The environment in Salvation is a pretty fascinating one when juxtaposed to the previous Terminator films. If you happen to like post-apocolyptic fare, then this movie is for you. The settings are baron, the buildings reduced to rubble, and the lands cast with gray ash and dust everywhere. The presentation is fantastic and has a true sense of grit. Another fascinating part of this film is the sheer amount of Terminators you get to see. Previous films in the series generally focused on one single Terminator, and while there is still a focus on character here, you will see a flurry of different machines that will surely dazzle the eye. From the notorious HK's (Hunter-Killers), to T-600 Terminators (the ones that look old and very unhuman in skeletal structure), to the iconic T-800 models (which have been in all the movies so far). Plus, you'll see some other nice surprises, that I probably shouldn't mention here.

     Already, there is a lot to like about Terminator Salvation. I also like the homages paid to previous films. Some may consider these spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie yet, then just skip this section and continue reading at the next paragraph. Salvation features the trademark lines of the franchise that everyone knows and loves, and they are inserted at the best of times. Lines like, "What day is it? What year?", "Come with me if you want to live", and "No fate but what we make." Also, when Sam Worthington's character Marcus Wright gets punched in the face, the camera closes up on his face and he does that sly turn back into the camera just like Arnold and T-1000 did back in the day. Plus, there are video tape voice recordings of Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), which is pretty neat. It's awesome stuff.

     The performances in this movie are pretty solid I would say. Christian Bale must be the luckiest actor on Earth, he not only gets to play Batman in The Dark Knight (2008), but the following year he gets to play John Connor in 2009. Either role could be considered a role of a lifetime, but Bale, with his amazing talents, gets to play both. Bale's Connor is definitely a war-torn, world weary one, but still maintains a glimmer of his past youth - most notably when he blasts Guns N Roses from a boombox to attract the attention of a Terminator-like motorcycle in one scene - just like the young Connor would have done so in T2. Bale's voice is pretty gravelly throughout the film, which may remind people of his portrayal of Batman, but regardless he is still very, very effective and a superb choice for the role.

     As for Sam Worthington, who plays the other central character of Marcus Wright, he is also carving himself out quite a career. In 2010, he starred in the mega-blockbuster Avatar, and most recently in Clash of the Titans in the same year. All this following Salvation, and Worthington already has a tremendous career. Worthington is quite convincing as the mysterious character of Marcus and plays it with genuine emotion. I also must note that Anton Yelchin (of Star Trek [2009] fame) plays the role of Kyle Reese very well. He seems to channel some of Michael Beihn's original fire from the first Terminator film while also being able to make the character his own - it's well done. So with a trio of fine actors, the performances are quite strong here.

     One thing I just have to point out real quick is that John Connor gets thrown about by Terminators a lot in this film. If the Terminators sole mission is to kill Connor, then why throw him around so much? Why not just kill him with one swift blow? I suppose this notion speaks to two things - 1) The fact that Connor can survive an onslaught of Terminator attacks is a testament to the strength of his character. And 2) The audience must have a suspension of disbelief, so that there can be some nice action set pieces as Connor scrambles to survive. I just thought I'd point that out. Regardless, it's fun to watch because this is a good movie.

     Terminator Salvation is a fine action movie. It is often explosive, and very entertaining from beginning to end. It is easily the third best of the four films in the franchise. It certainly is much better than its predecessor, Terminator 3. At the same time though, it just can't live up to the original Terminator and T2 - then again, not many movies can. Nevertheless, I certainly recommend this film. It has some memorable moments, some interesting characters, and some awesome scenes involving the Terminators. All in all, it is indeed worth watching.

-Kurt L.

____________________________________________

     This is a film that I consider to be one of Woody Allen's best. Crimes and Misdmeanors is not by any stretch, your typical Allen fare. And while I have placed this film under the "comedy" genre as a means to categorize it, by no means should this movie be considered such through and through. It is practically the tale of two movies, one that is unabashedly serious, and the other, a lighter, gentler comedy, with a mindful eye. It is also Allen's deepest, most thought provoking work he has ever made. It is a legitamately interesting film, with a finale that is quite startling and indelibly memorable.

     As for the light side of the film, Woody Allen stars as Cliff Stern, a filmmaker who is begrudgingly making a television documentary for a blowhard comedian played wonderfully by Alan Alda, whose mantra seems to be, "tragedy plus time, equals funny." Apparently, Allen had really encountered a person like this in real life and decided to spoof him here. A love interest between Cliff Stern and PBS producer Halley Reed (Mia Farrow) also develops, and it is often sweet. Both Allen and Farrow are quite charming together and compliment one another very nicely throughout the film.

     The darker side of the film is a heavy one. It is overflowing with moral dilemma, some that ring as treacherous and difficult as those in a play by Euripides! This darker part of the film stars Hollywood legend Martin Landau as he decides whether or not to hire a hitman to kill his mistress, as a way to keep her quiet. He is tortured by the choice - should he silence her permanently to keep his otherwise perfect and shiny lifestyle in tact? Or should he do what is morally right and admit to his mistakes, but also, destroy his entire lively hood? Landau commands the screen with his turmoil.

     What is also quite fascinating is Landau's brother in the film, played brilliantly by Sam Waterston. Waterston's character is progressively going blind, but his moral compass is quite strong, and he tries to guide his troubled brother with his sense of wisdom and trust in God. I find it interesting that Waterston's character is blind because if you juxtapose that fact with his morality, you get a paradox. Is this a way of saying that he doesn't see what really goes on in the world? That he is blinded by his own faith and beliefs? The scenes involving Waterston are some of most psychological and thought provoking of the entire film, and they hit as hard as the ending does - something of which I cannot reveal, for you must see for yourself!

     The two storylines run parallel to each other most of the time throughout the film, but their modes of achieving some of the same questions of morality and thoughts on life are quite stark. They both somehow reach a similar conclusion, and while the end is indeed a surprise, it just leaves you thinking about how precious life really is, and it emphasizes the fragility of the human being, in both body and certainly, perhaps more so, the mind.

     As you can see, this is indeed a film that encompasses a lot of philosophy and morality. Perhaps my review of it made it seem too heavy-handed, but Allen tells the story in a very watchable fashion. It's a way that does not detract from the bigger themes, but it does not alienate the audience either. The audience will be easily captivated by the films two story arcs, and will be engrossed by the experience. Crimes and Misdemeanors is a modern classic, and ranks as one of Woody Allen's best works.

-Kurt L.

_______________________________________________________

     Released in 1939, Son of Frankenstein is the third installment in the Frankenstein series, and is the last of which where Boris Karloff dons the Frankenstein Monster make up (he would later appear in House of Frankenstein in 1944, but as the mad Dr. Neimann). Son of Frankenstein takes place in what seems to be a fairly modern day and age, as there are cars and trains readily available throughout the country, and the Frankenstein family themselves seem like they are of the new generation. However, when upon returning to the town of Frankenstein, it's as if time has not been as friendly or prosperous. Riddled with the horrors of the past by the "Monster", this town is indeed troubled. The "son" as the title indicates is Wolfgang Von Frankenstein, brilliantly portrayed by Basil Rathbone in one of his best performances of his lengthy career. His return to his roots is a difficult one as he faces a rather cold reception - clearly conveyed by the town Burgormeister (the Mayor) when he says, "We came to meet you, not to greet you."

     I don't want to delve too much more into the plot of this film, as you should see how it unravels for yourself. Needless to say, the Frankenstein family has a blood-stained past, one that is scarred with the curse of mettling in things men should leave alone - and the curse returns here, with Boris Karloff as the Monster. However, he is not acting alone here, he has a bizarre partner, a sphen-golly if you will, in Igor, played by Bela Lugosi. Lugosi arguably steals the show with his incredibly original portrayal of the twisted, broken-neck bodysnatcher. His performance is so riveting and unpredictable, it is indeed unforgettable. Igor's influence over the Monster is powerful, and can call unto him while playing his "weird horn." His insidious influence over the Monster is quite troubling and threatens the entire town.

     Along the way, Wolf Frankenstein is being mysteriously investigated by Inspector Krogh, played by Lionel Atwill. The tension he adds to the film is also quite riveting, adding a extra dose of suspence and uncertainty to the surroundings. Wolf and Krogh often duke it out with their words, and the tension only tightens as the film goes on. With Wolf being either investigated by Krogh on one side, and getting his proverbial arm twisted by Igor on the other, it adds a whole lot of dimension to the scenario. And while all of this mess is playing out, Wolf is trying to protect his family from it, all in the name of restoring his family's past to glory - but in some sense, he too succumbs to the curse, as he can't help but explore his scientific interest in the Monster. Wolf says a key line when he is first about to subject the Monster to some clinical tests, he says, "As a man, I should kill him, but as a scientist, I should explore him." What is also present, as you can see, an inner turmoil between his duties and loyalty to his family name, and the moral dilemma of actually destroying the horrid Monster.

     Son of Frankenstein is one of my favorite films of all time, easily in my Top 10. I can't stress enough how great this movie actually is, with all its mystery, great performances, unforgettable characters, expressionitic scenary, and quotable, biting dialogue, it is an undisputed classic, worthy of a place amongst the greats of this acclaimed genre. It is a film, that for me, has inspired me to have such a great interest in movies. I have seen it countless times, and undoubtedly, will see it countless more, and it never gets old. It is a true gem, from beginning to end. See for yourself, and behold the mystery and thrills that lie within!

-Kurt L.

___________________________________________________________

     Hello everyone! This is a special edition of the Ethos Video Review series. This is more of like a year in review of 1991. Why 1991? Well, see why and find out! So much stuff came out that year, and I take a look back into the past to share my thoughts. Thanks for watching!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96g9YsKRj1A

-Kurt L.

_______________________________________________________

     A delightful film! Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, based on the successful children's book of the same name, is brought to you in 3D computer-generated animation, which has simply become the norm these days for the animated film genre - and that isn't a bad thing! A film version of the visually impressive book would have worked either way in the traditional drawn art, or as it is here in CG. This film has plenty of charm that will surely dazzle the kids and should entertainment the adults as well because it doesn't cater to either crowd specifically, it aims its sights at the entire audience, and brings everyone in on the fun.

     There's a lot of character and life inside the usually gray town of Swallow Falls, later dubbed Chewandswallow when the town becomes the only place on Earth to have food-weather. A lot of the charm and characters derives from the voice actors themselves. Bill Hader, of Saturday Night Live fame, voices the lead protagonist Flint Lockwood, and continues to showcase his great variety of talents with a fine performance here. Anna Faris is wonderful as the female lead, Sam Sparks. James Caan does a terrific job as the lumbering, emotionally shy father, Tim Lockwood. Bruce Campell is funny as the ever so greedy and gluttonous Mayor Shelbourne. Perhaps one of the most dynamic performces is by Mr. T, who provides the voice of the local cop, Earl Devereaux. The dialogue is given a lot of extra punch thanks to the talented cast, and it keeps this animated picture moving and flowly at a fine pace.

     There are plenty of fun sequences in this movie that are sure to be memorable ones. Obviously seeing this book expanded to life on screen is a joy in itself, but to see the hamburgers, pancakes, ice cream snow, torando spigetti and meatballs, and plenty of other foods, is a treat for the eyes. Even some of the quicker moments in the film are memorable as well including a hilarious moment when a pack of gummy bears attack Flint's flying car!

     I reccomend this movie, as it is one of the better animated films of recent years. It's not very long - about 90 minutes - so, it is short and sweet, and to the point. It has fun visuals, lively performances from a well-rounded cast, and some memorable moments. Simply put, the forecast is good, feast yourself on Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs.

-Kurt L.

_______________________________________________________

     This movie is horrendous! From beginning to end you'll be wondering why this terrible film was ever made. Jason X, the tenth installment on the historically poorly made series (aside from the first two films), is made nine years after its predecessor, Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday. My first question is what motivated any Hollywood studio to revive this dead horror franchise? Yes, the Friday The 13th franchise has been rather popular since its debut in 1980, but over the course of its run in the box office, the films quickly deterioated into the absurd and just plain rediculous gahbidge you would expect from a badly made horror flick. My second question is this: if you are going to revive this franchise, in an effort to reinvigorate it after nine years of silence, then why did you settle on this storyline? This incredibly tacky and just plain stupid concept of Jason killing people in outerspace in the year 2455! Really?! That's the best you can come up with?!

     Before I go any further, it should be stated that this film should not be taken seriously in any respect. Clearly, the storyline is awful, the acting for the most part is stiff and unconvincing, and the dialogue...yuck. There are tons of dumb cliches and idiotic lines spewing from all places, like that stupid teenager with the wily hair who gets his arm accidently chopped off by Jason's frozen machete only to get it back by the tricks of modern science - that character really irritated me. Speaking of cliches, there's the frisky teenagers who obviously get killed (or at least one of them does), and also the corrupt Professor. No horror flick is complete without a corrupt, evil-doing Professor who sidesteps issues and backstabs those around him at every turn. What motivated this Professor to turn so corrupt? Well, in one of the most unconvincing of delieveries of a line by any actor I've ever seen on film say, he said, "I need money." Wow. Just like that huh? Lame.

     To its credit though, Jason X does often mock the rediculousness that the franchise has come to been known for. So, fortunately, there are many times that this movie is self-aware of its cheesyness. For instance, toward the end, where we see Uber Jason - a half-human, half-genetically enhanced metallic Jason - he becomes trapped inside a simulation in an effort to distract Jason as the survivors escape. The simulation is that of Camp Crystal Lake where there are two scantilly clad girls who Jason ends up killing by slamming them about in their sleeping bags, which is paying a homage to Friday The 13th: Part VII's infamous "sleeping bag death scene." Also, there's this grizzled soldier aboard ship who gets stabbed in the back by Jason and he says, "you think a little poke in the ribs will stop this old dog?" Then Jason stabs him again, and he exclaims, "that ought to do it." A legitimately funny moment in the film, and its best line, but other than that, it's just plain silly.

     So, aside from a few blatantly silly lines, homages and parodies to and of previous installments of the franchise, Jason X is pretty unwatchable. I almost wanted to stop watching after the first half-hour because it was so terrible. It's a flick that should have favored the comedic side some more because it would have made it a lot more enjoyable. I feel that it wanted to be both scary and silly, but in the end, failed to achieve either, compromising both aspects. Clearly with the outrageous storyline, the film couldn't have been taken seriously at all, so, why not make it a little more funny then? Well, it's over now in any case. And to no one's surprise, more Jason movies have been released since this one.

     If you're a big time horror/slasher movie fan...I still don't think you'll like Jason X. Avoid it at all costs.

-Kurt L.

_______________________________________________________

     I actually give the film a lot of credit because it seemed to genuinely embrace the facets of a vampire with some truly interesting sequences. There are some flashback moments involving the Cullen family (who are all vampires), and they are a thrill to see, as they are generally presented in this sort of old-fashioned silent-film era brand of film strip. I also like how the film delves into the history a bit of the vampires as well, with some effective montages of vampire mythos - fascinating stuff. This movie definitely nailed the vampire aspects very well, and the actors themselves portayed them very convincingly. Star Robert Pattinson (as Edward Cullen) is superb as the main undead creature of the night - he moves, talks, stalks, and speaks like someone from a different world all together. In fact, the human character of Bella (played by Kristen Stewart) makes a point of saying that Edward speaks as if he is "from a different time" - and frankly, I couldn't agree more, as all of the vampires seem to have a dialect not of this day and age.

     There were some aspects of Twilight that could have been improved here or there. As I discussed, the movie fleshes out the vampire lore very well, but the main focus of the film is this sort of "forbidden love" between Edward and Bella, and I felt that while it was effective, it could have been paced a little more. It seemed like they were rushed into falling in love - but then again, perhaps that is the point; maybe it is supposed to be their fate and this animal attraction brought them together. I suppose if you look at it that way, it's fine, but it surely happened fast.

     Also, for the most part, the performances in this film are pretty good (especially of the vampires), and also Bella's father, Charlie (played by Billy Burke), was rather good too. However, female lead Kristen Stewart is very monotone throughout the span of the film. Even in some of the more dramatic of dialogue sequences, she maintains this stiff, awkward manner that seems absent of passion - something that would seem vital to such a potentially pre-destined love. It leaves Ms. Stewart's performance as passable, but not wholly memorable - perhaps in the sequel, she'll add some more layers to her character.

     Overall, Twilight is actually a pretty good film. I was surprised by it because while I wasn't sure what to expect, I at least expected it to be a film that catered to only one particular demographic of teenagers, and while it does do that, it does feature some interesting vampire lore, and that is, for me, the film's strength - that it took the time to explore the rich history of their blood lusting pasts. I would hope the sequel will continue to delve into that even more so, but we'll just have to wait and see. For now, enjoy this solid film, and be enraptured by the ways of the vampire.

-Kurt L.

     Queintin Tarantino has made some stellar movies in his illustrious career - from the ground-breaking and historic Pulp Fiction, to the rough and tough Reservoir Dogs, to the underrated classic Jackie Brown, QT has made a household name out of himself, and made his indelible mark on the film industry. He is known for having a terrific ear for dialogue, a great knack for an avant-garde and innovative directing style (often bringing out the best in actors), and also for numerous homages to films of the yesteryear. QT can also be rather quirky as well, often making odd, jarring choices in his films, which necessarily isn't a bad thing. In fact, some of these chocies are rather charming, and very striking, in a positive fashion. He is a fantastic film-maker, and he has a huge following of fans, but also some naysayers who don't like his unique style. I for one enjoy his films very much, and after seeing Inglourious Basterds, I am even more of a fan now than I ever was.

     Say what you want about his unusual style, whether you like it or not, but boy can he tell a story. He is so skilled at spinning a good yarn - and that is ever so true with his newest film Inglourious Basterds. It is Tarantino's first picture to take place in a historical period; which in this case happens to be World War II. It is also his first true war film, but it isn't necessarily your traditional "war movie", however, it is heavily involved in the intricacies of it. It is new territory for QT, but told in his trademark style. The film stars Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, who has formed a group of mercenaries to kill off as many Nazi soldiers and officers as they possibly can - as they believe the only good Nazi is a dead one. Aldo Raine heads a band of personally selected Nazi killers and this is a story about their exploits. However, like any Tarantino film, so many more elements are weaved into it, and take it from me, they are all brilliantly done.

     The three main storyline arcs all of course intertwine at one point or another, much like the lives of the Pulp Fiction characters did. It's a great way to tell a story, and it is told supremely here. I don't want to go into details about the story itself or how things develop, or don't, for I want you the reader to see it for yourself and experience a great story told by a master storyteller. And like most QT films, it also features numerous violent sequences, some of which are quite graphic, but it's not the primary focus by any stretch. The best parts of his films are his dialogue, and here he has written some of his best. All the characters are quite lively, very believable, and have some genuinely interesting things to say. Indeed, the actors and actresses themselves add tremendeous depth to the already-deep and well-written roles. Brad Pitt may have been the star of the film, and he surely did a very, very good job, but Christoph Waltz steals the show - he was remarkable.

     While there is a great variety of things to see in this film, it's also worth pointing out that there a few humerous moments in it as well - another Tarantino tradition. There is a moment where Adolf Hitler asks for a stick of gum from one of his soldiers, which just seems so strange. Another moment where Brad Pitt's character tries to speak Italian, and that is actually quite funny. Also, Mike Myers (of Austin Powers fame) makes a brief cameo as a British military strategist, and while always been a hoot in everything else he's done, he actually showcases a legitimate dramatic performance here. Aside from the lighter moments, and some others I haven't mentioned, there are also some tremendously tense scenes as well - and these are easily the best scenes. Take the first scene of the movie itself, and how carefully Tarantino pieces it together, the tension is so thick and omni-present, it is stunning. My personal favorite scene is where a British officer goes undercover as a Nazi officer as he has a rendevous with undercover members of the Aldo Raine's Basterds. It is perhaps the finest sequence in the film.

     It is indeed often a chilling work of fiction set within the framework of a realistic setting. There were some startling turns at the end of the film that certainly made this movie a bit unbelievable, and when you see it, you'll know. I couldn't help but think of the fine film Valkyrie when I saw these moments, and I'll leave it at that I suppose, for you should see for yourself. I definitely liked the ending of the film, and had the events of Inglourious Basterds been indeed real, it'd be perhaps even more compelling. In any case, it is a excellent film to behold. There is a sort of triumph at the end, but, it also ends on an abrupt note as well, but, like any QT film, it makes you think.

     Overall, Inglourious Basterds is a great film. And personally, it is only second to Pulp Fiction in my book as his best film. I was completely entertained by this dynamic piece of film making, and I definitely reccomend it. It will surely satisfy any Tarantino fan, but for anyone not familiar with his work, I'll say again what I mentioned earlier - you are going to be told a great story by a great storyteller.

-Kurt L.

     After a brief absence from the silver-screen that lasted approximately four years, actor Al Pacino returned in the terrifically taut thriller, Sea of Love. Directed by Harold Becker in 1989, co-starring Ellen Barkin and John Goodman, the great Pacino stars as Frank Keller; a New York detective with an ex-wife, an alcohol problem, and a very lonely, and sometimes self-destructive disposition. He seems very committed to his work but continuously battles inner demons as he goes about his daily life. Some of this may sound a bit clichéd; however, Pacino is truly convincing and makes the role all the more dynamic through his portrayal. From subtleties in how he speaks and delivers certain lines, to the way his eyes have that great miles-deep sadness, to the ebbs and flows of real intensity, anguish, and heartbreak – we indeed get to see a real person on screen. Pacino is so gifted in conveying such real emotions.

        The film itself is indeed a crime drama infused with plenty of provocative romance, and some genuine thrills. The plot involves Frank Keller’s investigation of a serial killer who is believed to have found his victims through personal ads placed in the newspaper. What is interesting and certainly so compelling is that Pacino, after placing his own ad in attempt to lure the killer, starts to fall for one of the suspects – Helen Cruger (Ellen Barkin). Their romance together certainly embodied “forbidden love” because she is indeed a suspect in Keller’s case, and of course compromises the investigation, and could ultimately not bode well for him or any other potential victims out there. The film keeps us guessing for a long time whether or not she really is the one, as Frank fights with himself on the ethical issues with his relationship with Helen.

        It is this ethical question that haunts the entire film, and provides for some very intense scenes, especially this one scene early on where he finds something rather revealing in her purse (but I shan’t say for you must see it for yourself). In any case, I am a big fan of this film because, yes, it is a crime drama, but it does so much more than that. It is an impressive thriller, it is a romance, a character study, and it even has some rather clever, humorous moments, as well as some tight action sequences. It is by all means, a modern day film-noir, where there is that underlying sense that danger around every corner.

        Overall, this film is a testament to Al Pacino’s ability to bring life, genuine realism, and intensity to the screen. It is a finely-written and intricate crime story but its primary focus is on its main characters. Ellen Barkin is superb as the femme fatale, and I can’t stress enough how brilliant Pacino is in this film. Considering it was released twenty years ago, it doesn’t seem dated by any stretch. It pays a certain homage to the classic film-noir style, while maintaining a relevance and gritty realism of today’s age. Any fan of the genre, and of course any Pacino fan, should absolutely see it.

-Kurt L.