V For Vendetta (2005)

Film: V For Vendetta
Release: 2005, theatrical
Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Directed by: James McTeigue
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the mid-21st century, Britain has become a fascist regime. One night on the 5th of November a reminder to remember a heinous plot is set to never be forgot.

Hans' thoughts:

Very vigorously would valuers of vindictive revolutionary vendettas value V for Vendetta for its volume as a vector for vocal web-users. Re-written and re-visited by the Whachowskis, it ventures wondrously within the very vague vicinity of the victorious and the virulent views of it's reviewers. The video relies the comic book verses regarding the vaudevillian vindicator which wears the visage called V visualized by the recitalist Weaving. I was be-wondered by the ventures victory in verifying the vexing wonder of V. . Vies a vie, it explores the reason for wearing a disguise whilst fighting crime - not as much as in Watchmen where it's the very vestige of the writers work though still very represented in some form. 

The visuals verily wear the visage of revolutionaries, while relying wisdom regarding the role of the victim compared to role of the victimisers. One again the Wachowskis flaunt their vigor for visual violence. while verily the recitalists realize the roles remarkably. Phew, Okay. I'm sorry. Enough of that. To anyone unaware the original introduction of our main character V features a very well written piece of dialogue with wordplay using the V-sound. Out of all the actors I felt Portman in the role of Evey lacked a little bit of energy and it seems as though she just kind of goes along with whatever happens to her, no matter how cruel it is. For the purpose of the story, Portman certainly does a well enough job that it doesn't distract too much however it's hard to not see it whenever she plays off of charismatic actors like Stephen Fry or Hugo Weaving - Weaving is of course given a momentous task as his face is never actually seen and it falls to the cameraman to accurately convey what the character is going through in any instance. That's of course helped a little bit by the fact that the character of V is supposed to be more of a symbol than an actual character. Most interesting to me was the journey of Stephen Rea in the role of the  police detective Finch as he uncovers more and more about the state of affairs in future Britain and the truth behind the government.

In the villain department, John Hurt makes a very threatening Big Brother-esque villain. Being shown on a giant TV-screen throughout most of the movie his knack for monologue and tone of voice shines through. Likewise does Tim Pigott-Smith pose a threat as the head of the state police known as finger men. However it seems like he channeled Dick Cheney of the then current Bush government in America. There's a lot of snarl and down to business temperament portrayed even when we're just looking at his face. V for Vendetta is above all a very beautifully shot movie and at times it distracts from the at times only half-hearted crime mystery tucked in between the plot-lines. Whether the mystery portion was more fleshed out in the original comic I unfortunately don't know as I've not read it, however it's safe to say that like with the movie adaptation of Moore's other famous work Watchmen, details were left out in favor of focusing on the underlying morale and point of the story. As it stands I can at least recommend V for Vendetta for a very captivating story, some masterfully done shot and the Wachowski staple of excellent action.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

Film: Hot Fuzz
Release: 2007, theatrical
Starring: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Previous in the series: Shaun of the Dead
Next in the series: The World's End
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Ace police officer Nicholas Angel is sent to the sleepy English village of Sandford because he's so talented that he makes the other officers in London look bad by comparison. There, what should have been an uneventful stationing turns out to uncover that the village of Sandford may not be as innocent as it appears.

Hans' thoughts:

Two things that British entertainment is known for is really good comedy and really good crime stories. So obviously they will be brought together from time to time and so they have in "Hot Fuzz" - The tale of an overqualified police officer who has to deal with one of the weirdest mysteries a small town in England can offer.  Following the success of "Shaun of the Dead", writer/director Edgar Wright brings back comedy duo of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg in the second installment of what would later be called "The Cornetto trilogy". A series of film not connected by narrative but by the reference to Cornetto Ice Cream throughout all three, well that's one way to ensure a marketing deal. 

Hot Fuzz is not only a funny movie when it comes to the dialogue, tons of little snippets of information and running gags are thrown into the movie that you might not all catch up on in the first viewing, this makes the movie rewatchable i close succession without it being redundant which is something you don't see happening to a lot of movies - it's definitely not something I would call a common goal of film directors. Another thing you'll notice right away is also the editing, the film deals in very rapid editing which results in making every scene seem heart pumping - even if the main character is just doing paperwork in the police station. The movie also has that distinct Anchorman quality to it, being extremely quotable and littered with hilarious and memorable moments. I also have to commend the writing for this one, a lot of comedies relies on the excuse that something just kinda happens but in this film everything has a setup and everything is kept tabs on throughout the tale. You will definitely be missing out if you don't pay attention while watching this.

All main characters are also given their own character arcs, as well as even some of the fairly minor ones. Characters will learn to doubt everything they thought they knew and it's all delivered incredibly well by a cast that may not be starstudded but is very talented and manages to deliver even the smallest jokes with timing only backed up further by the editing. The way jokes are set up is almost reminiscent of a sketch comedy show or a really well-written sitcom. Some jokes are thrown at you in rapid succession while others are set up and very carefully executed. Hot Fuzz is in conclusion a very funny and over-the-top take on the action movie genre and the knack for mysteries. With a genuinely surprising twist as well as a great cast of actors the film is for anyone who likes a good laugh, and who doesn't?

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Film: The Big Lebowski
Release: 1998, theatrical
Starring: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Julianne Moore
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Jobless slob Jeff Lebowski, otherwise known as The Dude is thrown into a kidnapping negotiation when he's confused for a local billionaire with the same name

Hans' thoughts:

Between bowling tournaments, drug fantasies, riled up war veterans and one of the most complicated to sum up movies of all time, The Big Lebowski sits as one of those big quotable cult classic comedies. Made by the impeccable Coen bros., The Big Lebowski stars Jeff Bridges as "The Dude" a laidback slob that signs checks for ridiculously small amounts and whose only social outing is that of the ongoing Bowling league where he hangs out with his peers. The paranoid and quick to arms Vietnam veteran Walter played by John Goodman and the socially awkward loser Donny played by Steve Buscemi. Everything takes a radical turn for the complicated when The Dude is mistaken for a multimillionaire of the same name, said multimillionaire being the titular "Big Lebowski" whose wife owes a considerable amount of money to a local loan shark and pornography magnate and then seemingly gets kidnapped. The Dude will now have to balance the drama of being hired to negotiate with the kidnappers while fighting his own personal battle of wanting to win the local bowling league where his greatest adversary is the colorful sex offender Jesus Quintana played by John Turturro. This may seem like I'm spoiling the plot of the movie, but trust me that this is actually just the setup for a plot that will go further and further down a very strange rabbit hole. 

Acting wise the movie is great, The Coen brothers have always been a star pull and this time is no exception. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges as the movies leads make for a very funny oddball pair and every character in the movie is just so darn colorful that you can tell the actors involved had fun on the set. There's not really much of a limit to the utter cool of The Dude, he's a laidback guy who's just found his special sweet spot in the world and he very much channels the spirit of a grown up hippie who's never really gotten to the point of a formal career but instead decided to do whatever he wants. He may not be a big player in the political leagues or a hero in the formal sense but The Dude is nevertheless a man steadfast on his principles and he really just wants to go on existing the way he's done so far which is what makes him so relatable everytime he tries to call it quits on the strange version of The Hero's Journey he's been put on. Bridges does a great job of portraying the character and you can kinda see elements from his performance as Flynn in the 1982 movie Tron as he prefers pleasure to duty and is bare bones honest about it. The Dude is very much a hero of the era he exists in and would go on to become an icon of 20-somethings everywhere. The film is also littered with strange but compelling and well choreographed dream sequences where we explore the psyche of our very laid back character. 

While the plot may seem very complicated, it never goes too far and leaves the casual audience behind. Reusing many of the same characters and expanding on them while the movie goes along even minor characters kinda get their own little moment in the movie and we can kinda tell who they are even if we're never given all that much time with them or information about their past. It's very reminiscent of the Iceberg-style created by late author Ernest hemingway, a style where you're only shown the tip of the iceberg directly but it's a tip that you can really read a lot into thus revealing the rest of the iceberg hidden underneath. It's a very show-don't-tell style and one I feel really fits the visual medium but unfortunately never get's used enough. This is an independent piece and that use of style is a sign of it, I very much doubt that a film like The Big Lebowski would've been greenlit by a major studio. However the Coen bros funds all their movies themselves and the revenue always goes into the next project, they only really use the big companies like Universal Studios as in this case for the sake of distribution to a mainstream audience. That's a pretty hard thing to pull off, yet the Coen bros. have done so with all of their movies and it really speaks for the amount of talent that's behind them. Especially interesting to me were the political commentary inherent in the story. There are next to no innocents in this movie and everyone is portrayed as a bit of a two-faced buffoon with the only possible exceptions being Steve Buscemi's Donny and Julianne Moore's character whom shall go unnamed for the sake of spoilers. The Bowling imagery is a running theme in the movie and what exactly it means is thankfully left to interpretation, something I once again don't think a mainstream studio would've let slide.

The Big Lebowski is one of those bizarre instances of good acting meeting good scriptwriting and magic just happening on screen. Between characters taking on a life of their own, really well-written dialogue and some fun imagery the film presents us with a strange journey taken by a strange man where he meets strange people. The film takes on nihilism, social status, the burden of keeping up appearances and the presidency of George Bush senior all seen through the eyes of a man who actually just wants to be left alone and live out his humble but comfortable existence. 

Scooby-Doo Meets Batman (1972)

Film: Scooby-Doo Meets Batman
Release: 2002, Video
Starring: Casey Kasem, Don Messick, Olan Soule
Directed by: Joseph Barbera, William Hannah
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: This is a DVD release of two films from the series called "The New Scooby-Doo movies". In "The Caped Crusader Caper", Mystery inc. is enjoying a nice trip to the woods when they run into The Joker & The Penguin who have kidnapped the bumbling professor Flakey, trying to steal his newest invention. In "The Dynamic Scooby-Doo Affair", Mystery Inc. are on their way to a mystery club meeting when they run upon a counterfeit money operation being investigated by Batman & Robin. 

Hans' thoughts:

Let's turn back the clock to the 1970's, a time of more light-hearted superhero tales. Hannah-Barbera ruled the animated TV-industry, the defining version of Batman was starring Adam West, and Robin had yet to wear pants. During this time, one of most popular animated characters on TV was Scooby-Doo, and in 1972 this was celebrated with a TV-series consisting of 40 minute movies where Mystery Inc. met celebrity guest starts. People such as The Addams Family, The Harlem Globetrotters or as in this case: Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder! This is a double-feature, consisting of the two movies where Scooby-Doo would team up with the heroes while fighting The Joker and The Penguin.

The Caped Crusader Caper:

All of the Scooby-Doo movies play out basically like a longer episode of the original TV-show. Mystery Inc. is out on a camping trip in the woods as they run upon The Joker & The Penguin. Something you'll quickly notice is the huge difference in how this version of the characters look compared to how they look in modern movies and TV-shows. This was made way before Batman: The Animated Series which would come to define the Batman franchise with it's art deco noir-esque art style. Gone is the gothic scenery. In it place, we have the Batman characters very similar to how they looked in "The Adventures of Batman" and "The Superfriends", which were by the way also animated by Hannah-Barbera. As far as the classic "whodunit" goes, this is pretty much thrown out of the window immediately as The Joker and The Penguin is seen in one of the very first shots of the movie. This is kinda sad, as both Batman and Scooby-Doo are detective stories in their own right so a mystery that would require both of them could have held high potential for great writing. Instead we're treated to a lot of, sadly, bad running gags and really painful puns. That and alliteration, they really went overboard with the alliteration. Almost all of Penguins lines. What little funny jokes there are, are few and far inbetween and consists of physical comedy: one of Scooby-doo's strong sides. Why they decided to focus on sight gags is anyones guess, but it's a shame when you consider how strong the two properties were even then. Animation-wise the characters also tend to fall off model when making new facial expressions. This is particularly obvious with Scooby who seems to get almost a new look sometimes. IF you only have the attention span to watch one of these movies, I'd say this one was the one to skip.

The Dynamic Scooby-Doo Affair:

This is much more like it, opening once again like a classic Scooby-Doo episode this entire episode also feels much more like a story that befits both of the properties. Mystery Inc. is on their way to a Mystery fair when the Mystery Machine breaks down (mysterious, huh?). Coincidentally they stumble upon a group of counterfeiters and meet Batman & Robin, already on the case to stop them. This movie actually keeps around the actual mystery, though it may be a little easy to guess who the main culprit is, what exactly is going on and how The Joker & The Penguin is involved is a lot better. It's like a perfect balancing act between an old-school Batman action tale, and a funny Scooby-doo cartoon. The jokes are better, the lines are less repetitive and the slapstick is just great. It it such a contrast to the other movie and of such higher quality. The animation of the movie is also a lot more on character, while most of these shows were done with reused character cells (part of the marketing for Hannah Barbera cartoons was keeping a low budget due to reusing cells and backgrounds) there are also a lot of new art in this film, which keeps up with the original pretty well. Clearly a lot more effort was put into this piece than in the former. I also felt the voice work in this film was far less grating, in "The Caped Crusader Caper" one of the main characters is the bumbling professor Flakey whose gimmick was a really annoying speechpattern where he kept misspeaking. This film toned down the speechpattern jokes quite a bit asnd instead focused on one-liners and visual gags ("Sure Shaggy, we have Bat Milk and Cookies at the Bat-cave!" "..Bat-Milk?!")

Vertigo (1958)

Film: Vertigo
Release: 1958, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: A newly retired police detective with a crippling fear of heights is talked into shadowing the wife of a wealthy shipbuilder for the sake of her safety - and falls in love with her in the process.

Hans' thoughts:

Dealing once again with his core traits, we have the Hitchcock film Vertigo. Possibly one of the strangest additions to his filmography, Vertigo maintains a very strange balance between your average romantic drama, and an odd crime/ghost story. I don't how much I actually "got" this film, at the surface it seems like a straight up crime drama starring John Stewart as the stand-in for your average person - as he has done in so many other Hitchcock pictures. However the story is about him being hired to follow a woman whom is believed to be possesed by a ghost, and we are quickly wrapped up in the city's local history and actually a pretty good story. Then, by the halfway point, the story makes a major tonal shift. It goes from being a "what's going on" mystery to being a romantic drama, and then once again by the final act of the film, we go through yet another tonal shift into something very dank and depressing. It kinda follows the three major steps of young love: The first discovery, followed by the period where they're wrapped up in being lovey dovey and then finally, the depression following the break-up. It's made a point from the get go that our main character has a crippling fear of heights. 

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

However that fact doesn't really come into play in the movie before the end of the first act. For a period, the audience is actually sort of "coaxed" into forgetting that it was a character point at all. Instead we're following the focus of our main character, whom besides his fear of heights is pretty much a blank slate. Of course as with all Hitchcock characters, he has a very fleshed out background, some would say perhaps unnecessarily so. We are given chunks of information in throwaway dialogue that has no bearance on the plot at all, but to it's credit it does make some of the lines seem a bit more natural (Why would anyone only talk about things that are extremely important?). James Stewart as well is, unfortunately, far from his best in this film. He seems either extremely typecasted or extremely bored with the movie, not straying too far from his performance in any other Hitchcock film I've reviewed for this site. I actually forgot which Hitchcock movie I was watching for a moment, thinking I had popped in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" by mistake. 

In this film we actually have two female leads, one is pretty well written and has some funny lines. The other is the one we spend most of the movie with. That sounds harsh, but it actually annoys me that we saw so little of the characters Majorie "Midge" Woods, played by Barbara Bel Geddes.  Of course as was custom for female characters written in the 50's, they both swoon over our main character. But whereas Geddes' character actually has grounds for doing so, the romantic sub-plot with our other female lead played by Kim Novak kind of comes out of nowhere. I sound bitter, but I had much preferred if this film had taken a completely different route than it ended up doing. There's not much to the love story element in the movie and yet it almost takes over the picture from the halfway point onwards. Leaving behind great potential for a mystery. It actually comes to the point that the final tonal shift of the final act comes completely out of left field. However, the devil is in the details and I admire how much work was put into each type of movie that's in the film. The tonal shift isn't just in the plot, no EVERYTHING about the film changes. From the way the movie is shot, to the use of sound. The First and latter halves of the film feels like two completely different films. That's to be heavily applauded.

I don't know why, and I feel terrible for saying this but I just didn't care all that much for this movie, it felt like a rushed version of what could've been a truly interesting examination of either one of these three major plot elements. Between the ghost mystery, the psychological aspect and the love story either one of these could probably have been good movies either on their own or only combined with one of the other parts. As it is, none of the parts really come into their own because of a lack of choosing to go down one particular road with the story and it turns out to be a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". It's not a problem contained to this movie however, not knowing what to focus on in a movie is actually comparatively a very modern problem. Take, as an example, the third Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie that suffered highly because of the large number of major enemies and plotpoints that were scattered throughout the film to the point that it just didn't come together for a satisfying conclusion. The same can be said for this film, the ending came out of nowhere and it feels like the writer either didn't know where to go with the story next or realised he had hit the running time for the piece. 20 minutes of wrapping things up would've been a welcome addition to the film. There's just a lack of confrontation after the big reveal that leaves a giant gap in the film.

Psycho (1960)

Film: Psycho
Release: 1960, theatrical
Starring: Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Next in the series: Psycho II
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A young woman steals a large sum of money in order to meet up with and marry her lover. Along the way she decides to stay in a remote hotel, run by nervous man and his mother.

Hans' thoughts:

Today considered a timeless classic, Psycho takes what initially seems like a "normal" thriller story and then spins it on it's head when the main character turns out to be someone completely different. Now, had I been talking about any other movie I would've considered that a spoiler and withheld the information. However, Psycho is an internationally recognized masterpiece and it is neigh impossible to be unaware of the infamous shower scene in this film. People who've never seen Psycho, know exactly what the Bates hotel is so I am going to write the rest of this article as a review of what I consider the "actual" movie, the first 30 minutes being a giant fake-out. Okay, I apologize deeply but the movie is now 53 years old and I consider it highly unlikely that nobody in this day and age would not know about the giant change of tone the film suddenly takes. Part of what makes Psycho such a good movie anyway, is that it can still be thrilling, horrifying and enjoyable in spite of people knowing what is going to happen.

Though a bit eccentric, Norman seems like he would've been
the hero in any other movie

Psycho is a horror mystery movie and a very good one, by some considered the movie that kickstarted the Slasher sub-genre. Part of what makes the movie is our main character. Norman Bates. He seems like such a rational innocent man, if a bit weak willed, who just has a deep love for his mother whom he takes care of. This is partly because of the performance of Anthony Perkins. Perkins seems like such a sympathetic person in this picture and the fact that he would hide such dark secrets is truly unthinkable. It is no wonder that Perkins' career would later suffer from typecasting in other movies. He really steals every scene he's in, partially because in other movies he would probably be the dashing hero, saving the damsel in distress from some evil plot. Good old Hitch sure pulled a fast one on audiences with this one.

What exactly is going on in the Bates household however, I won't disclose here. Let's just say that the answer to that question is definitely a surprise. Our other characters also do a very good job. While we don't learn much about them, their motivations are always clear and nothing they come off as for the sake of plot convenience. There is no unnecessary exposition here. It can honestly be compared to the story of Citizen Kane, where we become intimately familiar with a character through the conversations of others. As is always the case with Hitchcock movies, the film is shot incredibly well. The biggest testament to this is the formerly mentioned shower scene, parodied and referenced in all sorts of media since - right down to even Looney Tunes Back In Action, that is far cry from the tone of the original (what else is, Looney Tunes Back In Action was made in 2003. The likelihood of the movie's intended audience having actually seen "Psycho" is.. very small). 

Now, if you know anything about history you're probably wondering "Why in the world was a film from 1960 filmed in black and white?" That is indeed an interesting detail - as the story goes Hitchcock himself felt that making "Psycho" a color movie would render it far too bloody and gory for a wide audience. That's a legitimate reason that I would have accepted - had the decision not been made by someone as sneaky as Alfred Hitchcock. What I mean by this is that Hitchcock had received training in German silent cinema in his younger days, studios well known for their impressive work with light and shadow. I refuse to believe that is coincidence then, that this movie sports a lot of absolutely beautiful lighting work. Shadows showing the duality of characters, or making the sets feel more dark and foreboding.

This poster awaited late customers hoping to
watch Psycho, unfortunately time has taken it's toll
and left this movie without it's biggest twist.

Not to forget about this movie is the films score. While many scenes are as silent as reality, the now iconic screeching theme just MAKES some of the scenes. It just works really well and it may have been an early sign of perfecting the technique of "the jump scare". Only difference being that this is used in scenes that would actually be scary even without the music, amplifying the fear and shock effect rather than triggering a common reflex to high noises as most modern pictures unfortunately tend to do. Don't believe me? Try watching modern horror movies and count how many times the supposed "fear" comes from a sudden high noise and change of imagery rather than being the result of a well-constructed atmosphere.

In the case of Psycho, one could argue that a piece of art is only great in it's completely intended form. With the advent of the internet, many films has lost it's twists (some even before they're officially released). People today will throw around spoilers left and right, assuming everyone has seen the film because of it's age and thus ruining some of the fun for later generations or merely potential viewers. While this is certainly a sad scenario (you try finding someone who doesn't know the truth about Luke Skywalkers parents) I have to admit that most of the enjoyment of Psycho actually comes from the film alone. Plot twist or not, this movie certainly stands on it's own even to this day, and what more can you wish for as proof of a films quality? I say make some popcorn, huddle up in your couch and watch a masterpiece that helped define a genre.

Series of Events: Another (2012)

In "Series of Events" we take a look at finished TV-shows.

Series: Another (アナザー Anazā)
Release: 2012, Television/Simulcast
Length: 12 episodes
Starring: Atsushi Abe, Natsumi Takamori
Directed by: Tsutomu Mizushima
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The young Kouichi transfer to a new school and class in a small rural town. However, there is a mysterious girl in his new class who everybody seems to ignore deliberately, and his meddling soon opens the door to a mystery and a horrific curse that has haunted the Yomiyama Middle School for ages.

Hans' thoughts:

Based on a novel by the same name, Another proves once again the aptitude the Japanese have for horror. Setting the tone with a low retelling of the beginning of the curse, and some really creepy music, we're introduced to the tale "Mizaki", a person in the 9th grade class 3 who died 26 years prior to the story's beginning. This is just a very good example of things to come, the entirety of the series has the feeling of a really well-told ghost story and the music throughout manages to hold this level of creepiness.

This is also partially because of the series intro Kyomu Densei, while upbeat the use of rhythm changes sounding almost like several different songs blending together. This combined with creepy imagery of the abandoned school building, dolls and several accidents happening just serves to up the creepy even more. I have to say though I am not that big on the closing theme, while certainly pleasant to listen to I feel it is way too reminiscent of ending themes from other series, even those not of the same genre. It also feels really jarring to have this peaceful of an ending theme when an episode leaves off on a chilling cliffhanger.

Character-wise this show really threw me through a loop, when I first watched the series I thought I knew exactly how all the characters were going to be - only to be wrong on so many different occasions. Especially the secondary main character Mizaki would throw me through a hoop a couple of times. Unfortunately our male lead, the character of Kouichi, could've have been written a lot better. He seems way too easily manipulated by the events around him, I don't know whether this was intended to be a character fault of his but he comes off as way too interchangeable, however it's worth noting that by the half-way point of the series he really comes into his own and becomes an interesting protagonist - it's just the initial crawl you have to get over first. There is not much to say about the minor characters, they are all your common high school anime fare. You have the no-nonsense class president, the wisecracking male sidekick and the nervous girl.  The death scenes in this show are on the hand pretty well done, often times coming when least expected.

There is not much difference from other shows, art-wise

Another manages to be cartoon show that's actually scary, something I very much doubt could've been pulled off in western animation, in any case I've yet to see it happen. The withholding of information and the absolute oozing of atmosphere is just a testament to the fact that western writers are far too quick to reveal everything about the main villain, a big problem to me about the slasher genre as an example is that once we know what the deal with the killer is, it stops being a scary story and becomes just a series of imaginative death scenes. Another is a good old fashioned ghost story and really, sometimes that's all you really need to make something scary. The show also manages to not overstay it's welcome and instead only runs 12 episodes. Enough to be given enough time to tell a scary story and wrap things out without padding the story once we already know what is going on.

Another was shown on TV in Japan, but Simulcast throughout most of the west. Simulcast means that episodes of the show were made available for streaming online shortly after it aired on TV. The show was simulcast on the website Crunchyroll.com, where it's still available to watch for free should you be curious to check it out.

Story-liners: 5 Days a Stranger (2003)

Game: 5 Days a Stranger
Release: 2003, Freeware
Created by: Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw
Next in the series: 7 Days a Skeptic
Homepage: Link opens in a new window
Description: A nameless cat-burglar thinks he's in for a smooth get in-take all job in an abandoned mansion when the window suddenly locks behind him. He soon realises he's locked in with 4 others - who one by one starts to show up dead.

Hans' thoughts:

Before becoming well-known for his game review series on The Escapist Magazine, Zero Punctuation, Ben Croshaw aka. Yahtzee was best known for creating freeware video game titles and releasing them on his homepage, Fully Ramblomatic. Arguably his most popular games were the "Chzo Mythos" games, a series of lovecraft-esque horror adventure games, mostly centered around the concepts of helplessness and seclusion. 5 Days a Stranger is the first in the series, sharing it's gameplay and graphics engine with the adventure games of the early 1990's released by Sierra and Lucas Arts.

5 Days is one of those horror stories that by-passes limitations with it's creepy atmosphere and keeps your attention with a well-written mystery. The murderer could be anyone, and the eerie sense of looming danger that the seemingly harmless mansion manages to create is something that should be taken note of by any aspiring horror writer. What exactly is going on, and why everything is happening the way it is turns out to be more complicated than it seems to be initially and in spite of the low resolution graphics, your suspension of disbelief will kick in quite quickly. This isn't a game that abuses the jump scare tactic like most modern works, in fact I'd argue that there really is only one and that one is set up so well that critics of the technique won't have anything to complain about. 

Of course the game does have it's shortcomings, though they are few and far inbetween. The most obvious one would be the lack of voice acting, though I would argue that the silence the game has throughout most of it (There is little to no music in this game outside of events or the title screen) manages to emerge you in the seclusion, your footsteps on the floor being one of the only sounds when you make your way through the mansion. I simply cannot recommend this game enough, if you feel you have trouble with the low-resolution graphics I strongly suggest giving it a try and playing through it anyway. It will give you the same feeling as a novel would give - the writing is certainly just as good. I'm sure you will have chills down your spine as you explore the dark history of the old house and it's surroundings.

As I mentioned, 5 Days a Stranger is a freeware title, meaning the original creator has made the game for free use by anyone who want to. Therefore you can get your fingers on the title RIGHT HERE.

And sweet dreams.

Dead Heat (1988)

Film: Dead Heat
Release: 1988, Theatrical
Starring: Treat Williams, Joe Piscopo, Lindsay Frost
Directed by: Mark Goldblatt
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When investigating a number of strange robberies, it suddenly occurs to the criminal investigative team of Robert Mortis and Doug Bigelow that some of the corpses in the morgue are returning customers.

Hans' thoughts:

When talking about cinema in the 1980's, it's no secret that a defining genre of the decade was the buddy cop comedy. A rag-tag duo of a serious by-the-book cop and his wisecracking partner with a heart of gold trying to stop some larger than life crime organization from whatever plot they have in the work is a pretty easy frame to put in whatever gimmick you'd like to. Normally it would be something easy for the audience to latch on to, like K-9 where a no-nonsense cop is paired with a dog who has a major attitude problem. The all-time greatest showcase of buddy cop movie conventions (as well as other urban crime action movies) would later show up in The Last Action Hero starring musclebound hero Arnold Schwarzenegger coupled with a movie-loving loudmouth kid. But enough about that, this time we're looking at Dead Heat.

Combining all the well-known clichés of the buddy cop movie with a zombie movie is a pretty unconventional move indeed, which is probably why this particular feature didn't receive much of a commercial success and only a limited international release. This can most likely also have something to do with the niche-nature of the zombie "genre" at the time of the movie's production. While zombie movies were certainly around at the time, Hollywood didn't think much of it and the movie was made long before it became basic practise to copy the kind of zombies (now considered classic) found in George A. Romero's Zombie series. No, these zombies are nothing like the zombies found in pretty much any other zombie movie. For starters, the zombies in this film retain their personality from their past lives, and the (limited) gore in the film comes less from epic fight scenes and more from a fault in the resurrection process. It's actually kind of fascinating to see something this different from the usual kind of mindless brain-munchers that show up in most modern media. No offense to the classic type of zombie, though you'll find no overwhelming hordes in this film.

Unfortunately the movie does have it's faults. Easy to recognize badly done stage falls, poor comedic chemistry between the two main characters and little to no actual character development are among it's most criminal offenses. Now, the actors are actually fair enough but they seem to be phoning in their performances, probably because of little regard for the material they're paid to deliver. The movie is also very "safe", throwing in a sudden action scene when movie's producers must've felt the audience was about to fall asleep. This wasn't a very popular genre at the time, so the fact that the writers felt the need to explain everything in the universe as quickly as possible must've been an attempt to at least have audiences keep up with the concepts. I'm not saying the movie is not entertaining, but unless the setup of the movie tickles your fancy to begin with, there is not much here besides spectacle. Boy is there ever spectacle, in a move that I have scarcely seen repeated in other movies, the resurrection technology appears to also work on animals. I'm not saying where this comes into play, but if you love over-the-top goofball spectacle this is worth a watch for that particular scene alone. 

If you like zombies and you want to see a very different kind of zombie movie, this could be it for your movie night. The buddy cop element of the movie may not be very good, I'd say average compared to other films in the sub-genre, this manages to at least hold your attention while the story is told. Perhaps with a cast that actually had an interest in the parodied material, this could have been a truly great comedy. As it is though, it makes for an excellent excuse to eat popcorn and enjoy those 80's special effects. Personally, this stands as somewhat of a "guilty pleasure" of mine, and if I could choose one movie to give another shot, this would probably be it. This movie was just not made for the era it was produced in, and perhaps a modern crew with more experience with the zombie genre could do the concept justice.

Big Top Scooby-Doo! (2012)

Film: Big Top Scooby-Doo!
Release: 2012, Video
Starring: Frank Welker, Mindy Cohn, Grey DeLisle, Matthew Lillard
Directed by: Ben Jones
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When Mystery Inc. goes to Atlantic City, hoping for a bit of R&R, Fred's fascination with circuses gets them involved in a hunt for a werewolf who've been doing a jewel heist crime spree throughout the nation

Hans' thoughts:

The first thing that's going to pop out at you when you watch this movie is also one of the first things that hit the screen. This movie absolutely excellent music, peaking at an absolutely wonderful into-credits sequence. The whole sequence is done in such a way that it looks like cardboard cut-out dolls are on the screen, and the imagery combined with the twisted honky-tonk esque motif that many associate with the circus is genuinely creepy. Not scary - creepy. Which is exactly how a Scooby-Doo movie should be able to convey. That I applaud. Music like this, with the occasional exception, plays throughout the movie to varying degrees of success, none as great as the aforementioned sequence.

However, this movie has a pretty big flaw in it's monster. As sad as I am to admit it, I could not take the character design of the werewolves seriously as all. The snout looks downright strange and the eyes look way too fake. Now of course I know that the monsters in the Scooby-doo franchise are never real, but this made it to a point that it kind of distracted from what was going on, on screen. Which is a shame for the story is actually not half bad and the mystery kept me guessing as to who the perpetrator was throughout, even wondering at times if the movie was going the "monsters are real route" this time which Scooby-Doo movies have, unfortunately, done a lot. I will give the movie this though, the outcome took me by surprise.

Big Top Scooby-Doo! is, if a bit flawed, still neck and shoulder above some of the other direct-to-video and televised Scooby-Doo movies. As with Scooby Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon this feels less like a cinematic experience and more like an extended episode of the What's New Scooby-Doo? TV-show. Don't take that as a criticism though, because that is what I feel the live-action movie should have been. A well-written mystery with some good comedy starring characters that the audience know and love. Once again, the direct-to-video Scooby-Doo movies prove that they're able to give the human members of Mystery Inc. their own appeal that doesn't need to be backed up by Scooby's antics constantly - which is an achievement almost in and off itself. 

Scooby-Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon (2012)

Film: Scooby-Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon
Release: 2012, Video
Starring: Frank Welker, Mindy Cohn, Grey DeLisle
Directed by: Michael Coguen
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After stopping yet another crook in a monster suit, Mystery Inc. goes to a comic convention where Scooby and Shaggy are hoping to meet their hero - The actor who played Blue Falcon on their favorite TV-show. But as is always the case, problems are never far away as the reveal of a new reimagined Blue Falcon movie is haunted by the original hero's nemesis, Mr. Hyde.

Hans' thoughts:

The existence of this movie is to me - completely surreal. Not only are we talking about Warner Bros. actually mentioning a lot of the old school Hannah Barbera characters again - they're doing so through a parody of their own business practices. Well, to some extent anyway.

If you're more than a little familiar with the Hannah Barbera characters of yore like I am, you will be thrilled by this movie. Most of the movie takes place in a convention hall and for some reason the creators decided to make all the convention goers and posters reference classic Hannah Barbera series. If you're not though, fret not! Because as a Scooby-Doo cartoon this is actually above average as well. As opposed to most of the TV-show episodes, you actually get a lot more face time with the individual members of Mystery Inc. and the writers give them more well-rounded traits. It is much more than telling them apart by looks and catchphrases this time around. Judging by the animation style of the movie, I suspect it was the team behind What's New Scooby-Doo? that created this little gem.

Scooby-Doo has had a ton of Direct-to-Video releases like this, unfortunately most of them seem to be just a teeny bit creatively bankrupt as they seem to have stood around the water-cooler, suddenly snapped their fingers and gone "Wait, what if this time - The monsters were REAL?". Fortunately, this movie actually understands what makes Scooby-Doo entertaining in the first place, the mystery aspect. Making the monster real kinda takes the "whodunit" out of it all. I actually found myself wondering who stood behind the attacks this time, at least for a short while. Still, it is a kids movie and by the last 10 minutes most adult audiences will most likely have figured out at least WHO did it, only waiting for the motive to show up. It does have some nice fake-outs layered out over the course of the movie though and I applaud that. The problem with Scooby-Doo as a franchise has been the tendency to become way too formulaic, to the point of self-parody. 

As I stated, Warner Bros. kinda pokes fun at itself and fan culture a little in this movie. The character of Owen Wilson, the original actor playing Blue Falcon is voiced by cartoon veteran Jeff Bennett, who seems to have channeled actor Adam West during his performance. Which is only strengthened by the fact that the characters backstory is also very much like what West had to deal with after the end of the 1960's Batman live-action TV-Show. On the other hand, the reimagined Blue Falcon costume in the movie looks very much like the reimagined Batman costume from the modern movies. Tons of references like this are in the movie and most people should be able to pick up on them.

The movie doesn't delve too much into the references though, as this is still a Scooby-Doo cartoon. So of course Scooby and Shaggy gets into all sorts of antics, all the physical comedy you could want from a Scooby-Doo cartoon is present here. I have to bring up though, that to me Daphne really stole the show a lot of the time. She is funny in a surprising way in this one.

Scooby-Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon ends up not only being a fun send off to an iconic character, but also one of the best Scooby-Doo stories to date and a love letter to the golden age of TV-animation. It feels like an episode of the show, only with a longer running time, a more complicated mystery and higher stakes. Which is really all you could want in a Scooby-Doo movie. Nostalgia for the adults and fun for the kids - Go watch it!

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Film: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Release: 1956, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Doris Day, Daniel Gélin
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A small American family from Indianapolis is visiting Marrekesh, Morocco. By chance, they are thrown into international political intrigue, a kidnapping, and the knowledge to stop a murder.

Hans' thoughts:  

When you first watch this movie, it seems like a typical Hitchcock movie - A small unassuming family is vacationing in Morocco. Everything seems fairly simple - if a bit slow. However, do not get disheartened, because while the first part of the movie is slow - probably for the sake of character development, Everything suddenly picks up when our main character Doctor McKennan is relied the details of an international murder plot. Thus becoming, you guessed it, The Man Who Knew Too Much!  

This movie is actually quite suspenseful, although it knows when it needs to give the audience a break to catch their breaths. Littered with small humorous moments and red herrings to keep you guessing. On the road we learn more about our characters, as they at the same time might just learn a little about themselves. Our main character, played by James Stewart, starts out as an unassuming naive everyday man. He's on vacation, so he's more trustful than he would've been at home. Taking his wife's worries at a distance, reassuring her at every turn. At the same time, when the movie starts becoming more about the mystery he tries to deal with everything himself. Even keeping his wife out of the loop. Unfortunately, Stewart seems to be playing the same character he's played in other Hitchcock movies, which is becoming sort of Old Hat for me by now. He's good at what he's doing, but he seems very typecast. I miss energy in his performance. He was way too laid back, his eyes seeming empty in some scenes.

The wife is a famous singer, fittingly played by the real-life singer Doris Day. This incidentally is the movie where she sang the hit song: Que Sera, Sera (Whatever will be, will be) that won an Oscar for Best Original Song in 1957. The song is introduced in the beginning of the movie and returns later as a nice little break from the drama. She's also surprisingly good at acting, carrying one or two scenes in stride.

I'd like to tell you that the movie follows fit with being just as good as the song. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have a lot of really nice twists, some funny moments, good musical arrangement and a few imaginative shots. Unfortunately, it just seems like this movie wasn't made with as much care as others. Falling just short of being great. I'd say my feelings about this movie are lukewarm at best, though I do not hate it or dislike it, it just didn't do anything for me. I miss some information from the main plot, why did they want this man killed? Who were they? Information was sparse at best. The movies representation of law enforcement officials weren't exactly flattering either, making them seem like someone that just stands in the corner, gently nudging the bad guys to stop what they're doing and giving up at the first bump on the road.

So yeah, this is one of those movies that will entertain you while you're watching it, but when you start thinking about it you start finding a lot of problems with it. So is it good? Well, considering it drives your suspension of disbelief enough to make you oversee all the problems, I'd say it does it's job. Which is all anyone can ask for.

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Film: The Trouble with Harry
Release: 1955, Theatrical
Starring: Edmund Gwenn, John Forsythe, Mildred Natwick
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A poacher finds a dead body he believes to have shot by accident, soon more and more people get involved in finding out what to do about it

Hans' thoughts:

Hitchcock once again delivers with yet another murder mystery, this time in a different manner. While the other movies certainly had their comedic movies, this seems to be the first one that completely delves into the realm of comedy. Harry Worpt is found dead, nobody is really sorry that he's dead but what do you do about a dead body? It goes once again to show one of Hitchcocks apparent pet projects: How do you commit the perfect murder? In Shadow of a Doubt, he even had two characters openly discuss it. 

One of the big draws of the movie is the visuals, it takes place in a small rural village in what seems to be autumn. It takes big advantage of the natural beauty of the area, scenic meadows and colored trees and a small village with old houses. The colouring of the movie is very warm and inviting, almost mocking of the fact that one of the characters are dead. Indeed, I don't think I've seen many other movies where a dead body is moved around quite as much aside from Weekend at Bernie's. 

As for the acting, some of the characters felt rather reserved. This could be because of the characters they were playing but it did leave me feeling I didn't get to know them quite as well as is usually case in Hitchcock movies. On that point I'd also point out that out of the Hitchcock movies I've seen thus far, this is in the lower half of the quality. Granted, this isn't saying much as Hitchcock was unbelievably talented and it's still better than some lesser directors better works.

While this movie certainly had it's creepy moments at times, I feel that it wasn't quite as ambitious as the others in the shot department. No, this is actually a straightforward movie with not all that much of interesting imagery as there were in his former works. I couldn't really point out a moment in this movie that stood out to me. Overall I'd say that it is definitely a passable movie, but maybe a bit too quiet for my tastes.