Thursday, June 30, 2011

Free Podcast Available on iTunes

We have our first podcast available on iTunes. It covers the new Transformers film. It's listed under our new name, Cinemecca. Check it out

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Videogame Bits: Mortal Kombat (1995)

By Paco McCullough

Videogame bits is a new feature where we discuss videogame movies. Over the next several months I will be reviewing one a week.
This week in videogame bits, I watched Paul Anderson’s (The Resident Evil one, not the Boogie Nights one) Mortal Kombat. I had fond memories of this movie, as I’m sure most boys from the 90s did. It had been years since I had seen it, and I found myself actually excited to see this film. Boy was I disappointed.
    Mortal Kombat follows three humans as the fight in a tournament to save the earth from the evil Outworlders. If ten tournaments are lost, then the Outworlders will conquer earth and enslave all its inhabitants. At the start of the film, nine have already been lost, so a lot is riding on our heros. Somehow the writers managed to make heros that were not only cliched and poorly written, but also unlikable on their own merits. Even though I felt like I hardly knew Johnny Cage (Linden Ashbey, who has had no other major roles to speak of), I still found him incredibly unlikable. If you don’t care about the characters, then there’s no thrill when they’re put at risk.
    The story takes up far too much time, which would be a problem even if it was good. Mortal Kombat is based off of a videogame where all the characters do is fight, yet only a small percentage of this movie is actually fights. Much more of this movie is talking about fights and the characters fears. I cannot emphasize enough how poorly written these scenes are.
    As for the fights themselves, they are competently done. None of these actors are comparable to Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Sonny Chiba, or any other professional martial artists. Despite this, the fights are decently choreographed, although there is an absurd level of backflips that take place. Nearly all the action is bloodless, which as a fan of the games, I feel is counterproductive. Considering how violent the videogame Mortal Kombat was, I am confused as to why they chose to make a tame PG-13 flick. The only thing the two properties seem to have in common is their overall level of campiness.
    There are certain enjoyable things about this film. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa seems to be the only one in on the joke, chewing the scenery as the evil sorcerer Shang Tsung. The cheesy techno score is laughable in all the right ways. Mostly though, this movie is not worth your time or energy. If you are interested in a Mortal Kombat viewing experience, check out the highly superior web series.
2.5 out of 5
© Tanner McCullough, 2011

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Cult Films: Santa Sangre (1989)

Cult Films is a new feature that will appear every Tuesday. We will be discussing cult films, films that may not have been successful but have gathered a large following after their release.

By Jason Haskins

1989’s Santa Sangre teeters on the edge of pretentiousness and abrupt surrealism, yet is tied together by a tangible storyline. As one of the last directorial efforts of Alejandro Jodorowsky (The Holy Mountain, El Topo) it captures the very essence of Latin America culture through a twisted lens that reminds one of Black Orpheus mixed with a Dario Argento film.

A young man cloistered away in a mental asylum recounts how he got there from his upbringing in the circus and escapes to act out revenge in his mother’s name amongst the chaos of a dirty city that’s lost its way. It plays out like a horror movie after the first half, but amidst the set ups of death there are elegant arrangements of spectacle and bizarre transitions that make it much different from anything you’ve ever seen before. Those of you familiar with his films will understand what I mean.

Jodorowsky thrives in this setting with the tone, shifting between camp towards ambiguous symbology, graphic depictions of violence, and sexuality. This film is actually quite entertaining, but also very rich in artistic merit. It’s not pretentious or experimental to the point that you don’t know what’s happening in the movie despite the confusing nature of some of the sequences because there’s an actual story that’s easy to follow.

Much of the film is bursting value that’s quite timeless, from the gothic sort of set designs to the costumes and demented organ carnival music that plays for a majority of the film. The music definitely makes the movie that much more stunning. Simon Boswell’s score is eerie and playful in the most inappropriate ways that match the film’s complete and utter zaniness just perfectly.

Recently released on DVD (also available on Netflix’s Instant Watch), this is a primetime Cult Classic you might’ve missed—and one that’s certainly deserving of your affection. Throughout the two-hour running time you’ll be constantly entertained by how unpredictable and fresh all of the scenes are as well as the enthusiastic and intriguing performances of the entire cast. Not only is it a great amount of fun to watch, but it’s also bursting with a sense of art and culture that’s not tailor-made for any one audience. Most will probably dislike it (though I don’t know why), but if you like incredibly flexible tattooed women, blood, little people, music, and other things that go bump in the night then you’ll definitely get a kick out of Santa Sangre.

(c) Jason Haskins, 2011

Monday, June 27, 2011

New On Dvd: June 28

By Jason Haskins

Barney’s Version

One of the new releases this week is indie ‘talked-about’ dramedy, Barney’s Version—quite possibly one of the most meandering and obviously ‘indie’ movies of the year. Starring Paul Giamatti and based on the novel by Mordecai Richler it’s about a man who’s recounting his past history in a bar before he became a hardened asshole. It’s sort of like a Jewish Forrest Gump, although not as fun. The romance takes over the picture completely amongst a story that’s too unoriginal for its own good—taking each of the familiar beats in stride towards a boring ending that’s trying to be deeper than it actually is. Giamatti’s performance was really the only thing I took out of it. It’s not terrible, but frightfully average and too aware of itself. Dustin Hoffman co-stars; Richard J. Lewis (K-9: P.I.) directs.

2 out of 5

Skip it.

Sucker Punch
Born out of Zack Synder’s rather limited imagination, this is his first original property. This isn’t adapted from comics or superior movies (I’m looking at you, Dawn of the Dead). In this film, he uses chicks, guns, and dragons…Nazis?... thrown in to put together a crazy stupid story amidst dazzling special effects. You follow a young girl who’s institutionalized for being whacko and how she escapes into her own little world in hopes of escaping alongside a few of her fellow crazies. The plot grows weaker as the movie continues—only held together by over-the-top visuals that are pleasing to a certain degree, but boring after a while because the whole movie is built off of them. The action isn’t too exciting and the whole tits and ass premise becomes stagnant. This seems to be a video game movie made for the ADD teenager who need cuts and special effects every second to keep their attention and it doesn’t offer anything for anyone else.

2 out of 5

Skip it.

Season of the Witch

Imagine Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven with a bunch of supernatural bullshit and you might have a good idea what Season of the Witch is. Two crusaders come back home after deserting their mission during the Black Plague and are arrested—given the opportunity of freedom if they escort this witch everyone believes to be causing the plague to a special place where hopefully the sickness will cease. The plot was interesting to a degree, but was ruined systematically by the poor dialogue and delivery of said dialogue by main actors Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman. How shocking. Special effects and action scenes abound as it mixes history with fantasy and horror, but it falls flat on all surfaces where the CGI (poor CGI I might add) is totally overwhelming. The script and direction is bad—everything is bad. I had trouble getting through this because I kept expecting Max Von Sydow to come in any second and punch out Nicolas Cage and let us watch him play chess with Death again, which, I can assure you, is much better than this pile of shit.

1 out of 5

Burn it.

© Jason Haskins, 2011

Editors Note: Also on Dvd this week, the film Noir Classic Kiss Me Deadly. While not up to the standard of others in the genre, it is still a damn good film. Check this out instead of any of these bad films

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Crapsterpieces: I Drink Your Blood (1970)

By Paco McCullough

Crapsterpieces is one of the new features we are introducing. Every Sunday we will discuss a film that is bad to the point of entertaining. Because this is a review site, these will be rated with two ratings: a critical score and a crap-tacular score.
    This week in crapsterpieces, I watched the 1970 film I Drink Your Blood. In I Drink Your Blood, a group of satanic hippies clearly inspired by the Manson family invade a small town, raping its daughters, drugging its grandparents with LSD, and cutting its own members feet and swinging them from the rafters. A fed-up young boy decides to get revenge and feeds the hippies meatpies injected with rabid dog. Of course, the virus spreads and the town is overwhelmed with rabid maniacs.
    Everything about this film is a disaster of the highest caliber. Cinematography is bland to the point of boredom. Performances are so bad I occasionally felt I was watching a horror film version of The Room. The worst element of this film is the sound design, however. The suspenseful and chase scenes are ruined by bizarre sound choices. The repeating chase music would feel more at home in a silly spy movie or something, while most of the “terrifying” effects sound like they were made by kazoo.
    This is the sort of film where the bad guys call themselves SADOS (Sons And Daughters Of Satan) while also taking themselves seriously. It’s the sort of film where phrases like “Satan was an acidhead” are common. Logical inconsistencies occur so frequently that commenting on all of them would take forever, but my personal favorite was that the infected would work together until it became convenient for the plot to have them fight each other.
     I Drink Your Blood focuses on one actual side effect of rabies, hydrophobia (fear of water), to the point where they start referring to the disease as hydrophobia. I had to check to make sure that this is a real condition, because the film uses it as a way for the characters to escape whenever the writers couldn’t come up with anything.
    Overall, I Drink Your Blood is a horrible film in all the right ways. Like all bad films, there are times when it is simply boring, but for the most part it is so crazy that it can overcome its shoddier elements. This film is perfect for anybody who is looking for something to watch while having a few beers with friends, or for those simply fascinated with bad movies.

Critical Score:1.5 out of 5

Crapsterpiece Score: 4.5 out of 5

© Tanner McCullough, 2011

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Classic Movies: Harakiri (1962)

By Paco McCullough

Masaki Kobayashi’s (Kwaidan, The Human Condition) Harakiri (1962) is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. In May of 1630, Japan has been at peace for nearly twenty years. For the samurai class that have made warfare their livelihood, this is a disaster. Many houses of samurai have collapsed and the streets are now flooded with ronin, masterless samurai. Desperate ronin have been going from feudal estate to feudal estate, asking to perform harakiri--suicide by disembowelment. The film begins with a ronin (Tatsuya Nakadai) making this request. To elaborate on the plot would detract from your enjoyment of the film, as one of the film’s greatest strength is its unexpected twists.
    Harakiri uses feudal Japan as a backdrop to tell a story about power, honor, and desperation. It skillfully discusses the inability of the successful to empathize with the less fortunate while also entertaining. Though it is a samurai film, there are no action scenes until almost two hours into the film. This film is frequently compared to some of Kurosawa’s work. If so, I would compare this more to Ikiru then Seven Samurai or Yojimbo. Because of this, we get to know the characters and care about them. Just don’t expect a action-filled adventure.
    Every single element of this film was incredibly well done. Tatsuya Nakadai and Akira Ishihama give incredible performances. One of Ishihama’s scenes was devastating to watch and will probably stick with most viewers for years to come. Beyond this, the cinematography is consistently beautiful. The score is also quite incredible. It’s minimalism only heightens its unsettling qualities.
    I cannot praise this film highly enough. It is unquestionably a masterpiece and deserves multiple viewings. Get off your computer and go watch it.

5 out of 5

(c) Tanner McCullough, 2011

Green Lantern (2011) Review

By Jason Haskins

It's an understatement to say I've been eagerly anticipating the newest superhero movie, Green Lantern, or that it was the one movie of the summer season (2011) I was looking forward to the most. Now that it's come and gone, I'm left disappointed at a film I had high hopes for.

Judging from the first trailer that was released last year, I should have known that the quality was going to be questionable, but after the last few trailers, which played down the schlocky teen blockbuster angle I was really excited. Disappointingly, this is just a pale imitator of the comic books in a variety of ways.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) has been chosen by a fallen alien, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), to brandish a power ring of Oa and be a sworn protector of the galaxy to harness infinite willpower and be without fear. This comes in the wake of an attack by a being named Parallax who is hell-bent on destroying Oa for imprisoning it and it just so happens to be made up of pure fear and yellow energy, which is the green ring's weakness.

Jordan must overcome his fear and train to be the superhero his sector needs; to save Earth from complete destruction from not just Parallax, but an old colleague, Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) who has become diseased by a virus from Parallax and is up to no good. All the while Jordan must win the affections of Carol Ferris (Black Lively), his boss and childhood friend, as well as redeem himself in front of his family. He must prolong peace in the galaxy and also find it in himself and fight through the fear to become the greatest Green Lantern of all time.

The plot of Green Lantern jives a little bit with the classic Emerald Dawn and Secret Origin tales from the comic books, but it also has its own spin on some things, which is understandable given the new medium and trying to stand a little apart from the source material a little bit. However, what sucks is not the core concepts, but how everything is executed. The script is literally one of the worst since last year's Iron Man 2.

The supporting cast is not used efficiently whatsoever. You're introduced to other Green Lanterns on Oa such as Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush voices) and Kilowog (Michael Clarke Duncan), but they don't really have much to do with the story, save for a few explanations and training sequences that don't fully develop Hal Jordan very well. Jordan's brother, nephew, and family play a large role in the comics and show up here with some supposed meaning, but are a complete afterthought later in the film--disappearing altogether. The dialogue is also pretty bad at times, utilizing a uniformly PG-13 grasp of things with cheesiness that's far removed from the comics. I mean, there's a point when his friend and co-worker Thomas (Taika Waititi) says that because Jordan is a superhero now means that he should go get the girl (Carol Ferris). I literally groaned.

Don't even get me started on Blake Lively. She was completely miscast. Besides this, her lines are all delivered haphazardly with little emotion to them, completely devoid of depth, and full of macho-women stereotypes that don't go well with her character. She's barely developed and Lively is a complete distraction. Not only that, but too much time is spent on her and Jordan's "love story" which goes nowhere. I was constantly wanting the plot to move forward, but it kept returning to insignificant things.

That's another thing: for a flick that's under two hours long...why does it feel so much longer than it is?! The Green Lantern books are full of action and interesting things that drive things forward (of course, I mean Geoff Johns work--he was actually a producer and consultant on this picture as well).

The entire movie doesn't get rolling until about thirty minutes in and there's barely enough action to keep things interesting. Too much of the movie meanders trying to set up the characters, but does so in really lame and clichéd ways. The action itself, while still cool to break up the drama, is also so full of clichés that I was frustrated halfway through by the film’s lack of focus.

One of the best things about Green Lantern was Ryan Reynolds. I thought he was a phenomenal Hal Jordan, especially given his background of love for the character and the enthusiasm he brought to the movie. Sure, he does some things wrong, but I blame that on the script more than him. He looks the part, acts the part, and is full of the charm, humor, and courage that Hal Jordan represents in the comics.

Peter Sarsgaard steals the whole film, though, as Hector Hammond. He's creepy and brings about this almost Heath Ledger-esque stint to the character that marks it unique and original, which I really enjoyed watching. Mark Strong as Sinestro, one of the other members of the Green Lantern Corps, was also a great choice and brought a ton of good stuff to the movie--despite a lot of it basically setting things up for a sequel.

Martin Campbell is one of the worst filmmakers working in the business--I can't believe that DC gave the franchise to him for its beginning judging by some of his clunkers like Vertical Limit (remember that beauty?), Casino Royale(the worst James Bond movie ever made), and, most recently, Edge of Darkness (that wonderful Mel Gibson flick!).

He relies on the special effects to accomplish most of the work so what we're left with are awkward moments where CGI isn't being used and clunky scenes that don't do the movie any favors. I strongly hope that he isn't attached to helm the sequel and that they get a director who actually knows what they're doing--not an old fart who doesn't have a simple understanding of the material or newer technologies.

The CGI was okay at moments with some interesting action segments, including the ending sequence, which was actually my favorite part of the film. However, there are a several moments where the special effects just didn't look very good and felt somewhat dated. Hal Jordan's costume is CGI, which didn't really bother me as it made sense and looked good, but his mask is also CGI, which was more awkward.

Most of the things you see in the entire film were shot on green (hey!) screen and it became distracting at how fake everything looked-and this is coming from the guy that really dug the look of Thor. A lot of the action is flawed, using too many clichés, but at the same time there are still parts that floored me, such as when Jordan finally learns how to use the ring with his willpower to animate what he wants (despite it, a majority of the time, being a darn big green fist!).

I'd be lying if I said I liked the score--it was one of the worst aspects of the movie as well with trumping horns that are meaningless and moments of rock'n'roll (thank God no AC/DC) that just didn't suit the film at all contrasting with other superhero properties like Superman and Batman.

I hate how much I didn't enjoy this as much as I wanted to. I was really trying--I'm a huge fan of the characters and it was a dream come true to see this on the big screen, but the trouble was that it all felt so rushed and insincere at times. I've been reflecting on the film a ton and it's not like I disliked it from the standpoint of being a fan, but for the fact that it just wasn't very well put together for a movie period. It was quickly rushed into production after all of the Marvel properties were gaining leverage. It’s clear Warner Bros. wanted to start their own major franchise to go with a hopeful Justice League movie and get more DC characters off the ground.

What resulted was a stilted effort by a filmmaker that could care less and a script that tried to bite off more than it could chew. However, there were still some pretty swell moments that I enjoyed and more than that I couldn't help but daydream while watching that this might be one of those lacking first movies that sets up the structure the following sequels will build off of. Judging by how this ended you'll still see me in line years from now awaiting the next Green Lantern movie...but not with my hopes up. Comic fans shouldn't unite over this, but think of it as a lukewarm starting point to a franchise that, in better hands, might reach its full potential over time.

2 out of 5 Stars

© Jason Haskins, 2011

Easy Rider (1969)

By Jason Haskins

Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper star as two biker friends travelling cross-country to experience all that America has to offer, be that drugs, the counter-culture, or women as the wind flies through their hair. They encounter some strange people along the way and befriend another travelling man (Jack Nicholson) who they introduce marijuana to for some good times on their way from Los Angeles to New Orleans. In the heat of the sixties, their kind aren’t welcome in the South and while they open their minds to drugs, the outsiders are finding it hard to open their minds to them.

This is a road-trip movie, but more than that it was a defining motion picture in the counter-culture movement when it was released in 1969. While it did garner some attention particularly on the art-house scene, it was very famous for its depictions of the tensions in the time period between the working class and the hippie movement as well as the graphic use of marijuana and nomad lifestyle, which hadn't really been seen in such a new way to this point in cinema. Today, it's still considered a staple of American cinema and one of the most important films of the sixties because of its counterculture properties.

Directed by Dennis Hopper (his first film behind the camera), it was loosely shot without a necessarily finished script and suffered some setbacks because of all the drinking and drug use that was happening around the set. That makes the movie a little weird to watch as you see Peter Fonda occasionally stumbling around and obviously stoned as well as how meandering the plot becomes at some points, which hints at Hopper's tainted sort of psychosis. However, the film holds up extremely well as it chronicles the journey two men take in the outdoors and the results are incredibly satisfying.

All of the performances are extremely well done, which I guess is a no-brainer since they were on drugs most of the time like their characters were supposed to be, but they did it with such finesse. Peter Fonda is remarkably attractive and the more down-to-earth of the two whereas Hopper plays more of a wild card. About halfway through the movie you are introduced to Nicholson's character who steals the whole movie. This was before he was huge star and this was the film that put him on the map (step aside Little House of Horrors). The film itself is worth a watch just for the marijuana sequence where the three men chat around a campfire about UFOs. Nicholson definitely serves as a bit of comic relief, that's for sure (him and his golden football helmet).

Everything is generally really well done. I was blown away by the cinematography for one. Some parts of the movie were shot with a 16mm camera (which includes the great Mardi Gras sequence at the end), but a majority of the film is shot in 35mm--capturing the beautiful landscapes of all our great country has to offer as the boys ride their choppers through.

The editing style is very intrusive as it calls attention to the jarring effect of itself throughout most of the film, and I actually found it quite mesmerizing since it gives you a feeling, almost, of being on drugs yourself. You could say the same thing about the infamous LSD sequence near the end, which takes place in a graveyard (easily one of my favorite moments in the entire film). Hopper definitely shows his directing chops here, which, sadly, I don't think he was able to accomplish with as much attitude and finesse again in the span of his career.

And you can't forget the soundtrack! You'll be listening to Jimi Hendrix, Steppenwolf, and The Band amongst a few other artists, which make the flick even more fun to watch as they ride their bikes from experience to experience. Aside from the visually oriented good stuff, you have some awesome ear candy to chew on. Overall, this film holds up extremely well as it gives you an authentic look into the counterculture movement.

I dug it immensely and the themes that are conjured. While a few things are pushed down your throat (especially the finale), the entire movie gives you a great slice of life and a diabolically fun little journey to take with these two characters. It's not necessarily the most exciting movie of all time and the drug usage may take a few people out of the movie--that's to be expected. However, it's really worth it to see because of the cinematic historical value and because of how much of a fun watch it is.

5 out of 5 Stars

© Jason Haskins, 2011

Friday, June 24, 2011

Alien Resurrection (1997) Review

 By Jason Haskins

This is what happens when the studio interferes with everything in the filmmaking process. Sure, they struck boldly with the Alien 3, which was easily the worst film of the franchise, but they happened to take interesting ideas and a script by Joss Whedon (of Firefly and Buffy fame) and the genius of director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie) diminishing all of the capacities that would've made the movie good.

Let's talk about the story.

After the ending of Alien 3 where series heroine Ellen Ripley (spoilers) throws herself into the flames so that her unborn alien child couldn't be born and so that The Company couldn't experiment on her, Ripley has been cloned! Huh. So, after eight cloning procedures one actually "revives" Ripley and she's born again 200 years after the events of the third film!

...with the alien embryo inside her (...?). The Company completes experiments to breed more of these aliens for government projects. Enter some space pirates and a whole mess in outer space where the aliens get out of their containment tanks with no one to save them and you have the plot of Alien: Resurrection where Ripley isn't really herself and must toy with whether she's alien or human. Huh.

Some of these ideas are pretty good. By that, I mean that some of the set-up works interestingly. Bringing The Company back to see where their experiments would go was interesting and I dug Brad Dourif (Chucky!) as the jerk scientist guy. There are a few cool action scenes such as an underwater escape with aliens trailing the ragged group like sharks. Granted, this part was fairly stupid and wasn't as thrilling as it could've been, but the possibilities were pretty cool.

Now for some of the ridiculous ideas. The whole cloning premise was so ridiculously stupid that I almost couldn't handle it. It was one of those factoids I must've blocked out from my consciousness because of how long it had been since I've seen this movie. Some of the foolish ideas presented included this relationship between Winona Ryder's character, Annalee, and Ripley.

The group of space pirates were walking clichés and there's one scene that was so effing ridiculous that I was frustrated--an act of sacrifice for no reason and could not have been explained. Then there's a basketball scene and some weird sexual stuff with Ripley and aliens and vulvas and a ton of weird imagery. The movie is strange; strange to the point--well, it was done by a Frenchman--but strange to the point where I couldn't tell whether I dug it or not. Ripley is simply crazy and not the same hero we grew to love in the first few films.

The ending of the film is definitely weird--alien baby, baby!

Now, you'd think that I wouldn't really dig this movie, but for some reason I did--and I can't really explain it. The direction isn't amazing--Jeunet's style didn't carry over into this flick, for some reason. If the movie had been more like The City of Lost Children with aliens I would've totally been on board, but he seemed restrained here and kept back from his full potential.

The movie is actually pretty fast paced (even the special edition of the movie, which is a tad bit longer) and keeps thing interesting by throwing in clichéd action scenes that are pretty good. Long gone are the horror factors, but the movie still delivers some pretty terrifying aliens full of slimy goodness we've always loved. The special effects were definitely an upgrade from the crap we saw in Alien 3 making the experience much better.

The acting is mostly what you'd expect from a film of this caliber, but offers some more interesting stuff than the previous film. Ron Perlman plays the typical macho guy, there's a disabled guy that's a lot of fun, and Michael Wincott has a small role--I'll watch anything this guy does. Winona Ryder was not on her A-game and seemed to sort of sleepwalk through the movie what with the bad lines written for her. Sigourney Weaver as Ripley was very weird and different. She was creepy and scary, but sort of hot in this weird way as her character embraced her sexuality in this movie instead of being this masculine hero the series built off her.

Alien: Resurrection (1997) wasn't terrible and was actually quite watchable. I think that it's much more interesting and more fun than the third film and at least tries to put forth some new ideas despite how bad most of them are. I wished that the script had gone in a different direction and had the aliens invade Earth, which would've been cool, or some of the ideas that were presented in earlier drafts of the script, but alas we are left with this cloning scenario that bugged me all the way through. This is a movie of give and take with a lot of things that tarnish the experience, but it's still just a mediocre watch for a rainy day and has actually stood up over the years surprisingly well.

3 out of 5 Stars

© Jason Haskins, 2011

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Welcome To Crazy 4 Film

Crazy 4 Film is a site I have designed as a place to talk about and review movies. We will be covering the most prominent film released each week. Due to housecleaning we will not be discussing new releases until next Friday. However, we will be posting reviews and discussions of films available. We plan on covering the whole spectrum of film, from it's inception on to modern releases. If you have any requests, feel free to contact us and we'd be glad to accommodate you.

Paco McCullough, Editor in Chief