Should I watch Tron?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

A film from back when Disney made actual movies, Tron is a cult classic famous for being one of the first films to extensively use computer graphics (which ironically got them disqualified from winning an Academy Award in special effects due to "cheating"). The movie uses computer graphics to create the digital world and backlit photography on all the actors to create a very surreal effect. The movie is not perfect by any means, mostly due to the inane framing device and obsolete graphics. Don't get me wrong, for being polygons the graphics are still pretty smooth and are used better than some of the dribble that gets produced today, but it suffers from the 2001 effect: because it was cutting edge back then it carried its own weight, but nowadays it goes so slowly and is unimpressive. At the same time, though, you do get to see The Dude act the epic sci-fi hero.

This movie is one of the few mainstream "videogame" movies to win an academy award, with the main character being a coder from back in the days when video games were still "cool." Many of the mini-games and the adventures from the movie have been remade as games in there own right, with their collective success far exceeding that of the original people. Chances are that even if you've never seen Tron you have seen one of the movies light cycles being parodied. And now with a supposed sequel on the way, it would be worth seeing the original to be in the loop, if not just to understand a lot of the references made in popular culture.

The movie itself is comprised of two parts: the real-world framing device and the main plot which takes place in the video-game world. The real world framing device is the weakest point of the movie, mimicking programming somewhat but with no accuracy of how computers actually work. Plus the process of taking something physical and turning it's matter completely digital is a technology so pointless that it baffles the mind even as a plot device. These trappings of programming carry their way into the digital universe in kind of a fun way, but even so, I got through the movie by squinting my eyes and pretending this was happening in space. But the story is fun and has some interesting elements which makes the complete and total inaccuracies durable. It follows a very "chosen one saves the day" formula, but tackles it in a unique perspective. It is definitely not too heady, just mindless fun. If you are looking for an in-depth look into the human soul or a cutting edge digital masterpiece, than this movie is not for you. But if you want a little fun with some interesting visuals, than this is for you.

I personally enjoyed the digital part of the movie, which fortunately takes up the majority of the action, but at the same time the concerns with the real-life portion really did drag me down. The ending is so nonsensical it hurts: a printed piece of paper saying "yeah, the bad guy did it" would not be enough evidence to solve anything. If that's all he needed, why didn't Flynn print it out at home? But the digital world carries it out for me. Being produced by a major studio allowed them to get some great actors, and David Warner was fantastic in all three of his roles. I loved how Sark was a real character, showing fear at having to take on a "user" and acting as a competent henchman defeated by an actually superior foe, as opposed to most movies where the hero is an idiot and wins by sheer measure of the villains even lower intellect. All in all if the digital portion of the movie had been a stand alone project (in the same setting or even a space setting) it would probably be one of my favorite movies. As it stands, it is still a pretty good flick worth watching.

Should I watch Silent Hill?

The long and short of it: Probably not
When was it made: 2006

Christophe Gans has the potential to be either a fantastic adapter of darker video games to film or the Uwe Boll of horror(and I really hope it turns out to be the first), but his first foray into the video game world, Silent Hill, catches the scenery but not the point. When I watch horror I want one of two things: to be genuinely scared or to receive a new insight into the human condition. Silent Hill delivers the first one for the first bit of the movie and acts like it covers the second during the end of the movie, but neither one really pans out.

Silent Hill is based on a game franchise that is still in existence, so chances are if you play video games you've heard at least the name, and as a gamer I know I try to catch video game movies so I can see how badly they flubbed up the interpretation. With a second movie in the pipeline, some people may be interested in catching up on the first movie or seeing why they're going ahead with a second: although the movie panned out critically it still did make a profit.

Now let me remind you that this is a horror film and while not a gorno it does involve it's fair share of violence and viscera (if you couldn't tell from the picture above). Also, even though I do complain that the movie wasn't very scary throughout, it does have its tense scenes and some rather disturbing visuals, so if you don't like scary movies than back away. They do (kind of?) deal with some religious issues, but I don't think it's a problem: they don't really deal with any real world religions and there are no qualms that it is the people involved and not religion itself that is shown as evil. So if you want a moderate scare and some very good scenery and shot set ups, than feel free to watch Silent Hill. But if you are looking for something absolutely terrifying or a movie up to your eyes with blood and tits, then move along, stranger.

Alright, you can probably guess I wasn't a big fan of the movie, but mostly because it felt like they walked to the precipice of making a great film, looked over the edge, had a picnic, and then went back to mediocre town for ice cream and post production. I'd like to discuss this movie in terms of my criteria for scary media: terror and insight. First, terror. For the first hour, the movie is genuinely terrifying. It uses a great sense of suspense and isolation to create an atmosphere both isolation and claustrophobia: no matter how big the town actually is, there was always a sense that you were alone in a cage. I love that every time the air-raid sirens sounded, I immediately felt scared. I knew that was the time of monsters, when no one was safe and anything could happen. And then they stopped. An hour in, they took what had been the most terrifying feature of the movie, the sense that at any time the world could be devoured by hell, and just stopped using it. Sure, they travel down into "hell" on the elevator, but even that world isn't as scary because you knew it was coming. You knew she was getting on in the real world and exiting in hell, but it was her choice. This is also the point when Rose meets other people and the movie becomes much more about her interactions with them then about her trying to figure out what's going on all by herself, proving that when isolation is a big theme, you don't put in a bunch of extra characters. Now secondly, we have the psychological aspect: what can I take away from this movie? Not a thing. Because this is a movie about monsters (who is the real monster, yadda yadda) the forms these monsters take is of vital importance, and they start out with the best monsters: the crying children monsters represent Rose's both her fear for her daughter and her projected feeling of isolation she knows Sharon must be feeling. And it goes downhill from there. Pyramid Head is here, probably the second best monster because he represents the most potent manifestation of the town's vengeance, but even then they don't use him well: in the final scene (where all the vengeance takes place, mind you) he doesn't even make an appearance. After that we have nurse monsters because, you know... nurses represent lost children and vengeance? All I'm saying is that instead of aping the video games, if they'd actually put a few seconds thought into it they could have created some very good and poignant monsters. Finally, I'd like to address the biggest disappointment, the final scene. I've already mentioned my dismay at the absence of Mr. Vengeance himself, but it goes so much further than that. I'll try to be spoiler free, but suffice it to say that there is a (ostensibly Christian) cult in the town that has pissed off the malevolent spirit (the nature of which is the big "surprise" that I'd figured out 2o minutes in) and at the end of the movie, the malevolent spirit arrives and enacts its Pyramid-Head-free vengeance. Two things: first of all, never base your movie climax on tentacle-rape hentai. Even before I knew it actually was I still felt kind of awkward during that scene. Secondly, you've already made it obvious this is a religious group, why'd you sissy out on the symbolism? When the spirit arrived Gans had an amazing opportunity to have it show up, arms out stretched, cross of living barbwire making it into a twisted version of Christ and the true being that these fallen souls worship. Instead the spirit sits with arms folded, seemingly contemptuous of the many ways this fell short of greatness.

Note: Excuse my rambling rant here, this is just a practice to get me back into the swing of things. Expect a new review on Saturday, hopefully more compressed and with less vitriole!

Should I watch Apocalypse Now?

The long and short of it: Maybe
When was it made: 1979

Famous for its long and arduous production, this Francis Ford Coppola film can be summarized in two words: too damn long. You see? Even my description of it went too long. The movie raises a lot of interesting points and makes you think about a lot of things. But I think that it suffers from that. It puts a whole lot of things in your head, but doesn't develop any of them. Perhaps the movie makes more sense if you were alive for the Vietnam conflict, and perhaps I just went in expecting it to be a shoot-em-up war movie.

This is a Vietnam war movie, which almost automatically grants it some level of immortality as this era of time is defined by controversial wars of assistance. It has a hefty stack of awards at its side and many call it a must see. Robert DuVall's performance is considered one of the most memorable in movie history, and the film is famous for exploring how war changes men.

Being a war movie there is lots of violence, and being a Vietnam war movie means there is a bit of nudity. The movie is dirty, hopeless, and rugged. People you want to live die, and those who live are forever changed. The movie does not really edit anything out in an attempt to emulate real war. If you are looking for a ra-ra America feel good war flick, go find a World War II movie. If you want a tiny window into the hell that is war and are willing to spend a long time doing it, go ahead and watch.

The movie had its good parts and its interesting parts. The beginning is fascinating, getting to see how war has made Willard unable to function when not in combat, and the entire Kilgore scene is gold, to see a man so enraptured with the thrill of victory that he laments the ending of war and "loves the smell of Napalm in the morning." We see people becoming less than human when confronted with horrible conditions, and we see that as Willard journeys further into Vietnam, he also travels further into the dark side effect of men killing men: insanity. You could travel with him and keep your mind intact, but only if you have the endurance to outlast this incredibly long movie.

Should I watch Blood: the Last Vampire?

The long and short of it: Only if you're familiar with the franchise
When was it made: 2000

Hiroyuki Kitakubo directed the surprisingly short Blood: the Last Vampire. The movie was ok, with some fun lines and some good action, however if this is your first taste of the Blood universe (as it was for me) it is a little confusing and not very complete. The movie is not overly complex by any means, with a simple plot and a bit of killing, but confusion still arises from a lack of exposition.

Blood's hype has come mostly in the anime community, however the recent upward trend in followers of the vampire fandom will make this movie more appealing to a wider audience; in fact the live action adaptation of this series was recently mentioned in a New York Times article about fascination with vampires (I would send you the link, but I read it in the actual paper. You know, that big obsolete thing people use to start fires?). That itself-the live action adaptation, not the article-has generated a bit of hype to see the "original" movie.

We are back to not-for-children-cartoons. Blood is violent and contains a fair amount of, well, blood. The movie is short, less than an hour in length, so it doesn't have the same time investment that other movies have. Unfortunately all that extra time in most movies is used for exposition and universe exploration, of which there is little. Though the movie claims to be about vampires, they aren't really involved: there is only one character who you assume is a vampire that hunts monsters that drink blood, but aren't really vampires.So if you want to see a short violent action anime, check out Blood. If you thrive for exposition or love the classical dark-master-burns-in-sunlight vampire, this isn't for you.

Now that was the major problem to me, that they didn't use conventional vampires yet they expect you to know the rules of the universe. None of the characters are more than a list of character traits and a bubble graph linking certain characters. All you know is that it takes place in an alternate real world, and that whenever it is set there are still American occupational forces in Japan. Everything else is just dumped in front of you. The main character fights things that feed on blood and hide among humans. How do you kill them? You have to deal enough damage with a single blow (I think). However, guns are worthless? Sidearms, maybe, but a man unloading an assault rifle into a monster can cause equivalent bodily harm to a monster as a few sword strokes. Also, apparently the main character (who is a vampire) is seen striding about with no fear of the sun. After seeing that, there was a scene where she's in a burning building, and I didn't know if I should be suspenseful: did fire hurt her or not? I didn't know, because nobody told me how it works. That's what it really comes down to: if you're familiar with the universe, you'll probably love the movie. But the movies short length doesn't allow the exposition required to understand how the world works: you spend the time you should be worried about the action wondering why it matters instead.

Should I watch My Neighbor Totoro?

The long and short of it: Yes if you have kids, Most likely otherwise
When was it made: 1988 (Japan), 1993 (English dub)

Directed by anime superstar Hayao Miyazaki, My Neighbor Totoro is one of the biggest titles put out by Studio Ghibli and in fact the titular character is now their mascot. It is definitely a kids movie, and definitely not a mainstream American title. The story revolves around the situation (or milieu, as the case may be) and how the characters react in that situation as opposed to revolving around the events- this is rare in movies today, as even adaptations of books famous for being milieu stories (The Lord of the Rings in particular) are usually changed to event movies (alright, a lot of movies are question stories, but for simplicity's sake I'm only going to mention event stories). This is both a good and a bad thing: good because it snaps us out of out traditional movie going mindset, bad because the audience will probably not expect a milieu story and that may have a negative effect upon their opinions.

My Neighbor Totoro is noted as one of Hayou Miyazaki's biggest hits. The Totoro and Catbus characters are famous in Japan and have appeared in numerous cameos--Totoro's popularity is such that he has even gotten his way into some appearances in western animation. With the re-release of several children's anime by Disney, My Neighbor Totoro has recirculated the market, making it easily available yet again.

I have heard some people say that My Neighbor Totoro has no plot, but that is not true. Its plot is simply of a different kind. Unfortunately, this is not the action packed thrill-ride kind of plot that most movies deliver. The movie moves at a much slower pace because its rising action does not revolve around conflict, it revolves around exploration. So if you want to see a fun kids movie (yes, this one is actually a kids movie) that gives a peek into the fantastic world of King Totoro and has a happy ending, then watch My Neighbor Totoro. If you can't watch a movie that doesn't revolve around conflict or hate kid's movies and happy endings, than this isn't for you.

Now this is one that I've broken one of my guidelines: I saw the movie as a child in 1993 when the original translation came out. I felt I could make an exception, however, because I didn't really like it then and I don't remember it. Having watched it again, I must say I like it a lot better, mostly because I see so many movies where everybody is killing everybody and the world is going to hell that it's nice to see a few innocent children exploring a fantasy world and seeing that the world isn't all bad. It's also nice to see a side of fantasy that has been almost completely eradicated in this modern age. The rise of franchises such as the Lord of the Rings movies and World of Warcraft have relegated the world of fantasy to action movies with orcs instead of Russians. That's why I enjoy movies like this more than I used to: we get to see a world where trolls exist not to eat children, but to be their friends. To see a fantasy world where the inhabitants are physically completely different from humans, but socially have many human characteristics, and where the interactions between the human world and their world is extended beyond the battleground.

Should I watch Ghost in the Shell?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1995

Based on the manga by Masamune Shirow, Ghost in the Shell is a post-cyberpunk action movie directed by Mamoru Oshii. That means you get to see cyborgs and robots battling each other with blazing guns and cutting tech, but you don't get the angsty exposition on how the rise of technology will shatter society. Instead you get to follow government agents as they attempt to solve the mystery surrounding the best hacker in the world, replete with explosions and intrigue.

Ghost in the Shell is another movie back from the beginning of the second wave of popularity: in fact Ghost in the Shell has ridden the wave so hard as to spout 2 animated series (even though they include the same cast, it actually does make since to call them individual series), a sequel, and some video games, just to name a few of it's spawn. Ghost in the Shell is renowned for dealing with the nature of the soul and how AI may change our definition of it. Admittedly, this has been done before (the short story Article of Faith by Mike Resnick is my favorite) but there are two reasons Ghost in the Shell is so popular, and they're both on the cover shown above. One is the gun, and the other one, well, let's just say it could be called the other two reasons.

Now Ghost in the Shell is an anime, but it is one of the better ones as far as monologues go. Usually they actually try to have another participant, and I'm ok with rambling exposition as long as two people are doing it. It is also incredibly violent, showing at least one head explosion, some dismemberment, and a few bone breakings-also, boobs. Now this movie gets my vote for best done nudity, because it is never done for sensuality, and they do it in such a way that you never feel like your looking at a naked person, but like your just seeing a naked barbie-it really fits with that whole "what makes a person a person" issue the movie deals with. So if you want an action flick with a good moral that makes you think a bit, watch Ghost in the Shell. If you can't stomach violence and can't stand the sight of boobies, than read Article of Faith or see Short Circuit.

I love this movie. I will admit that every once in a while I just want to see stuff explode and people firing guns, and this movie has that. I also like to see people discuss issues with a deeper meaning, and this movie has that. If you read my Akira review, you'll remember that I discussed that my problem with Akira is that it didn't get me interested enough in the movie to care about the deeper meaning. If you didn't read it, I just gave a synopsis of the pertinent point I am going to reference. Ghost in the Shell has a story that, while convoluted, actually made sense the first time I watched it and made me feel positively towards watching it again. The next time I watched it for the awesome fights, I picked up a layer of meaning, and the movie expanded to me. Then the next time I watched it for the story, I picked up another layer of meaning. And even the last time I watched it just because, I picked up another layer of meaning. If more symbolic movies did this, more people would watch symbolic movies. Ghost in the Shell focuses on giving us a good movie (though I will admit the plot is still a bit too convoluted for my normal tastes) and then allowing us to pick up the symbolism at our own pace, making us actually care about, and therefore think about, what we learned.

Should I watch Akira?

The long and short of it: I don't think so
When was it made: 1988

Directed by co-writer Katsuhiro Otomo, Akira was a perplexing movie to me. I have since read reviews afterward that explained how it was full of symbolism and meaning and that I should have been very impressed with it, but I just didn't see it. That's why I only say I don't think you should watch it: there's a chance that you may watch it and recognize it for the epiphany that it apparently is. I'm not saying it was bad, and in fact when something is as popular as Akira is I believe it is because it is good, but this just wasn't the kind of movie I watch. It suffers from one of the biggest problems with anime, which I will discuss later.

The movie is generally credited for starting the second wave of anime popularity in America, a wave that has expanded to the point of sheer ridiculousnes. It is well received still to this day and Roger Ebert gave it thumbs up, so that's good I guess. Also, because it started the wave, it was one of the first anime titled sold in America, so many people's first anime experience may well have been Akira, and so it gets passed down to those of us newer to the anime scene.

So, should you see it or not? If you are a self-proclaimed anime fan, this is a must see just like Star Wars or Star Trek is a must see for sci-fi fans: love it or hate it, you need to do it to be part of the club. For the rest of us, however, we can be a bit more objective. Once again, this is not a cartoon for children, as it deals with adult issues and is riddled with violence and a little sexual content (for a kid's version check out Happy Harry's American trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafd97yJFOI. If you've seen the movie it's hilarious). So if you are looking for an anime classic to expand your library, than go ahead and see it. However if you hate it when an anime piles a movie full of issues and makes the story incomprehensible, than avoid Akira.

And that was the issue I referred to earlier in this opinion: too many anime have a story that doesn't make any damn sense, but because they deal with important issues everyone sits around and talks about how great they are. I hate that! You can make an anime that has an actual story and still deals with an issue. Ghost in the Shell is about the nature of the soul and how ever advancing AI affects it. But it's also about a cyberterrorist and the government agencies trying to cover it up. You still get the annoying show stopper monologues, but I'm ok with that because five seconds before there were gunfights and explosions! All I'm saying is that if I'd watched Akira a few more times, maybe that symbolism would have made more sense and it would have been a great experience--maybe that's why it became popular, because when it was one of the only movies around people had to watch it multiple times, or they had to watch it with someone who could explain what was going on. I was alone, though, and the movie gave me no reason to watch it again. It didn't make me want to spend the time to understand it like Ghost in the Shell did (which I may give an opinion of tomorrow, since apparently this is anime week). Honestly, my favorite thing about the movie Akira is that American Akira short I referred you to earlier. It's hilarious to the extreme, especially Kaneda's bike. So maybe you'll get Akira, or you have someone to hold your hand through it, but for me I'd rather watch something that makes sense, and when I come back because I like it I'll look for symbolism.

Should I watch Grave of the Fireflies?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1988

Directed by Isao Takahata, Grave of the Fireflies is based on a novel written by Akiyuku Nosaka. It follows two children and the effect the war has on them and the people around them. I was honestly not expecting this. I assumed it would show the war from soldier's perspectives and show the great tragedies and loss of life caused directly by the war. However it focuses on a little tragedy that goes almost entirely unnoticed in the troubled times surrounding it.

Grave of the Fireflies is one of those Anime movies that has an audience outside the stereotypical market-everyone can sympathize with its message. It is one of the premiere anti-war movies in the world, which I think is made more fascinating by its lack of real world examples-something that our millenia of wars have provided plenty of.

First things first, this is an anime and therefore excluded from a large audience due to the largely American belief that cartoons are only for children (and let me just say that this is not one for little kids). It is not a war movie, and there is very little action. It deals mostly with interpersonal relationships, and it is not a happy movie. So if you want a war flick with plenty of action or are looking for something for the kids, then stay away. If you want a low tempo anti-war movie and don't mind sad movies, then you should see it.

I think the movie was very good. I won't say I enjoyed the movie mostly because that has a connotation that it was happy. It wasn't. It was depressing. That was the point. Often time when we see the catastrophes that occur during wartime we can justify them as being necessary: for example the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were performed because the United States estimated more lives would be lost in a land invasion (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, that is simply an example of justification). However, this little event here has no justification. Most memorable to me is how their own aunt begins to turn against them because of her loyalty to the government. I didn't cry during this movie (which does happen) but it did impart a sense of malaise that hopefully I will remember the next time I feel the need to meet any situation with violence.

Should I watch Rambo: First Blood Part II

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 1985

Hey y'all, remember that review I gave of the first Rambo movie, and how I said everyone should see it? How I assumed Rambo was a sweaty shirtless man killing Charlie in the jungle? How I was wrong to think Rambo was just a stupid action flick?

Well, Rambo II went ahead and fell square into that category of being a incredibly cheesy action flick. It's like the writers sat down together and said "hey, do remember that Rambo movie? That was really good, and the action was kick-ass! We should make another movie that's just Rambo killing people! Oh wait, the first movie had a point and dealt with a pertinent issue in a realistic way? Uhhhhh... POWs! We'll send Rambo after some POWs and tack on a little speech on the end! What? No, don't worry. We won't let the story and character development get in the way of dead Vietnamese people."

Now I have no trouble with stupid action movies-I think that everyone wants a stupid action movie every now and then. But don't take a preexisting character with real depth and emotion and turn him into a cardboard cutout. The first Rambo was a man failing to adjust to civilian life and was shown as a someone the government had made into a killer and an animal but who wanted to go back being a human. The second Rambo is a killing machine with little regret or respect for life.

Alright then, let's ignore the fact that they destroyed the character of Rambo and imagine it's someone else. Do remember that scene in the Weird Al movie UHF, where he's having the daydream that he's Rambo, and he gets in the helicopter and just starts blowing everything up, roaring like a primal beast? Yeah, that actually happens. Or the gag where the soldier is shooting at him while he stands out of cover and shoots the guy with an exploding arrow? Yeah, that actually happens. The ending is so incredibly cheesy that I was laughing the whole time. He went from a semi realistic hero given a little boost to make a good action movie to a god of death spraying arrows down upon the earth. Oh, and that's another thing. He uses a bow and arrow almost the entire time because it's a silent kill, yet for some reason every time he shoots somebody they dub in a loud noise-I guess it's so we can tell the guy who has an arrow jutting from his chest got shot, in case we didn't notice the giant arrow.

Long story short, it is a poorly done sequel to an excellent movie. Instead of establishing a realistic character and dealing with serious issue respectably, they jump on the table, get drunk, and start waving their phalli around whilst yelling " USA! USA! USA!"

Oh and by the way, POWs.

Should I watch Rambo: First Blood Part 1?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

Based on a book by David Morrell, First Blood was directed by Ted Kotcheff and is quite honestly not what I expected. I haven't seen the rest of the series, but I had gotten the impression that all Rambo movies were about a sweaty Sylvester Stallone stalking the steamy subtropics (sorry, I'll cease) slaughtering (ok, for reals this time) Viet Cong and waving his American phallus for all the world to see. I haven't seen the rest of the series, but this movie is almost the exact opposite of that (well, he does stalk sweatily). Instead we see a Vietnam veteran just trying to survive in the world he fought to protect in the only way he knows how.

If you've seen a parody of an action movie, than you've seen a man with a bandanna and a machine gun striding shirtless and shooting down enemies of America without getting a scratch-this is a parody of Rambo, though definitely from the later films. The name, if not necessarily the movie, is ubiquitous enough that it has entered the vernacular. In addition Sly Stallone has just recently starred in a new Rambo movie, which may call a few peoples attention back to the original.

The movie has been accused of glorifying violence, but I disagree. There is violence in this movie, make no mistake, but almost all of it is shown in a more serious light. This is not like 300, whose appeal is derived solely from getting to watch 1800 abdominal muscles slaughter Persians. The violence can be a bit unrealistic, but it is not obvious or laughable, just touched up to make the movie more exciting. But in reality, the entire movie is only setting a stage for the final scene-you don't get the final scene without the rest of the movie, but this would be a dumb action flick without the ending. If you want to see a good move that deals with a pertinent issue but that is still enjoyable and exciting, then you need to see First Blood.

I thought the movie was great. I went in expecting something entirely different, but I still got what I wanted. I actually feel a bit guilty-I wanted to see Sylvester Stallone gunning and gutting, killing everyone in his path. I wanted a good ole' action flick. But seeing the characters interact and showing the negative consequences that the respective characters blood lust has made me feel bad for craving that violence. Quite honestly Stallone's last scene really changed the whole movie for me-it's hard to write an opinion for the whole movie because that last scene colored the whole thing for me. But it is probably the best acting I have ever seen Stallone do, and is one of the most powerful scenes I have ever watched. To be quite honest, First Blood is a must watch if only to hear his closing speech and every person who ever mistreated a veteran should be required to watch it.

Should I watch Alien?

The long and short of it: Most Likely
When was it made: 1979

Alien was directed by Ridley Scott and is one of the most well-known and often parodied monster movies. Let's start out with that: this is a monster movie, and a really good one at that. Taking place almost exclusively on the mining ship Nostromo. It takes advantage of humanity's inherent fear of enclosed spaces and of what we don't understand. This is not a slasher, and there is not gore sprayed around like beer at a kegger. It works much more on the principles of suspense with a few graphic moments which are thematically appropriate. The set up moves a bit slowly, as does the dénouement. However, the middle more than makes up for the ends.

As I mentioned before, Alien has been parodied an incredible amount of times, mostly due to its universality-most people have seen it. It spawned a series of four movies, and the titular characters have moved on to a new series called Aliens vs. Predator-for better or for worse. Almost anybody who sees this movie far the first time will have at least one joke they've seen in the past make more sense-Spaceballs, anyone?

Now, the movie raises a lot of questions and doesn't take much time to answer them. But those questions are the last thing on your mind once the action starts. It is well timed and well written, establishing realistic characters with whom it is possible to empathize. None of the characters are cardboard cutouts or cliches-not that there aren't some familiar characters, but I think they fall in the same boat as Gandolf being a stereotypical wizard:they fit the stereotype because the stereotype is based on them. So if you get nightmares easily or hate scary movies, then Alien might not be for you (and there are enough of these people to drop this from a "yes" in the long and short of it). If you don't mind a startle or two and like space monsters, make this your next movie.

I really liked this movie. There were scenes that were a bit less than interesting, but these were mostly the establishing scenes where we get to view the 1979 version of the future. I mean, yeah, the spaceship itself is very advanced, but the display monitors look like they were made in, well, 1979. But who cares about all that? Nobody, that's who, because the aliens are awesome and the suspense is handled very well. My favorite scene was the first attack: I was so involved that I had actually leaned forward in my chair and had my hands held up near my face in anticipation-and the scene actually managed to deliver, too. This is a very fun movie, so if you have movie night or party coming up, Alien should be somewhere on the queue.

Should I watch 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The long and short of it: Probably Not
When was it made: 1968

Directed by Stanley Kubrick and co-written by Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 is a sci-fi epic dealing with the origins of man and our future in the stars. In it's time, the special effects were the most extraordinary and realistic of any other movie. Note the caveat, however: in it's time. The visuals were extremely well done: attendants walking upside down, pens floating through the air, all done pre-digital effects, and aside from a few odd movements and bad monkey costumes, it looks very well done. Unfortunately, the tricks of camera required to make these things look realistic without digital effects requires very slow movement. In fact, that is the biggest problem this movie suffers from overall. The whole movie moves slowly. While this is fine in those subplots that are interesting and have a lot to cover, I don't think we need ten minutes following attendants in space. I'm sure in '68 that whole sequence was fascinating, and everyone in the theater was calling Kubrick a sorcerer, but in the modern age of Michael-Bay-made movies driven entirely by effects (as opposed to plots) these effect sequences are incredibly boring.

There is a considerable amount of hype surrounding this movie: it is often called one of the greatest movies ever, of all time. It is one of those few American movies that is considered "culturally significant." In other words, only the truly intelligent and therefore snobby will understand it. It is a viewers badge, and unfortunately it is one of the last big truly sci-fi movies: by no means is this a space adventure or space opera.

Now, for some people, 2.5 hours is a bit long for them to sit and watch any movie, much less one without hot chicks and explosions (I do it for teh lols). Those well versed in the nature of vacuum and zero-gravity will be pleased to see that the movie is one of the most accurate, with only a few problems with lighting and small discrepancies in gravity effects, but these were all things that could not be avoided while shooting the movie in atmosphere and on Earth. If you want to watch an actual sci-fi movie that gets most of the science right (like no sound in space), than go ahead and watch it. If you have to have action and can't sit through two hours of dead time and talking, read the Wikipedia entry and act like you've watched it.

I personally do not think this movie deserves all the positive hype it gets. It has some interesting moments and some great character interactions, but it moves so slowly, and the message it is trying to send is too confusing for its importance. I think if the movie moved a bit quicker, I would be willing to put up with it a lot more. But the fact remains that it was probably impressive back in the day, and history has been kind. I will say this: if you have nothing else to do, or someone you know is watching it, go ahead and do it, but I wouldn't go out and spend money on it or plan an evening around the movie. There were some good parts: I actually thought the first act with the pre-humans was actually pretty fun to watch, and an interesting sci-fi explanation of the "missing link." So, I wouldn't actively avoid this movie, but I wouldn't go out of my to see it, either.