Share CrimsonKing42's profile
 
Facebook Twitter
 
 
CrimsonKing42
 
 
 
CrimsonKing42's stats
 
  • Review count
    78
  • Helpfulness votes
    68
  • First review
    April 20, 2008
  • Last review
    November 15, 2008
  • Featured reviews
    0
  • Average rating
    4.8
 
Reviews comments
  • Review comment count
    0
  • Helpfulness votes
    0
  • First review comment
    None
  • Last review comment
    None
  • Featured review comments
    0
 
Questions
  • Question count
    0
  • Helpfulness votes
    0
  • First question
    None
  • Last question
    None
  • Featured questions
    0
 
Answers
  • Answer count
    0
  • Helpfulness votes
    0
  • First answer
    None
  • Last answer
    None
  • Featured answers
    0
  • Best answers
    0
 
 
CrimsonKing42's Reviews
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 >>
 
The real DVD of Sin City has finally arrived -- and it is good. In fact, this release is brilliant. Not only does it split each individual story into their own separate uncut pieces as originally conceived in the comics, but just as expected with most of Robert Rodriguez's discs, the quality of the abundant extras are top-notch. If there's anyone in the movie business that clearly could be considered a teacher of the art, it's Rodriguez. Whether he's explaining how to make a movie with zero money or laying out how easy the world of cinema is with the dawn of the digital age, the man is the teacher whom every viewer wishes he or she could take continuing classes from. This extends to his ten-minute Cooking Schools, which make their triumphant return on this release as he takes you through how to cook late-night Sin City breakfast burritos! Face it, though, this is Frank Miller's baby, and thankfully, his stamp of approval is all over this sucker. From the animated menus to his commentary track with Rodriguez all the way to his narration of individual characters and settings in the world of Sin City, there's plenty of Frank Miller to chew on throughout the two discs. If that wasn't enough, this edition comes with a sized-down reprint of the first Sin City comic, The Hard Goodbye, which can be used as a comparison guide to the finished product. On top of all of this, add in some Quentin Tarantino and Bruce Willis audio-commentary action, plus Rodriguez's patented 15-Minute Flick School (which sadly only clocks in at 12 minutes), plus much, much more! This is the one and only true edition of Sin City that's worth the price of the purchase, and, yes, it was indeed worth the wait.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
One of the best graphic-novel-to-film-adaptations
on October 31, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Sin City created a type of graphic novel film in which the look of the film is an exact rip from the pages of the novel it is based upon. In this film, it is a very interesting experience that really adds to the story and makes the characters stand out. However, there have now been a few films that have done this (such as 300), and they are thus much less original. Sin City definitely does it best.
There are three tales interwoven into this film: Marv's story, Dwight's story, and Hartigan's story, which begins at the start of the film and is concluded at the end (and is also my favorite).
Marv is a brutish-looking, scarred former soldier who is mostly friendless and has little in his life. One night, he meets Goldie in a bar, and they spend tthe night together. The next morning, Marv wakes up to find Goldie dead, and that he has been framed for the murder. After evading the police, Marv goes on an all-out rampage to find her killers and avenge her death, but as it turns out, Goldie's murder goes far higher than Marv could ever have imagined.
Dwight is a tough guy who just got plastic surgery altering his face and gets mixed up with the murder of Jackie Boy in Sin City's red light district, Old Town. Unfortunately, Jackie Boy turns out to be a cop, and thus Dwight must get rid of the evidence before local mob boss Valentine finds out and uses it as leverage to take over Old Town.
Hartigan is an honest cop on a corrupt police force. When thirteen-year-old Nancy is kidnapped by the son of Senator Roarke, Hartigan throws away everything to save her. Framed for the crime, he spends eight years in jail. Finally, he gets a letter from Nancy that actually turns out to be a sign that she's in trouble, so he manages to get out of jail by confessing (which is all they wanted from him), and goes off to find out what's happened to the only friend he's got left.
These stories are written in the style of old-schoool noirs, and it's refreshing to see a story like this done so well. The film's black and white cinematography with its occasional splashes of color work fantastiacally with this story. This is a very enjoyable film. I highly recommend it.
What's great about it: Unique cinematography and style that looks just like the graphic novels and three great noir stories
What's not so great: This tends to be a much more male-oriented film. Hardly means that no women will like it, but worth mentioning.
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
1of 2voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
A brilliant tale of plans gone wrong
on October 30, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is probably the most unfortunately overlooked film of 2008. It's a crime film as only Sidney Lumet (one of the great masters of the genre) can make them: a tale of plans gone wrong in which no one gets out clean and there isn't an easy answer to any of the characters' problem anywhere in sight. It's so dark it's almost overwhelming; but with this cast, under Lumet's masterful direction, that's a great thing.
The story begins with the monetary problems of Andy (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who is a businessman who appears wealthy enough, and his brother Hank (Ethan Hawke), who leads a modest life. They cook up a plan to rob their parents' jewelry store. Since the store is insured, they're certain that no one will be harmed but the insurance company. However, Hank, who is too nervous to do the deed himself, as Andy planned, hires a friend of his, who has experience in the field of crime, to rip off the store by himself, not telling him all of the details. When everything goes horribly wrong, the family is sent into a spiral of destruction which continues through the final reel.
This is not an easy film to watch, because once things start to spiral into nihilism and doom, they never let up. However, it is also one of the most mesmerizing tales of greed and desperation that I've ever seen, and it's study of family and what the actions of some family members will lead the others to do left me captivated. It's a great shame that this film was ignored during the Oscar season in 2008, largely due to its fairly limited release and lack of press, since it is a film that genuinely tackles the difficult ideas of what people will do to thsoe they love to serve themselves.
This is a great acting film and a fascinating crime film. If either of these things appeal to you, I strongly recommend this film.
What's great about it: The acting is phenomenal, and the story is fascinating from beginning to end
What's not so great: This is not a happy film. If that's what you're looking for, then this is not for you.
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
An interesting look at clashing ideologies
on October 29, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
The Wicker Man is an interesting study of a devout Christian police officer encountering a pagan culture on a remote island. In many ways, this is an allegory for any confilct of beliefs, and the terrors it can often bring on. However, it is important to note that there is not really anything "horrific" about it in any visceral sense. The horror rather comes from the moral outrage that the film pushes ever so subtly toward the viewers.
The story begins when Howie, a Scottish policeman is called out to the island of Summerisle to investigate the disappearance of a young girl named Rowan. However, once he gets there, the villagers refuse to cooperate, even the mother, and respond by going anywhere from denying knowledge or even claiming that the girl does not exist. The officer becomes increasingly concerned that the girl is being hidden as the islanders prepare to sacrifice her in an upcoming ceremony.
The film's tension comes from the officer's alienation from these people. He looks down upon their beliefs, as he is a Christian himself, and begins to think that the people are capable of any atrocity because he does not know anything about their beliefs. As such, the film is an interesting portrait of culture clash, and the results it can have. The finale unveils a number of intersting misconceptions that Howie has allowed himself to fall into, which are fairly shocking.
The Wicker Man is quite good, and though it is dated in terms of the things in the film, the dress of the people, and most importantly the picture quality (which the filmmakers have put a valient effort into, but which has unfortunately suffered more than most films of the period because of a series of mishaps with the prints of the film over the years), it stil holds relevance today and certainly has importance in today's culture. The acting is also rather good, especially from Christopher Lee, who plays his role here totally differently from how we know him more recently. I must also make special note of britt Ekland, who is extremely easy on the eyes, and revels quite a bit of herself as an actress in this piece (pun intended...you'll see...), which most people consider to be her best role.
This is a landmark film, and you should definitely look into it.
What's great about it: The film shows an interesting picture of Christianity vs paganism and the terrors that the latter beholds for most folk
What's not so great: It's really not "horror" as we typically think of it, so if that's what you seek, this is not your movie
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
An impressive horror sequel
on October 28, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Hellbound: Hellraiser II is a rare horror sequel in that it actually manages to exist for a reason other than to bank in on the original success. This film genuinely adds to the mythos of the first, and continues the stories of the first film's characters.
The film picks up right after the first ended, finding Kirstie, who was the only one in her family to survive the first time around, being brought to a mental hospital because of her ravings about the Cenobites and their murder of her family. There she is the patient of Dr. Channard, who as it turns out is on a quest to summon the Cenobites and learn of their power. To do this, he resurrects Kirstie's stepmother, Julia, who started the whole mess in the first place. Kirstie learns of this just as she learns that her father is trapped by the Cenobites and needs her help, and thus she must find a way to save him. Dr. Channard uses a young patient who is gifted with puzzles to once more unleash the Cenobites, and thus new horrors are unleashed.
I found this to be a really solid horror film. The gore was actually upped this time around, which shocked me becasue the original was disturbingly violent already. Also, I was very pleasantly surprised to get some backstory on Pinhead, the leader of the Cenobites, which was well incorporated into the story. The story itself, in fact, flowed quite well from the original, and was even very interesting. At the end of this film, it feels like there is an even greater level of closure than after the first one.
This film is shockingly violent, first and foremost. There's no denying it. If you can't take that, avoid this at all cost. however, if that doesn't bother you (or you genuinely like it), then you will also be treated to a very good horror story, which is more than you usually get from a genre that has become a lot more about visceral and cheap thrills. I really enjoyed it.
What's great about it: Succeeds in all the ways that the original did, while somehow managing to elaborate on the original storyline
What's not so great: It's actually quite solid. I didn't notice too many negatives
I would recommend this to a friend!
+4points
4of 4voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
3 out of 5
3
A horror tale that's drowning in its own message
on October 27, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Diary of the Dead is George A. Romero's return to his low-budget roots, and consequently seems like a re-imagining of his saga about the dead coming back to life and feeding upon/converting the living. The events of this film are concurrent with those of the classic that started it all, "Night of the Living Dead", but since the films take place in vastly separated time periods, it is unlikely that this film is intended to be occuring simultaneously with that one.
The story begins with a group of student filmmakers making a horror film about a mummy with their professor, but are interrupted by reports that the dead are coming back to life and attacking the living. Together, the group embark on a winnbago and take a trip from Pittsburg to make their way to their respective homes to learn the fates of their families. Along the way, they encounter all manners of horrors as the dead have taken control of the country (and as the characters later learn, the world).
The film is shown from the point of view of a series of cameras that the characters are using to record everythinng that is happening to them. Rather than bringing the audience closer to the characters, however, this technique makes the camera wielders unpleasantly detached. Several times throughout the film, the primary cameraman, Jason Creed, chooses to go on filming rather than helping a friend in need, making him less and less likeable.Also, his repeatedly mentioned obsession with showing their plight to the world, usually through video uploads on Myspace, become increasingly megalomaniacal, killing his supposed purpose.
The film's blatant critique of how the world now relies on means like Myspace and Youtube and other internet sources such as blogs is so overwhelming that the film frequently forgets to also be an entertaining horror film.
Night of the Living Dead and its superior sequel, Dawn of the Dead (still the best of the series and a masterpiece in its own right) succeeded as great entertainment because they were entertaining and the social commentary was more of an undertone. In this case it smothers the storyline. Give this one a miss unless you really feel the need to see every film in this series, as I did.
What's great about it: It is still a zombie movie by the master of the genre, and if you're in it for the gore, you won't be TOO let down
What's not so great: The film's message overwhelms both the horror and the characters, whose actions range from foolish to unforgiveably dumb
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
-2points
0of 2voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
4 out of 5
4
A scary thriller that sometimes fails in its logic
on October 26, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
I liked The Strangers, because even though I knew what to generally expect from it, it was well-made enough that it still scared me.
The story begins when James Hoyt (Scott Speedsman) and Kristen McKay (Liv Tyler) arrive at James's parents' cabin in the woods in the early hours of the morning. They are uncomfortable with each other, because although they love each other, James has just proposed to Kristen, who said no, claiming that it was too soon. Shortly after they arrive, a knock comes at the door, which instantly puts the couple on edge, since it is just past four in the morning. Upon answering the door, they find a young girl (whose face is hidden in darkness due to a light being out) who asks for Tamera. The couple tell her that she has the wrong house, and she responds "see you later" and leaves. James leaves for a little while to get some things, and this is when things get frightening. Strange noises and occurences start to fill the house when Kristen isn't looking, and three mysterious masked figures begins to scare Kristen, initially from oustide the house, and soon from all over the place. James's return does nothing to stop these events, and the strnagers' terrifying games becomes increasingly bold and dangerous.
A lot of the fear in the film is caused by the idea that much of what the strangers do to scare the couple is done right under their noses simply when they are not paying attention. It is easy for the viewer to imagine the same thing happening to them, because after all, how much of our time do we spend focusing so much on specific things and ignoring what's going on around us?
The acting was good in the film, although it must be said that much of Liv Tyler's role involves screaming and being scared, and that toward the end of the film it becomes somewhat annoying that she really doesn't seem to grasp what's happening to her. Speedsman on the other hand takes most of what is happening to him with great restraint, which made him easier for me to sympathize with. Others may disagreee.
The one thing that truly annoyed me with the film was the choices that the protagonists make, which at time seem either totally illogical or just downright ignorant. For example, for a while they gett James's dad's gun and hold out in a closet, which offers them the opportunity to stake out until the invaders come in to get them and just pick them off easily enough. However, another shock comes for the characters, and they inexplicably leave their spot and once more go on the move. It seemed like a bad move.
Nonetheless, this movie definitely scared me, and was generally well-made. The look of the film was expecially just dark enough without being hard to see. Also, direcctor Bryan Bertino wisely kept the strangers as silent boogeymen rather than brutal aggressors for most of the film, which just added to the tnesion. I recommend you see it. Just be wary of its failings.
What's great about it: It is definitely scary, and it works off of genuine thrills and atmosphere rather than gore and violence
What's not so great: The actions of the characters are at times illogical and thus frustrating
I would recommend this to a friend!
-1point
0of 1voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
The all-time Bond classic
on October 25, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Goldfinger is THE Bond film. When we think of Bond as suave, clever, and as the top spy of the British government, this is the film that comes to mind: a fun but brilliant film that contains everything that the name Bond brings to mind nowadays.
The story is this: Bond is assigned to use the pretense of a golf game for a bar of gold to look into an Austrian industrialist named Auriic Goldfinger (whom Bond has run into in the past) that the British are suspicious of. It turns out that Goldfinger is behind a plot to detonate a nuclear device inside Fort Knox in order to cause the value of his own gold supply to skyrocket.
The film is great in part thanks to its believable plot, but what makes it so great even today is the quotes ("No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!") and the overall greatness of agent 007. This film epitomizes the reasons why we love Bond.
What's great about it: This is the film that defines Bond and the way we think of the character today
What's not so great: Nothing.
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
A timeless, twisted tale of horror
on October 24, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Hellraiser is an altogether unique vision of the horror genre. From the mind of horror-master Clive Barker, it's quite simply a type of horror unto its own; a film that seeks to cause the viewer nausea and dread while pushing them to consider much deeper aspects of human desire and what they're willing to sacrifice to that desire.
Hellraiser begins simply enough. Frank Cotton, a depraved individual who has exhausted all of the pleasures that this world can afford him, barters with a mysterious man for a strange puzzle box. Frank conducts a dark and ancient ceremony in his grandmother's old house and opens the box, unleashing the Cenobites, a group of demons engaged in a sadomasochistic quest to find pleasure through pain. They tear Frank's body apart in the very room he unleashed them in, and take his soul back with them to their realm. Soon thereafter, Frank's brother Larry moves into the house with his wife Julia. Larry's daughter Kirsty, however, does not wish to live with Julia, who is her stepmother, and thus gets her own apartment. During a moving incident, Larry cuts open his hand, spilling blood on the floor of the room in which Frank was killed. Frank uses this blood to regenerate, but only partially. He entices Julia, who was his lover before Larry married her, to bring men to him that he can sucks dry of their blood to regain his energy. Thus the terrible acts unfold.
It may be shocking for most to learn that this is merely the set-up of the film. A lot happens early on, but the pacing is not off. The film unfolds quite well. It is above all a film about depravity. The Cenobites, led by the demon Pinhead, who is the most recognized feature of the series this film spawned, are the highest level of deparvity. However, they are not the true villains of the piece, because they act merely according to nature. As they themselves state, they are "angels to some, demons to others". To them, no difference exists. The true evil here is found in Frank and Julia, who are so selfish as to sacrifice whoever it takes to achieve their evil goals.
This is a more interesting film than many horror pieces. There is a boogeyman element, as represented by Pinhead and his gang, but it hardly overwhelms the film; in fact, the Cenobites take up little screen time. The film focuses more on the evils of its human characters. There's also plenty of blood and gore to satisfy the gore-hound, but it is the story that really grabbed me. It's very unique in the genre.
I recommend this to any horror fan, or to those who enjoy unusual film stories. This easily appeals to both.
What's great about it: Hellraiser is another level of horror entirely, with its horrific violence and genuinely dread-inducing plot.
What's not so great: It's REALLY violent, which may not bode well with the squeamish.
I would recommend this to a friend!
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
An entertaining Bond adventure
on October 23, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
Diamond Are Forever is the last official Bond featuring Sean Connery as the classic hero, but he's no worse in it than in any of his other adventures. This film ably mixes the sillier, campier aspects of the series with the suave, action-oriented aspects that keep fans coming back for more.
The film begins with Bond tracking down Blofeld to a clinic where the hero's nemesis is attempting to have another man assume his face, giving him a decoy. Bond apparently kills Blofeld (while giving off one of my favorite lines in the entire series, which I won't spoil for you). Bond is then assigned by MI6 to track down a diamond-smuggling ring in the United States, which leads him to the beautiful Tiffany Case and eventually reveals that Blofeld is indeed alive and behind another evil scheme.
The fun of this film lies not in its plot details but rather just in all of the elements that make Bond popular with the public. It's fun, funny, action-packed, and smooth. There's not much to dislike here, though it's a lot less serious than the recent film, Casino Royale.
This DVD features a picture and sound remaster, like all of the series in these recent releases, and the film looks and sounds incredible. It's unbelievable what they've been able to do with this technology in recent times. It's really great to be able to see the films this way at last.
This is a fun entry in a very enjoyable series. I recommend it to anyone who likes Bond.
What's great about it: Sean Connery, memorable scenes, Blofeld, some of the best Bond girls
What's not so great: A sillier plot than some, though Bond fans won't mind
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
 
MGM/UA first released a special edition of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in 2003, but it apparently took a little while longer for the company to recognize that the two earlier installments of Sergio Leone's Clint Eastwood trilogy were equally ripe for that kind of treatment. A Fistful of Dollars is present here in a gorgeous film-to-video transfer, one that was probably more expensive to do than the original movie (which was done on an extremely low budget) was to shoot. Every shot now shows the clarity and detail rivaling a still photograph, with the letterboxed (2.35:1) Techniscope image starting to crowd in on Cinemascope-level resolution. The chaptering is generous, as it was on the old low-priced DVD; and the sound is now good and loud and detailed, in ways it wasn't possible to achieve with DVDs in the late '90s. (Unlike the old single-disc DVD, there is no full-screen transfer on this disc, only the letterboxed version -- not that anyone with any sense would want the full-screen version; as the commentary by Christopher Frayling correctly points out, the widescreen image is used to frame most of the key scenes in this movie, and breaking that up destroys the intended compositions.) But the real treat -- beyond the best presentation that the movie has ever had in a home-viewing format -- lies with the extras. There's a glorious commentary track by scholar Christopher Frayling in which he delves into the historical background of the production -- we find out the reason why just about every shot and every scene was done the way it was (and it usually had to do with the low budget that director Sergio Leone was working with), as much about any of the actors as we've ever known, and we are walked through the reasons behind the special appeal of Italian-made Westerns, and Leone's movies in particular. Frayling ranges from cinema to art to literature, with detours into theology, popular culture, and a half-dozen other fields, and gives us the equivalent of a month's worth of film discussion in 101 minutes. And then, to top it off, he appears in one of the three background featurettes on the bonus disc, going into more detail. The other two featurettes put Eastwood on camera reminiscing about meeting Leone for the first time, and friends and colleagues recalling the director; and we get director Monte Hellman discussing his momentary career intersection with the movie, when he was hired to shoot a introduction for the film for its first telecast on ABC, a well-meaning but idiotic effort by the network to cast the Eastwood character's actions in a moral context. (Harry Dean Stanton is in the scene, but Eastwood was not, and an actor about a head shorter than he is can be seen in a similar outfit, his face obscured by shadow.) We also get trailers and radio spots for the movie. What we don't get, amazingly enough, is the original U.S. trailer for the movie, which was on the old single-disc DVD of the film. Instead, there's a double-feature trailer for the re-release of A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. This may seem like an oversight, but that original trailer was superb, and is good enough that this reviewer is saving the old DVD just because it is on it. The oversight is astonishing, given the thoroughness of the rest of the disc, and it also raises another question -- did the producers ever consider getting some of the European trailers for the movie, so we could see how it was marketed in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, etc., to compare how United Artists presented the picture here? That one flaw aside, it's impossible to complain about this set -- it's a beautiful total-immersion experience in the movie and the genre. The discs each open to an easy-to-use multi-layered menu, with the special features on each accessible quickly and simply, with the menu underscored by Ennio Morricone's music.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
A timeless western film
on October 22, 2008
Posted by: CrimsonKing42
A Fistful of Dollars is the first film of Sergio Leone's timeless spaghetti western trilogy. As such, it is a must-see film anyhow, but this also happens to be only of the best westerns, and indeed films, of all time.
The story begins when the Man With No Name (Eastwood) drifts into a town that is run by two competing gangs. Learning of these gangs from a local saloon keeper, the Man hatches a scheme to play both of these gangs against each other, using himself as an inside man, hoping to get rich off of the wreckage. Then, the bodies begin to back up.
This film doesn't rely as much on solid characters, especially villains, as the others two in the series, and the premise is less exciting, but it's still a great film, and the cultural relevance of it can be found everywhere in our culture nowadays. This film and the other two are an absolute must-see, and if you have yet to get into this marvelous series, whether you are a fan of westerns or just good cinema, now is the time.
What's great about it: Clint Eastwood's great, Sergio Leone's direction's grat, and the story's great. All adds up to a great film.
What's not so great: The only downside is that this is the lesser of the three films.
I would recommend this to a friend!
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
 
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 >>
 
CrimsonKing42's Review Comments
 
CrimsonKing42 has not submitted comments on any reviews.
 
CrimsonKing42's Questions
 
CrimsonKing42 has not submitted any questions.
 
CrimsonKing42's Answers
 
CrimsonKing42 has not submitted any answers.