“Being There”(1979) -The real Forest Gump(4/4). But much better at a specific level (The innocence of the mentally unaware, and the happenstance of “being there". This one is all about acting and interacting rather than the story. Great movie, and yet something about it is too sly or surreal to hit home. Then, of course…there’s the ending. Watch this movie, if for no other reason than to tell me what you thought of it and why. I gave it 3/4 but could see it going 4/4.

“The Warriors” (1979)-A Classic, but not a classic of mine. Pretty cool inner results after of a long night of external struggle on the part of one of many gangs in a fantastical yet dreary world. 3/4 stars. No comparisons I can think of.

“Along Came a Spider”(2001) -Wow, I used to like this movie, and I still like Morgan Freeman. I gave this movie 3/4 when it came out. I just read the book for the first time, then re-rented the movie…what a let down. They left about 60-75% of the importance and events of the book out of the movie. Sad. 2/4 stars for still being an okay or decent flick.

“Black Scorpion” (1995) -Batman/Night Rider wannabe. The twist is its a female cop who isn’t appreciated or taken seriously, but finds that she can be taken seriously and fight crime better masked and bound in black leather. 1/4 stars, but actually enjoyable despite being crap. mmm crap!

“National Lampoon’s Barely Legal”(2005) -"The Girl Next Door” wannabe. T and A, a couple recognizable young actors. Pretty lame. 1/4 stars

“The Cheerleaders”(1973) ‘73-Drive-in theater intro to cable porn. Nostalgic perhaps for those of you may have seen it. Otherwise, it’s T and A and nothing else. 1/4 Stars.

“Children of Corn 7″(2001) (Yay, I’m Done with this series) I know, you wouldn’t see it anyway, but 1/4 stars.

“Sleepaway Camp”(1983) -One of the originals. I think it predates or is very near the time of the Friday the 13th series. Not that bad! 1/4 stars. Freaky ending.

A great movie tells a good story well. This is true of books and movies. I have read books that tell good stories poorly, and other books that have told bad stories well. Movies now differ from books in that they no longer require a story be told. Plot is far more commonly missing from movies than from books. Marketing in cinema has had a great impact in this way. Movie producers have created formulas for creating movies that bring in the big bucks [1]. This has impacted the music industry quite similarly. Both industries have destroyed art, originality, and unpredictability. Instead of plot, many movies are now filled with eye candy: stunts, CGI (Computer Generated Imaging), major celebrities, sex appeal, gratuitous violence, gore, explosions, and loudly played popular music as parts of the soundtrack. These formula-based creations in cinema and music have created elitism in movie and music appreciation. People have since become divided on musical and cinematic “taste”. Some people like movies like Moulin Rouge simply because it is new or different. Others like The Fast and the Furious, because it has guns, testosterone, fast cars, and hot babes. For me a great movie, in addition to telling a good story well, may be the best it is at what it does. Some highly influential films that have done this in action or animation include Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and The Matrix. When each of these movies came out, they had done the best possible to date at certain things. All included interesting science fiction plots, introduced new animation capabilities, and sported high-speed action sequences (props to THX sound quality).

A great story is one that touches people’s lives in some way, taking them on a journey of thought, emotion, and events. The creation of that story often requires the work of book writers or screenwriters. To tell a story well primarily requires a director with the vision to bring out the greatness of a story on the screen, without losing its magic and if possible enhancing that magic with cinematic elements writers sometimes miss. This director must also be able to work with actors who fit their parts, and are either able to live up to their character or at least to their direction (Keanu Reeves isn’t much of an actor in my opinion, but he takes direction and plays Neo in The Matrix quite well). Anthony Hopkins on the other hand is successful without direction due to his acting ability (He makes a charmingly sinister Hannibal Lecter). Both types of actors are crucial to a variety of great movies. Another couple of aspects to making a great movie are cinematography, and sound (effects and soundtrack). Sound is half the movie. Without audio, you are left with visual (cinematography, editing, costumes, location etc.). More commonly it is poor visuals that ruin a movie, but there are those times when a decent movie is totally destroyed by a random or misplaced soundtrack. Compiling the strengths of direction, action, visual, and audio a great movie is born.

A four star movie is very good (or great), often being a favorite of mine. I believe any genre can be done right, but I think drama is the genre that succeeds most in greatness (I believe “Drama” is a genre often based solely on plot, but to keep people interested it has to include romance, comedy, action, or horror; thus making for a healthy dose of the spices of life). Great movies also seem to have common trends in artistic accomplishment, originality or having stories with magical qualities. Some examples of four star movies would be Life is Beautiful (in Italian), The Godfather, Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride, Memento, and Pulp Fiction. A great movie tells a good story well.

A three star movie is good. I like these movies, or can see why someone would. Often I find that a 3 star movie is the type of movie that I can recommend to most anyone (while four star movies may be the type that people either love or hate). I find the most common three star movies are action and drama movies. Examples of three star movies would be The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Monster’s Inc, and Good Will Hunting. A good movie meets the expectations of the genre, but may not transcend genre in its story telling as a great movie would. Whether or not a movie meets the requirements of genre includes style as well as broad categorization. For instance, some may want a horror movie to be highly suspenseful or scary, rather than say a totally predictable “slasher” sequel that may come across as comedic. Again, a movie must be judged based on what it is, and what it isn’t rather than whether it is what the viewer wanted. If I want a gory movie, I probably shouldn’t be renting Disney, animated, G and PG rated film. So, a “slasher” movie must be compared to other “slasher” movies. Because “slasher” movies aren’t good movies, they are commonly one-star movies on my rating system.

A two star movie is fair. A common response to it would be “meh” (meaning it’s okay but I wouldn’t recommend it). This generally happens when formulaic movies have used the same formula a bit too much. Movies like this merely entertain. While having no originality or greatness, a movie may gain any of the lower ratings based on how well it succeeded in its pure goal to entertain. For instance, The Fast and the Furious is very entertaining. It is stupid, formulaic, and predictable, but it’s fun (I give it 3 stars). Van Damme is often in my “okay” movies. I love his action movies, but mostly they aren’t any good. The crappier Saturday Night Live actors’ movies are often here as well, however that bunch has done plenty of good movies as well (they just make so many, they’ve got to succeed by odds of probability if for no other reason). Some examples of two star movies would include Black Sheep, A Night at the Roxbury, Dude, Where’s My Car?, Men In Black 2, and End of Days. These movies weren’t anything special, but people don’t really hate them unless they had higher expectations going into them.

A one star movie is poor. Let’s face it these movies are often “B” movies, or horrible “A” movies. These are movies that most people would try to avoid picking up from the video store simply by looking at the distasteful covers. Another hint to pointing out poor movies would be that many of them never made it to theaters, and are often sequels of movies you never heard anyone recommend. The movies I give one star, most other people would give a bomb. These are people who haven’t seen nearly as many movies as I have. They haven’t seen nearly as many bad movies as I have either. Perhaps those types of people are better with a dichotomous rating such as the thumbs-up or thumbs-down system. Here are some examples of one star movies: Anaconda 2: Hunt for the Blood Orchid, Best of the Best 2, The Bikini Carwash Company, and Carnosaur 3. For me a poor movie did something well. It has some sort of cinematic merit. I’m not saying these movies aren’t bad, or that these movies are worth watching, but that they could have been worse.

A “bomb” (zero stars), is a movie rating I give to movies that make you wish you had that much time of your life back. The only way movies like this could really be worse is if they were longer and you were forced to sit through their entirety. Some bombs I’ve sat through in my time include Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Going Overboard, American Wedding, The Land Before Time IV, and American Cyborg: Steel Warrior. You probably could have made better movies with your camcorder.

James Berardinelli, my favorite movie critic, gives Aliens vs. Predator (AvP) 1.5 stars out of 4 [2]. His major issue with AvP is that it was made just to be an action movie, and it wasn’t filled with action (they tried to develop plot). He does mention that it was also aimed at a specific audience, the fans. Berardinelli continues, “It’s not likely that the movie will be of great interest to anyone else, except perhaps as a curiosity.” I can agree with that statement. But, being a “fanboy”, I am most qualified to critique a movie directed toward my kind. In this respect there is no wonder that I didn’t like Pride and Prejudice (movie or book), since I wasn’t the intended audience. I believe Berardinelli’s critique is a bit harsh, as he merely compares AvP to its six movie predecessors, rather than to its source (comic books). Still, his critique is useful; informing that if you aren’t the directed audience, you probably won’t get much out of it (Most Americans couldn’t stand to sit through most India films). However, the lack of diversity in intended audience may well be a cause for a calling a good movie bland.

Aliens vs. Predator is the fifth Alien movie and the third Predator movie. It was also the movie for which Dark Horse Comics fans had been waiting for years (You may remember some other movies that came from DHC: Aliens, Predator, Judge Dredd, Robocop, Terminator, Tarzan, Conan, Hellboy, and more). AvP is a comic book series that has long awaited the big screen since both species have starred in their own movies since the release of Predator in 1987. Being the comic nerd that I am, I have every issue of the titles Alien, Predator, and AvP ever written, and all the DVD’s of the movies to boot.

I gave AvP three stars. Let’s face it, while it was enjoyable, adventurous, and true to the comic books, it wasn’t done great. Direction is probably the biggest flaw in this movie. The beginning starts out slow, and seems to have little if no effect in background activity or soundtrack to give it the feeling of believability, or to give the movie the kind of flow we’ve come to expect from cinema. Also, the movie lacks flow and plot throughout. I’ll grant that it’s an action movie, but the subject matter they ran into seemed far too condensed to give the movie steady flow(when the director’s cut of the DVD came out it solved some of these problems). Overall the acting was pretty poor. I feel the only acting that was necessary was that of the main female character played by Sanaa Lathan. She did a pretty good job living up to the acting quality of “actors” like Arnold Schwarzenegger (Not to nock him, even at the age of 50 he could kick my ass. Nonetheless, comic movies are made for one-liners and she delivered).

A major aspect that AvP succeeded in was an original background storyline. The idea of the temple under ice in Antarctica having been the cradle of humanity from which our earliest known cultures originated was extremely well done. This is not the background of the comic books, but since no origin is given which negates this theory, it makes for an interesting addition to the mythology (a lot was done to start that off, then they rushed to get an action movie done). In the comic books it is true that Predators have used many planets as grounds for “The Great Hunt” in which coming of age Predators are dropped onto a planet to hunt one of the “deadliest of the species” [3]. This deadly species of aliens is like a parasite that breeds through other species, creating a wide variety of dangerous cross-breeds for the hunters to add to their collections of skulls.

Another enjoyable part of this movie is that a female character fights and wins her way into co-op ranks with the predator as has happened in the comics. I find that intriguing because, to the Predator, humans all look the same. It is the ability to hunt, not the gender that has any impact on how humans are treated. Females have been major parts of storylines as heroines in both the Alien movies (Sigourney Weaver), and in the Predator comic books (Aliens vs. Predator: Booty).

One addition to the AvP film is that it reintroduces Lance Henrikson, who was a big part of the Alien series. He financed the expedition in AvP, was the cyborg / android (I’m not nerdy enough to remember which is which) in the first Alien movie, and showed up in at least one of the following Alien movies as the man behind Wayland Industries (the company funding the expedition of retrieving an Alien). The example of Predator respect is seen again in the movie when Henrikson’s character tries to taunt a Predator into killing him. The predator simply sees an unarmed old and terminally ill enemy…not a prize buck. When the Predator turns from him, the old bull shows his worth by using a makeshift flamethrower on the Predator. This move gains Henrikson’s character the respect of the predator and earns him a quick death to boot. In one of the comic book series there is a short story of a Predator killing livestock and / or humans in a small Japanese village. When the Predator comes upon a blind villager, he leaves him alone in the assumption that he is a “throw-back.” The blind man is a former samurai and defends his village, giving the Predator a katana with which to duel. The blind samurai saves his village, kills the predator, keeps the Predator’s mask as a trophy, and gains the respect of the Predator’s tribal leaders who return for the body.

What AvP did most well is in not letting the comic fans down by straying from the nature of the original stories. Secondly, this movie had wonderful action sequences. While it lost some believability at some parts, it portrayed both the Alien and the Predator perfectly. This, however, was expected since both the Aliens series and Predator series did very well even for how long ago they were released (Predator in ’87 / Alien in ’79). The CGI was formidable, and the movement styles of the two species were given very close attention to detail. If the movie ran smoother, had better overall acting, and was rated R for being more realistic in the violence and gore (all the other 4 Aliens movies and 2 Predator movies were rated R), it would have been a great movie. It was, after all, an action movie for the “fanboys” of a science fiction, alien invading, comic book story. The costumes were wonderfully intricate, aided with the beauty of CGI. Not every comic book movie can be as good as Batman Begins, but it did take them five tries to get it right. Maybe Aliens vs. Predator 2 will be better.

The most important basic elements in making a good movie are story, direction, acting, visual, and audio. If my rating system were going to closely correlate with the five aforementioned faculties of a great movie, I think I would still have to give the movie three stars. I would give it one star for the story, one for visuals, and one for audio. I think the overall acting (or chosen cast) could have been better independent of direction, and while the story was good, the direction seemed to have hindered its flow. Visuals were very well done. All the rest of the formula people desire including action, violence, romance, and comedy are all parts of whether or not there was a good story. A good story will entertain. A good story told well will keep you interested. Aliens vs. Predator wasn’t great, but it was a good story told pretty well.

Research Materials:
[1] http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-11635.html

http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev…2/Dman2122.jpg

http://www.eleganthack.com/archives/what_makes_a_great_movie_quote.php

http://www.teakada.com/archives/what_ismakes_a_great_movie.html

http://www.themoviemark.com/badmovies/gymkata.asp

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112682/

http://www.sydfield.com/featured_screenwritinghalloffame.htm

http://www.eternalblight.com/Movies.html

http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D65969++&mscssid=H8KWFXUBNBS98GS4K4BQH8D3ALWP5SM8
[2] http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D65969++&mscssid=H8KWFXUBNBS98GS4K4BQH8D3ALWP5SM8

[3]Aliens vs. Predator: Deadliest of the Species

Aliens vs. Predator: War by Randy Stradley

However, there are those who believe in the existence of an actual ancient text called the Necronomicon which may or may not fit the description given in Lovecraft’s fiction. Lovecraft often referenced fictional works in his horror fiction, a practice common among subsequent fantasy authors. The Necronomicon was first mentioned in Lovecraft’s 1923 short story, “The Hound.” It was hinted of as early as 1919, in his short story “The Statement of Randolph Carter.” Wikipedia continues to explain:

In the stories, the book is dangerous to read because it is often harmful to the health and sanity of its readers. For this reason, libraries keep it under lock and key. Capitalizing on the notoriety of the fictional tome, real-life publishers have printed many books entitled Necronomicon since Lovecraft’s death. How Lovecraft conceived the name “Necronomicon” is not clear—Lovecraft himself claimed that the title came to him in a dream. Perhaps he was influenced by Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher” and an unfinished first century astronomical poem by Roman poet Marcus Manilius titled the Astronomicon. Although some have suggested that Lovecraft was influenced primarily by Robert W. Chambers’ collection of short stories, The King in Yellow, it is now believed that Lovecraft did not read that work until 1927. Lovecraft originally titled the book the Al Azif (from Arabic, meaning the sound of cicadas and other nocturnal insects, which folklore claims is the conversations of demons) and said that it was written by the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred. Among other things, the work contained an account of the Old Ones, their history, and the means for summoning them. According to Lovecraft, Alhazred wrote the original text in Damascus around 730 AD, but a number of translations were made over the centuries. The Greek translation, which gave the book its most famous title, was made by a (fictional) Orthodox scholar, Theodorus Philetas of Constantinople circa 950 AD. Olaus Wormius (an actual historical person wrongly placed by Lovecraft in the thirteenth century) translated it into Latin and indicated in the preface that the Arabic original was lost. This translation was printed twice: In the fifteenth century, evidently in Germany in black-letter, and in the seventeenth, probably in Spain. When the Latin translation called attention to the Necronomicon, it was banned by Pope Gregory IX in 1232. The Greek translation, printed in Italy between 1500 and 1550, was probably lost when fire destroyed R. U. Pickman’s library in Salem. The Elizabethan magician John Dee allegedly had a copy (an idea suggested to Lovecraft by his friend Frank Belknap Long) and is thought to have made an English translation, of which only fragments survive.

Some critics accuse Lovecraft of using the Necronomicon as deus ex machina in his stories, having it mentioned whenever the narrator makes an occult reference, no matter how unlikely it is that the narrator has delved into the occult. However, this practice is far more common in the pastiches of his imitators rather than in the stories of Lovecraft himself. With the possible exception of the protagonists in “The Dunwich Horror", all of the characters in Lovecraft’s works who read the Mad Arab’s book come to horrific ends. Lovecraft made frequent reference to the Necronomicon but was very sparing with actual detail of its appearance and contents. That it is a substantial tome cannot be questioned according to “The Dunwich Horror.” However, other than the obvious black letter editions nothing else is known of its physical dimension or appearance although it is commonly portrayed as bound in leather of various types and having metal clasps. Editions are sometimes disguised, as Mr John Merrit discovers to his disquiet when pulling down a book labelled Qanoon-e-Islam from Joseph Curwen’s bookshelf and discovering it actually to be the Necronomicon in “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.”

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Nameless City":

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die.
(Later versions of the same quote always read “even death may die".)

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Festival":

The nethermost caverns are not for the fathoming of eyes that see; for their marvels are strange and terrific. Cursed the ground where dead thoughts live new and oddly bodied, and evil the mind that is held by no head. Wisely did Ibn Schacabao say, that happy is the tomb where no wizard hath lain, and happy the town at night whose wizards are all ashes. For it is of old rumour that the soul of the devil-bought hastes not from his charnel clay, but fats and instructs the very worm that gnaws; till out of corruption horrid life springs, and the dull scavengers of earth wax crafty to vex it and swell monstrous to plague it. Great holes secretly are digged where earth’s pores ought to suffice, and things have learnt to walk that ought to crawl.

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Dunwich Horror":

Nor is it to be thought that man is either the oldest or the last of earth’s masters, or that the common bulk of life and substance walks alone. The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we know, but between them, they walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen. Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They had trod earth’s fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread. By Their smell can men sometimes know Them near, but of Their semblance can no man know, saving only in the features of those They have begotten on mankind; and of those are there many sorts, differing in likeness from man’s truest eidolon to that shape without sight or substance which is Them. They walk unseen and foul in lonely places where the Words have been spoken and the Rites howled through at their Seasons. The wind gibbers with Their voices, and the earth mutters with Their consciousness. They bend the forest and crush the city, yet may not forest or city behold the hand that smites. Kadath in the cold waste hath known Them, and what man knows Kadath? The ice desert of the South and the sunken isles of Ocean hold stones whereon Their seal is engraver, but who hath seen the deep frozen city or the sealed tower long garlanded with seaweed and barnacles? Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! As a foulness shall ye know Them. Their hand is at your throats, yet ye see Them not; and Their habitation is even one with your guarded threshold. Yog-Sothoth is the key to the gate, whereby the spheres meet. Man rules now where They ruled once; They shall soon rule where man rules now. After summer is winter, after winter summer. They wait patient and potent, for here shall They reign again.

Wikipedia continues that there exist innumerable other Necronomicon quotes but those above are the only ones written by Lovecraft himself. In Lovecraft’s works, various people and places have copies of the Necronomicon (although it is far rarer than later imitators would have one believe despite its persistent appearances). Copies of the Necronomicon are held by only five institutions worldwide: The British Museum (now held at the British Library); the Bibliothèque nationale de France; Widener Library of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts; the University of Buenos Aires; and the library of the fictional Miskatonic University in the equally fictional Arkham, Massachusetts. The latter edition is the Latin translation by Olaus Wormius, printed in Spain in the 17th century. Other copies are kept by private individuals. Wilbur Whateley possesses a copy in “The Dunwich Horror” (1929), which is presumed to have gone to his heirs after his death. Joseph Curwen’s copy, mentioned above, was almost certainly destroyed by the raiding party that took his life. Harley Warren’s version (which is not mentioned by name but is instead most likely a copy) goes with him to his fate in “The Statement of Randolph Carter” (1919). A version is mentioned as being held in Kingsport in both “The Festival” (1925) and (by implication) The Case of Charles Dexter Ward (1941). The provenance of the copy read by the narrator of “The Nameless City” (1921) is unknown, while the version read by the main character in “The Hound” (1924) is presumed destroyed when all of his charnel goods are so disposed.