Predator 2 (1990)

It's a sad truth, but sometimes great movies end up with lousy sequels. The Jurassic Park sequels sucked, the Matrix sequels sucked, and Superman and Batman have had their fair share of bad sequels. Unfortunately, the same can be said for one of my favorite '80s movies, Predator. The movie that saw Arnold Schwarzenegger battle an alien big game hunter in the Guatemalan jungle is a modern classic in both the action and science fiction genres, and made a ton of money to boot. So naturally, a sequel was bound to happen. Hitting theaters three years after the original, Predator 2 is sadly a lesser movie than its predecessor. But what makes it that way?

As the movie opens, the city of Los Angeles finds itself stuck in the middle of a violent and bloody turf war between rival Columbian and Jamaican drug cartels. Throw in the fact that this turf war is taking place during the worst heat wave in recent memory, and L.A. isn't a great place to be. But things go from bad to worse when a Predator (Kevin Peter Hall) arrives in town and begins slaughtering both cops and members of the drug cartels.

Police lieutenant Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover), a key member of the LAPD's efforts to stop the war, soon finds himself face to face with the Predator after it kills some of his colleagues. Lieutenant Harrigan is forced to team with stubborn federal agent Peter Keyes (Gary Busey), who leads a task force dedicated to catching the Predator for scientific research, in order to combat the alien threat before it can butcher the entire city.

The truth is that Predator 2 is really more disappointing than anything. I absolutely love the Predator franchise, but Predator isn't quite as successful in inspiring the same level of excitement and entertainment as either the first one or the one that Robert Rodriguez produced last year. The movie is a total letdown, as sad as that is to say.

Helming the movie is Stephen Hopkins, a director whose résumé includes such flicks as the Lost in Space movie, the fifth Nightmare on Elm Street movie, and twelve episodes of 24. His work with Predator 2 is actually pretty good, keeping things moving at a steady pace with impressive cinematography, tight editing, and some really cool action sequences. The only problem I had with it is that it doesn't really feel like a Predator movie. It doesn't have the same kind of presence as the other two movies in the trilogy. Maybe it's the change in setting to an urban jungle instead of a regular jungle, I don't know. But Predator 2 feels a lot different from the other two movies, and I can't say that's a good thing.

It's weird, too, because Predator 2 was written by Jim and John Thomas, the writers of the first movie. You'd think that the guys who created the Predator in the first place would be able to write a kickass sequel. But no, Predator 2 doesn't kick ass. The script is weak, frankly. What little story there is is stupid, the dialogue is crap, and the whole thing translates into a movie that ends up being more of a chore to watch than anything else. Okay, yeah, Predator wasn't the paragon of thought-provoking screenwriting or anything, but at least it didn't make you want to go watch something else instead.

And this brings us to the cast, which is forgettable to say the least. Danny Glover plays the movie's resident hero, and he's... well, he's less than impressive. I generally like Glover's work, but he just seems like the wrong person for the role. He's playing the role like your typical "reckless cop" action hero, but it doesn't suit him. It's like Glover went from playing Roger Murtaugh to playing Martin Riggs. He's a bad fit for the movie, and both his performance and the movie suffer for it. The rest of the cast isn't that great, either. Bill Paxton is annoying beyond belief, María Conchita Alonso is just plain bad, and Gary Busey is Gary Busey. I'm just sad that Busey doesn't go completely over the top with his overacting. It would have the movie just a little bit more entertaining.

Predator 2 didn't have to turn out this way. It could have been awesome. But it's not. It's just another incident of a lame sequel following an awesome movie. I hate when that happens, but you can't really change things twenty years after the fact. It's at least a watchable lousy movie. It has that going for it, at least. But I can't give Predator 2 anything higher than two stars. Really, how sad is it that it took 20th Century Fox over two decades to make a movie with the Predator in it that was worth watching?

Final Rating: **

Drive Angry (2011)

The Academy Awards were this past Sunday, and just like it is every other year, it was four boring hours of Hollywood slapping itself on the back for creating a bunch of artsy-fartsy movies that are made solely to win Oscars in the first place. But my motto when it comes to watching movies is "screw art, let's party." I'm not rushing out to see King George VI overcome his stutter or a bunch of ballerinas trying out for Swan Lake, and I'm certainly not interested in a movie about how Facebook was created. I'm not saying I'll never see those movies, but I'd much rather go see movies that are a ton of fun instead.

And that's just what Drive Angry is. It hasn't gotten many good reviews and it hasn't been doing too hot at the box office, but the movie is all kinds of entertaining. It's a ludicrous movie, with nonsensical writing, over-the-top acting, and a feeling that it doesn't aspire to be anything more than it already is. But that's what's so awesome about it. It's basically a grindhouse movie with an A-list star and a $45,000,000 budget. But let's dig in and see what makes Drive Angry just so damn cool.

Meet John Milton (Nicolas Cage), a long-dead criminal who has quite literally broken out of Hell. His mission: to kill Jonah King (Billy Burke), a cult leader who murdered Milton's daughter and kidnapped his infant granddaughter. Jonah and his cult plan to sacrifice the baby in a satanic ritual that they believe will unleash Hell on Earth.

Milton quickly finds support in Piper (Amber Heard), a young waitress who teams up with him after he kicks the crap out of her abusive boyfriend. But hot on their tail is "The Accountant" (William Fichtner), an operative of Satan's that is entrusted with making sure all of Hell's escapees are returned. And though he doesn't have a problem with Milton trying to kill Jonah, it's just bad for business if people escape from Hell.

Drive Angry is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, one of the most badass movies I have ever seen theatrically. I don't care what the reviews or the box office grosses say; Drive Angry is awesome. There honestly aren't enough good things I can say about it. It's a movie that puts fun and amusement at the forefront, all logic be damned. There's no story to tell here. There's no greater purpose or higher meaning to Drive Angry. It simply is what it is, and I love it for that.

The movie was directed by Patrick Lussier, his first film following his underrated remake of My Bloody Valentine. This marks his second 3D movie, and even if Drive Angry were in 2D, it'd still be cool. The movie looks fantastic, with slick cinematography and awesome effects. Lussier never lets the movie slow down either, making sure there's always a car chase or a gunfight or a brawl happening before the audience can lose interest. Two moments in particular stand out: the scene where The Accountant plows through a police roadblock in a hydrogen truck and the bit where Milton opens fire on a dozen of Jonah's cult members while having sex with some floozy he picked up at a bar. These two scenes are simply unbelievable, both in their concepts and their executions. I'm actually surprised, even now, that these scenes exist and by how well Lussier pulled them off.

I also thought the 3D effects turned out really well, too. Drive Angry was shot using 3D cameras, rather than the usual "make it in 2D and do a 3D conversion in post-production" routine that most movies go through. Since it's "real" 3D and not that after-the-fact stuff, the movie immediately looks a lot better than other 3D movies. Despite some filmmakers saying that 3D could be a serious tool in cinematic storytelling, Lussier sees the truth: that it's just a gimmick that only really pays off if you treat it as such. And he goes all-out with it, pulling off as many cheesy "throw whatever's available at the audience" tricks as he can. That might sound silly to some, but considering the kind of movie this is, that sort of thing is to be expected. If you're going to see Drive Angry, you must see it in 3D. It's definitely worth the extra $2.50 premium.

Moving along, let's talk a little about the script. Written by Lussier and Todd Farmer, who previously collaborated on the My Bloody Valentine remake, the script is rife with goofy moments, ludicrous dialogue and one-liners, and a plot so threadbare that you could struggle to say there's even a plot at all. But that's the great thing about it. Lussier and Farmer know that they're writing an exploitation movie, so they go at it with everything they've got. And really, the movie is a million times more fun for it.

And this brings us to the movie's cast, whom are all awesome in their own ways. Nicolas Cage is our lead actor here, and he plays the character as the most unbelievably grizzled badass imaginable. It's like they somehow managed to fuse Charles Bronson and Rambo and stuck the end result in an exploitation movie. Say what you will about Cage's acting ability, but he's perfect for Drive Angry. I couldn't imagine anyone doing a better job in the role. Every line he says, every move he makes, it's all awesome. Not a second of his screen time is wasted; all of it is dedicated to making Cage look like the roughest, toughest antihero possible. And Cage is fantastic, to say the least.

Playing Cage's sidekick is Amber Heard, who does the whole "action heroine" thing with aplomb. She gets to kick a lot of ass in the movie, and Heard jumps into it headfirst. Though not a lot is demanded from her as far as actual acting goes, Heard still has a strong onscreen presence. She plays Piper as a strong-willed young woman who has no qualms with kicking the crap out of someone if she has to. Her lively attitude is a great balance to Cage's gruffness, which is much better when you factor in that her character is not once considered as a potential love interest to Cage's.

As the target of Milton's vengeance is Billy Burke, who only work I'd seen prior to this in the Twilight movies. And if anything, his character in Drive Angry is a million miles away from his character in Twilight. I wasn't even for sure it was the same guy until I read it on the Internet. Burke plays Jonah King as sleazy as he can get, coming off as more snake than man at times. He's effectively creepy, giving Jonah a kind of "Jim Jones meets Charles Manson" kind of vibe. You know, the kind of cult leader that could kill dozens of people and convince his followers to drink cyanide-flavored Kool-Aid at the same time. Burke makes a great villain, one that the movie needed.

But really, if all truth be told, the entire movie belongs to William Fichtner. The guy is so awesome that he steals scenes he's not even in. Fichtner's Accountant is the epitome of cool and composed throughout the movie. He never raises his voice or acts out of sorts, casually delivering insults and killing people as if it were his standard routine. (And since the character's from Hell, it probably is.) Fichtner's straight-laced performance in the midst of all this insanity makes for funnier moments than I've seen in some comedies. I know there will probably never be a Drive Angry 2, but if there is, I'm hoping the whole thing follows Fichtner, because he was pretty much the best part of the movie.

Drive Angry is 104 minutes of pure old-school exploitation. It has no shame at all, fully embracing its own trashy nature. And I couldn't love it more. It's a movie that won't be up everyone's alley, but those who do enjoy this style of flick will love it. I'm not kidding when I say that the movie really is one of the most entertaining rides I've been on in forever. The fact that the movie bombed is disappointing, because the movie is one that has to be seen to be believed. So I'm asking if you like silly action movies with gimmicky 3D, go check out Drive Angry before it gets pulled from theaters. I'm going to give it four stars on the scale, and a huge recommendation to check it out. I know I said it'll probably never happen, but I'm still hoping for a sequel. I'd see Drive Angry 2 a million times.

Final Rating: ****

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)

I've written more than once about my occasional journeys into the realm of international horror movies. These "journeys" have taken me to Japan, Spain, Canada, Australia, and England, with more than a few great scary movies coming from these countries. One of them was Neil Marshall's The Descent, a fantastic flick about of a group of thrillseekers who get trapped in a cave system in the Appalachian Mountains with a pack of man-eating creatures. I loved The Descent when I first saw it, and it still holds up upon multiple viewings.

So when it was announced that there would be a sequel to The Descent, I got excited. But unfortunately, it ended up going direct-to-video in the United States and totally flew under the radar. I even forgot it had been released here at all until I got it in the mail from Netflix a few days ago. But here we are, so let's see if it's anywhere as good as its predecessor.

The movie picks up not long after where the first one left off, as Sarah Carter (Shauna Macdonald) has managed to escape from the uncharted caves that claimed the lives of her friends. She wakes up in the hospital two days later with no memory what happened and no reason why she was found covered in her friends' blood. Hoping to jog her memory and find some other survivors, Sheriff Vaines (Gavin O'Herlihy) demands that Sarah accompany him and a rescue team into the caves. This, obviously, is a very bad idea. It isn't long before they too are preyed upon by the bloodthirsty monsters that call the caves home.

The Descent: Part 2 is a far different movie than the first one. The original Descent focused more on atmosphere and suspense, while the sequel goes a more violent route. One could say the movie is to the first Descent what James Cameron's Aliens was to Ridley Scott's Alien. The Descent: Part 2 is more violent and more graphic than the original, but I sadly cannot say that it's as good. That's a real shame too, because I went in hoping for the best. That's not to say it's a bad movie, but it could have been a lot better.

The thing that hurts the movie most of all is its script. Written by James Watkins, J. Blakeson, and James McCarthy, the script is really lacking. The characters are forgettable and undeveloped, the plot is nonexistent, and a thought-dead character from the first movie shows up at the one-hour mark just so they can have a greater connection to the first movie. That has to be why the character was brought back, because I don't remember any loose ends from the movie that needed to be tied. They don't even handle the character's return that well, with any sort of drama or pathos that could be drawn from it is poorly done.

I also thought the movie's ending was total bullcrap. I try to avoid totally giving away endings, so I'm not going to spoil this one. But I can and will tell you that this movie's ending sucks. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. You know how some people get pissy over the twist ending of High Tension? I'm like that in regards to the twist ending of The Descent: Part 2. The twist comes absolutely out of nowhere, with no setup or clues at all. At least you could think of ways to justify High Tension's twist that make sense. But the only way I could justify this movie's twist is by assuming they wanted to do something as a hook for The Descent: Part 3. It's stupid and annoying and practically ruins the whole movie.

I was only a wee bit disappointed with the cast. With no character development and the fact that the movie is pretty much a body count flick, I got the feeling that the cast decided to not bother at all. Most of the actors are forgettable, but they're playing anonymous cannon fodder, so I guess it's understandable. The only people in the movie who stand out are Shauna Macdonald, Gavan O'Herlihy, and Krysten Cummings, and they aren't really memorable for good reasons. Cummings is annoying and O'Herlihy is just plain bad, while Macdonald's performance would have been a lot better had more of the movie been spent examining how her character had been traumatized. If the movie had adopted a psychological aspect, it could have made for one hell of a movie. But that doesn't happen, and Macdonald's performance is a little dull as a result. She makes a decent enough effort, but it sadly isn't enough.

Last on my list is the direction, courtesy of first-time filmmaker Jon Harris. And maybe it's just me, but I thought the movie looked comparable to one of those Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies, only with better effects. The movie just doesn't feel like they're actually stuck in a real cave. I mean, it sure seemed a lot less dark than a real cave would be. Where was all that extra light coming from? I guess it doesn't matter, that it could be included under the banner of "suspension of disbelief," but it makes me curious. And it doesn't help that it makes everything look like a cheap set, too. I also wasn't a fan of the jittery camerawork and quick editing Harris employed during the action scenes. I hate that crap in general, and the movie didn't need it at all.

But that's not to say that the direction is all bad. While I was a little bummed that Harris chose to employ nothing but jump scares instead of building suspense or terror, some of the jump scenes are actually pretty effective. Harris even ties one into one of the original Descent's best scares via a camcorder belonging to a character from the first movie. And you know what? It works.

But the problem with The Descent: Part 2 is just how unnecessary it feels. Was this a movie that absolutely needed to be made? If it was, then it could have been done a lot better. As it stands, the movie is simply adequate at best. It's okay, I guess, but I'd really rather just stick with the first movie and pretend the sequel didn't exist. I didn't think it was a bad movie at all; I just thought it was disappointing. And I hate to say that, too.

Final Rating: **½

Buried (2010)

Like many others out there, I'm claustrophobic. It's not an extreme case or anything, but tight spaces are something that I'd like to avoid. And as a claustrophobic person, one of the worst things I could imagine would be to find myself buried alive. Just thinking about it makes me want to have a panic attack.

It was this fear that drew me to the movie Buried. Its whole concept captured my attention, but since it didn't play anywhere near me during its theatrical run last fall, I unfortunately missed out. But thanks to the wonders of DVD and Netflix, I can tell you that Buried is one heck of a movie.

As the movie begins, Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), a civilian contractor working with the American military in the Middle East, awakens to find himself in a rather dangerous predicament. Paul's convoy was attacked by Iraqi insurgents, and he was taken hostage. These insurgents have buried Paul in a pine box somewhere in the desert, holding him for a million-dollar ransom. With him in the casket is a working cell phone, with which he frantically tries contacting someone who can help him before what little oxygen he has runs out.

A lot of movies, both in the thriller and horror genres, have tried using claustrophobia to enhance their atmosphere. Some are successful, some are not. But Buried is one of those movies that takes claustrophobia to such an unconscionable degree that it's almost unbearable. I practically had a panic attack within the first ten minutes of the movie, no joke. The way the movie accomplishes this is pretty brave, which I'll get into later. But I'll say this much now: Buried is fantastic.

The movie was directed by Spanish filmmaker Rodrigo Cortés, who took the very bold step of never leaving the coffin. Not a single second of Buried takes place outside of the box our protagonist is trapped inside. Most directors probably would have used flashbacks, or taken us above ground to show us whom Paul is talking to on his cell phone. But Cortés doesn't. He keeps the movie inside the coffin, lighting it with a lighter, a flashlight, glowsticks, and a cell phone screen. He honestly could have made Buried with a camcorder on a budget of 500 bucks, for all we see during the movie. This minimalist approach actually makes the movie move unnerving, since it gives us so little room to breathe. I'm sure that's what Cortés was aiming for, and if it was, he aced it.

I also thought that the script, penned by Chris Sparling, worked well too. Sparling essentially wrote a one-man show, since Ryan Reynolds is the only actor to physically appear on-screen during the movie. But he pulls it off without a hitch. It must have been tempting to write scenes set above ground, but the fact that there are no scenes like that at all is really cool. The only thing that bugged me about it is this: Why couldn't anyone try tracking the GPS locator in Paul's phone? If the kidnapper had left him with one of those first-generation cell phones that were the size of a brick, then I'd understand. But he was stuck in there with a BlackBerry. Unless the kidnappers disabled the GPS locator, he could have been found in no time.

And as the only actor in the movie (outside of the voices heard over the phone), Ryan Reynolds has to carry the whole thing by himself. And he's good, really good. I'm still not used to seeing him in non-comedic roles, even after seeing this and The Amityville Horror, but if he can pull it off, I'm not arguing with him playing roles like this. Reynolds is believable here, in that I'd probably act the same way if I were stuck in the same situation. That is, once I stopped crying and peeing myself in fear. The movie would have been ruined had Reynolds's performance been anything other than great, but luckily, he is great.

Though they aren't produced that often, there does exist a tiny sub-genre of movies where people find themselves trapped alone in unenviable situations. There have been people stuck on a ski lift, in the middle of the ocean, in a phone booth at the end of a sniper's gun barrel, and between a literal rock and a hard place. Buried is not only a fantastic addition to that sub-genre, but an awesome film in general. It's incredibly effective, well-made, and definitely worth watching. I'm actually sad it didn't get a wider theatrical release, because it's totally deserving of a wider audience. But that's the glory of a DVD release, right? So yeah, go rent Buried right the heck now, because on the usual scale, I'm giving it four stars and a solid recommendation. It's definitely worth the watch.

Final Rating: ****

Clue (1985)

You can turn pretty much anything into a movie. No matter how crazy the idea may be, it can be done. I know this because I've seen it happen. All we have to do is go back in time to the winter of 1985, when Paramount Pictures released a movie based on the classic Parker Brothers board game Clue. No, I am not making that up. A major film studio actually turned a board game into a feature-length motion picture. But believe it or not, the movie is actually really good. It's a tragically underrated flick that really should have a broader audience than what it has currently.

The Clue movie takes us to a foreboding mansion in the middle of nowhere, where six strangers have been invited to a dinner party. As they arrive, they are greeted by Wadsworth (Tim Curry), the butler of the house, who informs them that they have each been given pseudonyms for the sake of privacy. After dinner, Wadsworth reveals that they're all connected to each other through one common element: extortion. The mansion's owner, Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), is blackmailing them, as he is aware of secrets that could destroy their lives if revealed...

• "Mrs. White" (Madeline Kahn) is alleged to have killed two of her husbands, one of whom was a nuclear physicist working on the next neutron bomb.
• "Professor Plum" (Christopher Lloyd) is a former psychiatrist who lost his license after having improper relations with a patient, something that potentially cost him his job at the World Health Organization.
• "Mrs. Peacock" (Eileen Brennan) takes bribes to ensure her United States Senator husband votes a certain way.
• "Miss Scarlet" (Lesley Ann Warren) runs an illegal bordello who has a rather high-profile clientele.
• "Mrs. Peacock" (Eileen Brennan) takes bribes to ensure her United States Senator husband votes a certain way.
• "Colonel Mustard" (Martin Mull) is a war profiteer who uses his connections within the Pentagon to acquire and sell stolen radio components on the black market.
• "Mr. Green" (Michael McKean) is a closeted homosexual who works for the State Department. There would be dire consequences for him if this were to become widely known, considering that the movie takes place in the less-tolerant 1950s.

Wadsworth has gathered them all together to confront Mr. Boddy and hand him over to the cops, whom he assures are on their way. But a wrench is thrown into the mix when Mr. Boddy is killed by persons unknown. As the night progresses, more people start turning up dead, and Wadsworth and the six guests frantically try to determine who the killer is before the police arrive

I know what you're thinking: "Who in their right mind would turn a board game into a movie?" I thought the same thing when I first heard of the Clue movie. But as I said in the introduction, the movie is surprisingly good. It's smart, funny, well-acted and directed. It's one of those movies that I simply cannot believe people wouldn't like. How can someone not watch this movie and not think it's great? But let's dig into the Clue movie and see why it's so good.

At the helm is Jonathan Lynn, making his directorial debut. He'd go on to make My Cousin Vinny, The Whole Nine Yards, and Sgt. Bilko, but we're here for Clue, so let's stick to that. Lynn approaches the movie with a sensibility resembling that of film noir, using the music, cinematography, and set design to make Clue an effective parody of the murder mystery genre. You don't really need a lot to make a comedy work, but Lynn goes all out in making sure his movie is especially good.

It helps that Lynn has other elements to work with as well. One of them is the script written by Lynn himself, from a story by he and John Landis. The script is not only incredibly funny, but very smart to boot. Clue was actually released with three endings, with each theater showing a different one. Lynn's script is so smart and well-written that all three are plausible conclusions. It also provides a boost to his direction, since Lynn had to film the movie in such a way to make the three endings work too.

But the best part of Clue has to be its ensemble cast. Everyone in the movie provides a great performance regardless of how minor or inconsequential their character is. Perhaps the most dominant member of the ensemble is Tim Curry, who I've always enjoyed even in the worst of movies. He's fun, charming, and downright entertaining here, and especially during the bit where he's running around explaining just how the murders were committed.

I also thought Christopher Lloyd and Michael McKean were fantastic in their roles, and I quite enjoyed the late Madeline Kahn as well. Her dry, almost deadpan delivery was a stark contrast to the overacting coming from her co-stars, and it made for an amusing watch. And while I'm thinking of it, did Colleen Camp's accent have to be so outrageous? Camp plays the mansion's resident French maid, and the accent she takes on is so over the top that there's no way it was meant to be anything but a joke. It's just too silly to take seriously.

That pretty much sums up the whole movie. It's too silly to be serious. And that's what's so great about it! You're making a movie about a board game, so why not go as goofy as possible? Clue's a movie that I wish had a wider audience, but the fact that it's merely a cult hit means that I get to have fun introducing it to people. Like you readers, for instance. This review probably hasn't done the movie justice, but I hope that you'll overlook the fact that it's based on a board game and check it out. It's definitely worth a watch. So on my scale, Clue gets four stars and a proud recommendation. Movies based on board games... what'll they think of next?

Final Rating: ****