on coincidences.

The film is out of print in America, but it's available on Amazon Prime. It's still available on Blu-ray in Germany, but the plot description has so many errors that I wonder if the person who wrote it even watched the film. It says that Claire comes from a small town. Bong! Montreal is small? It says that she doesn't have Billy's address. Bong! She knows exactly where he lives. It says she comes under the power of the gangster Eddie. Bong! She only speaks to him for a few seconds. It says the gangsters are chasing Claire. Bong! They're chasing Lily, but Claire accidentally gets in the way.

Heaven's Gate (4 Stars)

This is an epic western, made in 1980, about the Johnson County War of 1890, in which hundreds of settlers from Eastern Europe were slaughtered by land owners. It follows the life of Jim Averill, a wealthy Harvard graduate who's been sent to Casper, Wyoming to supervise the hanging of a criminal. He becomes sympathetic with the plight of poor settlers from Eastern Europe after seeing a woman being beat up in the street.

The problem is that wealthy cattle owners let their animals graze on empty land between the mountains. When settlers arrived and staked claims, there was less land available. In addition, some settlers were accused of stealing cattle for food. The penalty for stealing a cow was execution without trial. That was within the law, because both the mayor and the sheriff of Casper approved of strict measures to combat anarchy. The most important organisation in the county was the Stock Growers Association, to which the mayor and the sheriff both belonged.

Averill finds out that 50 gunmen have been hired from Texas to carry out a final solution. A list has been made of 125 people who are to be killed. Averill's girlfriend Ella is also on the list. He organises a resistance, putting weapons in the hands of the settlers, but even though they outnumber the gunmen four to one their lack of skill puts them at a disadvantage.

"Heaven's Gate" is infamous for having been the biggest financial flop in film history at the time it was made, losing $40 million. It's blamed for having killed off the western as a film genre. The critics also hated it, some calling it one of the worst films ever made.

Maybe the problem for the critics was the film cuts. The original version was five and a half hours long, but it was cut to three and a half hours for the theatrical release. After only a week in the cinemas the film was withdrawn, and a year later it was re-released as a two and a half hour version. The version I watched today is dubbed the Director's Cut and was released on disc in 2012. It's three and a half hours long, but supposedly differs significantly from the original theatrical release.

How can you expect a film to retain its quality after such savage cuts? Certain things in the film weren't clear to me, and I'm convinced that my questions would be answered if I saw the additional two hours of footage. When Averill arrives in Casper and visits the Stock Growers Association, the sheriff tells him he's been barred from their meetings. When? Why? Averill seems to have a history in Casper. Everyone knows him.

Averill is also friends with Nate Champion, an enforcer for the Stock Growers Association. In an early scene Champion carries Averill back to his hotel when he's drunk. Friendships across enemy lines don't just happen. The two men have a history, and it looks like this history has been edited out.

Many critics today have reevaluated the film, based on the Director's Cut. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.

Before watching the film I knew nothing about the Johnson County War. Wikipedia's page is informative as a brief summary. The main characters of the film were real life people, but the film has changed the background of the main characters, Averill and his girlfriend. That's remarkable. In real life Ella Watson was a seamstress and a landowner, but the film portrays her as the owner of a brothel. She died childless, otherwise her descendants would be suing the film for slander.

Success Rate:  - 12.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Angel Heart (4½ Stars)

Sometimes I watch a film which is so unique that I can't figure it out until the end. I don't just mean the plot. In the case of "Angel Heart" even the film's genre is unclear. The film's atmosphere is so intense that I was transfixed from the first minutes.

The film is set in New York in 1955. Mickey Rourke plays the small time private detective Harry Angel. One day he's given a job by a mysterious client. Johnny Favorite, a pre-WW2 crooner, came back from the war as an invalid in 1943. Ever since then he's been in hospital. The client wants Harry to find out whether Johnny is still alive. That seems like a trivial job, but when Harry visits the hospital he finds out that Johnny was discharged from hospital on 31st December 1943, and ever since then the records have falsely listed him as a patient. A doctor admits that he's been bribed to falsify the records, but when Harry returns for more information the doctor has been shot.

Harry's investigations lead him to New Orleans, where he finds Johnny's ex-lover and one of his band members, but everyone he talks to ends up dead. The police blame Harry for the murders, which makes him think that someone is setting him up. Everyone says that Johnny has been dead since 1943, but Harry suspects that Johnny is killing people in order to stay hidden.

Whatever is happening, religion seems to be involved. The client lives in the building of a religious cult whose pastor claims to be God and lets himself be carried through the streets. Johnny's daughter performs voodoo rituals, soaking herself with chicken blood. When the client visits New Orleans to check on Harry's progress, he suggests that they meet in a Catholic Church.

This is a chilling thriller that kept me spellbound from beginning to end. It was a box office failure, probably because the public didn't know what to expect. They should have gone to see it anyway. They wouldn't have been disappointed. It was directed by Alan Parker, and I don't think he's ever made a bad film.

Success Rate:  - 1.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Nightmare Cinema (4 Stars)

This is the eighth film in the Stuttgart Nights Festival.

This is an anthology film comprising of five stories, each segment made by a different director. The thing that links the stories is that in each segment someone walks into a cinema and sees something on screen that expresses his biggest fear.

In the first segment a teenage girl is being chased by a slasher in the woods.

In the second segment a woman is undergoing plastic surgery to cure burn marks, but the surgeon intends to make her much uglier.

In the third segment a priest sees that the school where he teaches is overrun by demons.

In the fourth segment (which I admit I didn't fully understand) a woman visits a dark world.

In the fifth segment a young boy is clinically dead for minutes after being shot. When he awakes he can see dead people.

Mickey Rourke appears in all five segments as the projectionist. He's the one who knows the darkest fears of his sudience.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (4 Stars)

This delayed sequel almost but not quite lives up to the quality of the first film. Sadly it flopped at the box office. I have no idea why. The chronology is difficult to understand at first, because some parts of the film take place before the first film, some parts after it. This is further complicated by actors being replaced between the two films. It wasn't obvious to me at first that Josh Brolin was playing the same character as Clive Owen in the first film. They don't look vaguely alike. The replacement of Devon Aoki with Jamie Chung was less jarring. The absence of Michael Clarke Duncan was excusable, because he died before the sequel was made, but the only similarity with his replacement is that they both have the same skin colour. I didn't realise that Jeremy Piven was supposed to be playing the same character as Michael Madsen until after the film.

I just paused before continuing with this post. The more I think about it, the more weaknesses I can see in the second film compared to the first. The next time I watch the films I'll make sure it's back to back again.

Success Rate:  - 1.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Sin City (5 Stars)

I watched "Sin City" years ago, but for some reason I thought I didn't like it. All I could remember is seeing Elijah Wood jumping around, nothing else. That was enough reason to watch it again. Wow! I was mesmerised. I can't write much about the film because of being short of time, but I'll promise to return to it and write more next time. Whenever that is. I don't break my promises, I just need a long time to keep them.

Success Rate:  + 2.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

This is the third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in May 2010. Stan Lee's cameo is disappointingly short. We only see him for 1¾ seconds. He's playing the role of Larry King. I can see the similarity. Everyone is applauding him. Is it because they love Larry King or Stan Lee? It must be the latter, because I couldn't imagine people being excited about seeing Larry King.

"Iron Man 2" takes place about six months after the first film, which ended with the shocking words "I am Iron Man". For me as a Marvel fan those words are shocking, because they were never spoken in the original comics. There are even reporters mocking the story that Iron Man is Tony Stark's bodyguard, even though that's the story that Stan Lee wrote. It's disrespectful to speak badly of Stan Lee's stories. I mean the major plotlines of his stories. I'm honest enough to admit that Stan had his bad days, such as when he wrote the wedding story in Fantastic Four Annual #3. That must be the worst story he ever wrote, unless he intended it to be a parody. As a parody I could just about accept it.

The villain in the film is Ivan Vanko, a Russian scientist who has built a suit similar to Iron Man's. A lot of reviewers – including me, unfortunately – have called him Whiplash, connecting him to the Marvel Comics villain with this name. That's not correct. When the film was made Marvel knew people would complain about the non-canon nature of the character, so they hurriedly wrote a four-part mini-series, "Iron Man vs Whiplash", for fans to read before they went to the cinema.

I disagree with such tactics, but I still enjoyed the character in the film. Mickey Rourke plays the character perfectly, with an attitude that could have given him a place in the early Marvel stories. Maybe he could have been just a touch more corny. Maybe he could have shouted "I am Whiplash" in response to Tony Stark's televised confession.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is advanced by the introduction of the Black Widow, even though she doesn't use that name yet. She's only referred to by her real name, Natasha Romanoff. Don't you think it's about time she had her own solo film?

The ever-smiling Phil Coulson also returns. I don't know what it is about him that's so appealing. His immaculate suit and tie, combined with his neat hair, annoy me, and yet I still like him. He's so square that he's cool.

Nick Fury gives Tony Stark the eye. That's creepy!

In the after-credits scene a hammer is discovered in the desert in New Mexico, and Phil Coulson is sent to investigate it. It's Thor's hammer, of course, but nobody knows. My question is simply, why all the fuss? People uncover old junk all the time, some of it valuable, most of it not, so what's the big deal about a hammer? It would only be worth sending government agencies to retrieve it if they knew it's Thor's hammer, which they don't.

I was about to end this post when I realised that I've written a review of an Iron Man film without including a picture of Iron Man. Here you go! Are you happy now?

Success Rate:  + 1.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

There's one important thing I forgot to point out in my previous reviews of "Iron Man 2". This is the film that introduced the Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson. To make up for it I've posted the extra-large picture above. Take a long, hard look at her. Isn't she beautiful? Since then we've seen her in "Avengers Assemble", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and "Captain America: Civil War". Let's hope she'll return in many more Marvel films. Even though I prefer her costume from the canonical Marvel comics of the 1960's I have to admit that her costume in the film, based on much later comics, does look sexy.

Some of my readers might wonder what I mean when I refer to Marvel stories as canonical or non-canonical. By this I mean, naively speaking, a division into what really happened and what was made up. Of course, all the stories were made up, but the difference is that in the early years Stan Lee held a tight grip on the stories and made sure all the comics were consistent with one another. In later years stories were written without paying attention to what had happened in the past. If there were contradictions they were just shrugged off with the excuse "My story takes place in an alternative universe".

So where do I draw the line between canonical and non-canonical? Temporally, I'd say that everything from 1961 to 1974 is canon, starting with Fantastic Four #1 and ending when Roy Thomas resigned as editor-in-chief. Everything written since 1991 (after the Infinity Gauntlet mini-series) isn't canon. As for the years 1974 to 1991 I have to differentiate. Those are the years when Marvel continuity began to fall apart, although a few writers held on to the foundation. Anything written in that period by Roy Thomas, Steve Englehart and Jim Starlin is canon. Anything written by Mark Gruenwald and Jim Shooter isn't canon. I would have to go through all the other authors one by one. Please don't think that when I say "not canon" I mean "bad". For instance, I find Frank Miller's Daredevil stories highly enjoyable, but for me they're not canon because they rewrite Daredevil's origin as laid out by Stan Lee.

As always, I appreciate opinions on this subject. If you disagree with me write something in the comment box below. It's best to leave a comment with your name (or code name), not just sign as Anonymous, so that I can tell who is writing what.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

I think this film is growing on me every time I watch it. Even though it isn't corny enough. Even though Tony Stark keeps opening his helmet to show his face. Maybe next time I watch it I'll give it a full five stars. I'm tempted.

In the first film Stark's friend Randy Rhodes was played by Terrence Howard. In this film he's been replaced by Don Cheadle. There's a story behind this. In the first film Terrence Howard was the highest paid actor, receiving $4.5 million for his role. We have to remember that before "Iron Man" Robert Downey Jr. was a relatively unknown actor. That was his breakthrough role. By the time the second film came Robert Downey Jr. was already an A List star and could demand a higher salary. Terrence Howard was only offered $1 million for the second film, so he stormed off in a rage and Don Cheadle took his place. His pride at no longer being the film's highest paid actor backfired. He said that after "Iron Man" his career was ruined and he was only being offered $60,000 per film. If he had taken the million offered his career wouldn't have crashed.

As replacements go, it's not too bad. The two actors aren't identical, but they're similar enough to be credible as the same character.

Terrence Howard

Don Cheadle

Angel Heart (4½ Stars)

1955. Mickey Rourke stars as Harry Angel, a small time private detective who lives and works in Harlem, New York. He specialises in domestic cases, following husbands, petty stuff in general. One day a mysterious stranger, played admirably by Robert De Niro, hires him to track down a singer; Johnny Favorite, who hasn't been seen for 12 years. Supposedly Johnny has been lying in a hospital severely wounded all this time, but it's recently become apparent that he isn't there.

Harry takes on the case, but soon realises that it isn't as straight forward as he expected. He interviews the doctor at the hospital, who confirms that Johnny had been removed from the hospital shortly after admission, but then he kills himself before giving further information. Harry travels to New Orleans to speak to Johnny's old friends, but everyone he speaks to ends up dead, and worse still, the police suspect that Harry is the murderer.

This is a stylish dark film. It has all the characteristics of film noir, but it's mixed with religious imagery, both Christian and voodoo. The film's atmosphere is as fascinating as the mystery itself.

Click here to view the trailer.

The Expendables [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

 

Barney Ross (Stallone) leads the "Expendables", a band of highly skilled mercenaries including knife enthusiast Lee Christmas (Jason Staham), martial arts expert Yin Yang (Jet Li), heavy weapons specialist Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), demolitionist Toll Road (Randy Couture) and loose-cannon sniper Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren). When the group is commissioned by the mysterious Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to assassinate the merciless dictator of a small South American island (David Zayas - most noteable for his role in Dexter), Barney and Lee head to the remote locale to scout out their opposition. Once there, they meet with local rebel Sandra (Giselle Itie) and discover the true nature of the conflict engulfing the city. When they escape the island and Sandra stays behind, Ross must choose to either walk away and save his own life - or attempt a suicidal rescue mission that might just save his soul.

This movie is an action-movie fan's wet dream with all the veteran talented actors that make this movie what it is.The story is a bit cliched and it does remind me of other movies such as "Losers" or "The A-Team" and whatnot - the ragtag team of misfit mercenary cowboys that like to play by their own rules and are good at what they do. I almost think that this wasn't meant to be taken as seriously as other films out there that try to make it seem like it's the new big thing. Why do I think this you ask? Some of the actors made sense and others seemed more like a joke with it's ironic cameos and dialogue.

My favorite actor in this movie is, of course, Sylvester Stallone. People make fun of his voice and the way he talks or lack of eloquence but in this type of movie that is pretty unnecessary because he plays his role to a Tee. He just seemed to fit and did it so effortlessly that I had no trouble in believing his characterization. Bruce Willis and Arnold the Terminator (that's how I refer to him. Hehe) seemed more like it was meant to be a parody and they just wanted to squeeze as many well known action stars in this movie as possible even if it meant handing out short roles. I did love the by-play in the scene with Willis, Stallone and Arnold because I did get a chuckle or two out of it.

The other actors such as Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Eric Roberts, and Mickey Rourke, kind of rounded out the action stars in this movie in my opinion and some of them contributed well and others seemed more like just extras that were added on for some window dressing. The only lives that we got a glimpse of was Jason Statham for the most part with his stuttering relationship with his girlfriend (seriously does he always have to have a girl??). I liked his character probably because I loved the fact that he was the "knife-guy" of the film and honestly it made me just a little bit excited and had the urge to fall in love with him a little bit. I know it sounds weird but coming from a gal that got her first dagger at 11 years old and then her first switch blade at 13 years old that was a high point of the movie for me. I did mention I was a simple gal. Heh.

We got to see a love-hate relationship between Dolph and Li where their relationship goes from friend, to enemy and back to friend again. I have to be honest and say that while some thought Dolph's character seemed like it was nothing new from his previous roles - a crazed man with sadistic tendencies that seem to live his life exclusively by the law of the "jungle" or "war". I kind of saw it coming in terms of what happened to him in the movie although the ending was different than I had originally expected. I can sympathize with his character even if I do think he tends to go a bit over the top with his acting and sometimes makes it a little bit unrealistic for me. But, as I said, I can sympathize with a character like that- one that has lived his life doing all sorts of unmentionable acts for the sake of country or to stay alive and when left unchecked can go on a rampage. Who hasn't felt like they wished they can go on a rampage every now and again?

The movie is like one testosterone driven tank that's about to run everyone over if you don't move out of the way fast enough. Besides the actors you know they have to live up to their reputation with the high impact action scenes with karate, knives, shoot-outs, wrestling and street fighting with large scale explosions and special effects. I think what I liked most about all of that was that it wasn't CGI and seemed a lot more real compared to movies that are happening now. I could practically feel every impact and punch from the characters. It was really exciting. Among my list of action movies this will at least make it to my Top 15 if not my Top 10. I may have to make an actual list to make it official. Hehe. 

Iron Man 2 (4½ Stars)

Everyone says this is better than the first film. I disagree. Sure, it's a good film, but it has some negative points. Let's just go through it and say what I don't like. I'll leave the positive criticisms to others. And before anyone accuses me of ripping the film apart, look! I gave it a 4½ star rating!

The technology is very over-the-top, bordering on caricature. It seems to have been filmed to make people who know nothing about today's technical limitations say "Wow!" Anyone who knows and works with high tech will only shake his head and say "That won't be possible for another 100 years or more".

The bad guy, Ivan Vanko, isn't corny enough. He's modelled on the Whiplash character in the Marvel comics, but he doesn't use the name. I would have been much happier if there had been additional dialog on the race track:

Tony Stark: "Who are you? What do you want?"
Ivan Vanko: "My name is Whiplash. I'm here to kill you".

The drones confuse the final fight scenes. They should have been dealt with quickly to allow a longer battle between Iron Man and Whiplash. I also disliked the way Jim Rhodes' suit was operated by remote control. Too many enemies at once.

"The Avengers Initiative"? Gimme a break! This is an awful rewriting of Avengers lore. The Avengers began as a chance alliance of random superheroes, provoked by one of Loki's schemes against his brother Thor. That's how Thor, Iron Man, Giant Man, the Wasp and the Hulk came together. Not as an organisation created by Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. And remember that Captain America joined later, he wasn't the first Avenger, he was the sixth.

I'm waiting for an explanation in the upcoming Thor film, but what was that hammer doing in the desert in New Mexico? Everyone knows that Don Blake found the hammer in a cave in Norway. Why change things unnecessarily? I grudgingly accept setting the Marvel heroes in the present, although I would have preferred the films to take place in the 1960's. But changing vital plot lines and origins? No no no!