Blade 2
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Written by: David S. Goyer
Starring: Wesley Snipes, Kris Kristofferson, Ron Perlman

While the track record for films based on comic books has not been too great over the years, things are really starting to look up. X-men was a pretty solid movie, and the upcoming Spiderman film definitely has potential. Tons of other comic books are now being tapped for future productions.

The movie Blade was a bit of an unexpected winner as far as comic book adaptations go. The comic book wasn’t even all that well known, but it made for a damn good action movie, and was successful enough to demand a sequel. The thing I’m not sure about is whether or not this sequel makes for a good comic book movie or a bad one. I think for the most part it falls into that loveable category of being so bad that it is good, and yet, there are moments where it is actually, truly kind of cool.

The first Blade movie was a dark, exagerrated action flick, kind of like a b-movie version of Batman. Blade 2 continues down this path, and in fact there is more than one instance where the viewer is reminded of Batman. Not only does the film have a somewhat gothic atmosphere to it, but Wesley Snipes plays Blade as a vigilante-type who is every bit as vengeful and remorseless as Batman was. His sidekick Scud also refers to him as “the Dark Knight” at one point which makes for a clever double meaning (Blade of course being one of only a few black comic book heroes currently in existence). There are a few moments where they used orchestrated music that reminded me of Danny Elfman’s Batman score, I only wish they would have used it more often, because they really overdo it with the hip-hop and techno soundtrack the rest of the time. It’s not that it doesn’t suit the movie, but it just makes it feel cheap and trendy, as opposed to being classic and timeless.

In case you missed the first Blade movie, all you really need to know is that it is based on the Marvel comic book of the same name, about a vampire hunter who is half-human and half-vampire. In the world of Blade, vampires have all the classic weaknesses such as garlic, silver and sunlight, and they also have superhuman strength, but other than this they look and act just like your average human being. (Well, they have those pointy teeth too.) Did I mention that since Blade is only half-vampire he has all of their strengths but none of their weaknesses? This is why the vampires call him “Daywalker”, and it is also what makes him such a fearsome adversary for the blood-suckers. That and his kick ass arsenal of high-tech custom-made vampire killing weaponry.

To put yet another new twist on the vampire mythology, Blade 2 introduces a mutation to the story. There are a group of creatures known as “Reapers” on the prowl, and they feed on both humans and vampires alike. They are similar to vampires, only they are stronger, can climb walls like spiders, and are immune to silver. Their need for blood is also much more acute than normal vampires, so they must feed at least once a day, meaning they will spread their virus across the Earth in a very short period of time, quickly wiping out all humans and vampires. Clearly, it is in the interest of both the vampires and Blade to set aside their differences and work together to eliminate this menace.

Enter the “Bloodpack”, an elite vampire task force that was originally trained to track and kill Blade, who are now forced to accept Blade as their team leader. These guys have some of the most hilarious names I’ve ever heard, including Reinhardt, Priest, Snowman, Lighthammer, and Chupa (or was it Tupac?) Basically they all just look muscular and carry around big guns while giving Blade attitude. Blade keeps them in line by attaching an explosive device to the back of Reinhardt’s head and threatening to detonate it whenever he acts up. I’m telling you, only in comic books could such a thing be plausible.

You realize quite quickly that there is little to no story in Blade 2. There are plot twists designed to surprise you, but if you give any of them a second thought you will find that they make no sense. You need to accept the fact that the film is basically 3 long action scenes sandwiched together. I don’t know if anything in this movie resembles the comic, but the characters are all pretty stereotypical and flimsy. Blade’s sarcastic young sidekick Scud reminds me of why Chris O’Donnell was horrible as Robin. He tries to be too hip — I mean, he calls Blade “B” for crying out loud.

Blade 2 is directed by Guillermo del Toro, who has an eye for the dark and grotesque (he previously directed Mimic). He also seems to have a strange fascination with the Powerpuff Girls and yellow lighting in this film. A quick glance at the Internet Movie Database reveals that he is supposedly slated to direct a future movie adaptation of the Hellboy comic book as well. Interesting.

Needless to say, the horror elements of this movie are pretty well done. There are some tense scenes, such as a hunt for the Reapers in an underground sewer system that is executed well. I enjoy the way del Toro constantly cuts back and forth between different groups of characters to prolong the suspense. Also, there is plenty of the gore that is so often lacking in movies with a horror theme nowadays. The Reapers looked quite gruesome, using a convincing combination of computer graphics and traditional methods. There is even a Reaper dissection scene that reminds me of something out of the X-Files. Great stuff.

However, they definitely went way overboard with computer effects in this movie. The vampires turn to dust after exposure to sunlight, and just like in the first Blade movie, it still looks really fake. It reminds me of the terrible special effects in The Mummy. The action sequences in Blade 2 are mostly just a blur, as the cameras pull in too close and move too quickly to really allow us to see much of anything. Of course, this is probably just to cover up the fact that the computer effects look really bad. They did generate some unique camera angles during the fights that were kind of interesting though, and at times they were able to successfully create the illusion of vampires fighting at superhuman speeds. A lot of movies have tried copying the style of The Matrix action sequences, but so far no one has been able to duplicate it.

One thing that rules about the fight scenes is that some of them seem to have been choreographed by someone from the WWF. I suspect that they couldn’t recruit a martial arts expert, or the actors didn’t have time to train, so instead they had to resort to a whole lot of elbow drops. At one point Blade actually suplexes a bad guy, shattering a glass floor below him. How awesome is that? It was a little disappointing to see the vampires act like a bunch of wimps in this movie though. Their strength was really downplayed in order to make the Reapers seem even more threatening.

Perhaps the best thing about Blade 2 is the dialogue. I don’t know where they came up with this stuff, but it pretty much rules. Kris Kristofferson rivals the almighty Kurt Russell with some of his lines as Blade’s crotchety old mentor, Whistler. Take, for instance, an early scene where Blade rescues Whistler from the vampires and brings him back to his hideout, where he introduces Whistler to Blade’s other sidekick, Scud. Whistler’s response: “Where’d you dig up this shitbird?” I don’t want to spoil some of the other good lines for you, but Ron Perlman delivers some brilliantly crude one-liners in his role as Reinhardt, and Wesley Snipes once again plays up Blade’s exceptionally bad attitude while maintaining a decidedly straight face.

There’s really not much to dislike about Blade 2, other than perhaps some of the questionable computer effects and the large number of holes in the plot. If you are the kind of person who is easily frustrated by events in movies that defy logic or reason, then Blade 2 ain’t your bag. But hey, if you like action movies with a dark horror edge, then get ready for a “heck of a ride”. — Sean

Black Hawk Down
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: Mark Bowden (book), Ken Nolan (screenplay)
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Sam Shepard

Some people are big war movie buffs, and some people aren’t; I would say I fall into the latter category. As snobby as this sounds, the glorification of war and the depiction of needless violence as it has so often happened throughout history is not something I consider myself a fan of. But then again, it’s one of those things that you are often unable to stop yourself from watching, when given the opportunity.

At the moment, there is a wave of war movies in theatres that are obviously a direct result of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. and the American desire for patriotism and pride. Black Hawk Down is caught up in the midst of all this, and could easily be mistaken to be just another “American propaganda” flick. This is fortunate for the producers of the film who are raking in a fair amount of cash based on the sudden appeal, but it is unfortunate in that many viewers may be mislead or may make incorrect assumptions about the film.

So let’s just get one thing straight: this is not your typical heroic American war movie. The subject of the film refers to an event that is not a particularly proud one for the American military, and one that was largely kept under wraps until reporter Mark Bowden wrote about it some four years later (thus providing the source material for this movie).

In late 1992, The United Nations and the U.S. decided to send troops into Somalia in order to assist a nation that was being torn apart by civil war. As far as the public knew, their involvement was strictly a humanitarian mission to bring food and supplies to the many who were starving. However, there was some covert military missions going on, as the U.S. tried to bring to justice a man named Mohamed Farrah Aidid, who was the leader of a powerful Somalian subclan, and who was identified as being largely responsible for the food crisis in Somalia. The events depicted within the film tell the story of a military raid intended to capture some of Aidid’s high-ranking officials. The raid was supposed to be quick and easy (less than an hour to be precise), but unfortunately, things did not go according to plan.

We do not get a full sense of the political background to this whole scenario. We know only a few tidbits that are flashed in the opening captions of the film, and what is heard through the voices of the characters. But this reflects the limited knowledge that most of the participating soldiers had about the situation in Somalia, and this is a movie told from their point of view. What’s more, I don’t think Black Hawk Down is intended to be a completely accurate re-enactment of one particular day in history. Rather, I think it is meant to be taken in a more general context, leading us to the realization that this kind of chaos is happening all the time in other parts of the world, even when we aren’t aware of it.

As with most films based on a true story, we have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen, but this doesn’t eliminate suspense; if anything it creates it. A tremendous sense of dread tied my stomach in knots as the overconfident American troops converged on hostile territory. I knew that the situation was going to quickly unravel around them, and the anxiety that knowledge created had me on the edge of my seat.

Ridley Scott has become known for directing commercially successful movies that also have artistic merit to them, and Black Hawk Down is no different. There are some points when he gets carried away with silly slow motion shots, trying to unnecessarily force little artistic moments here and there, but generally he is to be commended for bringing style and execution to a film that could have easily been just another uninteresting Bruckheimer explosion-fest.

As we know, Ridley Scott is also not one to shy away from potentially disturbing images. With that said, you probably will want to have an idea of what you are getting into, prior to viewing this film. Black Hawk Down strives for realism, and succeeds better than any other war film I have ever seen. (Yes, better than Saving Private Ryan even.) This movie is a cinematic tour-de-force if ever there was one, and it is very gruesome and very violent. Your senses will be assaulted for a good two hours as you are submerged directly into the thick of the action. Black Hawk Down is certainly not for the faint of heart, but its graphic nature is precisely what makes this movie so interesting. I really felt like I was there, and that kind of authenticity is not easy to create on film.

Black Hawk Down touches on details that are often glossed over in other war movies.For instance, it really hits home just how young and inexperienced the soldiers are. Although they’ve been through extensive combat training, they have never once fired a gun at a real-life human being before. They feel fear and they struggle with their desire to help comrades and their natural instinct to recoil from the horrors of the battlefield.

One of the things that conflicts with the film’s realistic portrayal is the casting of familiar actors in the various military roles. Specifically, Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore, William Fichtner and Ewen Bremner all come into this film fresh off their appearance in the irrefutably unrealistic Pearl Harbour. However, unlike in Pearl Harbour, actors really take a backseat to action in Black Hawk Down. There are so many characters, and the events in the film become so overwhelming that we lose awareness of the big names up on screen. They all become virtually nameless soldiers. Some would say that this is just an excuse to avoid character development, but I think that it only makes the experience that much more genuine.

A related complaint that many people had about the movie was that the first half-hour is pure fluff, disguised as character exploration. We are exposed to endless examples of clichéd male bonding played out to a feel-good Top 40 soundtrack. True, this is a little unsettling for people who do not want to see another stereotypical war drama, but by the time the credits roll at the end of the film, it is easy to excuse, and perhaps even defend these early scenes. After all, how can we fully comprehend the shock of war without first identifying with the characters, laughing at their dumbass jokes, and sharing familiar North American cultural quirks with them?

In the end I think Black Hawk Down can only be evaluated based on the effects of its visceral images and gritty cinematography, and there really is a point to all the blood and guts.

First of all, don’t misinterpret this film as a tribute to American soldiers or a celebration of courage and honour. There are some actions that could potentially be seen as heroic, but you won’t come away feeling proud of anyone’s accomplishments, and I don’t think you are supposed to. In the few instances when the characters try to rationalize and spout off philosophical ideas about war, they say just enough to sound genuine, but not enough to sound preachy.

Black Hawk Down, for the most part, simply wants to show us how grotesque and ugly war is, and allow us to draw our own conclusions. Because the events in the movie feel so real, the emotions that it draws from us are also real, but it is up to us to sort out these emotions.

Some people may not take anything away from this film other than an appreciation for the relentless action, but personally I found the film to be a reminder that (a) war is not a glorious thing, (b) The U.S.A. is not invincible, and (c) war is going on all over the world, even when we’re not aware of it, and probably always will be.

Black Hawk Down is a unique film experience that will change you, even if just in some small way, and I believe that is the ultimate triumph for a film. This movie is anything but your standard piece of Hollywood fluff, and to jump to such a conclusion would be a terrible mistake. — Sean

The Anniversary - Your Majesty
(Vagrant)

As a whole, human beings are generally fearful of change. I suppose this is why I should applaud bands like The Anniversary for having the courage to alter their musical style significantly from one album to the next. And you know, I would do exactly that, if I wasn’t so damn attached to their first album! I wanted more of the same poppy indie rock that they exhibited on their debut album, Designing A Nervous Breakdown, but instead I have been presented with a 70’s influenced rock album that is a lot mellower and a lot less fun.

There are some scattered remnants of the old Anniversary sound; for example, the harmonious male/female vocal combinations and little bursts of catchy synthesizer arrangements. But it’s all very subdued and lacking the youthful energy they once had. It feels as if each of the band members have morphed from teenage indie rockers into thirty-something prog rockers overnight.

Your Majesty does retain the dreamy qualities that Designing A Nervous Breakdown had, and even takes them a step further with a few epic 6 minute journeys. They manage to do it without sounding too pretentious either, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to musical genius. Stand-out tracks for me are The Siren Sings, with its catchy Rentals-esque vocals, the upbeat Never Die Young, and Devil On My Side, with its delicate build up and subsequent musical breakdown and swirling synthesizer finale.

It is not, by any means, a bad album. The music makes for a pleasant enough listen, and the more I hear it, the easier it is to convince myself that I really like it. However, taking a quick trip back through their first album serves as a reminder that, no matter what, Your Majesty will always be a bit of a disappointment for me.

I understand that artists need to change and grow, and I respect The Anniversary for choosing a new sound not based on a desire for commercial success, but simply based on their own personal taste. Unfortunately, Your Majesty is not the album that I wanted them to make, and even though it has its moments, I simply cannot see it spending a substantial amount of time in my cd player.

For better or for worse, The Anniversary have tried to purposely distance themselves from their last record. (Even the bland album cover design for Your Majesty seems like a forced attempt to be the exact opposite of the pixellated rainbow artwork for Designing A Nervous Breakdown.) When I say, “for better or for worse”, I do so with full knowledge that there will be a variety of pre-formed opinions about whether or not this is a good thing. If you really want to like the album, I don’t think you will find that a difficult task to accomplish. On the other hand, if you are apt to dismiss something immediately because it is different, then I doubt you will give this album a second chance. I guess the real challenge is to listen to these songs without any bias and come to your own decision. — Sean

Bad Religion - The Process Of Belief
(Epitaph)

You can say what you want about Bad Religion’s string of releases on Atlantic Records, but keep it to yourself, because I happen to enjoy them quite a bit. The band’s recent records may not have the classic anthems that records like Suffer and No Control have, but the new stuff is not really all that far removed either. For the most part, if you like one Bad Religion album, I don’t see what would stop you from liking them all. I will say, however, that their last album The New America, was a low point in their career (if such a thing is possible for Bad Religion). The music was starting to lose its edge, and lyrically, the well seemed to be running a bit dry.

It was evident that the band needed to shake things up a bit to prevent stagnation, and this is precisely what they have done with their 11th full-length album (their 7th on Epitaph), entitled The Process Of Belief. I’m not going to say they have “rediscovered their roots”, because, well, I don’t think they ever strayed too far from them. It’s true that there are number of shorter, aggressive songs on the new album that set a frantic pace from the start and give the impression that the band really has something to prove this time around. However, there are also some slower sing-alongs that emerge as the album progresses; they are equally good, but more reminiscent of the newer Bad Religion style.

All of Bad Religion’s vocal trademarks are back in full force on The Process Of Belief; from the harmonizing “oozin-aah’s” to Graffin’s exclamations of “yeah-hey!”, an avid Bad Religion listener will experience deja-vu more than once during the course of the record. The lyrical content is also pretty much what you’d expect from Bad Religion, although it sounds like Graffin may have misplaced his thesaurus this time around. There are songs about the overwhelming pace of cultural change (Supersonic), environmental concerns (Kyoto Now!), and of course, plenty of discourse on religion (Materialist, Epiphany, Destined For Nothing). As a punk rock band, they are not interested in overtly political preachings, rather they are more interested in providing philosophical reflections about human nature.

The big story behind the recording of The Process Of Belief is the band’s reunion with guitarist/songwriter Brett Gurewitz (who also just happens to be the owner of Epitaph Records… how convenient). Mr. Brett’s presence has clearly injected some life back into the music, and his familiar guitar noodling is particularly evident on such songs as Epiphany and The Lie. Of course, the return of Gurewitz has also left the band with 3 (count em –3) guitar players, which, as far as three-chord punk rock bands go, is a bit of overkill, not that it’s all that noticeable in the music itself. One thing a lot of people also seem to be overlooking is that Bad Religion are now without their former drummer Bobby Schayer, who was an integral part of the band’s precise rhythm section. He has been succeeded by Brooks Wackerman, who has drummed with Suicidal Tendencies, The Vandals and even Danny Elfman in the past, and although he does a reasonable job here, it still sounds like something is missing.

While I’m sure many people will be hailing The Process Of Belief as the punk rock album of the year, (it may well be), I don’t see why everyone is so blown away by it. This isn’t anything we haven’t heard before. As far as I’m concerned, The Process Of Belief is just another solid Bad Religion record, and really, what’s so unexpected about that?– Sean