Saturday, July 23, 2016

Dragon Hunters (2008)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


Every so often, I like to watch movies.  I have a preference for animated movies.  When I saw Dragon Hunters, I thought it was How to Train Your Dragon and recorded it.  It wasn’t until months later, when I wanted to watch the movie, that I realized my mistake.  This doesn’t mean that I was disappointed.  (I’ll just have to keep scanning the various Encore movie channels and hope that How to Train Your Dragon comes on.)

Dragon Hunters was released in 2008 and, like How to Train Your Dragon, is animated.  As you might expect, it’s not about hunting dragons.  Instead, it’s about Lian-Chu, who hunts dragons, and Gwizdo, who tends to handle things like getting paid for dispatching dragons.  Along for the ride Hector, a little dog-like thing that can make fire come from something other than his mouth.

Now, when the movie says dragons, it apparently means a wide variety of creatures.  The movie starts with Lian-Chu fighting something that looks more like a giant caterpillar.  It takes him a while, but he is able to kill the creature.  When Gwizdo tries to collect payment, their clients try to back out.  It isn’t until Hector does his thing that they run away in fear.  Alas, poor Lian-Chu isn’t taken seriously enough.

As luck would have it, though, they happen upon Lord Arthur, who’s predicting the return of the World Gobbler.  He’s willing to pay a large amount of gold if they can get the job done.  Gwizdo is even able to secure an advance, which he intends to just take while disregarding their mission.  Lian-Chu, on the other hand, wants to fight the dragon.  He has dreams of living on a farm one day and the reward would go a long way to helping.  The only complication is Zoe, the Lord’s niece.  She idolizes a fictional dragon hunter and hopes to become one some day.

The movie is 80 minutes and most of that is their journey from the castle to the end of the world, where the World Gobbler is doing his thing.  What the movie lacks in plot, it makes up for in great animation.  This is one of the few movies where I think it might be worth it to see it on a better TV set.  I’m sorry that I didn’t see this in theaters.

I don’t think that this movie will win a lot of fans for animated movies.  It’s set in a medieval-looking world with some very interesting physics.  There are islands that float in the air, where people can hop on and go for a ride.  They range from small islands, big enough for a few people, to very large islands, containing parts of castles.  There are even spheroid islands that have their own gravity pointing towards the center.  (People and other objects seem to be of normal weight.)

One big complaint I’ve seen is a lack of plot, which I can’t argue with.  There are maybe a dozen or so people shown throughout the entire movie.  It was also a little confusing at times.  It might make more sense on a second viewing.  I think most of the problem is that it’s based on a TV series and may have been condensed quite a bit.  I’d like to look into renting the TV series, partly to see if this is true, but mostly because I liked the movie that much.

For the most part, it’s relatively kid-friendly.  The only thing I could see being scary is the World Gobbler, which is a giant undead dragon.  The scene is only a few minutes long, but small children may have issues.  It should be safe for teenagers and above, though.

As for the rest of the characters, they tend to have an exaggerated look.  If you can see the cover art, you should get a good idea of what I mean.  Lian-Chu is very big and top-heavy.  Hector is very hyperactive and bounces around a lot.  For those that like animation, I’d definitely recommend this movie.  For those that aren’t, all I can say is to go in with an open mind. 




IMDb page

Pee-wee's Big Holiday (2016)

It seems that history repeats itself.  That seems to be the case with movies these days.  There’s a new cycle of rebooted Star Trek movies.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are getting new movies.  There’s even a new Ghostbusters movie.  Netflix decided to get into the game with a new Pee-Wee Herman movie.  Yes, that Pee-Wee Herman, the childlike alter ego of Paul Reubens that started as a stage act in the early 1980s.  (Reubens is in his 60s now, even if Pee-Wee is forever young.)

The story is similar to Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.  Instead of a stolen bike, Pee-Wee is set off on his adventure after meeting Joe Manganiello.  Joe shows up in the diner where Pee-Wee works.  After becoming best of friends, Joe invites Pee-Wee to his birthday party in New York.  There’s just one problem:  Pee-Wee has no interest in leaving Fairville.  Joe leaves Pee-Wee to reconsider, which Pee-Wee does.  He sets out on a trip that takes a lot of unexpected turns.  He meets several interesting characters along the way.  The journey may not have gone to plan, but Pee-Wee ends up where he needs to be.

It’s strange how some movies or songs will always be enjoyable to some people while other people will have no use for them.  It seems like most of the people I know love Pee-Wee Herman or could do without him.  When I told my parents about the new movie, they weren’t all that excited, but I know that there are a lot of fans that won’t be disappointed.   Even if the movie is similar, it’s fun for me to see the character again.  Paul Reubens will forever be known for this character and still manages to play him well.  Throughout the movie, I was rooting for Pee-Wee to make it to New York.

The only real downside to the movie is that, so far as I know, you have to have (or know someone who has) Netflix to watch it.  I’m not sure if there were any plans to continue the franchise or if this was a one-off deal.   Wikipedia mentions some projects that may happen, but I don’t see anything new for the character on IMDb.  I don’t know if anyone will be signing up for Netflix just for this movie, but if you do, tell them Large Marge sent you.



Thursday, July 14, 2016

Paradox (2016)

It’s hard enough defending a group from a gunman.  It’s worse when the gunman may be part of said group.  Add to that the realization that you might be the gunman and you have Paradox.

The movie starts with someone calling his boss to warn him not to come in to work.  He’s then gunned down.  We then see two government agents staking out a building.  One is telling the other who all the major players are.  Mr. Landau is the guy running Project 880.  On his team are Jim, William, Randy, Lewis and Gale.  Jim ends up being the one to go an hour into the future.

Once there, Jim finds the self-destruct sequence has been activated.  Everyone he sees is dead or dying.  Oh, and there’s the gunman on the loose.  Jim manages to take a video camera back with him, but the video gets corrupted on the trip back, making it almost useless.  So, two options present themselves.  The group can try to change the future by working on the video or they can accept their fate and die.  Oh, and someone might be a turncoat for the government.

This is one of those movies I stumbled upon while browsing Netflix.  Given the TV-MA rating, I’m assuming this was a made-for-TV movie.  The acting was pretty good, as were the effects.  I feel like it’s the writers that could have done better. The entire time-travel angle seems like just another plot device.  Jim tells everyone they’re going to die and has to watch them get hurt one by one.  Some people feel like changing the timeline might be a bad idea, but they can all agree that letting themselves be murdered sounds like a bad idea, too.

It ends up being a way of making us wonder who it could be.  Since it could be anyone, the killer can be in two places at once.  All of the characters can’t really claim innocence since they don’t know if they’re going to become the killer.  Instead of using this to make the story interesting, it ends up becoming a run-through of all the clichés you’d expect to find in a time-travel movie.  When it’s revealed who the killer is, we get to see a series of you-are-me arguments.  The future version of the character knows what the past version of the character was thinking, implying that there’s no choice in what’s going to happen.

We also find out that several people came from the future to capitalize on knowledge of the stock market and build the time machine, thus leading to a bootstrap paradox.  Did someone really invent time travel or did someone bring the basics back with them?

With movies like Time Lapse and Timecrimes, we see that time travel can be used to further the story and provide something to think about.  Here, it’s just something to move the story along.  The whole thing seems like an exercise in futility.


IMDb page

Friday, June 10, 2016

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


There’s something that I like about an epic tale.  I had known of The Chronicles of Narnia as books since I was a child, but I never read any of them.  When the first movie came out, I eventually rented it on DVD.  I decided that I liked it enough to want to see subsequent movies as they came out.  When this movie came out, I wasn’t able to see it in theaters, but was able to rent it from NetFlix.

The movie starts out in Narnia with a Telmarine (human) Prince Caspian being told that his aunt has given birth to a male child and that Caspian’s uncle (King Miraz) will now kill him so that Caspian’s cousin might become king.  Caspian is able to escape, but hits a branch shortly thereafter and falls off his horse.  He’s rescued by two dwarves and a badger.  As they’re distracting the search party sent to get Caspian, Caspian blows a horn to summon help.

A year has passed on Earth since the first movie.  The four Pevensie children (Edmund, Peter, Lucy and Susan) are on a subway platform going to their boarding school.  They’ve had to adjust to being children again.  (In the first movie, they had grown to adults in Narnia, but became their younger selves upon returning home.)  Shortly after getting on a train, everything breaks apart and is blown away.  They find themselves in Narnia again, where 1,300 years have passed.

They come upon some ruins and realize that it was the castle that they had used in the previous movie.  Much of the rest of Narnia has met a similar fate.  In the intervening 1,300 years, humans have taken over Narnia and have pretty much ruined everything.  Most of the nonhumans have been wiped out.  Those that remain fear for their lives.  Some of the animals have even forgotten how to talk.  The children find that they have to fight for Narnia once again.

It’s a fairly complex plot.  When they rescue a dwarf, he explains to the siblings what has happened since the first movie and leads in to the rest of the movie.  Once again, the four siblings are fighting for Narnia, but they have another human on their side and the help of a lot more animals and mythical creatures.

Some of the movie won’t make sense if you haven’t seen the first movie, The Chronicles of Narnia:  The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.  You’ll be able to follow most of it, but you may not understand some of the references and history behind some of the comments.  If you haven’t seen either yet, I’d recommend watching them in order of release.

The movies are based on a series of books.  Not having read them, I’m not sure how closely this movie follows the source material.  From what I understand, C. S. Lewis put Christian themes into the movies among others.  (Lucy has a strong belief that the lion, Aslan, will return despite not having evidence on her side.)

Overall, the movie was entertaining.  There were a few battle scenes, which shouldn’t come as a surprise if you’ve seen the first movie.  (For those that have seen the first movie, I don’t think that much of what I’ve said or what you’d see should be a surprise.)  I could deal with the religious aspects since they weren’t really overbearing.

The third movie, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, has already been released with the rest of the books set for future dates.  I’d be interested in seeing The Voyage of the Dawn Treader if I can get it on DVD. 


 

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Primer (2004)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

I like science-fiction stories because of the possibilities that they open. This is especially true of time-travel movies. The problem with time travel is that it can be very easy to lose the audience. Pile on too much jargon and techno babble and you almost need a degree to follow along. Make it too simple and people lose interest. I’m not saying it’s impossible to write a good time travel story. It’s just that you have to do it right.

Shane Carruth wrote, directed and starred in Primer, which is a story about two guys that accidentally create a time machine. They’re part of a group of four guys working out of a garage on various projects. The project that they’re currently working on is an alternate source of energy. They spend their days working at ‘regular’ jobs and evenings tinkering with stuff, hoping to make something that’s marketable.

When an item placed in the chamber of the device grows some sort of fungus, they realize something’s amiss. It isn’t until one of them takes it to a lab that they realize that something’s really amiss. There’s way more fungus on it than should have accumulated in a short period of time. We’re talking several months’ worth in a few minutes. It doesn’t take long for them to realize that they have a time machine. If only they could make it bigger…

So, they make bigger boxes and rent some storage space. The primary limitation on the time machine is that it has to be on the entire time you’re in there. This means that you can’t go back to a time before you last turned it on. Not a big deal, since the two guys want to use the device to make money in the stock market using the ultimate in insider information.

They both agree to avoid themselves for fear of really screwing things up. It’s bad enough just going back in time. They have no idea what would happen if they met themselves. However, it is an interesting concept for them to ponder. What would it be like to do something you’ve always wanted to do, but were afraid to do? Could you, say, hit your boss, then go back and tell yourself not to do it?  They don’t do it literally, but they do go back and try to change major events, such as a party where someone gets shot.

Things get really strange when it’s revealed that they have a fail-safe machine. One of the guys built a machine that he just left running in another storage unit the whole time. This way, they could go back and undo everything in case things got botched beyond belief. This means that he thought of changing major events the whole time. It’s basically an escape clause of sorts. That’s where the movie got a little strange. They do go back in time to the beginning. One wants to stop them from inventing the machine while the other’s not so sure.

I don’t want to give away the ending, partly because I don’t fully understand it. By the time the movie was over, so much had happened that I couldn’t follow it all. The movie packed in a lot of story for just 80 minutes. I think that’s where the movie fails. It tries to tell a fairly complicated story in a short time frame. I was paying attention to the movie and I am technically inclined, relatively speaking. I still had a hard time making sense of the movie.

It’s not that the movie tries to hit you over the head with the science or math. It’s just that the two main characters go from trying to get alternate energy to time travel. Then, they go from the stock market to saving people. In the middle of the movie, they realize that someone else has used the machine to go back in time, but they’re not sure what the person has done nor do they really seem to do much about it. The entire subplot takes up maybe a few minutes in the movie. I totally didn’t get the ending at all.

Overall, I’d give the movie two stars. It started out strong, but went way to weird, even for me. It has a low-budget look. (This is probably do in part to the low budget.) It also had a very strange feel to it. It wasn’t quite movie and it wasn’t quite documentary or even mockumentary. It was definitely a different look. Since I watched it on the IFC, I can’t really complain. It wasn’t bad for something I didn’t pay for. 



Monday, May 30, 2016

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


I had wanted to see The Chronicles of Narnia in the theaters, but I wasn’t sure how much of a kids’ movie it was. I didn’t really want to go by myself if there would be a theater full of kids and there weren’t any people that I thought would be willing to go with me to see what I knew would be a fantasy movie.

For those that don’t know, this movie is based on the first of seven books by C. S. Lewis. It tells the tale of four children sent away by their mother to protect them from the onslaught of WWII. (Their names are Edmund, Peter, Lucy and Susan.) They’re living with a professor that they’re told not to disturb. They’re also told not to touch anything, but it isn’t long before Lucy finds a wardrobe that leads to Narnia

At first, no one believes her. Not only does she find a wardrobe that leads to another world, but she meets a faun and when she returns, only a few seconds have elapsed. Yes, all four children do eventually go through and learn that Lucy was telling the truth. There’s also supposed to be a prophecy that four children of Adam and Eve (humans) are supposed to end the reign of an evil witch.

The White Which is that evil witch and wants to thwart the prophecy. She tries to get Edmund to betray his siblings and kidnaps him when he fails. It’s up to the remaining siblings to find a lion named Aslan to get him back and to stop the White Witch’s rule on Narnia.

It’s an interesting story and definitely has a fantasy element, so a few adults may be turned off by this. Many of the animals talk, which is definitely aided by CGI. There’s also magic and even an appearance by Santa Claus, even though there’s been no Christmas in Narnia for over 100 years. The thing I found odd was that he gave three of the children weapons to help fight, which you wouldn’t expect from someone who’s known for giving out toys.

I didn’t find the movie to be too overbearing in terms of any sort of moral. While it was fun and there is the sense that good will prevail, it wasn’t like someone was being very obvious about anything. If anything, the fantasy may be a bit much for some people. There are all sorts of creatures that you’d expect from fantasy, like fauns. It’s a little complicated. If you miss part of it or if you miss the first half, you may be lost later on in the movie.

This movie is based on the first of seven books. I’ve never read any of them, so I have no idea how closely the story follows. The biggest indication of how much people like the movie may be how well the sequels do. Granted, since the movies are based on books, there will be a built-in audience. However, if the first two movies don’t translate well, they may not do the remaining five. However, I will be waiting for all of the remaining six movies and may even see if I can pick up the books.

I do recommend this movie. The only downside for some people may be the violence that comes about due to a war. I would think it’s safe for children ten and up, but it is something to consider. The second movie is currently in production, which I may see in the theater depending on when it comes out. 



Sunday, May 29, 2016

Sigma DC 201940 10-20 mm F/4.0-5.6 HSM EX IF ASP Lens

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


When I first got a digital SLR, my brother gave me some great advice. He told me to wait a few months before buying any new lenses. At the time, I had a Sigma 28-90 and a Nikkor 35-135. Those should be enough for a while. Eventually, I’d figure out what, if anything, I needed to get. It didn’t take me long to realize that I wanted to get wide-angle shots. 28mm was pretty wide, but there were shots that I just couldn’t get.

The day I decided to buy something, I was in North Carolina. There was a bus station I wanted to photograph, but I had a building to one side and a building behind me, so I couldn’t get into a position where I could photograph the entire building. I knew it was time to buy something wider.

I knew that I wanted to get really wide shots and didn’t want to have to go out and buy yet another lens, so I decided to go all the way. I looked at several lenses, including the Nikon 12-24. I finally decided on the Sigma 10-20 for several reasons. (The most important was that the Nikon 12-24 was more than twice the price of this lens at the time.) I had looked at lenses that weren’t as wide, but I was afraid that it wouldn’t be enough.

When set to 10mm, I get an extremely wide shot with this lens. It ranges from 63.8 to 102.4°, which is pretty good. My mother wanted me to take pictures of various tents. I was standing so close to one that my mother wanted me to stand back. I actually moved a little closer so as not to include a fence in the picture. I’ve also found that it’s hard to take pictures without people because they often don’t realize they’re in the picture.

The lens is f/4-5.6, which means that it’s not letting in as much light as other lenses. Then again, I intend to use the lens mostly outdoors. If you’re indoors, you’ll have to get an SB-600. I have a Nikon D50 and the onboard flash isn’t enough. You can actually see where the on-board flash falls off.

I have tried using the lens on occasion for nighttime photography. It’s a little trickier because you need a tripod and no flash. You’re better off using a tripod and going for a long exposure. If you go to my Flickr account, I’ve actually tagged many of my Sigma 10-20 shots as such. Many came out good, but not as good as they could have been.

The lens works better with nature photography than with architecture, the reason being that it’s tending towards a fisheye lens. The distortion is somewhat noticeable at 20mm and very noticeable at 10mm. (The distortion can be compensated for in Photoshop.) When I had the lens at work the other day, a coworker was using the lens to take pictures of our faces. It looked almost like a funhouse mirror.

DSC_3307

If you’re at 10mm and you’re taking pictures of a room, you have to have the lens aimed perpendicular to the wall. If you do point the lens perpendicular, you’ll notice that the room seems deeper than it really is. If you don’t, you may see some of the vertical lines tilting. This is true for any straight line, really. If you can go into a store and test out the lens, point the lens at a wall and move the camera left to right. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

One interesting aspect is that it’s a HSM lens, which is the Sigma designation for High Speed Motor. If anyone reading this has a D40, D40x or a D60, you’re thinking to yourself that the salesman may have said something about having to use Nikon DX lenses. This is because those cameras don’t have a lens motor. You have to buy lenses that have motors, such as the Nikon DX lenses or (drum roll, please) Sigma HSM lenses. Yes, this lens will work on the aforementioned cameras. (In retrospect, I should have tried it on one of those cameras the other day, as I work in a camera store.)

If you have a full-frame camera, like a Nikon D3, you’ll see cropping. The lens was intended for digital cameras. If you’re wondering if they make a VR version of this, it would really be pointless as you don’t need it with smaller distances. You have to really move a lens to get shake at 10mm. As for color fringing, I have noticed it on one or two photos, but the lens has been pretty good at not having it. This is especially important for outdoor shots.

Overall, the lens gets five stars. The lens is exactly what I want and, while expensive, was worth every penny.

Contact (1997)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


Jodie Foster plays Dr. Elli Arroway, a radio astronomer. She was raised by her father, who gave her a strong interest in astronomy. She spends a great deal of her adult life looking for extraterrestrial life, mostly with SETI. Things are rough. Most government bureaucrats aren’t willing to finance the search for little green men, so Dr. Arroway has to spend a lot of time looking for funding. Fortunately, she’s able to secure enough to rent radio telescopes, which scan the heavens for some sort of coherent signal.

Finally, just as everyone’s about to give up hope, a signal comes in. It’s these loud, booming noises. Dr. Arroway and her team realize that the noises are grouped in prime numbers. Prime numbers are numbers that are divisible by only themselves and one, such as 2 and 5. (1 isn’t considered a prime number by many for reasons I won’t go into here.) Any intelligent civilization should know what a prime number is because primes are independent of what base we use for our numbering system. The signal is very interesting. It’s so interesting that the government wants a part of it. Dr. Arroway and her team are allowed to research it, but at the governments direction.

Some interesting things are learned about the clip. First, there’s a clip of Hitler speaking at the 1936 Olympics. The 1936 Olympics was the first TV signal strong enough to go into space. The aliens, whoever they are, apparently recorded the signal and sent it back to us. Is this an endorsement for the Nazis or is it simply a way of saying, “Hey! Look what we found!” After a little more digging, dozens of diagrams are uncovered. No one can figure out what they are. Finally, Dr. Arroway gets the nudge she needs to figure out how they work.

They’re actually blueprints. America is able to construct this big sphere that sits atop a device that can (presumably) send it through space. The scientific community is at a loss to explain how it works. No one is really sure that it will, but we decide to try anyway. After a lot of hard work and sacrifice, we finally manage to get Dr. Arroway into the sphere and through the device.

Here’s where I’m going to end the plot review. There’s still a significant portion of the movie left, and there’s really no way I can handle it without giving away too much. The movie does a good job of setting up the story and leaving us wondering what will come of the events. In a way, I’d like to see a sequel, but it’s just as well that there isn’t one. I think to try and answer the questions I have might spoil the fun.

There’s a constant theme of science vs. religion throughout the movie. Elle Arroway needs proof. She can’t fully accept religion because it offers no real proof. Then there’s Palmer Joss, who’s religious and tries to make the case for religion without trying to force it upon anyone. It almost seems that religion and science are polar opposites. The X-Files did a better job using Scully, who was both religious and a scientist, to stage the question and to show that you don’t have to be one or the other.

The movie is based on the book of the same name by Carl Sagan. In writing the book, Sagan had to deal not only with how a race would contact us but with the logistics of how a meeting would take place. The nearest star to us is 4 light years away. That means that it takes light 4 years to cover the distance to that star, and there’s no way that we can pass the speed of light with our current understanding of science.

The movie doesn’t really explain too much the science. As I said, we’re presented with an option that might turn out to be a fraud. It’s really a story that’s accessible to anyone, regardless of their understanding of physics or astronomy. I think I could recommend this movie to just about anyone.


IMDb page
 

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Chuckles Candy

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


How the heck do you write a review on candy? Normally, many varieties of candy are so ubiquitous that explanation is really unnecessary. Add to that the fact that most candy cost less than a dollar unless you’re buying the family size. There really isn’t much of a need to do reviews on candy. You buy a single pack, take a bite and at worst, you’re out a few dollars. Then, I came across a review for Chuckles. It occurred to me that I hadn’t seen them in a while. (Not that I’ve been looking that hard…)

It’s pretty rare these days that I take a serious look at a vending machine. Usually, they’re overpriced. When I go into a convenience store or supermarket, it’s not to buy candy. However, when I did buy candy a lot, I noticed that there are some candies that are neglected. Chuckles happens to be one of them.

When looking online, I noticed that they are available for purchase. (Just do a search on Google and you should be able to find at least one vendor.) I noticed that to save on shipping, you have to spend a lot. (Who wants to order just one package, anyway?) That leads me to another good question: How the heck do you review Chuckles? I mean, it’s a candy. You’re basically looking at oversized, flattened gumdrops that have more flavor.

For those that have never seen the package, each one contains five different misshapen gumdrops. The candies come in a three-sided cardboard tray and are wrapped in plastic. Each candy is roughly rectangular in shape and you get each of five flavors, with those flavors being lemon, lime, cherry, licorice and orange. This selection has never varied when they were more common. I’ve never seen any special holiday flavors nor have I ever seen them individually wrapped.

This is odd, considering that I seem to be the only person that really likes the licorice. (Note: The objection to licorice seems to stem mostly from the flavor in general rather than from the specific Chuckles licorice.) My favorite is the lime flavor, but lemon and orange are pretty good, too.

They’re pretty chewy, but not like gum. They have consistency similar to that of a gumdrop and are also covered in sugar the same way. The comparison to gumdrops basically differs in the intensity of the flavor, from what I can recall. They’re also pretty fun to eat, although it’s pretty quick. Each one takes no more than three bites if you’re trying to go slowly, and that’s pushing it.

Writing the review makes me want to go out and buy a pack. I don’t know why I never got it more as a kid. I think it’s mostly because my parents weren’t that big on sugary stuff. Maybe next time I’m at Publix, I look for some. 


Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Who doesn’t like a good vampire movie? I saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer on sale in Best Buy and decided to get it. I figured it couldn’t be that bad. Well, it wasn’t that bad, but it’s definitely not for everyone.

Kristy Swanson plays Buffy Summers, you’re typical valley-girl-type blonde high-school cheerleader. She keeps having these strange dreams about strange people. She’s in the dreams, but has no idea really what’s going on. Then, she meets this strange guy named Merrick (played by Donald Sutherland) who tells her that she’s The Chosen One. It’s The Chosen One’s lot in life to slay vampires.

It’s Merrick’s lot in life to find The Chosen One and train her to slay vampires. It takes them a while, but Merrick finally gets Buffy ready. It’s just in time, too. Lothos is the main vampire and he feels it’s time to regain control of Los Angeles. He sends out his right-hand man, Amilyn to rebuild their army of bloodsuckers. (Amilyn is played by Paul Rubens of Pee-Wee Herman fame.) Buffy manages to take on all of these vampires while being a cheerleader and planning the senior dance.

Ultimately, the movie is a bizarre vampire movie. (When you see the scene with Amilyn dying, you’ll know what I mean.) It’s hard to believe that someone was trying to make a serious movie. For starters, why is the person that’s chosen to do something called “The Chosen One”? It would be funny to have someone called “The Preferred One” or “The Elected One” or something just to be a little different. Also, ‘chosen’ implies some sort of process. Movies that have a Chosen One never seem to explain how the person was chosen.

I also don’t understand why Merrick knows so much. Admittedly, he’s been born and reborn several times, each time with the knowledge about The Chosen One. Wouldn’t it be more direct to simply have Buffy be born with the knowledge? I suppose that would cut out a good chunk of the movie. Buffy has to go through the process of accepting Merrick and training with him. The relationship between them is really the only one that’s developed to any extent. Sure, there are other characters that Buffy deals with, but few of them seem to build up to anything.

It’s a three-star movie. If it comes on one of the movie channels, go for it. As for renting it or buying it, you’d have to have a reason. There are some people that I’d recommend it to, but I don’t think it’s for everyone.