"What an awesomely disgusting sight!", 2 August 2008
Move along people! Nothing to see here!
And I mean that…quite literally. Unless you're some sort of dyed in the wool Lana Clarkson fan, I sincerely doubt you'll find a whole lot about Barbarian Queen II to enjoy. Other than a couple scenes where Lana gets topless (one, where she mud wrestles for the leadership of the rebel force and, two, where she's tied to the rack) you can safely fast forward through the magical hokum, the poorly done fight scenes, and the failed attempts at acting on the part of the entire cast without missing anything. Add to that a plot that's not worth mentioning (so I won't), awkwardly choreographed action sequences, and a complete lack of anything remotely entertaining. In fact, I can't think of a single redeeming feature of Barbarian Queen II.
Overall, 30 or so seconds of a topless Lana Clarkson vs. wasting 80 minutes of your life – not a very good ratio if you ask me.
1/10
David Suchet may be the definitive Poirot, 29 June 2006
I believe that I've always loved Agatha Christie's books. When I was younger, I can remember reading and re-reading each one, especially those with Hercule Poirot, over and over. I've probably read most of her books at least 3 times. So it only seems natural that I would be a fan of and enjoy movies adapted from Christie's mysteries. The big-budget Hollywood films like Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express are among my favorite films. But for whatever reason, over the years, I have passed on most chances to watch Poirot with David Suchet on television. I had caught the odd episode here and there, but they were not a priority. I've decided to change that and give them a try.
It's odd that I would start my journey through the series with The ABC Murders. Of all the Poirot novels, it's one of my least favorite. Most of the problems I have with the novel are the same as those I have with the movie. The biggest issue I have is the story's structure, including the final reveal. For my money, we as viewers (and readers) discover far too early the identity of A.B.C. We know who the man is, what he looks like, and what he's doing. And, while the film does bring all the characters together for Poirot to make the big reveal as to the murder's identity, for lack of a better description, it lacks some of that good old English drawing room feel that I really enjoy. It's almost an afterthought without the power usual found in Christie's endings.
Getting past my petty quibbles with the story's structure, the movie is very nicely done. As much as I enjoy Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney in the role of the Belgian detective, David Suchet may be the definitive Poirot. He seems closer in my mind to fitting Christie's description of Poirot than anyone else I've seen. He's quite remarkable in the role. The rest of the acting is just as good, with A.B.C. himself, Donald Sumpter, giving a wonderful performance. The film's pace is snappy and the direction is solid. Considering what I assume to be a modest budget, the 1930s sets and costuming are dead-on perfect. The film has a wonderful look to it. Overall, the positive far outweigh the preconceived negatives I had in my mind making The ABC Murders quite an enjoyable experience.
I'm looking forward to visiting the other episodes in the series. If the other films in the series are this entertaining as The ABC Murders, I'm in for a real treat.
7/10
"The tender boughs of innocence burn first, and the wind rises, and then all goodness is in jeopardy.", 11 February 2005
This film is essentially a prequel to the television series Twin Peaks. The movie begins one year before the television show with two FBI agents investigating the death of a waitress, Teresa Banks. After a half-hour, the focus of the movie switches to events that take place in the week that leads up to the murder of Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee). The events during the last week of Laura's life are filled with drugs, alcohol, and sex , and her murder is extremely brutal and violent. At this point, the television series begins. And things lighten-up quite a bit.
The primary focus of the movie is the relationship between Laura Palmer and her father, Leland Palmer (Ray Wise). While Lee is adequate in the role of Laura, Wise excels at giving life to Leland. His ability to express emotion (fear, sadness, rage, etc.) is amazing, if not a little over the top. Another actor/character worth mentioning is Frank Silva as Bob. His character and performance are among the most frightening I've ever seen.
As I said, Lynch has a lot of different things going on in the movie. Many are not really essential to the plot and could have, perhaps, been left out. For example, the first thirty minutes has almost nothing to do with what follows. Lynch could have shortened the movie to 90 minutes and made a tighter film that might have better appealed to an audience beyond the built-in television audience. In my mind, the "padding" contained in this movie is its greatest weakness.
While the original television series presented life in a quirky town that could never exist in reality, the movie takes the bizarre nature of the town and stretches it to the point of non-believability. Take the scene with David Bowie as an example. He is seen walking down the hall at an FBI office and entering the office of his superior. As he gets halfway to the desk, he disappears. No one seems overly surprised - they act as if it is a normal part of the day.
I was a huge fan of the television series during its initial run and was very excited when I first heard that Lynch was making this movie. While I enjoyed Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, I doubt I would have liked it nearly as much if I hadn't seen the series before I went to the theater. I don't think a non-fan of the show would have a clue about what was happening on screen.
7/10
