Split (11)

imdb_test · 25k rows

id int64 0 25k	interval listlengths 2 2	len_words int64 6 2.21k	len_tokens int64 8 2.75k	text stringlengths 32 13k
4,371	[ 800, 900 ]	639	882	Veteran British television director Alan Gibson's "Dracula A.D. 1972" qualifies as one of the least appetizing entries in the Hammer Studios series about Bram Stoker's immortal bloodsucker. Actually, this represented the first time since Terence Fisher's memorable "Horror of Dracula" (1958) that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fought each other as mortal enemies. They would reprise the same roles a few years later in the final Hammer Dracula: "The Satanic Rites of Dracula." Further, it was the second-to-last Dracula for Hammer in which Lee performed as the infamous fangster. For the record, "Dracula A.D. 1972" was the seventh Hammer Dracula.<br /><br />The exciting prologue from 1872 prepares you for something vastly different than what the rest of this disappointing horror flick yields. Eternal rivals Count Dracula and his nemesis Professor Lawrence Van Helsing are literally at each other's throats atop a runaway carriage in London's Hyde Park for a vigorous opening scene that makes everything else look comparatively anticlimactic. The carriage crashes, and Dracula emerges hugging half of a wooden wheel with its shattered spokes embedded in his chest. Of course, Christopher Lee has to grip this broken wheel against his body, but the imagery is striking enough in its own way to pass muster. The Count expires and so does his opponent Van Helsing. However, one of Dracula's disciples snatches the Count's ring and scoops some of the vampire's ashes into a vial for safe-keeping.<br /><br />Don Houghton's screenplay hurtles the action ahead a hundred years to swinging London in 1972. We meet a smarmy young man, Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame of "No Blade of Grass"), who loves to raise hell with a group of hippies that crash parties and drive the British police with their antics. Alucard happens to be the descendant of one of Dracula's servants. Now, Alucard has the Count's ring and a vial of his dehydrated blood. Alucard chooses the sight of a desecrated church to arrange a black mass. He invites his trendy friends, among them Laura (super sexy Carolina Munro of "The Spy Who Loved Me"), Gayner (Marsha Hunt), and Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham) to attend this black mass because it offers them something different. Not surprisingly, they resurrect the Count, and the evil bloodsucker sets his eyes on Jessica. Meanwhile, after Laura's body is discovered drained of blood, Scotland Yard Inspector Murray (Michael Coles of "Doctor Who and the Dalkes") solicits help from Van Helsing's modern day offspring Lorrimar (Peter Cushing). Dracula wants to exact revenge on Van Helsing by taking the latter's granddaughter as his bride. Lorrimar tracks down Alucard; they fight in his Chelsea apartment, and the young vampire drowns in a tub of water. Remember, running water is just as lethal to vampires as sunlight and crucifix. Van Helsing finds Dracula in the deserted church with his daughter awaiting the Count. Van Helsing and Dracula tangle. Van Helsing flings Holy Water into Dracula's face. The vampire falls into an open gravesite with a stake awaiting him and he decomposes again.<br /><br />The chief problem with "Dracula A.D. 1972" is that we don't get enough of Lee as the Count, though we do get considerably more of Cushing as Van Helsing. Furthermore, scenarist Don Houghton keeps Dracula confined to the ramshackle church and never allows the vampire to venture out into the city. Despite its low budget, "Dracula A.D. 1972" could have been a lot better. The scene where the contemporary Van Helsing has to jot down Alucard and spell it backwards to get Dracula seems almost laughable. You'd think that he'd know about this backwards spelling trick. Unless you are afraid of horror movies, this one will make you yawn. Occasionally, Gibson presents us with a superb close-up of Dracula with his bared fangs and blood-shot eyes, but this is about as scary as this chiller gets, and that isn't saying much.
4,411	[ 800, 900 ]	688	878	The breadth & height of the scale of this movie overwhelm me. About a week ago I posted a commentary on the 1926 silent epic MACISTE IN HELL referring to it as "staggering". Then I encountered the Pollonia Bros. BLOOD RED PLANET. Wow ...<br /><br />It's all about the scale of the thinking behind it. The Pollonia Bros. and colleague John McBride were thinking so big that the musings of Arthur C. Clark & Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODESSEY is lucky it was released thirty-two years before this sweetheart. As a matter of fact, Kubrick had it easy with modelers, a budget, actual actors and major studio backing for his little "Star Trek" ripoff, and all that Arthur C. Clarke had to do was write the damn thing. What's so hard about muscling around a typewriter? The Pollonia brothers on the other hand had to think radical, outside of the box, and quickly. They recruited a half dozen of their friends & colleagues -- including a hot lookin' chick -- bought a bunch of colored lightbulbs, raided old office supply dumps for every keyboard, monitor and hands-free phone headset they could find, got everybody identical black turtlenecks, made off with every cupcake tin in the county, learned enough 3d modeling & texture skinning to animate a couple of space ship fly-bys, spent a couple hours drumming up a script, executed what is easily the most frightening space monster puppet since that horrible little monster Jabba the Hut carried around with him was fried by R2D2, spent literally days working with a VHS camera and an Amiga to shoot & edit their film, and came up winners. This is the best D.I.Y. direct to home video fan movie space epic I've ever seen, and in proportion to the amount of talent & resources at the disposal of the filmmakers dwarfs even LOGANS RUN or BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA (the original series) as being a chilling look at our future, right down to a newscaster wearing a mis-matched, ill-fitting 2nd hand suit. As a species, we are doomed.<br /><br />Seriously for a minute, though, it is a vast improvement upon such later epics as THE DINOSAUR CHRONICALS or PREYALIEN: ALIEN PREDATORS, which is funny since it was made before either of those masterpieces. Somewhere along the lines the Pollonia's started taking it easy on themselves: This film is executed with a certain conviction that gets you to believe that you really can breathe in a vacuum wearing a dust mask and two biker squirt bottles. And the scene where the alien beast consumes a miniaturized crew member made me immediately think of where I'd seen that before: GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER, where the giant rampaging monster crab skewers two canoers and eats them on camera. That made me cry when I was a kid.<br /><br />This made me cry as an adult because here I am wasting my time trying to be some sort of critic or writer or writer/critic and these guys get to have all the fun, actually making a real feature length sci-fi epic with lots of cool colored lights, a hot chick and a talking slide projector named KAL. One of the flight crew even gets to wear his black space baseball cap backwards & glower with his goatee like that clown from Metallica. Is this supposed to be a joke? No. It is an epic statement about humanity, from humanity and for humanity that deserves to be seen by anybody who has the capability to not take any of it too seriously. Look for it on a 2 disc box set called GALAXY OF TERROR in your favorite discount retailer's cutout DVD bins, which is probably where it belongs, but how many of us can say "Yeah, they have a couple box sets of our movies for sale at Best Buy." <br /><br />4/10: Anyone lacking in a sense of humor might want to try SILENT RUNNING or maybe TRON. But someday an alien civilization on the other side of the galaxy will intercept a transmission of this movie and decide that we actually are not to be messed with. Good work, guys!!
4,608	[ 800, 900 ]	621	825	If you are a fan of either of the two origin franchises (Aliens & Predator...duh...and even if you liked or disliked AVP flick in 06) you WILL hate this movie. The innumerable plot holes, flakey and unbelievable human characters, terrible special effects and even worse directing and fight scenes make this one of worse films I've EVER seen.<br /><br />*SPOLIER* One of the HUNDRED huge plot holes included the Pred/Alien hybrid going from chest burster, to full-grown bad-ass in seconds (it takes off on an onboard Predator-ship killing spree and wipes out a ship of Preds before the ship even breaks Earth orbit.) AS IF. In the first AvP we saw a ship of Sr. Pred hunters drop off three juveniles hunters going on an "earning their stripes" hunting party, and then in the end saw them picking up the "honored body" of the juvenile that was left over at the end of the flick. Are we expected to believe that the single chest burster hybrid killed all these Sr. Hunters before the ship even broke orbit? Also, (and this was EXTREMELY cheap production value on the director/producer's parts) jars and jars and jars of face-huggers somehow magically appeared aboard the Pred ship, even though the entire temple complex and queen Alien were destroyed in the AvP flick. These face-huggers end up playing an intregal part in movie...of course. And how about all these face huggers becoming full-grown Aliens in a days time? What a joke. Although there were many many more plot holes, I don't think IMDb would appreciate me filling up their servers by writing them here.<br /><br />On the flakey and unbelievable characters, well, where should I go boys and girls? Where to start...almost all of these goof balls are cliché people from other films or TV shows. The town bad-boy who left to avoid jail time but shows up just on the day everything happens to save the day??? Where did I see that? Oh yeah, last season on JERICHO!!! Then there's the 20-something town sheriff (a former trouble maker himself) who was best-friends at one-time with the bad-boy. Where did we see that? Oh yeah, JERICHO and Walking Tall! Then there's the generic soldier (WITH NO RANK) coming home from some generic war-front that isn't met like a long-missed loved one and hero at the airport or bus station, but at her OWN front door by her daughter and husband. And who is this soldier? What did she do in the Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy/Coast Guard? We DON'T KNOW because the movie NEVER TELLS US. But ... dunh, dunh, dunh...she was some kind of soldier/airman/Marine/sailor/coasty that knows how to drive a Stryker Infantry vehicle and ...magically... A HELICOPTER!!! This character is just a generic copy of every "coming home" service person...except that she brings home a set of night vision goggles to her daughter that cost SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars. These are things soldiers have to sign for and don't just "bring home." UGH!<br /><br />THe special effects and fight scenes are what pi-sed me off the worst though. These are the things I enjoyed the most in the first movie...watching Preds and Aliens go at it! The way this was filmed though, the action sequences were so dark and filmed so close up that you couldn't tell what was going on. You couldn't see who was doing what and what was going on as they were fighting it out. All in all, these hundreds of items are going to kill this franchise and the fanchise. No one is going to care anymore about seeing their favorite sci-fi movie monsters, and can only guess that the series will go down from here as producers won't like dump millions of dollars more on a sequel.
4,640	[ 800, 900 ]	610	831	SO THIS IS where Columbia's head of their Short Subjects Unit got his Directorial start, eh? Yeah,it's none other than Mr. Jules White who is credited (or is it rather, "exposed") as the Director of this entry into MGM's DOGVILLE Series. Given co-credit as co-Director is one Zion Myers; whose name is heretofore unknown to us. Mr. Meyers was, no doubt, the guy who controlled the four-legged thespians and was responsible for training and "acting". In short, he must have been the Dog Trainer on the set.<br /><br />THE TITLE OF this comedy short is no doubt a play on the MGM feature of the same year, THE BIG HOUSE; which starred Chester Morris, Wallace Beery, Robert Montgomery and a stellar cast in support. We must plead ignorance in regards to this title; not having seen it up to this point. (Sorry,Schultz!) But there are many of the doggie gags that relate to what we've read about the movie; not to mention some particular character specific gags. For example, we observed a canine convict who st-st-stuttered and deduced,correctly, that the bow-wow actor was mimicking character comedian, Roscoe Ates. We later cross-checked with the cast of THE BIG HOUSE and presto, his name is there! (Brilliant deduction, one fit for Holmes & Watson!) <br /><br />THE PRACTICE OF lampooning popular features was already a tried and true practice in the realm of the comedy short. It was one that seemed to draw no objections from the producers and copyright owners of the major films; but rather quite contrarily received heaps of tassive approval. After all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery; besides, any producer would welcome even some seemingly irreverent parodying.* AS FOR THE movie, itself, we found it to be interesting in a sort of perverse manner. Seeing so many of "Man's Best Friends" being so artificially animated into one, long and boring sort of anthropomorphic gag seemed very tiring to we, who make up the audience. I mean just how many pooches were made to bark, needlessly, in order to achieve the illusion of 'talking'? <br /><br />WHEN IT COMES to pets, or "Animal Companions" as the Politically Correct crowd prefers, we are quite eclectic; favoring not only dogs; but also cats, hamsters and parakeets. We don't enjoy seeing any animal exploited in such a non-funny,extended play format.<br /><br />AS INCREDIBLE AS it may seem, the step that Mr. Jules White made from MGM's Shorts to heading up Columbia's 2 Reeler production would seem to have been not only a $tep up in the area of finance$; but al$o in the Arti$tic Content. We never thought that being Producer-Director for the likes of such luminaries as the 3 Stooges, Andy Clyde and Hugh Herbert, as well as some who certainly had seen better days, such as Charley Chase, Buster Keaton and Harry Langdon; would be a step up cinematically.<br /><br />IN CASE WE haven't made our point yet; we're officially panning this one. So, view it at your own risk. We warned you! <br /><br />NOTE * We read excellent accounts of both THE BIG HOUSE and the Laurel & Hardy send-up, PARDON US (Hal Roach/MGM, 1931) in both MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY by John McCabe (1962) and THE FILMS OF LAUREL & HARDY by William K. Everson (1967). Both books have our most enthusiastic endorsement.<br /><br />NOTE ** The Prison Picture became a Genre of its own; all owing a debt to THE BIG HOUSE. In PARDON US, Laurel & Hardy, Hal Roach and its Director did a first class spoof,the first of many; for a Prison comedy became a required theme for so many a screen funny man to come.
4,696	[ 800, 900 ]	671	828	The movie opens with beautiful landscape shots of the Northwest countryside. Fenceposts jutting out from soddy earth, a freight train crossing fields of hay in the distance, billows of clouds, small structures by the side of the road, a motel or a diner in the middle of nowhere. Over this plays a languid but mysterious Twin Peaks piano arrangement and it's all adequately moody and atmospheric in an American Gothic sort of way. Through this however director Jon Jost keeps interleaving awkward frames, blocks of letters, opening credits with annoying swooshing sounds, color frames that announce "BLUE", numbers that count towards the "12 Steps to a Conclusion" announced in the opening credits. It's obvious by the first couple of minutes that, though Jost is more than capable to capture landscape and ambiance, he doesn't care for it. He has neither the affection for Pacific Northwest open expanses that Terrence Malick does in Badlands and neither the time or inclination of Twin Peaks David Lynch to weave mystery and intrigue around a given location.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is more Jon Jost frustration with experimental tricks that serve their own purpose. The use of split screen is interesting, I like in particular how we get the first image of Ricky Lee split in two, one is recounting childhood memories that matter only to him, the other is cursing and banging his head against the wall, and over the course of the movie the second Ricky Lee prevails, the macho laid-back hipster with the shades who is hopelessly self-involved and stupid. On the other hand the stop motion animation and choice to play most of the movie in voice-over narration does not work. It does at times because Jost writes as good as he shoots static shots of the smalltown American Nowheresville but Beth Ann's monologues, delivered in the most flat nasal monotone imaginable, a voice that sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer speech program crossed with a horse whinnying, are so grating to the ear it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to pay attention.<br /><br />Each of the couple relate to us their past experiences, their small triumphs and follies and doubts and past relationships that went nowhere. They say very little to each other and what they say they say with blank faces. But they hump like rabbits. That seems to be their only channel of communication left open, perhaps the only one they can trust with any safety. Jost clearly picks his main characters in Frameup among the naive and delusional, those baited by an American Dream turned sour, but he doesn't place himself above them. He's not condescending or smug in his portrayal. They may be misguided but they are graced with moments of humanity, awkward though they may be. We're called to empathize and show affection rather than point and laugh. This is the most successful Frameup becomes; the movie's characters come alive even when their expressionless faces do not, even when Jost gets in their way with his stilted framing and obtrusive camera games.<br /><br />Then we go back to angry rants about the destructive effects of money played over an inserted shot of a dollar bill, we get a weird psychedelic sequence where Jost's camera glides under big leafy trees that soon turn beetroot red as Beth Ann repeatedly muses about the "redwood trees" in the voice-over, we even get a sudden about-turn towards plot and genre as the couple of Beth Ann and Ricky Lee, smalltown losers with nowhere to go and nothing to hold them back to their dead end lives, arrive in California and decide to rob a 7/11. The movie doesn't soar to an emotional crescendo in the aftermath of the botched 7/11 job such as one might expect from a 'couple-on-the-run' road movie, it slowly screeches to a halt and you look out the window to see it hasn't really got anyplace in particular. Parts of the ride have been hypnotic and parts almost touching and funny, but everything else has been mostly annoying.
4,806	[ 800, 900 ]	681	802	Infamous for being "brought to you by the digital effects team behind Independence Day," Coronado is even more of a spectacular failure just from being juxtaposed with ID4. This ridiculous mess of a film starts off with a brainless premise and goes completely downhill from there. A wealthy, soon to be married couple in Beverly Hills are the subjects of this idiotic story. Claire's fiancée has taken off on a business trip right around Christmas, so she decides to spontaneously fly to Switzerland so they can spend the holiday together. I especially love that her initial reason for wanting to go was because he had left some documents at home that she thought he might need. She grabbed them up and yelled after him while he drove away, concluding that her best bet would be to fly to the other side of the planet rather than call his cell phone. I refuse to believe that a couple living in such a cavernous mansion as theirs were unaware of the existence of mobile phones.<br /><br />So up until this point, the movie is unbelievably bad, but check this out, THIS is where it starts to get bad! She gets to Switzerland and when she can't find her husband she gets some cake and calls her friend to whine about how unfair it all is. This woman is not an action hero, and she is DEFINITELY not a German Indiana Jones, for crying out loud. She is an overgrown cheerleader, a pampered sorority girl whose outdoor experience is probably limited to digging her spike heels out of the ground when she gets tipsy enough to wander onto the lawn during a wine and cheese party out on the bluffs.<br /><br />She gets a tip that her fiancée is in South America, so she, like, totally flies there to get him. Once there, this moron thinks she's going to go into the jungle by herself, sniff out the enemy base and rescue her poor helpless boyfriend. She laughs off a comment about the danger of going in there, then freaks out later because she finds out that there are battles going on. "You never said anything about battle!"<br /><br />There is one point where Claire and some journalist that she met up with drive this huge truck across a bridge that is hundreds of feet high and hundreds of feet across and suspended by two by fours. Literally. There are thousands of thin pieces of wood tied together with twine, and these morons decide to drive over it. Not only does it crumble under the weight of the truck, but Claire manages to fall off of it, falling hundreds of feet and landing on her back in the shallow river below. Later she recalls the event, laughing it off like, oh maybe it was only a hundred. At least she wasn't twirling gum on her fingers.<br /><br />What is truly sad about this catastrophically bad movie is that they even managed to coax a terribly performance out of the tremendously talented John Rhys-Davies, a REAL Indiana Jones veteran. There is a lot of nonsense about an uprising at the end of the film, where we meet an extremist rebel leader who, when we first meet him, has such a thick accent that he rolls his r's like he thinks he's in a Ruffles commercial, then later he talks like some guy they pulled off the streets of Venice Beach. Unbelievable.<br /><br />The special effects are negligible. The team that brought you Independence Day, by the very fact that they were involved with ID4, was simply going through the motions, throwing together some matted and blue screen shots, I have to believe because they just had nothing better to do. The story is astonishingly bad, and Kristin Dattilo, who many other IMDb users cite as the only reason to see the film, doesn't put the slightest effort into her performance. Maybe she thought the digital effects team behind Independence Day could superimpose some meaning into this mess.<br /><br />And given how far they've fallen, maybe they thought they could, too.<br /><br />They could at least have tried.
4,832	[ 800, 900 ]	638	816	While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.<br /><br />What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out "see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen! <br /><br />Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.
4,842	[ 800, 900 ]	764	881	From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.<br /><br />Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.<br /><br />These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead. <br /><br />Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.<br /><br />Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with cliché characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.<br /><br />Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere. <br /><br />But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.<br /><br />The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.<br /><br />The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.<br /><br />Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece. <br /><br />Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.<br /><br />But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:<br /><br />"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence."<br /><br />And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
4,848	[ 800, 900 ]	696	808	There was a time when the Alien series was a success with even the third installment, Alien 3, showing promise under the guild of a fresh and young David Fincher. The first Predator was a box office hit mainly due to its story, "in peak" star Arnold Schwarzenegger and director John McTiernan (Die Hard). The films Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Predator were all highly successful and created massive followings among general film fans and science fiction fans alike. Arguably Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection should have signaled the end for both franchises, but studios were undeterred and saw the opportunity to pander to the rumours among fans and combine the two. Step in Paul W.S Anderson, Alien Vs Predator, and now the Brothers Strauss (visual effects graduates, not even directors or writers). The problem was that by allowing such profound and revolutionary creations of the Sci-Fi genre to fall into the hands of firstly a mediocre director and now directorial newbie's has led to nothing more than profanity, epitomised by incompetence. Upon witnessing Alien Vs Predator Requiem (AVPR) die-hard fans will feel sick to their stomachs that this series could have got any worse.<br /><br />One example of the cinematic deterioration of this franchise is in the opening scene and is likely to cause nausea among fans. The film begins with an Alien making its way onto the Predator ship, spurting from the predators chest, growing in to a full grown Predalien and bringing down the Predator craft (which now seems to have far less Predators on it than it did at the end of Alien Vs Predator) and all this occurs with the ship still in Earths atmosphere. Once the ship has crashed AVPR quickly resorts to cheap plot methods and basic narrative conventions, it makes no venture at utilizing any of the twists or subversions served up in the two original films. The wearisome plot progresses with tedious pace, punctuated only by the near rousing conflicts of Alien and Predator and when that runs the risk of boring us we are treated to either an alluring blonde in a bikini or rapid gunfire. AVPR is plagued by an endless array of continuity errors and plot holes with little or no narrative elucidation i.e. members of the public outwitting an elite military unit or the Predator not adhering to laws established in previous editions. This is a film that has a complete disregard for its predecessors, it breaks some of the most fundamental rules of a sequel and in doing so one gets the feeling that it is trying to set itself up as a stand alone feature. Independently the film has no heart, no conviction and no soul and with reference to the other films lacks even the most basic continuity. This is exemplified by the over arching narrative of the film as it undermines the basic premise of the first Alien. Because if the species had been encountered before then those in the first Alien film would have been more proficient and not so ill prepared when encountering them.<br /><br />On a cinematic note the film is close to being dire, I felt urged at some points to shine a torch at the screen, the lighting was so bad. Through utilizing such gloomy and dark effects the audience may feel as though they are being cheated out of some the action which is ironically its purpose and also indicates the films lack of budget. As with all science fiction one scene normally surfaces as being the most memorable, in this instance it is probably the hospital impregnation scene as it ever so tenuously draws on the themes of the original Alien by literalizing it. The directing is poor, performances weak and the script rotten. AVPR is the product of a conveyor belt system of film-making in which ideas and techniques are assembled by ineffective people and then the finished product distributed among cinemas. This is personified by the absence of gory death scenes and drawn out blood battles because the certification will not allow it a lower certification achieving a larger target audience. AVPR was purely a business venture and nothing more.
4,853	[ 800, 900 ]	703	849	If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.<br /><br />STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.<br /><br />Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.<br /><br />A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.<br /><br />An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.<br /><br />Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.<br /><br />The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.<br /><br />PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?
4,932	[ 800, 900 ]	666	854	The fact that a film is on DVD doesn't guarantee that its quality is very good. The fact that a film's quality is threadbare doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. This review actually applies to 2 films paired on a single DVD.<br /><br />The plots of these films are of little consequence. They are of interest only to people who collect Holmes films anybody who merely wants a few of the better offerings would do well to purchase some of those made by Jeremy Brett or, in a pinch, Basil Rathbone. There are a few other very good Holmes films featuring good actors on a one-shot basis such as "Seven Per Cent Solution" or "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes". In any event, these films are considerably less estimable.<br /><br />Here we have a pair of films featuring some of the best actors to do Holmes, even if the results tend toward disappointing. This appears to be the only disc with these films on it (although "Deadly Necklace") appears by itself in the same version on other discs.<br /><br />"(Sherlock Holmes and) the Deadly Necklace" dates from 1962, although it neither looks it nor sounds it. Some who have seen this may be surprised to learn that it was produce by Hammer Studios. Not that Hammer hasn't turned out some really schlock stuff, but where Christopher Lee was concerned, they usually did a better job. The print a direct transfer from a rather worn 1:1.33 copy in black-and white. The quality of the color suggests the original may have been in color, and the snipped ends of the film's aspect suggest it may originally have been 1:1.66 or more.<br /><br />The film is set in the early 20th Century not improbable, since Holmes was still working then (and didn't actually die until 1957). However, the script is not adapted from any actual Doyle story. It involves an Egyptian necklace, and Professor Moriarty shows up as a world-famous archaeologist as well as the Prince of Crime. The plot is melodramatic and banal.<br /><br />The biggest defect of this film is that for whatever unfathomable reason Hammer filmed it in Germany. It was nonetheless filmed in English. It was then dubbed in German and then re-dubbed in English. So what you hear isn't Lee nor any of the other original actors, but a bunch of unknowns not that, outside of Lee, I doubt anyone would know any of the other actors. This is too bad, since Lee (see his "Hound of the Baskervilles") makes a quite decent Holmes. As it is, his voice double is condescending and plain as bread pudding with no raisins nor cinnamon.<br /><br />The music for this film is primarily jazzy, in a possible attempt to be "period". Too bad nobody thought of ragtime. As it is, the music doesn't relate to what's happening on the screen, and often is at odds with the action.<br /><br />The other film is "(Sherlock Holmes and) the Speckled Band" from 1931, starring a young Raymond Massey. The quality of the picture and sound is fully up to that of the 1962 effort, and in fact a bit better. Massey makes a quite respectable Holmes, although he certainly doesn't own the rôle in the way Rathbone did and Brett does. The other thespians who take part in this production are unlikely to be of interest to modern readers. The acting as is true of many films of this period owes a lot to the post-Victorian stage and to silent films.<br /><br />It should be noted that, while "The Deadly Necklace" is available on DVD by itself, "The Speckled Band" is available only with the former film.<br /><br />There is very little else to be said of this film. The settings seem to be an odd combination of the 1890s (horse-drawn carriages) and the 1920s (electronic devices such as a primitive dictaphone). Taken altogether, it's an interesting curio and a sufficient inducement to buy the DVD with the pairing rather than a DVD with "Deadly Necklace" only.
4,936	[ 800, 900 ]	683	872	'A New Generation' is the third Amityville entry to base its plot around writer John G. Jones's premise of an item taken from the Long Island house that causes spectral misery and death for its new owners. First a lamp, then a clock, and now a mirror. However, this is also the first Amityville since 'The Possession' to directly tie in to the real- life events that started the whole series. This time around, Keyes Terry (Robert Partridge), an artist, is given a macabre-looking mirror by a homeless man one day. Soon enough, people around him start to die, eventually leading to his discovery that the mirror once hung in the Amityville house - indeed on the very night a man named Franklin Bronner (Sonny Montelli in 'Amityville II') murdered his entire family. Unfortunately for Terry, his discovery of the mirror isn't entirely coincidental, and he soon learns the truth about his past a truth he's kept buried since childhood.<br /><br />This 7th installment in the often worn-out franchise is something of a disappointment for me. Things were starting to pick up with the silly and uneven, yet entertaining 'It's About Time', and given how much this film tries to draw upon its roots - not the first episode, but the source material itself - it should have been better than it was. <br /><br />However, three trips to the same well with yet another evil artifact from the Amityville house with yet another explanation for the malign paranormal visitations is wearing on me, to say the least. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Amityville franchise is the steadfast determination by each set of producers to completely ignore every other episode in the series. On the one hand, it's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be tied to someone else's continuity, but at the very least, they could maybe acknowledge story lines that have already been done and just possibly not repeat them over and over again.<br /><br />There's also something rather plodding about the way in which the story unfolds, doubtless due to the inevitability this repetition-fest brings. Since you already know what's going to happen, the carefully-paced build-up is simply slow and tedious. Or maybe it's just tedious anyway. Director John Murlowski probably could have done more to heighten the tense atmosphere associated with the mirror rather than simply having it flash red and emit chattering 'evil' voices, which lacks any kind of subtlety. There were times when characters seemed fairly unfazed by its otherworldly qualities. If they don't take it too seriously, why should we?<br /><br />Which is a shame, because 'A New Generation' has a more-than-capable cast. I was going to hold off on watching this until I saw the name 'Julia Nickson' in the credits. She captivated my attention just as she always does, and if anything, I was annoyed her part wasn't more extensive. Terry O'Quinn was equally charismatic and again, underused. Partridge himself in the lead role clearly fits the early 90s over-coiffed lumberjack-shirted square-jawed hero type, and while I'm not sure he really gave it the gravitas needed, it's not as if anyone here is performing Ibsen.<br /><br />The sets are also worthy of note, from the dramatic artwork filling Suki's room, to the claustrophobic corridors featured in flashback/supernatural sequences. Getting the look of these right is especially important given how certain sequences are repeated throughout the film to simulated fragmented memories. Clearly, Murlowski is more of a visual director rather than either an actor's director or one of horror. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a horror film, after all.<br /><br />'A New Generation' sees the same race being run for the third time in 4 years. Add to this the lack of direction where it was really needed and the whole effort fails to stand as tall as it should. However, it should be acknowledged for its strong ties with the source material and some good actors in not necessarily their finest hours. Honestly, the ideal person for this is someone who hasn't seen any of the sequels past 'The Possession', for whom the story won't be such a massive deja-vu trip.
5,057	[ 800, 900 ]	687	861	This absurd movie was about a "Goodie-two-shoe," teen-girl that really wanted to be Valedictorian but finds her obstacle in a teacher name Mrs. Tingle. Katie Holmes, who plays this "goodie-two-shoe," is faced with "the biggest dilemma of her teenage life" when this classmate guy of hers comes along with the final exams sample that should help them nail Mrs. Tingle's test. Mrs. Tingle comes along, catches Holmes, the classmate guy and her best friend with the sample of her final exam. Convinced that the three of them planned on cheating on here exam, Mrs. Tingle enthuses on her opportunity to ruin Holmes once and for all with allegations that can take away any chance of Holmes passing her class. And the classmate guy, who apparently has his eye on Holmes, always wondered why she never gave him the time of day (he's an idiot)? Feeling desperate, Holmes and her friends visit Mrs. Tingle in the middle of the night to try to dissuade her in believing that Holmes was planning to cheat. It all backs fire somehow when the classmate guy points a bow and arrow at Mrs. Tingle, threatening her to make things right for Holmes. Mrs. Tingle fights back but ultimately ends up as Holmes and her friend's captive.<br /><br />During Mrs. Tingle captivity under Holmes, they do everything from tying her up and gagging her in her own bed to blackmailing her with false pictures that they took of the unconscious Coach in bed with Mrs. Tingle. I found myself cringing when the kids were making themselves at home in Mrs. Tingle's house, eating up her food and going though her private work. At one point, Holmes found Mrs. Tingle's grade book and purposely changes the grade in her favor, decreasing the grade of her challenge for valedictorian. The end played out like a childish attempt to bring back the comedy that was sparingly in the beginning of the film, resolving on pure irony, slapstick and absurdity.<br /><br />This has to be the most unlikable and wickedly evil character Holmes would ever play in her entire life. I wanted to help Mrs. Tingle get free to really dig a grave for Holmes. She was manipulative, selfish and conniving. She even slept with the classmate guy despite her best friend's overwhelming interest in him...and she didn't like him. From attempting to ruin her challengers grades by seizing Mrs. Tingle's grade book to taking her best friend's man, you would think that Holmes would get what she deserves in the end, right? Unfortunately, she obtains everything her heart desires, showing that being wicked, manipulative, selfish and whining can get you what you want.<br /><br />Mrs. Tingle was suppose to be the character you didn't like. They didn't bring me to that point once to believe that she was this woman that needed to be "taught this lesson." She was like every other strict teacher who even gave valid reasons for her resentment of the next generation. Personally, I felt that her opinions about young people were validated with Holmes and her friend's actions every time. I kept hoping she could get free to call the police and nail Holmes. They kept her tied up in bed, ate up her food like a bunch of pigs, drank up the woman's wine, messed with her personal belongings and we're suppose to believe that she didn't deserve to take a bat to each of their heads? And the classmate guy has to be one of the most disliked characters in the history of film. Forget idiot, we need a new word for him that isn't in the Webster's dictionary. He brought the major trouble into Holme's life then made things worse when he came into Mrs.Tingle's house, uninvited behind Holmes, and corners Mrs. Tingle with a bow and arrow. I was thrilled every time Mrs. Tingle had a chance to slap fire out of him, or choke the wannabe actress best friend.<br /><br />If you're a teen out there and want to see when a teen's manipulation and wrong doing can get him or her the world, see this unfunny, caricature filled, unintentional film noir.
5,075	[ 800, 900 ]	659	859	The brief existence of The Sex Pistols and the making of this film after the controversial, groundbreaking English punk band's break-up both happened before I was born. However, I started listening to their only album, "Never Mind the B*&%@#&s, Here's the Sex Pistols", in 2003, when I was a teenager, and quickly became a big fan. I didn't see "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" until 2006, but saw it a couple times that year, and thought it was pretty good (certainly not great, but pretty good), even if I could only remember bits of it, and didn't see how it all connected. Seeing it a third time, nearly three years after the second, I didn't care much for it at all. I'm not even sure what I found so good about most of it in the first place (can't remember now).<br /><br />This film is a mockumentary, in which Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren tells his side of the story of the band and its members; guitarist Steve Jones, credited here as "The Crook"; drummer Paul Cook, credited as "The Tea-Maker"; bassist Sid Vicious, credited as "The Gimmick"; and John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) credited as "The Collaborator." McLaren claims that he created the band (and even the genre of punk rock) as a scam to make money. He tells much of the story to Helen Wellington-Lloyd (a.k.a. Helen of Troy), in various places where they go together. It's basically a hodgepodge of McLaren talking, Pistols songs, live footage of the band, fictional scenes (often silly, strange ones), several cartoon sequences, etc., all put together in one film, to tell the Pistols manager's side of the story in a bizarre way!<br /><br />It has been well proved that McLaren is a liar, I know many have already pointed this out, including band members themselves. He was NOT the driving force of the band, he didn't create them (nor did he invent punk rock, and The Sex Pistols weren't even the first punk band, though they were unique). The band members were the ones who made the band what it was. "The Filth and the Fury", a much more believable film about the band from Julien Temple, who made this film, is told from the point of view of the band members, who contradict McLaren's claims. However, the dishonesty of "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" is not my biggest problem with it. If it were actually entertaining (which I used to think it was to a certain extent), I would be able to overlook that, like I obviously used to be able to do. During my third viewing, apart from Sex Pistols songs, some live footage, and at least one mildly amusing cartoon sequence, it was pretty dull! I found the "Who Killed Bambi" song mildly amusing at first, but it got tiring very quickly.<br /><br />Is this mockumentary worth watching for Sex Pistols fans? It seems a good number of fans would say it is, not to learn about the true story of the short-lived but groundbreaking 70's punk band, but for entertainment. That was once my opinion on "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle". After the first time I watched it, I couldn't remember a thing McLaren said, and by the time I saw it the second time, I was aware of what the Pistols manager was using this film to imply, but could still barely remember anything I heard him say! Obviously, other aspects of the film were what I found impressive. Now, after my third viewing, I can definitely remember some of the things McLaren says, but it still wasn't 100% clear. Like most of the film, I guess his words are not that memorable, probably because of the way they're presented. If you're a Pistols fan, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give "Swindle" a try, but to me, for the most part, it's just an incoherent, boring mess that tries to be funny but fails.
5,085	[ 800, 900 ]	696	832	Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole "anime is for kids" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague "bad" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.<br /><br />Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge/justice/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.<br /><br />While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes. <br /><br />These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust. <br /><br />Also MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours. <br /><br />MAJOR SPOILER OVER<br /><br />The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.<br /><br />On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.<br /><br />Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.<br /><br />Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from "InuYasha", because you will only feel let down.
5,221	[ 800, 900 ]	690	888	During production, this LWT series was titled 'Rocket To The Moon', a title that everyone on set at the time thought was cheesy enough. Then word came through that it had been retitled 'Reach for the Moon', as if this the addition of this new word would evoke heavy metaphorical meanings involving the relationships and aspirations of the characters. This same heavy handed lack of subtlety and understanding is clear throughout the very fabric of the entire series, and the same tired and boring love-triangle storyline is actually stretched out over 7 episodes! Any television program that decides to use the 'love-triangle' storyline for even a single episode is pushing it, but to smear it over seven episodes is unforgivable. There are reasons to watch however, with the scenery of the Isle of Wight certainly providing a beautiful setting, and the seemingly effortless performance of Lynda Bellingham hitting all the right comedy marks. This, however is not enough. A number of performances are noticeable , especially when placed against the static and emotionless wasteland which Jonathan Kerrigan refers to as his face. I have already mentioned Lynda Bellingham in the role of 'fussy mother' (yes, thats as far as character development and back-story goes), but I was impressed by the actor Maurice Roeves (who is by far the most experienced actor in the cast, having appeared in everything from classic movies such as Richard Attenborough's 'Oh What a Lovely War', and 'The Eagle Has Landed', and TV including Baywatch, Holby City, The Bill, Eastenders, Cheers, Doctor Who in the 80s, Star Trek, and even going to Hollywood with Sylvestor Stallone in 1995s Judge Dredd) whose performance reminded me very much of actual teachers I have met - often incapable men, whose lives are tinged with a very sad streak. It is refreshing to see that Roeves is still getting work, having also appeared in the 1998 British film 'The Acid House' and even more recently alongside the wonderful Maria Bello and Sean Bean in 'The Dark'. The standout reason to watch this series, even though his appearances are very few. Another actor who tries his hardest to elevate the program, is Ben Miles, in the role of the sex-mad 'typical man' brother (once again, what an original character!). As with Roeves, the CV says it all. After elevating this, Miles has since appeared in the Hollywood movie 'V for Vendetta', and the 2001 star studded film 'The Affair of the Necklace', alongside Brian Cox, Adrien Brody, Christopher Walken and Jonathan Pryce. Unfortunately the fairly capable actors I have mentioned are resigned to relatively small roles in comparison to the dramatic driftwood that is Kerrigan and Saira Todd, both of whom seem to have been in Casualty for too long, and haven't yet learned to act. Even the tolerable Frances Grey is made to suffer in the presence of such theatrically fetal mannequins, and unfortunately for her, the lasting memory I have of her from the set, is of the AD asking for another take of a relatively complex shot because during the take, she subconsciously 'pulled her knickers out of her crack!'. Familiar faces appear in each episode - child actors from CBBC programs, and dramas such as '2 Point 4 Children', and other regulars from commercials such as Mr Ben's ("they'll remember me for this"), Lynda 'the Oxo lady' Bellingham, and others that I don't even want to remember. Each episode halfheartedly tries to 'deal with issues' such as teenage pregnancy, disruptive pupils, and rocket building(!)... things that Grange Hill was doing better when my parents were young! Overall, this series was a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity to craft a genuinely interesting and well developed drama series. Unfortunately, for them they took the easy route, both in the writing and (for the most part) in the casting. I would recommend both 'Waterloo Road' and 'The Street',to fans of good drama - the latter in particular which managed to achieve this. If you like the Isle of Wight, don't 'reach for the moon', reach for the holiday brochure instead - it probably contains more character development!
5,250	[ 800, 900 ]	669	813	For awhile I was hooked on shows like Ghost Hunters and Destination Truth and stuff, even though I thought they were full of crap I found them interesting and entertaining, and that's why we watch entertainment TV. It's fun to turn off your brain and believe that every shadow caught on camera is not just some shadow, but some insane asylum inmate's tormented spirit or something, so long as you can snap back to the real world later.<br /><br />That being said, enjoying Paranormal State requires more than merely shutting your brain off, it requires you to consume lead in large doses on a regular basis during your childhood, then suffer repeated head trauma, then take up huffing paint in your teens. Then you have to get high/drunk and watch.<br /><br />Paranormal State is beyond the pseudoscience (which I can enjoy with a degree of critical thinking) that you'll find on Ghost Hunters (which I still find to be reasonably interesting and entertaining program), it's pseudo... everything.<br /><br />The show follows the adventures of a group of students from Penn State University (not to be confused with University of Pennsylvania) lead by Ryan Buell as they take it upon themselves to exorcise demons and spirits using ceremonies from whatever religion seems most dramatic at the time (ranging from Catholic exorcisms performed by college coeds to Wiccan spells cast by socially awkward goths, to Native American cleansing rituals. To their credit, these are performed by Native Americans). If you believe in Wicca or you're Catholic or a follower of a traditional Native American religions, I think you'd want their cleansing rituals performed by someone who... isn't a maladjusted college student with some free time. I don't remember the scene in the exorcist where the priests threw up their hands and said "it's no use! Call up an after school club from the state college. This one is too much for us. They've probably read the Wikipedia article on exorcisms." The show is frankly insulting to the intelligence to the viewer. The show's opening title sequence has Ryan talking about PRS (the Paranormal Research Society), saying that when he came to Penn State (notice you don't see any shows where the host says the same thing, but instead of Penn State he says "When I came to MIT" or "After I got my theoretical physics degree...") he found other people with similar interest in the paranormal. He says they are sometimes "warriors." I remember when I used to pretend I was a warrior and I fought ghosts. I was six. Then the emotionless Ryan brings out the flamboyant and obnoxious Chip Coffey, who pretends to go into trances and become possessed by cussing at the cast. Awesome. I thought people had learned some sense about how ridiculous the idea of psychics and mediums is after "Crossing Over" went off the air. The show takes itself way too seriously, as this small group of societal misfits pretends they are battling against some ancient, cosmic evil. Production values are low, stories are boring, and, unlike Ghost Hunters, which will occasionally catch something anomalous (although likely explainable, but interesting nonetheless) on their equipment, PS requires you to believe that the noises and creaks that they hear are evidence of demons, ghouls, and possibly leprechauns. The only thing scary about this show is that there are people out there that take it seriously. The only thing paranormal about it is that the people on it are able to make each episode while keeping a straight face.<br /><br />Call me jaded, but I feel like the great mysteries of the universe and the afterlife are too great to be solved in a half-hour TV show by a journalism undergrad at a state school.<br /><br />All that being said, I highly recommend that everyone watch this show at least once, if for no other reason than the sheer entertainment derived from watching a truly terrible movie or TV show. Or you can make a drinking game out of it. I think the second would be preferable.
5,580	[ 800, 900 ]	640	804	Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture "in" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.<br /><br />It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- "Take my wife, please!"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.<br /><br />Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it "stick", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a "daring" so-called movie.<br /><br />This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.
5,718	[ 800, 900 ]	630	883	Look, I've practically lost all hope in Nickelodeon after watching their newest "hit," The Naked Brothers Band show, and "ICarly" is no exception! If you haven't noticed, ICarly is now the #1 hit tween sitcom on television right now! After hearing this, I decided to watch a few episodes myself to see what the hype was about! I have one word to describe this show in general..."EFFORTLESS!!!" I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT DAN SCHNEIDER WOULD GO THIS LOW AND MAKE SOMETHING THIS CRAPPY!!! IT'S HORRIBLE!!! Let me give you the details...<br /><br />The ICarly cast starts out with a girl by the name of Carly Shay, played by Miranda Cosgrove! Carly, unfortunately throughout the episodes, doesn't really have a personality so to speak of! I guess she's supposed to be the average girl in the show!(because a LOT of people have an Army veteran for a dad, an artist for a brother, and a popular teen web show taped and produced with thousands of dollars of equipment!) and to say the most about Miranda, HER ACTING IS PATHETIC!!! She sounds like a 3 year old girl with Tourette's syndrome on a sugar-high half the time! <br /><br />Next, we have Sam Puckett(good GOD where do they get these names!?) played by Jennette McCurdy! Sam is the "CO-HOST" of Carly's web show!(Wait a minute, if Sam hosts the show with Carly, shouldn't the show be called "ICarly and Sam?" I bet Sam feels like she's been ripped off!)Sam is supposed to be the bully in the cast!(Yeah, because EVERY girl bully wears girly skin-tight shirts and pants with blonde hair extentions!) She also, I think, is supposed to be a Tomboy, too. I would find this a little funny, but it's her Cliché PUNS THAT RUIN IT!!! The "Give me a bucket of fried chicken" pun is overused WAY TOO MUCH!!! GIVE THIS GIRL A SCRIPT!!!! and GIVE HER A COFFEE because, don't get me wrong Jennette's acting is okay, but, throughout half the episodes, she looks like she's about ready to fall asleep!!! <br /><br />Next we have Freddie Benson, played by Nathan Kress. Freddie is the technical producer for Carly and Sam's show! There's not much to say about Freddie other than the fact that he's a techno geek and has a crush on Carly, which never works out! HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE Clichés!!! DOES IT NOT STOP!!!? Nathan's acting is also okay, but seems to get excessive sometimes! HE'S TOO BORING!!! <br /><br />Lastly, and my most favorite, we have Spencer Shay, played by Jerry Trainor! Let me make this perfectly clear; IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM, THIS DIRT CLUSTER OF A SHOW WOULD BE MUD!!! Spencer is the one who keeps the show alive! Spencer is the older brother of Carly! If you had a little 5 year old who was both on a Caffeine high and constipated, you would have this character summed up! Spencer also earns money from being an artist!(hmmm... I wonder...) You would think that a professional artist would make promising sculptures... yeah, I just love sarcasm! HIS ART IS PRETTY MUCH UTTER CRAP!!!! I mean, what kind of sculpture name is "MERRY SNIFFMUS!!?" WHAT!!? THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH CREATIVITY AS A HILLARY CLINTON SPEECH ON DRUGS!!!! IT'S STUPID!!!! <br /><br />THE PLOT SETTINGS AND MORALS ARE EFFORTLESS BAGS OF POOP!!!! These shows are now telling kids that stealing, lying, and being an asshole to your parents is a GOOD THING!!! IF THESE ARE THE KINDS OF AWFUL CRAPPY SHOWS THAT THEY'RE THROWING AT KIDS THESE DAYS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TAKE PART IN WATCHING ANY OF THEM!!!! THIS IS BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP I'VE EVER WATCHED ON TV! BAR NONE!!! NICKELODEON, "I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!!!" END OF STORY!!!! 1/10
5,724	[ 800, 900 ]	662	826	Again, like many other TV Shows, a certain actor/actresses in thrust into the limelight, in this case Miranda Cosgrove, having built up her reputation in previous Movies/Series (especially by Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider. She is now the star of the show, gets to sing the soundtrack ( which she DID NOT WRITE and thus gets even more fame from that). Wonderful? It creates as much imbalance in popularity vs her other co-stars, especially Nathan Kress, who is continually thrust into minor rolls in each episode, except iDont Want to Fight. Cosgrove's music would never have met the charts without this show and her singing the main theme song (which was not written by her) and other covers such as About You Now and Stay my Baby. Let's not forget that she lip sync/sings her song live too. Is that how you create vocalist nowadays?<br /><br />Back to the show, Cosgrove reveals more physically by acting scenes in a bikini, Hawaiian hula type bra and mentioned bra many times through out. Bras and seen in many cases (though not of the other actresses). Wedgies are mentioned, panties have been mentioned once. Og let us not forget "Oh My God" a come phrase (are any of the scriptwriters/actors Christian?) Granted that the show is not meant to be just for kids, I'm surprised at the multitude of mentions of the female undergarment, especially in the first episode, where the phrase "pointy boobs" were mentioned. I'm not sure whether kids would thus refrain from saying that at home/in school afterwards. <br /><br />It's not that I'm against the mentioning or showing of female undergarments (which girls will wear), but for a show from Nickelodeon, the people in charge should have realised that kids would get the exposure to such stuff. I doubt that other Nickelodeon shows have such content in them.<br /><br />As mentioned is other reviews, the laughter track is extremely annoying and unnecessary in many parts--for example, when the character Sam cries, how on earth is that a time to laugh? It distracts people from getting the joke and is used almost in every sentence.<br /><br />As mentioned, Cosgrove is made the star of the show and thus gains the utmost fame and support from die hard fans, who even scolded a hotel staff when she is told to keep her noise level down (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk0gtfUk98U). Jennette McCurdy is the second star of the show but she faces competition from Cosgrove in the music industry (compare the popularity of her new single vs Cosgrove's covers). As noted, the third co-star Nathan Kress is the least noted of the lot. He is portrayed as a atypical boy who suffers the brunt of bullying by a girl and other boys but somehow a wizard at technology. His height in early episodes make him a cute actor but unusual given his character's crush on Carly/Cosgrove. Beyond that, Kress isn't breaking into the music industry and as Cosgrove's fame grows with each episode, Kress falls behind. I would bet that he is the least paid of all the three actors.<br /><br />The content of the show is of course fictional, but also lets one wonder how it fits into a comedy series at certain times (thus the laughter track is used).It also contains several continuity errors (how can your father be and Air Force Colonel on a submarine? US Special Forces have their own branches, and the Air Force doesn't use US submarines--that is for SEALs). A unique feature is that of allowing viewers to submit their own videos to be shown during or after the episodes, but again the videos somehow do not meet the theme of comedy.<br /><br />Once again, it is a show that is riddled with mentions of the female undergarments, exposure of skin, and over used laughter tracks. It is a series which thrusts a teen actress so far into the crowd such that her songs/actions are excessive supported by her fans, leaving her co Stars behind.
5,898	[ 800, 900 ]	666	891	OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this "well of delusion" i find here.<br /><br />How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And "Best thriller of 1999!" ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a "thriller" than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.<br /><br />Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A "great film with Christopher Lambert"! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm.. <br /><br />Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. "it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber". Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth "proven wrong" i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the "i can do 1-Liners!" police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future. <br /><br />The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O<br /><br />Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap. <br /><br />Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do.
5,906	[ 800, 900 ]	681	843	Potential viewers be warned, the current IMDb viewer rating for "Tomorrow at Seven" is an anomaly of low voter turnout. It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance. The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.<br /><br />Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel. Broderick intends to interview a wealthy businessman for his book, but first he has to get past the man's eccentric secretary - "If you line his relatives up, you'd have enough nuts to hold a Ford together". That line unceremoniously endears him to the "nut's" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.<br /><br />Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning. The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words "At Seven Tomorrow Night". Now what person putting together a puzzle doesn't use the pieces with contrasting colors FIRST! <br /><br />Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence. Generally, their characters are colorful enough to offer genuine comic relief, but here they're just plain annoying. McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.<br /><br />Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation? Especially when at seven o'clock, all parties would be a captive audience aboard the plane when the first murder is committed. It's not Drake however who's dead, but his secretary Austin Winters (Grant Mitchell). The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else. Can you imagine anyone trying to get away with that today, unless your name was Ted Kennedy?<br /><br />With the cause of death yet to be determined, the local coroner is called in, but the first one that shows up (a Broderick accomplice) is a phony. Yet, when the real coroner shows up, he simply disappears immediately after! In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read. It winds up missing when the lights return, and because it may point to the murderer, it becomes a clue that must be retrieved. So where was the letter? Winters' daughter Martha grabbed it and placed in on the mantle of the living room! How much thought was put into this?<br /><br />Obviously, the entire affair is so inane that Morris' character solves the case rather easily. Even though the film comes in at just about an hour, it becomes almost a chore to watch with all the nonsense going on. There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - "Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?" Clancy - "Once!" <br /><br />Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most "B" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's. Fortunately, the pair fares much better backing up Humphrey Bogart in a goofy 1938 gem - "Swing Your Lady", where the laughs are intentional. The best I can offer about "Tomorrow at Seven" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - "This is just a silly waste of time".
5,933	[ 800, 900 ]	710	826	My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.<br /><br />The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.<br /><br />The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.<br /><br />Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.<br /><br />The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.<br /><br />If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.
6,068	[ 800, 900 ]	700	826	What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
6,239	[ 800, 900 ]	699	835	Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.<br /><br />As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.<br /><br />Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10
6,293	[ 800, 900 ]	746	898	Comedy works best when it relates to stuff that's true. But even as such, some effort is required to make jokes that everyone likes and even the most grumpy of viewers can crack a smile. When I look at the Daily Show, I see the whole "it's funny because it's true" thing, but I don't, however, see the effort and often times I don't if they're being funny or just trying to make a point(I notice this mostly in the interview segments). The Daily Show started off as a news parody, by definition they poke fun at how the media plays it's own news by pretending to be inept and dumb news reporters and anchormen and they tackled tons of subjects from science to movies and sometimes politics, then Jon Stewart came along...and it all went to Hell. Thr first years of Jon Stewart's reign were arguably golden, I though he was so funny, but then 2004 came along and it's where you start to notice a huge chance in the show from there on. The show's humor has gone stale, Colbert left, Steve Carell left, many of the show's best anchors left and now it's mostly about Jon Stewart and the show's gone from a parody to a semi-serious news show, essentially Evening News but with some gags here and there. For those who haven't seen the show and are having trouble finding out what to watch on cable, I'll give you a brief description of what the show's about(at least until 2009): -Bush, Cheney and all Republicans(unless they happen to embrace an opinion shared by Democrats as well) are stupid, evil, corrupt and hypocrites, anyone who stands by conservative beliefs is also evil, corrupt and a hypocrite; -people who doubt the man-made global warming theory are evil and stupid; -vote Democrat; There, I saved you 25 minutes of your time, go watch something else. At first, I though that the producers hijacked the show for their own personal political agenda, but when I actually see the interviews, it becomes crystal clear what this show's about(what I mentioned above), but I'll get to that in a moment. Frist off, the humor in The Daily Show according to Jon Stewart expects you to find a random filmed quote said by either Bush, Cheney or a random republican humorous because well, because. Jon sets up the joke, setting it in writers specific context and expects that the random quote somehow delivers the punchline. So, unless you «get» the context, it's entirely useless as bankable humor. Also the Daily Show expects you to laugh when they show a montage of one politician talking and in another separate video saying another thing, again putting into a context that the writers expect you to understand, thus making it funny,why? Well, because Jon said so. Now imagine The Daily Show using that formula countless times for years every week, and you'll start to understand of what used to be a laugh-fest that is now 25 minutes of just silent stares(yes, even in the Lewis Black segments). At first, some decent amount of effort was put into these jokes, but now much less of that is apparent. And the interview have the most odd sense of bias that I've ever seen. Jon Stewart calls Bill O'Reilly a bully, but what does that make him, when he sucks up to every single actor and democrat(John Kerry before, Obama today) that appears on the show and looks down upon respected republicans and accomplished conservative newsmen such as Weekly Standard's own Bill Kristol? He puts them in some sort of people's tribunal as if they're being charged with a crime, often times any person on the show who stands up for Bush is portrayed as delusional, as if that person's out of touch with reality and assumes he speaks for the majority of America, that's the de facto treatment for anybody conservative, unless they happen to share a similar point of view with Democrats, if so then's it's an endless love fest. But still, it doesn't matter, in the eyes of Jon you are already wrong before you walked into the show and are still wrong afterwords. That's the kind of treatment you get if you are anything remotely right-wing. Now you have to wonder what that could possibly have anything to do with humor. One wonders what'll happen if Democrats win the White House...
6,317	[ 800, 900 ]	725	876	They must be. I'll list them so that you can check them off one-by-one:<br /><br />- Police regularly leave tens of millions of dollars of cash and drugs just lying around, because they don't have evidence facilities.<br /><br />- When you get shot, you always grunt the same way, and fly back the same way, even though there's never a mark on your body.<br /><br />- Police are not able to identify the sound of gun shots, and don't think anything is suspicious when an undercover policewoman's phone call during a high-level drug-and-money deal is cut shot by that gun shot.<br /><br />- Bad guy gunmen can hit mannequins with one shot, but can't hit a big, bulky martial artist with 100.<br /><br />- If you rocket launcher a car in a car park, the next three cars in a line will blow up evenly in 15 second intervals.<br /><br />- Further to the last point, all the cheap cars are always parked next to each other.<br /><br />- The smoke that is caused from the firing of the rocket launcher is much greater than the amount of smoke caused by four cars blowing up.<br /><br />- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce fit on five floppy disks.<br /><br />- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce have graphics that look like Windows 3.1 screen-savers.<br /><br />- Floppy disks can be read even after they've been shot up.<br /><br />- Semi-drunk guys in bars attentively watch the news when they're at the pub, and have a deep understanding of American modern military history, Agent Orange, and the family trees of high-ranking military officials. However, they're only able to articulate their points using dialogue that sounds silly coming from anyone over the age of seven.<br /><br />- Even though fights appear to break out almost hourly in a bar, that bar has only one staff worker, who both pours the beers and handles security. Of course he knows martial arts.<br /><br />- Gold medal Olympians regularly make the simple transition to corporate CEOs of software companies in a matter of years.<br /><br />- A woman who works for a computer game company knows everything about how to beat a game she's never played, raves constantly about her competitor's great games, and can rattle off facts and figures regarding her company's rivals - but she didn't know that they overtook almost all the other companies in the field in large corporate mergers.<br /><br />- Bad guys always die in slow motion. Always.<br /><br />- Wives tell their husbands that they're pregnant by raving about their man's bravery in killing bad guys.<br /><br />- Wives do large amounts of their husband's police work; this might explain why she whines and complains so much every time he has to go to work. Although, it doesn't explain why she adores him so much every time he gets up in the morning and she can read about his murderous escapades.<br /><br />- It's fairly typical for a police officer to be involved in kidnappings, kill tons of people on three separate occasions and stop a variety of multi-million dollar illegal deals in a week.<br /><br />- When trying to lose a car that's following you, it's wise to continue driving under the speed limit. And if you're following a cop, subtlety is not important - you can tailgate him for miles, then park right next to him. He won't notice.<br /><br />- All cops are experienced martial artists.<br /><br />- It is possible to kick a guy four metres in distance.<br /><br />- People scream or grunt in pain when they are punched or kick, yet when they have their arm broken, they don't make a sound.<br /><br />- Bad guys clean their bloodied axes with their handkerchiefs, and then leave them in their pocket for many days.<br /><br />- Pieces of wood, when swung with one sharp blow, shatter sturdy ladders in six or more places simultaneously.<br /><br />- The photo, and listed special features on the back of the DVD case don't necessarily have to be on the DVD. The advertised interactive menus? Why not no menu at all! The advertised scene index? Why not have the whole thing as one scene/chapter, and not need an index! Likewise, it's OK to use The Matrix's font and title in the tag-line, and not be a rip-off in any way.<br /><br />With all of this, I'm in shock that 12 out of the 15 top credited actors never acted again.
6,340	[ 800, 900 ]	700	863	La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...<br /><br />This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.<br /><br />Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.<br /><br />Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.<br /><br />La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.
6,350	[ 800, 900 ]	579	803	I was prepared to love "Where's Poppa", it features the nexus of Normal Lear sitcom character actors who, when I was growing up, felt like extended members of my raisenette-sized broken nuclear family. How fun it would be to see censor-free Barnard Hughes, Vincent Gardenia, Ron Liebman, Rob Reiner, and a pre-SNL Garret Morris.<br /><br />But alas,"Where's Poppa" drags. It's claustrophobic and plodding, and breaks the cardinal rules of farce, lightness of mood and a fast pace.<br /><br />The plot involves the efforts of a lawyer (George Segal) to rid himself of his overbearing Jewish mother, who lives in his gigantic New York apartment. Along the way we are exposed ridiculous characters and situations: a comedic group of muggers who repeatedly mug the brother of the main character, the rape of a policeman which involving a gorilla suit and subsequent gay love, Ruth Gorden pulling down Segal's pants and biting his ass as he serves her dinner. Why doesn't this work? Part of the explanation is the sense of doom engendered by the cramped, dark interiors and antique set-decoration. I absolutely eat up cinematography of New York during this era, but watching this movie felt like I was leafing through the Police Gazette in a dark bus terminal.<br /><br />The main reason though is the slow pace. Modern MTV-style quick cuts have changed what moviegoers feel is a comfortable editing tempo, but, even taking this into consideration, camera shots are held for an excessively long time. Plot developments are also very slow. There is one situation in which this works: a weird love song George Segal sings to Trish Van Devere, softly, very close to her face, and for an excruciatingly long period of time. It reminded me of those cringeworthy extended shots in the British version of "The Office", where you find yourself mentally begging the camera to cut away, and at the same time you can't stop looking.<br /><br />Sadly, most of the film is more "hurry up" than "can't look away". Which made me wonder if it's possible to have a black comedy that is also a farce. The dilemma is that the gravitas of the subject matter in a black comedy tends to weigh down lightness of the farce. Movies like Robert Altman's "MAS*H" and Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" prove that it can be accomplished. They do this not only through speed but also through entertaining subplots, something "Where's Poppa" neglects.<br /><br />Although the film features multiple, stereotypically-funny characters, almost all of them are directly involved in the central drama of how to deal with the recalcitrant mother. The scenes featuring Garret Morris and the Central Park muggers are as close as the viewer gets to a mental break. The muggers seemed almost Shakespearean, following the tradition of comic ne'er-d0-wells. If the rest of "Where's Poppa" had clung a little more closely to stage tradition it would have been a better film. Edgier isn't always better. It's as if all these talented actors and the director Carl Reiner, were taking a short before the creative maelstrom of the 70's .<br /><br />Random notes: After strealing Ron Liebman's clothes, the muggers mention Cornel Wilde's "The Naked Prey" (1966), a great action movie that was a stylistic precursor to 1968's "Planet of the Apes".<br /><br />As politically incorrect as he was, it's disquieting to learn about the death of an action hero as formidable as Charleton Heston. Linda Harrison, who played "Nova", Taylor's mute mate, said that James Fransicus, in the sequel seemed to be cute and tiny compared to Heston.
6,443	[ 800, 900 ]	623	845	Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.<br /><br />Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.<br /><br />2 out of 3 falls.<br /><br />The Glamour Girls\|C\|/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying "Get on with it". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />2 out of 3 Falls.<br /><br />The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.<br /><br />3/10
6,513	[ 800, 900 ]	695	866	Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.<br /><br />I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was justwrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.<br /><br />You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? Nonot initiallylike many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participateto actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.<br /><br />Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Againof course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywooda body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and questionmovies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me."
6,612	[ 800, 900 ]	643	844	Supposedly, director William Shatner had in mind a much 'darker' film when it came to 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but the suits at Paramount, looking at the huge box-office receipts taken in by its humor-filled predecessor, insisted the new film have plenty of laughs too. So what we get is arguably the weakest and goofiest of the six Star Trek movies with the original cast. There are bad ideas aplenty, along with a few good ones, and if you're in a charitable mood, you could look at 'The Final Frontier' the same way you would a so-so episode of the TV series. On the plus side, Laurence Luckenbill is a fine actor and gives one of the best 'guest star' performances in any Star Trek, big or small screen, ranking right up there with William Windom's Commodore Decker. His portrayal of Sybok, Spock's half-brother, consistently lifts the film when it threatens to sink, which happens all too frequently. Charles Cooper is good too as the fat old Klingon General Korrd; too bad his role isn't as large as he is. If the story about Shatner's intentions is true, then I owe him an apology, because I was prepared to lay the blame for the incessant silliness and not-very-convincing action scenes squarely at his directorial feet. The reason is I've always felt that, of all the Trek regulars, Shatner was the least 'tuned-in' to everything that makes Star Trek work and what makes it special to its fans. Having read his Trek memoirs, it's very apparent to me that he considered the show another action-adventure series that just happened to have a science-fiction setting. He preferred the vision of Gene Coon over that of Gene Roddenberry; Coon was known for his work on the popular western series, 'The Wild Wild West.' Shatner also mentioned that a favorite Star Trek episode of his was 'A Piece of the Action,' a silly second-season episode co-written by Coon. So, finally given an opportunity to direct a Star Trek feature film, would not Shatner follow his instincts and produce an action-filled flick with lots of tongue-in-cheek humor? Well somebody did, because that's what 'The Final Frontier' ended up being. Shatner himself definitely returns to form as The Great Ham and, as Leonard Maltin points out, the film suffers from a bad case of 'the cutes.' In the opening scene at Yosemite National Park, it's hard to say which is worse, the super-cheesy special effects or the godawful dialogue. Running gags about equipment malfunctioning on the Enterprise have run all the way from 'Wrath of Khan' and by this, the fifth Trek movie, have run themselves into the ground. So has the idea of a 'skeleton crew'. One new development is an apparent romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura and suffice it to say one does not exactly sense flames of passion burning between the two. It's a pointless subplot and adds nothing. The climactic scene where 'God' is encountered doesn't add much either; whether or not this was a good idea in the first place is debatable, but the scene itself doesn't make much sense. (The 'God' creature's abilities seem to vary according to what is needed at the moment.) Roughly half of this is a tired retread of the climax from 'The Search for Spock.' Leonard Nimoy manages to salvage Spock's integrity, even while spouting such un-Spock-like lines as "Get a grip on yourself, Doctor." And DeForest Kelley, as usual, outperforms both Shatner and Nimoy; he really came on as an actor in the final Trek films. So this Trek outing isn't terrible, it just isn't very good. There was to be one more original cast Trek movie before the baton was passed to the 'next generation,' and it was far better suited to the task than 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.'
6,738	[ 800, 900 ]	719	861	Last night, I attended a screening of Badland with my cousin. We were kind of excited to learn once we got there that the director/writer, the producer (his wife), and several cast members were also in attendance and that there would be a discussion and Q&A after the movie. But once the movie was over and the credits started rolling (and the film really was not edited well enough and is too long), my cousin and I, without consulting each other, immediately got up and left. We found out once we started talking outside that we were both feeling so angry that not only did we not want to stay for the discussion, we couldn't even look at the cast and crew who had been standing near the exit and who we walked right by as we left.<br /><br />I have figured out that the roots of my anger were planted during the scene in which Jerry slices his daughter Celina's palm with a big knife so that her blood could be used to leave a fake trail. It was unavoidable to connect in my mind the physical pain he inflicted on her body with the emotional pain he inflicted on her spirit by murdering her mother and two brothers in her presence, sparing her, and taking her with him when he fled. I've sliced my palm before (accidentally); even a fairly superficial cut is incredibly painful because the palm is so sensitive, and it is very slow to heal if you don't keep it immobile because you just keep opening it up trying to go about your life. But after a very short time with only a narrow strip of cloth tied clumsily around her palm and one scene with a big band-aid, it was as if she'd never been cut. My anger reached its peak--I won't spoil this moment for you--in Celina's final scene.<br /><br />I got angry because Celina is by far the most sympathetic character in the film (the actress portraying her is a good one); I wasand you can't tell me a good screenwriter wouldn't know thisimmersed in feeling both her physical and emotional pain; and the screenwriter, by treating Celina's emotional pain so cavalierly and with such disrespect, also treated me, the audience member, cavalierly and with utter disrespect.<br /><br />Sure, the script has moments of tears for Celina, and some dialogue that tells us she's hurting, somewhere, somehow. But by this time, we the audience are feeling so manipulated that we've shut down. The manipulation starts very early on in this movie, when Jerry's family's dialogue spells out for the audience that Jerry had psychiatric problems. Rule one, screenwriters: give your audience some credit. Let them do a good bit of the creative work on their own. Tell the story; don't explain to us everything we're supposed to think and feel. We don't like it.<br /><br />My cousin also knew she was having trouble with the movie early on, dialogue-wise, when Jerry and his wife had little to say to each other besides f* this, f* that, f*** you. Some couples do indeed find themselves in relationships so bad that the f-bomb ends up being every other word out of their mouths. But it's like watching comedians who curse a lot. Some of them are really funny; the cursing is ancillary. But some of them substitute cursing for humor, and this screenwriter, to carry the metaphor to its conclusion, is no Chris Rock.<br /><br />This husband and wife team bravely chose to tackle an awfully complex story with awfully complex characters. But they seem not to have realized that the meaning of a story, especially a complex one, will vary for each member of the audience. Successful storytelling requires paying attention to important factual details, not working desperately to interpret the meaning of the story for the whole audience.<br /><br />I worked with Vietnam veterans for five years, I've heard more stories than most, and I'm always happy to see films released that bring their stories to a broader audience. It's important, on all kinds of different levels, that we hear them. But I am less than thrilled that this storyteller decided before the film even began what Jerry's story meant and proceeded to spell it out for us with a very heavy hand. Next time, pay more attention to the details.
6,860	[ 800, 900 ]	668	875	The 1973 "Day of the Jackal", directed by Fred Zinnemann from the Frederick Forsyth novel, while not a masterpiece in the general scheme of things, was nevertheless quite an above-average thriller, written and carried out with considerable panache, wit, and style. It remains a pleasure to rent and watch now and then.<br /><br />In adapting that for the 1997 "The Jackal", it seems that at every turn the writers and director made the worst possible choice, making it all quite leaden, overdone, unsuspenseful, unsurprising, unsexy, and unthrilling. If we put together a catalog of all the specifics that went into this movie, big and small, I could give you a mini-essay for each topic on how the 1997 adaptation ***ed up.<br /><br />Item: the weapon. <br /><br />In the original, there is considerable intrigue over how the assassin is going to smuggle it onto the scene, how he intends to disguise it, and why it needs custom work from his underground craftsmen. In the remake, they apparently thought that today's action-flick-raised audiences wouldn't tolerate a small rifle whose point is precision and would demand the lugubrious off-the-[black-market-]shelf machine gun, which needs a minivan to transport it, and whose point is to shout Macho. The whole involved and interesting business about disguising its components, has been reduced to showing us (repeatedly, like this is a difficult point to follow?) that the joystick for his absurdly high-tech remote-control system has been in his pocket as a pen. <br /><br />Item: the conspirators and motive.<br /><br />Without resorting to dry lecture, the original still manages to give us a good understanding of the historical situation of the "pieds-noirs" [ "blackfeet"], the French-Algerian irredentists who could not accept that the century was moving away from colonialism, and formed the view that De Gaulle had betrayed them. This gives the whole plot some historical weight. The remake seems to leave it as a gangland-shootout revenge story, minimally spicing it up by making them Russian gangsters. Note please that I'm not opposed to updating: they could have done this intelligently and come up with something more current but non-trivial. Certainly Russia and the rest of ex-USSR have been through huge changes of late, and an updated story could have been situated there in a way that would make us feel that it matters.<br /><br />Item: the relationship of the assassin on the run and the police hunting him down; and the complex steering of the viewer's sympathies from the bad guy to the good guy.<br /><br />Above I hesitated somewhat at calling the original a masterpiece overall; but in this aspect it really was one. We follow along with the assassin for much of the first portions of the film, and having seen his cleverness and resourcefulness we begin to admire him, and not want to see his plan thwarted or see him caught -- at least, not too soon! Then we meet the policeman who gets pushed into heading up the investigation / protection efforts, and bit-by-bit we take to him, and see he is not the sad-sack his domestic troubles may have suggested. By the time it matters, we have been won over to his side.<br /><br />In the remake, perhaps Poitier could have handled that sort of development , but Gere sure can't. And the absurd "48 Hours"-derived gimmick of the con brought out to help the police should have been left in those comedies where it came from. <br /><br />The remake has the assassin and the assassin-hunter talk* about how they 're like players above a chessboard, communicating indirectly via their moves and only able to infer what the other is like. That was achieved superbly in the original. But in the remake in fact they're brought into face-to-face confrontation way too soon, so they can grimace at each other, bloody the place up, and go through some fairly standard chase scenes.<br /><br />Item: photography, and "scenery".<br /><br />The remake does have some nice images, particularly in snowy Finland in the opening section. But the Washington, D.C Metro cannot really compete with the streets of Paris for interesting perspectives and bystander faces.
6,979	[ 800, 900 ]	666	847	Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic "Ed Wood" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.<br /><br />But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And "Glen or Glenda," his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.<br /><br />"Glen or Glenda" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called "The Scientist" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled "I Changed My Sex!" was previously to be based.<br /><br />Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that "Glen or Glenda," despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. "Glen or Glenda" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams "Pull the string!" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.<br /><br />I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies "innocent fun" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if "Citizen Kane" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then "Glen or Glenda" is probably the Mariana Trench.
6,990	[ 800, 900 ]	752	891	In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some spoilers so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!<br /><br />I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good. <br /><br />Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic. <br /><br />This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. Another spoiler warning! In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either. <br /><br />But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up. <br /><br />Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend. <br /><br />In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason? <br /><br />To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies? <br /><br />The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.
7,115	[ 800, 900 ]	654	864	Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.<br /><br />"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even beep properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad." That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.<br /><br />Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly "issuetainment" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.<br /><br />It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.<br /><br />Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.<br /><br />What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you beep So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.<br /><br />In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.<br /><br />Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far?
7,167	[ 800, 900 ]	643	824	Two escaped convicts step out of the woods and shoot two campers in the head. That's the first scene, and it made me wince, fearing what was in store. But by the end of the first half hour I was all swept up in the flood of images. Not because I cared in the least about any of the characters but because I was aghast at how execrable the film was and was curious to see how truly low it could sink.<br /><br />Frank (Remar) and Red (Woolvett) are the ex-inmates. After murdering the two innocent campers they plow through the woods and wangle their way into the isolated cabin of Dean Stockwell and his two sons, the attorney Keith and the estranged homosexual Behr. The escapees at first pretend their car has broken down and they need to use the phone, but they gradually reveal their identities.<br /><br />Well, it looks like familiar territory so far. "Desperate Hours," or "Funny Games" maybe. But -- hang on -- the gay son is in cahoots with the two. It seems that Stockwell, upon discovering his son in flagrante delicto with another man named Billy, kicked Billy around and threw him out. Billy went on to die and Behr now blames his Dad for the death. And, indeed, Dad is something of a Neanderthal when it comes to paraphilias, the fact that he was just found cohabiting with a secretary notwithstanding.<br /><br />The grief-stricken Behr just searched and searched, looking for someone else who had known Billy, someone with whom he could share his despair. It turned out to be one of the escapees, and now Behr is determined to see them to their freedom.<br /><br />It gets all twisted after that. People talk. They talk and talk. They talk continually. And NOT about the two mad killers who just can't wait to put one between their eyes. No -- the dialog goes something like, "You were just so scared of something inside yourself that you even drove away your own SON." That's Behr, the young gay guy, talking to Stockwell. It's as if an afternoon domestic drama had had its genes mixed with a killer thriller in some kind of transformational device or cocktail shaker.<br /><br />The only real performance is given by James Remar as the more talkative and ominous of the two escapees. And that's mainly because of his gruff but fluid baritone, which sounds like Lance Henrickson's, and his wide guppy-like lips. He's easy on the eyes and ears.<br /><br />Dean Stockwell has given decent performances, including his inestimable bizarro turn in "Blue Velvet," in which he was my supporting player, but here laziness, advancing years, or slack direction has shaped his every move and every utterance into a stereotype. It's as if he were reading stage directions -- "Look surprised" and "shout angrily" -- and following them literally. There's not a surprise in a cartload.<br /><br />If the gay son, Jason Behr, ever blinked, it must have been while I was blinking at the same time because I missed it. He has a long neck and just one expression in his instrument. Woolvett as the secondary villain fades into the pine-knot paneled woodwork. The attorney son is Robert Glen Keith. I hope he didn't quit his day job.<br /><br />The direction is pedestrian, the staging functional without being in the least innovative. Sometimes it's confusing. I lost track of where everyone was supposed to be as the killers are circling around on the cabin's porch and the family has locked itself inside with a shotgun. I also couldn't understand how Stockwell could put a blast through the cabin's door, hit Remar, and knock him in a back flip off the porch, and then Remar could simply stand up, dust himself off, and come up with a cranky riposte like, "Okay. Two can play that game." But why go on? See it if you must.
7,383	[ 800, 900 ]	664	836	First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !
7,430	[ 800, 900 ]	654	822	The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.<br /><br />Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.<br /><br />I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.<br /><br />Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.
7,448	[ 800, 900 ]	666	866	The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects. <br /><br />What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.<br /><br />The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:<br /><br />1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?<br /><br />2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.<br /><br />3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.<br /><br />4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.<br /><br />5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.<br /><br />6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.<br /><br />7. The one smart Morlock kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.<br /><br />8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.<br /><br />Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.
7,460	[ 800, 900 ]	705	810	Having not read the original book or seen the earlier film, and indeed knowing nothing about the storyline of either of those or the current film, I came to this film with an open mind.<br /><br />It's really difficult to know where to start a comment on the film, because the whole thing seems so confused. It seems like there is a point or a message or something in the film, but what that is remains completely obscure.<br /><br />The effects were fantastic and very well judged. The idea was set up really well with the motivation for time travel clearly made out. However, it was downhill from here.<br /><br />All of the time travel seems to have only the vaguest connection to the quest that was set out at the start. There are some nice ideas, but they seem to be isolated occurrences that really do not flow and make the film seem disjointed and lost. At one point one wonders whether the main story in the film is the fate of the moon.<br /><br />When Hartdegen arrives in 802,701 A.D., the film becomes very frustrating as he seems to be unable to discover anything of importance about the Eloi, and while it seems clear that there is something to find out, what it is remains annoyingly elusive. This is quite an odd change from the previous time travel instances and one wonders why all of this has suddenly been abandoned for what seems like a completely new story. So many things happen that there should be an explanation for, but there is no discovery. I really, really wanted to know what the film was "getting at", what there was to uncover, but to no avail. Having read a summary of what happens in the book at this point, it seems like there has been a very half-hearted attempt to render this in the film but it has been so simplified and "dumbed down" that the meaning and context is completely lost.<br /><br />Just as we hope that we are finally to discover where this is all leading, the film suddenly takes another significant change in direction, and becomes a mindless action film without any real action. It is as if by this point the director has simply given up bothering to put any meaning into the film. By now countless significant things are happening without any explanation. Hartdegen fails to take the opportunity to return to the past on two occasions for no reason, and then suddenly loses all interest in time travel for no reason. The film comes to an abrupt end as Hartdegen decides to stay with the Eloi.<br /><br />In summary, after a good start the film is very disappointing. Too much time is spent on Hartdegen's adventures before arriving with the Eloi. However, the worst part of the film is what I think is the most important part: the setting up of the situation with the Eloi. The whole point is completely missed, and this undermines the rest of the film. After this the film concentrates too much on effects and action and all attempts to return to the meaning and core of the film seem forced and out of place. With so many things happening without explanation, the film just seems to get lost and lose direction. However, the finale where Hartdegen decides he is no longer bothered about time travel is the most inexplicable of all.<br /><br />Ultimately, the whole film seemed like a collection of unconnected incidents. The meaning and context was lost, although the gaping hole where it should have been was very obvious. What was so frustrating about it all, though, was that there was clearly so much potential here: it wasn't by any means a bad film, it just so easily could have been so much better. The start was very promising, the time travelling looked fantastic and would have worked had it not gone off on tangents, and Hartdegen's experience with the Eloi could so easily have worked had a few more of the right questions been asked, and had there not been such a temptation to "dumb down" and simplify. I just wish I had a time machine so that I could travel back in time and advise against the mistakes that were made.
7,490	[ 800, 900 ]	660	835	Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.
7,588	[ 800, 900 ]	706	823	Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.<br /><br />Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.<br /><br />While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, "Why" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.<br /><br />Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.<br /><br />Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.<br /><br />Grade: out of ***
7,645	[ 800, 900 ]	604	820	I normally wouldn't waste my time criticizing a useless movie such as this. However, I'm off of work this week, so I have plenty of time to wallow in meaningless trivialities. To start, let me say that I frequently enjoy non-commercial, non-mainstream, non-American cinema. (Feel free to click on my user profile for a supporting filmography.) That said, there are plenty of bad movies that are released in countries outside of the U.S. Trust me, I've been tortured by hundreds of them. "Lost In Beijing" is one particularly bad film.<br /><br />The opening half hour is an impressive, non-stop exhibition of moral degeneracy. This film provides some classic morals that belong on the same level as Kim Ki-duk's "Bad Guy" (2001). <br /><br />1. women actually enjoy being raped; 2. rape should be glorified, praised, and respected; 3. feel free to rape any woman you like, because while your "doing" her she'll eventually start to like it and reach orgasm; 4. if you're wife gets raped, make sure you blackmail her rapist for lots of money, but if he doesn't pay, just repeatedly bang his slut of a wife as compensation; 5. if you're wife gets raped, be sure to screw and degrade her the next day while playing the role of the rapist, taunting her with lines like, "Did he fu*k you like this?"; 6. if you're husband is a rapist, just accept it; 7. after you personally get raped, befriend your rapist and hang out with him whenever possible.<br /><br />How can anyone in their right mind care about any of these characters? They're nothing more than a bunch of degenerates who not only live their lives in careless ways, but actually revel in their meaninglessness and support each other. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm very capable of enjoying films that depict lifestyles and morals that are contradictory to my own. "Ichi the Killer" (2001) and "Moonlight Whispers" (1999) are very interesting portrayals of sado-masochism. "Strange Circus" (2005) is an exceedingly perverted play on child sexual abuse. "Marriage Is A Crazy Thing" (2002) is a scathing indictment on traditional marriage. Even religiously-based movies like "Running On Karma" (2003) and "Samsara" (2001) have entertained me on occasion. The difference is that those films actually have some interesting psychological content and character development to them, whereas "Lost In Beijing" has virtually none.<br /><br />It's known that people with unorthodox mindsets exist on this planet, but without some kind of character development or psychology behind the acts themselves, you end up with a superficial exposition of despicable behavior. Why, exactly, does Bing Bing eventually befriend and care for her rapist? Why does the wife of a rapist accept his behavior unconditionally? The filmmakers never bothered to tell us. Even the obvious juxtaposition of rich and poor classes was ineptly conceived and in the end served as a mere situational ploy. It all feels too bland and forgettable after the filthy opening half hour subsides. <br /><br />Other reviewers here seem to have confused moral ambiguity with complex characterization. The reason you can't choose which person to root for is because they weren't developed properly. Don't think that this movie has complex characters just because they're not clearly defined. On the contrary, the reason they're not clearly defined is because we know nothing about them or what they're thinking. This is hardly a positive attribute of this movie. <br /><br />On the positive side, the camera-work and acting are quite good, but everything else just gets duller and duller as the film progresses. You can place this alongside trash like "Turning Gate" (2002), "What Time Is It There" (2001), "Irreversible" (2002), and the aforementioned "Bad Guy."
7,734	[ 800, 900 ]	711	843	I bought the DVD to get Julia Ormond. Well, I got that in spades. She was lovely in the romantic scenes; too bad Bill Paxton was flying on autopilot for the whole effort. I almost lost my lunch when he popped his big fat white behind out of his flight suit to shall we say 'engage' with Julia.<br /><br />I realized Julia was very proficient in French while watching her in 'Sabrina'. I watched 'Sabrina' with the French soundtrack to see if Julia dubbed her own dialog. They used someone else. In any case, Julia was chosen for this Dutch film over a native French speaker with sufficient English to communicate with the American flier. Perhaps they wanted at least one familiar name for the British/American market. To my unfamiliar eye, Julia's features could pass for Belgian.<br /><br />The whole film had an odd nature. It was a Dutch film about Belgium in World War 2. I would imagine that national pride would have required a theme of heroic Dutch resistance to the German invaders. The Belgians were much more passive during the occupation period than were the French or Norwegians. The most savage fighting of all came in the Balkans where Tito's communist partisans gave the Germans fits.<br /><br />I noted in another review that 'dbdumonteil' believed Julia Ormond to be an American instead of the actual British nationality. Perhaps Julia's acting skills were great enough to carry off that impression.<br /><br />After watching this film several times, it suddenly dawned on me how out of season, the film is. It is set on Junuary 16, 1944 when the American plane crashes in Belgian farm country. The trees look to be in mid-Fall with lots of leaves and the weather is warm. People walk about in light clothing and the grass is still green. There is not the smallest trace of snow or ice. This must have been the mildest winter in Belgium ever.<br /><br />The actual plot of the film was a mess. Where to begin? For anyone interested in World War 2 history, the film came across as farce. The reconnaissance plane used was a huge 4-engine converted bomber. Such aircraft did exist, but they would have required massive fighter escort to have any chance of survival. In reality, smaller and swifter aircraft were readily available and would have been far more suitable for the task. The vital code books in the film would never have been carried on the plane. The crew had no need of this information to complete their mission, while compromise of this information would have been a huge intelligence defeat. Even given the premise of the film, the first items to be stripped from the aircraft would be the code books. They would have been on their way to Berlin within 10 minutes of the arrival of German troops at the crash site.<br /><br />The Daussois home, where 'Major Brice' took refuge was a farm where no one had the least interest in farming. Food would have been very scarce in Belgium at this time. The Germans would have required substantial quantities of locally-produced food to support their forces. The family truck would have been expropriated long before the arrival of the American flier. There would not have been any fuel available to run it anyway.<br /><br />The plot twist where Henri Daussois turns in the American out of jealousy is pathetic. He would have had to reveal all he knew about the resistance in order to be allowed to live. He would have had to function as a double agent to frustrate any effective opposition. The woman with the secret radio would have never survived the war.<br /><br />'Major Brice' was caught in civilian clothing toward the end of the film. That made him a spy under the laws of war and liable for execution with no defense. He would not have meekly surrendered to face interrogation unhindered by the Geneva Convention. Better to force them to kill him and spare his friends if possible.<br /><br />I have not read the novel upon which this film is based. If this film is a faithful adaption, it shows an abysmal lack of development in the novel. Regardless of the novel, the screenwriters could easily have produced a superior script that would not waste this opportunity to deliver a much better film.
7,740	[ 800, 900 ]	700	848	Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that "Plan Nine From Outer Space" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.<br /><br />As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like "Hercules in New York" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank," which completely redefined the "bad movie" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw "Alien From L.A.," which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie "bad" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.<br /><br />The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to "Barbarella," in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.<br /><br />Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with "Hamlet." By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.<br /><br />On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.<br /><br />The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like "Alien from L.A.," though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.
7,881	[ 800, 900 ]	756	887	Curse of the Wolf starts as reluctant Werewolf Dakota (Renee Porada) manages to escape from her 'pack' & into the city where 6 months later she is working in a vet's. The rest of Dakota's pack are unhappy & want her back, their leader Michael (Todd Humes) says she will come back to them but fat Werewolf Franklin (Brian Heffron) picks her scent up & the pack decides to force the issue & get her back using her affections for her human friends including her boyfriend Danny (Dennis Carver). Can Dakota save Danny & finally rid herself of her Werewolf pursuers? I doubt you will care...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Len Kabasinski who also had a fairly large role in the film as Stick I was dreading watching Curse of the Wolf since Kabasinski was the man behind Swamp Zombies (2005) which is surely one of the worst films ever made, ever. Unfortunately my worst fears were confirmed & one has to say that Curse of the Wolf is a truly horrible film in every way, both conceptually & technically. Curse of the Wolf is the sort of film where the low budget dictates what happens & the script rather than the script dictating the budget. You get the impression that everything was written & conceived to take advantage of the few sets & actor's they had, you can almost imagine the makers saying we've got a few actor's, some basic equipment & a couple of locations so lets make a horror film around them. The story is awful (Michael finds the location of Dakota by looking at a large dog two women are taking for a walk), the character's are awful (a big fat Werewolf guy who farts a lot), the dialogue is awful (just about every line in the thing) & there's never any motivation for anything that happens (why are the pack so desperate to get Dakota back?), people just do seemingly random things & since director Kabasinski's background is in martial arts he insists in inserting lots of random martial arts fight sequences into the plot. No offence but this is meant to be a horror film not a martial arts one, isn't it? In fact apart from the presence of a few Werewolves you would be hard pushed to describe Curse of the Wolf as anything approaching a horror film. At almost two hours in length it feels like it goes on forever & is so slow & uneventful it's just not funny.<br /><br />Director Kabasinski was obviously working on a low budget but film-making this bad should be a crime. There's no continuity between shots, the fight scenes look awful & are so poorly staged it's untrue & it's sometimes impossible to follow what's going on be it because of the choppy editing & poor camera angles or the fact that it is sometimes so dark that you literally can't see a thing. Seriously there are times during Curse of the Wolf where the screen is totally black & you can't see a thing, I would hate to have to sit through this watching it on a fuzzy low resolution VHS. The sound is awful too, you can hear the wind & breeze against the microphone! There are also lots of other unpleasant & unwanted ambient sounds during just about every scene. Did the production actually have any lighting gear while making this? It doesn't feel like it. The special effects mostly consist of Werewolf mask's that look like the sort of thing shops sell at Halloween for the kids, basically they look awful.<br /><br />Technically Curse of the Wolf is as bad as they come, I'm sorry because I know this had a low budget but it's truly horrible to sit through & try to garner some entertainment from. This is high school film student quality, I'm sorry if that sounds unkind but it's a fact. The acting is, well you can probably guess so I'll stop myself right here before I say something else negative, I mean I've done enough of that already & I really take no pleasure in it.<br /><br />Curse of the Wolf is terrible, both conceptually & technically this is a real chore to sit through. Curse of the Wolf is the type of film where while your watching it time seems to stand still, it's the type of film that lasts for almost two hours yet feels like two years. One of the worst films you or I am ever likely to see, definitely one to avoid.
8,010	[ 800, 900 ]	717	880	"The Wizard of Menlo Park" was deeply responsible for many things we take for granted in 2007: even if he did not invent them without rivals or assistants, he gave birth to the electric light, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the electric car battery, the electric power grid (possibly his most important but least recalled invention), the pre-fabricated house, and innovations to the telephone and telegraph, as well as the ticker-tape machine and an early voting machine. The total number of patents is over 1,000 - far more than any other American Inventor.<br /><br />But Edison was a ruthless business competitor. He frequently had vast legal fights over the precedence of his inventions over rivals. The best example is the telephone, where he was one of seven or eight rivals with claims against Alexander Graham Bell. Actually Edison's invention here was not the central idea that Bell and Gray had come up with independently of each other in 1876, but an improvement on the sound quality of the phone receiver and transmitter that Bell did not develop. Still it was part of the huge 1888 Supreme Court decision that was the longest U.S. Supreme Court decision (a single volume of their reports!) written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite - which, by the way, killed the poor Chief Justice from overwork within weeks of completing it.<br /><br />In 1886 Edison found an equally ruthless competitor in the area of electric power grids for large cities. This was George Westinghouse, inventor of the railroad air break. Westinghouse's firm had gotten the assistance of a new inventor, and former Edison assistant, Nicola Tesla. Tesla developed "alternating current", which was a rival system to Edison's "direct current". Edison's system was basically a straight circuit system of electricity. Tesla's system allowed the current to be switched from one circuit to another - actually it was a better, and more efficient system. But Edison was determined to break this rival by a publicity campaign.<br /><br />It started with electric power lines. Edison early on had his lines put underground, so that they would not be endangered by weather conditions. But Westinghouse was forced to have his lines out in the open - like telephone lines. When there were several accidental deaths by repair linemen on Westinghouse's lines (in particular one incident where the repairman was burned alive in front of hundreds of horrified onlookers in Manhattan's business district), Edison started insisting that A.C. current was far more dangerous that D.C.<br /><br />One result of all this was Edison helping some subsidiary inventors with getting Westinghouse A.C. generators and dynamos for an electric chair. Edison himself always denied that he invented the electric chair, but he helped several lesser figures along the way - for the complete story read Mark Essig's EDISON & THE ELECTRIC CHAIR (New York: WALKER & COMPANY, 2003). <br /><br />Edison experiment himself with cats and dogs (experiments he was glad to show the public). In the long run, despite assisting in the invention of a new method of execution, Edison failed to dislodge the public support of Alternating Current. But he never stopped trying.<br /><br />In 1903 he had an opportunity to combine his campaign against Westinghouse and A.C. with his invention of the motion picture camera. He assisted in "putting down" a well known public elephant ("Topsy") who had killed several men. He did so by electrocuting the poor beast with A.C. But the entire killing is on film - and one can view it to this day. It is a pitiful looking film - whatever poor "Topsy" had done it was a poor beast - not a Machiavellian murderer. The moment we see the explosions of electricity sparks that show the death of the elephant, we are aware it will soon be over, but the sudden collapse of "Topsy" is still an unpleasant sight to view. The film leaves a bad flavor in the mouths of modern movie audiences. Yet, sad to say, it probably made a profit for Edison - his description of the film in his catalog of films shows real pride in his accomplishment here. In 1903 it may have been exciting entertainment for many Americans watching it. One is glad that more people are appalled by it today - sometimes one can sense the human race has improved a little bit.
8,119	[ 800, 900 ]	660	832	Of course I have disappeared into the movies. The Neil Young concert film 'Heart of Gold.' <br /><br />There have been many great concert films through the years. The best being Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Waltz' which filmed the Band's last concert at Filmore West. A phenomenal concert and a phenomenal film, that is if you love rock and roll and felt as if you had been born into it and were part of the music, and could be in the band if you had a better guitar and someone would show you the chords and that with a few chords and a lyric or two you could change the world...as you can guess I felt all five to the bottom of my twenty four year old soul. <br /><br />Neil Young was in 'The Last Waltz.' They had to digitally, before digital actually, they had to manually scrape a big hanging cocaine rock that extruded from his nose so in the film there's a bright light that is not the star of Bethlehem dangling above his lip and below his nostril...it's a famous bit of rock and roll history. <br /><br />But 'The Last Waltz' was made when the Band and Neil and everyone else was in their thirties and 'Heart of Gold' was filmed last year when Neil is in his sixties and his band looks as if they are in their late nineties and the entire movie could visually be used by the Christian Right and the DEA in the same way that those Ohio State Patrol films of the perils of drunk driving were used when I was in high school showing dead teenagers hanging through front windows or dangling from trees or bloody in a ditch. <br /><br />Close your eyes and it is a terrific concert, open them and view Dorian Grey's hidden portrait. Case in point, the once ethereally beautiful Emmylou Harris literally coming out of the darkness to sing with Neil and from dark to light appearing to be a ring wraith leapt full borne out of the river in front of Rivendale. Ghastly, ghostlike, a nose that doesn't appear in nature and is not an advertisement for plastic surgery, eyes that make buttons on dolls look lifelike, and the ability to express any emotion, human or not, constrained by unrestrained over indulgence in Botox. My mind reeled...porcupine...Peru...Jack Daniels...living hard for decades...my god...sweet Emmylou Harris who I saw sing for free at Fred's in Boulder, a face a 2000 year dead Pharoah would not accept. But the voice, as pure as a thick lipped bottle of Boulder beer brewed from the waters of Boulder Creek and I closed my eyes and smelled ammmmmbbbererrrrrrrrrgerrrrrrrssss (an homage...one must use homage at least once in any film review...to Fred's hamburgers on Boulder Mall and the Steve Martin Pink Panther movie). <br /><br />It would have been a terrific concert sitting in the dark in Ryman Auditorium, maybe twenty rows back. But, close up, in close ups, it was a medieval morality play depicting the horrors of indulgence and the consequences of a sinful life. <br /><br />The concert theme, emblazoned on the scenery, A Prairie Wind...the last song, massed guitars (I counted eight) and I wondered if irony was at play. I don't think so. A Native American bass player, a lead guitarist who looked and dressed like Buffalo Bill, a piano player whose face looked like the screamer's face in Munch's The Scream, the chick singers (actually matronly singers, mostly reminding one of the lost youth of senior United flight attendants still plying the friendly skies) dressed in matching full length distressed denim dresses...no it was played straight. <br /><br />None of them had seen, I would bet, A Mighty Wind. <br /><br />It will be a great CD, and would be glad to tell tales of hippy dippy Boulder when Neil was a long haired Canadian crooner whose indecipherable lyrics seemed to mirror heartache and loss, feelings as universal then as now. <br /><br />But, only in a dark bar.
8,192	[ 800, 900 ]	749	891	The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fiancé David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.<br /><br />Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.<br /><br />The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.<br /><br />Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting.
8,197	[ 800, 900 ]	673	853	"Death Machines" takes a fairly decent premise for an action movie (unstoppable martial arts killing machines sent out to eliminate a crime boss' opponents) and turns it into an unwatchable mess. I have rarely seen such a breath taking combination of tiny budget, bad acting and incoherent script released as a so-called "movie". It's easily the worst martial-arts/action oriented movie I've seen in years, eclipsing even "Ninja Holocaust" (which at least had some good energetic fight scenes). <br /><br />The actual "star" of the movie is the white "Death Machine", (it's basically his vehicle) so he is featured prominently in many more scenes than his two cohorts. He's in good shape, and he's not bad looking, but as an actor he's barely there - think Chuck Norris in "The Octagon",only without any energy or emotion.This is obviously a deliberate choice on the part of the actor and director...but you have to be Arnold to pull this kind of thing off, and this guy is no Arnold.<br /><br />The movie (and the director) can't seem to find the time (or the budget) to film the scenes that would have answered the basic questions that it originally posed, like: Who was the shadowy figure giving the marbled-mouthed Asian lady her orders? How did the "gang war" end? Why did the mush-mouthed Asian lady decide to have her zombie assassins killed? And what the heck happened that left her assistant dead and her wielding a katana like a broom stick? <br /><br />It does, however, find the time to film a completely extraneous bar fight in which a sailor (well, he looked like Popeye) destroys a bar because the juke box didn't work. It's only related to the rest of the film because in the process he also K.O.'s the movie's "hero", a bartender/karate student who was a victim of the "Death Machines" first major assignment (he got his hand chopped off while they were killing his teacher). It follows this up with one of the most un-called for "love scenes" between the hero and his girlfriend I have ever watched. The segue makes no sense - at the end of the bar-fight, she's grimacing over his splayed limp body, and the next thing they are in a "tasteful" shadow montage of sex and love that looks like it came from a Hallmark card. BTW, we never see the sailor again. <br /><br />And wait until you see the showdown between the homicide detective and his captain - it plays as if the director and screenwriter never actually saw a movie scene placed inside a police station, but had heard of them second hand and decided to include some without really knowing how they worked. <br /><br />The movie is a textbook case of poor casting and community theater-level actors floundering without decent direction. The three "Death Machines" come across as clods; the "hero" knows his lines but can't carry the movie, given that his character is an ineffective wimp; his girlfriend is a charisma vacuum; and all the other minor parts are barely watchable. All this makes for a fairly poor movie- but the "dragon lady" does more to drag the movie into subterranean stinker territory than anyone or anything else. She looks ridiculous; her tiny, inexpressive face is overpowered by her ton-o-hair skyscraper wig, she wears her red silk dress like a bathrobe, and she talks with a terrible mush-mouth delivery that screams "needed time with a dialog coach". Poor lady - she was obviously way out of her element, and as far as I know, never appeared in a film again. <br /><br />Add to this a low-budget one-synthesizer soundtrack that never shuts up and never plays anything appropriate or interesting; crappy film stock and lighting; fight choreography that is strictly from hunger; and a general all around dreariness and lack of energy in the blocking and the stage business...and you have one lame movie. <br /><br />I got this as part of a 50 movie DVD compilation, so it probably cost me about 50 cents to watch it. It wasn't worth it. Feh!
8,220	[ 800, 900 ]	649	839	"Graduation Day" was released in May 1981, during the height of the slasher film craze. Earlier that year, fans had been subjected to flicks like "My Bloody Valentine", "Just Before Dawn", "Friday the 13th Part 2", and "The Burning" and theaters still were expecting flicks such as "Halloween II", "The Prowler", and "Happy Birthday to Me". I have seen all of these films, and out of all the popular 1981 slashers "Graduation Day" is by far the worst.<br /><br />What "Graduation Day" amounts to is an exercise in poor, low-budget film-making with bad acting, bad writing, pointless characters, pointless scenes, unneeded nudity, cheesy dialogue, and an experiment in editing that didn't work so well. And who could forget the classic 80's disco music that plays throughout the film (the opening scene's music is only rivaled by the music that plays during a chase scene). However when renting a movie like this a person should be aware that those details will be in this film. So why isn't "Graduation Day" considered a classic like "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "My Bloody Valentine", "The Burning", or "Prom Night"? Why do fans still seek those films but disregard this without care?<br /><br />Where slasher films need to succeed above all other areas is in the pacing. There is nothing worse than a slow moving slasher, and "Graduation Day" moves pretty slow. The most aggravating part is that there are plenty of opportunities to speed things up; there are numerous pointless characters who are introduced and who are never allowed the chance to be a suspect in the murders or be a victim. There's a sleazy teacher, a stressed principal, a cunning secretary, a dopey school security guard, a clueless detective, an alcoholic step father, a mindless grandmother, and a mom to an earlier victim still grieving. All of these characters could have a motive to killing or a reason to getting killed, but they are all wasted. The worst part is that the story still focuses on them, and at times designates entire scenes just to flesh out their character. But for what?<br /><br />What does amaze me about "Graduation Day" and its small fanbase is that people aren't more amazed by the death scenes. Fans go wild for death scenes like the raft massacre in "The Burning", the washing-machine death in "My Bloody Valentine", the kabob death in "Happy Birthday to Me", the upside down death in "Friday the 13th Part 3", and hot tub death in "Halloween II", and even the car hood death in "Madman". But where is the respect for some truly unique (even though cheesy) deaths in "Graduation Day". One victim gets impaled right through the jugular with a fencing sword, while another gets that sword thrown at them like a javelin. The best death includes spikes under a landing mat. Why aren't these deaths famous among the genre like the deaths in more popular slasher films?<br /><br />"Graduation Day" tries hard to be a great and unique film, but there is just an element of logic and pacing missing that really ruins the whole experience. Its not the worst of its kind (try checking out "Don't Go in the Woods... Alone") and there is a bit of suspense, plus it delivers just what fans are looking for (blood, gore, nudity, sex, and nostalgia) but "Graduation Day" will not be remembered as one of the all time greatest slasher films ever made. It's not a question of budget - almost all slashers have a low-budget - however it is a question of ideas, creativity, and craftsmanship. That's all any type of movie making is...<br /><br />Recommended for hardcore slasher fans. General horror fans might get a little bored, and people who don't have much interest in horror at all should steer clear. It's not the worst slasher film ever made, but its a long way from being the best.
8,306	[ 800, 900 ]	677	875	This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.<br /><br />The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship "crashing" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this "special effect" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is "Dungeon of Harrow" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Yep, it's the same lame "I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.<br /><br />Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.<br /><br />I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.<br /><br />Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!<br /><br />I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's "The Terror" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere.
8,398	[ 800, 900 ]	694	877	I'm sort of between the gushy review and the hate review. I've been a fan of Lovecraft (and a Lovecraft 'purist') for a long time, and while this little amateur film was of poor quality it had a number of redeeming qualities. I went into viewing expecting the worst thing I've ever seen, and wondering if Lovecraft would turn in his grave over it, but I was shocked to find that I actually kind of liked it.<br /><br />I don't want to catalog the movie's faults, so I'll only mention a few that keep this movie from being a 'stellar amateur effort'.<br /><br />It's very low budget and shot on a video cam, so it has the look of some soap operas, but once you get used to the idea then it ceases to be a big deal. The direction is pretty amateur and the shot framing and use of distance in the shots is rather clumsy. STILL, this film was actually kind of creepy and it stayed more faithful to Lovecraftian intent than nearly all the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna travesties (my main exception to those films being Re-Animator and Dagon) put together. The idea of being impregnated by some Old One is reminiscent of Dunwich Horror and Shadow over Innsmouth (which isn't to say this movie is as good as those stories!!), so the overall plot is quite faithful to Lovecraft's ideas. One thing that annoyed me was that words out of the bible seemed to make a zombie prisoner upset and afraid. I'm not sure if this was meant to indicate that 'God's' words upset the Old Ones or just this particular zombie. There was no real answer to that. The rest of the Christian symbolism in it reminds me of August Derleth's take on the mythos. So in a way this was a Derleth style take on the mythos.<br /><br />I would recommend this film only as a curiosity. It shows how a fairly atmospheric movie can be made with nearly zero budget. I liked the setting of the wine cellars. The outdoor shots were sad, though. Using the same stretch of beach and trees (and nearly the same damn shot) to convey 3 characters' long journey was really sad. The director needs whack upside the head for that. The acting was standard for an amateur film, with the blonde zombie girl getting a personal award for "Best Impersonation of Gollum by an Italian Actress". Actually I think this film was done prior to the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Andy Sedaris watched her and thought "Dang, she'd make a great Gollum!" <br /><br />One little kudo to the director, though. The makeup on the zombies was like bad goth kids. I was upset seeing this and nearly stopped watching. I was like "Oh so that's how we know she's evil and possessed", but later on in the movie you see a girl painting makeup like that on the face of an older woman (both living). So it wasn't an attempt to say 'goth makeup = zombie' but rather, 'goth makeup was left on after zombification'. However, possessed/zombie does equal 'blue contact lenses'...heh.<br /><br />On the whole, I still liked this movie better than the Yuzna and Gordan films (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yuzna and Gordan had much better budgets, but this film did a better job at filming a Lovecraft-like story than they did, and on a tiny budget.<br /><br />One quick word to the the make-up artist: I know you wanted 'claws' or something on Zariah's fingers, but long, black press-on nails looked really silly.<br /><br />A quick word to the writer of the score: I know you couldn't resist, and apparently neither could the director who okayed it, but when the two characters square off with guns for a 'duel', playing that little whistle from "The Good, the bad, and the ugly" killed any mood that scene had accumulated. It was cute, but cute wasn't appropriate.<br /><br />The filmmakers of this movie have read Lovecraft and had a great deal of respect for him. I enjoyed the little nods here and there: the character Carter with the bad dreams, and the character Pickman who becomes a ghoulish zombie.
8,447	[ 800, 900 ]	703	870	The Brave One seems to indicate that the main character, of course, is brave. I'd disagree. The more brave thing to do in a situation like the one that happens to her- getting brutally beaten along with her fiancée who doesn't live another day from it- is to go after the criminals without resorting to a total distorted view of society. Jodie Foster's character, Erica, is a radio personality who's niche is walking the streets and recording what goes on. We're given no real depth aside from 'she had someone she loved, he died, the police don't pursue it, she gets a gun, yada-yada-yada, she gets somewhat but not really involved with the lead detective' into the character, and so were left with something leftover from past movies: the vigilante code of justice, where taking the power in one's own hands is all there is. But we're never too sure if Erica is sane or not, if the filmmakers take a position one way or another (that is until the end, which is such a stupid message to take anyway, dog included as overbearing metaphor), while making the New York City of today, which has become significantly safer than, say, twenty years ago, look like you'll get knifed or beaten if you go down just the right alley or just sit alone on a subway car.<br /><br />There could even be a somewhat better movie in the midst of all of this- perhaps just in the undercooked subplot with Terence Howard's detective, who is involved in some custody battle of a child that isn't his and a woman who he's not linked to and a step-father who, I don't know what aside from owning parking lots and being a bad dude- but we're left to a script that's both ham-fisted and disjointed with logic. It becomes laughable, for example, to see that at first the logical side- of Erica unable to really shoot properly, as seen in her first shooting in a convenience store at the convenient moment of a robbery of a wife by the husband- and then giving way to the illogical of her crack-shot at shooting at a pimp driving a car head on at her and killing him and ducking just in time to not get run over. It doesn't help that Jordon's style with the camera becomes a little more than insufferable: it's called a stedi-cam for a reason, not because it can weave in and out.<br /><br />Ironically, the script and direction become very good, or rather work the best they can under the desired circumstances: when looking at the actual beating scene under the bridge, caught between a video-taped point of view by one of the criminals by the regular film cam in a pace that is perfectly disorienting. And when Erica first comes back on the air to her radio show, and she freezes up trying to do her old shtick, and speaks out a 'from-the-heart' about how afraid she is- this scene, from Foster's performance, to the clear direction and script, is the best scene in the film. But aside from that, there's just a lot of posturing into a psychology that's flimsy: is she a De Niro in Taxi Driver or a Bronson in Death Wish? We have her narration over scenes, some of it doesn't have to do at all with her radio show, observing how disgusted she is with walking around at night, nothing to do but her self-imposed task of cleaning up the streets. But unlike Death Wish, a movie that held more ambiguity and never held an answer at the end in a revenge scenario, the path of endless violence just heeds to a message, one that won't be news to anyone who's seen a second of Lifetime movie-of-the-week melodrama.<br /><br />The actors make do with what's given, and in the end it becomes much more frustrating trying to stay with the anticipated, the hackneyed plot turns, and the plain old inexplicable (plus the unintentionally hilarious, like a few expletives shouted by Howard after getting shot in one scene), and the temptation to walk out grows stronger and stronger. It's a very problematic picture, with only a few moments of genuine interest and clear-headed convention-bending.
8,485	[ 800, 900 ]	720	853	First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.<br /><br />Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. (SPOILER) The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.<br /><br />As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.<br /><br />Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.<br /><br />The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him? <br /><br />This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).
8,489	[ 800, 900 ]	638	824	Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. "The Messengers," the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed "Sixth Sense," and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.<br /><br />Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.<br /><br />"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.<br /><br />The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.<br /><br />The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.<br /><br />Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.<br /><br />But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart. <br /><br />Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.<br /><br />All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.<br /><br />Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.
8,572	[ 800, 900 ]	717	863	SPOILERS With the title of the film having the name of the killer fish twice not once you would expect to see them in action attack biting ripping and eating up almost everyone in the cast of characters. Instead you have to wait until the movie is almost over for you to get as much as a glimpse of the Piranahs. Even then all you see is the water bubbling and stirring around as a poor individual disappears under it assuming that he's being eaten, whole and alive, by the fish.<br /><br />The movie "Piranha Piranha" starts with this scary looking Piranha on the screen as the credits start rolling down but**SPOILER**that's the only time in the movie that you ever get to see the killer fish or fishes you never get to see a Piranha is the movie again. What you do see is a travelogue of Venezuela and it's people and the Venezuelan jungle along the Amazon River basin. Together with a lot of nice and breathtaking photography of the landscape as well as the people and wildlife but that's about all.<br /><br />There is some kind of a story that has to do with this great White Hunter Caribe, William Smith, which ironically means Piranha in the native language spoken there, is this what the title of the film "Piranha Piranha" really meant? "Caribe Caribe"! The person Caribe is played by legendary Hollywood Hell's Angles biker and all around tough guy William Smith.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie this trio of American tourists Jim Pendrake and his sister Terry, Peter Bown & Ahna Capri, and their American guide Art Green, Tom Simcox, are on their way into the Venezuelan jungles to go sight-seeing with Terry taking photos to send back home. Terry is terrified of guns as we learn that as a young girl saw her father get his head blown off by a gun. Even when Art saves her life using one when see's attack by a six foot long diamondback rattlesnake Terry almost belts him for having a gun; which he promised her he wouldn't take along with him on the trip.<br /><br />At a jungle rest stop, or bar, the three run into Caribe who we first saw catching monkey's in the jungle at the start of the movie. Caribe makes himself more then welcomed by the three with his knowledge of the jungle and his half-baked philosophy about life and death as well as his ability to get them where their going to the local diamond mines deep in the Amazon basin.<br /><br />Even though a bit strange at first, the guy is so in to himself that he doesn't seem to notice that there are any people around him, Caribe turns out to be a swell and likable guy engaging in a long and friendly motorcycle race through the swamps and jungle with Art. Caribe even shows Terry, who at one time in the movie almost knocked his teeth out, the fine points of hunting and shooting wild game that he believes don't really die but become a part of him after he kills them! A bit crazy but you have to admit this guy's got imagination. <br /><br />It's much later in the movie that for some strange reason, maybe it was the cheap booze that he was drinking, Caribe suddenly goes insane and become homicidal attacking and raping Terry and then murdering her enraged brother and feeding him to the deadly Piranha's. Trying to escape from the rampaging lunatic and then being forced to have to fight it out with him Art gets beaten up so savagely by the dirty-fighting Caribe that he's almost left unconscious. Just when Caribe's about to finally kill Art he's shot to death by Terry who after experiencing what this insane nut-job is all about finally decided that guns are indeed very necessary and should be used to kill on very rare but life-saving occasions.<br /><br />Worth watching, if worth watching at all, only for the scenery and nothing else. It's just a shame that the movie has to advertise as a killer fish, or Piranha, horror movie when if it was honest about itself it could have been a more or less average jungle adventure flick with Smith, he does have the build for it, playing Tarzan of the Venezuelan, not African, Jungle
8,676	[ 800, 900 ]	611	842	The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them "watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination". Tookey continues "aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life", before concluding "Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.<br /><br />Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided "best film EVER!" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking "It can't be as bad as the critics said it was"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.<br /><br />Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.<br /><br />Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy / variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.<br /><br />Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...<br /><br />Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.
8,800	[ 800, 900 ]	689	850	First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie "Embryo" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of "Embryo" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why "Embryo" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's "Embryo". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson ("Giant", "Seconds"), Diane Ladd ("Chinatown", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics "Soldier Blue" and "Charly". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clichéd and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with. <br /><br />Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film.
8,861	[ 800, 900 ]	702	836	Steven Seagal is back! Here with his third film released this year. Of course as a one time fan who has become increasingly disgruntled I can say it comes as no surprise that this is pretty lame. Firstly the film made headlines because of apparent problems in production due to Seagal. He would turn up late on set, change the script, crew etc and generally cause problems for the director, Don E Faun Leroy (his lack of talent his trouble enough!). This also happens in their second collaboration the upcoming Mercenary which promises to be just as bad as this garbage. This also marks a big turning point in Seagal's career because this film is the first of his to really dig out the stock footage. There was a little in Ticker but this film takes the biscuit. They borrow bits from, The Order (A Van Damme movie, Seagals biggest rival in DTV movies!) No Code Of Conduct, Undisputed, and also an entire action sequence from the little known Peter Weller starring vehicle Top Of The World. Interestingly the car chase stolen from Weller's epic, made almost 10 years ago and ironically probably cheaper than this garbage, is actually by far the best action scene of the film. I was shocked enough when Dolph Lundgren had a brief stint in the stock action video world, which thankfully he has escaped from. Seagal though is the leader of the DTV action market currently, with Van Damme and Snipes his main rivals. Seagal still manages to sell movies and for the life of me I don't know how. Surely the fans must be getting bored of this awfulness, longing for a return to the likes of Above The Law. The story here is totally lame. In fact the film has so many plot holes it doesn't bare thinking about. For example at the end of a film there's a little girl that Seagal apparently knows at an orphanage who he gives a necklace to. Why I don't know but we never see her at all in the rest of the movie, or hear her mentioned. Seagal has a girlfriend in this movie who at the beginning of the film is with a psychic and she becomes haunted by visions, which by the end of the film are never explained and mean nothing. The film is so ridiculously glued together by a series of meaningless pap that it becomes headache inducing.. This is by far Seagal's dumbest movie! Seagal himself is as wooden as ever, however to his credit he doesn't get dubbed in this one as far as I could tell. Seagal does however feel the need to talk like he is a gangsta rapper, making me long for the days he would don his Brooklyn/Italian-American accent, in his classic early films. He also has a painfully unfunny double act with Treach, who I assume is a rapper. It is funny how producers seem to think that the combo of Seagal, plus hip-hop star seems to work, because his team up with DMX in Exit Wounds was his most successful film since Under Siege. Clearly though if no one has heard of the rapper, it won't work. This is an action film though and so the action itself must be judged. Unfortunately the action that didn't come form the NU Image back catalogue is strictly routine. There are a few small fight scenes with some classic Seagal aikido but when 90% is performed by his stunt double, who really does have a rigorous work out in this film, it really doesn't impress much. There are also some standard gun fights which really only have some nice violent and bloody squibbage going for them. All in all this is a painfully boring experience and once again I'm left giving the same verdict: Seagal has lost it! I keep asking the years old question now, "why do people still watch his movies?" That is all very well and good as a question but the sad bastard that I am continues to watch his films in the deluded hope he may do something good once again. Chances are slim, unlike Seagal's ever expanding waistline. *1/2
8,909	[ 800, 900 ]	639	816	With a title like that, you will be forgiven for thinking this film is about the great painter, Goya. Then after half an hour you decide it is more about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With even more latitude, perhaps it is just a snapshot of the period. With lurid characterisation, too many axes to grind and a scant regard for fact, Milos Forman dishes up a colourful but shambolic, rambling mish-mash that fails on all three accounts.<br /><br />Milos Forman (who lost his Jewish father to Nazi concentration camps), is the great director who painted the artist Mozart as a buffoon and got away with it. Won awards for it, in fact. His life in Czechoslovakia gave him a taste of diverse, repellent regimes, especially Communism. He also made the equally over-the-top but rather impressive, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, at the age of 74, how does he come to offer us this mess? In Goya's Ghosts, Goya is one step removed from buffoon. The main character is Brother Lorenzo, passionately acted by Javier Bardem. Natalie Portman is equally vibrant as Goya's model Ines (and later in the film, her own daughter). The tenuous connection with Goya is that he happens to paint both of them.<br /><br />Lorenzo tortures (and then rapes) Ines who he suspects of being a Jew. Her father tortures Lorenzo. Napoleon dashes in to liberate Spain (briefly). Ines gets out of the dungeon the Church has left her in and searches for her child. Goya is still painting but has gone deaf. His main preoccupation seems to be helping Ines. And so on.<br /><br />Historically, Goya was also a historian. As Forman had sadly relinquished the idea of a biopic of Goya the painter, this one fact could have been used to pull the whole film together a large slice of history as seen by Goya. But the painter is too tangential to receive any weight. Similarly, a document of the terrors of the Inquisition should be done compared to other despotic orders throughout time, the Holy See has been forgiven with barely a confession. Though one might ask if Forman is competent enough to be trusted with a factual account of anything.<br /><br />"I thought this could be the heart of a wonderful story," he says in the production notes. "There were a great many parallels between the Communist society we lived under and the Spanish Inquisition." But the story is too tenuous to hold our attention. Against our expectations and with a background of something major (the life of a great painter, the horrors of the Inquisition, and even the French Revolution), we are instead asked to feel involved in a concocted (if kind) infatuation of Goya's. The result is that we feel cheated.<br /><br />Background detail is appallingly handled. Goya went deaf in 1792 (when the film starts), not 15 years later. Napoleon is as believable as a cut-out from a cereal packet. We see the Church passing out a death sentence (when the normal procedure was for the Church to insist that the secular arm did that dirty work). Battles look overly-choreographed and stagey. A peppering of gratuitous naked bosoms hardly makes up for it.<br /><br />On the positive side, the production values are mostly good. The colours are vivid, the pacing excellent (at least until we give up on finding any worthwhile storyline.) Bardem is excellent, and Portman is a joy until she goes into overdrive as a mad woman. While it doesn't say very much about Goya, what it does say is nice, even if superficial and pretty irrelevant.<br /><br />I once had a late night drunken conversation where my friends and I asked each other, if you could choose a director to depict your life, who would it be? On his record, Forman would sadly have to be at the bottom of my list.
8,938	[ 800, 900 ]	705	851	Kairo, or Pulse as it's known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in Tokyo & starts as Sunny Plant Sales employee Michi Kudo (Kumiko Aso) decides to visit her friend Taguchi (Kenji Mizuhashi) to enquire about a computer disk he's been working on, when she gets to his place he gives her the disk but then rather inconsiderately commits suicide in front of her. Meanwhile a student named Ryosuke Kawashima (Haruhiko Kato) has recently hooked up to the internet & keeps getting spooky messages & images on his monitor so he ask's computer whizz Harue Karasawa (Koyuki) whats happening, she doesn't really know but it seems that the place where people's spirits go when they die is full & they need somewhere else to go & Earth is as good a place as any, right? These spirits don't like sharing either so they sort of make people commit suicide or turn them into ashes or something like that, I don't really know because the films a bit of a mess...<br /><br />This Japanese production was written & directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa & right off the bat I have to say I hated Kairo, I hated everything about it & it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Asian cinema can produce something as crap as any American filmmaker. The script is an overlong mess, the thing simply doesn't make any sense with scenes which seem like they are from a different film, sequences which make no logical sense or are not explained in any way & Kairo is also the most downright boring film I've sat through this year. At two hours long this is a real chore to sit through, I really wanted to fast-forward it but I'm fair if nothing else so I stuck it out to the bitter end & frankly wished I hadn't. There are so many things wrong with Kairo, I suppose the filmmakers were going for a surreal ambiguous & deliberately incoherent feel but those are traits which I despise in a film unless they are done properly. Then there's the whole internet thing which I just couldn't relate to at all, I use the internet all day & it's not in the least bit scary to me in any way. Then there's the fact that Kairo as a film provided zero entertainment value for me, maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I kind of like the films I watch to entertain me, make some sort of sense & not bore me to death.<br /><br />Director Kurosawa has made the ultimate insomnia cure as far as I'm concerned, if you have trouble getting to sleep stick this in the DVD & you be fast asleep within 10 minutes I guarantee you. I didn't think Kairo was scary in the slightest, the whole internet thing was laughable & as for scary you should see some of the penis enlargement pop-up ads I get, now that's scary! I hate this film, I hate this film, I'm sorry I just need to make that basic point again, twice. Forget about any action, tension or gore as there isn't any. If you have a very nervous disposition then there are maybe a couple of scenes which might creep you out otherwise this is kiddie friendly PG rated stuff all the way. Urgh.<br /><br />The film looks so dull & boring it's untrue, the camera just sits there for very long shots & when it does move it moves very slowly, this has all the style of a Mexican soap opera. Since Kairo is sub titled it's difficult to judge the original performances so I won't bother, it's hard to care for someone when they don't even speak the same language & you don't know what they are saying.<br /><br />Kairo is crap, I hated it & it's as simple & straight forward as that. Just because it's an Asian flick doesn't automatically make it any good & the mess of a story, the plot holes, the fact it makes no sense & it's an absolute bore means Kairo would rightly be torn to shreds by people if it were an American production. The worst film I've seen this year by some distance. Kairo got a Hollywood remake as Pulse (2006).
8,939	[ 800, 900 ]	644	812	I was so excited to finally watch "Pulse" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.<br /><br />The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of "The Devil's Rejects" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of "A Tale of Two Sisters". "Pulse" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.<br /><br />Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike "A Tale of Two Sisters", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, "Pulse" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.<br /><br />I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.<br /><br />The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.<br /><br />The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.<br /><br />Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and "WTF" for me to truly appreciate.<br /><br />Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of "Pulse" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you "Audition", "Shutter", "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Strange Circus" and "Marebito" -- all of which are more my palette.
8,955	[ 800, 900 ]	655	827	THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.<br /><br />Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.<br /><br />The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as "The Shadow" and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this "Shadow" is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great "stumbling horses" bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these "tricks" without being killed.<br /><br />Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal.
8,996	[ 800, 900 ]	656	840	I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.<br /><br />What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.<br /><br />I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.<br /><br />My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.<br /><br />This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.<br /><br />4/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.
9,149	[ 800, 900 ]	616	804	THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER in the form of a novel by Kim Edwards was a highly successful bestseller and probably was featured in more reading groups than any other novel during its circulation. So what happened when the novel became a made-for-television movie? Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story. Perhaps it is the cut and paste direction by Mick Jackson that misses the pacing and character delineation. Perhaps it suffers from the cinematography of an uncredited source or the 'liquid tears' musical score by Daniel Licht. For whatever of these (or all of these) reasons, this novel-to-film survives because it does make a good case for educating the public about the capabilities of those born with Down Syndrome. And for that it is worthy of attention. <br /><br />Dr. David Henry (Dermot Mulroney), a successful orthopedic doctor, is married to the beautiful Norah (Gretchen Mol) and their lives are becoming changed by their pregnancy. On a stormy winter night in Kentucky Norah goes into labor and the Henry's rush to a nearby clinic where David delivers his wife (the doctor is caught in a snowstorm) with the assistance of his old friend, nurse Caroline Gill (Emily Watson). After the delivery of a perfect boy child (Paul) Norah continues to be in labor and (surprisingly...) delivers an unexpected (!) twin girl. David and Caroline immediately recognize that the little girl (Phoebe) is a 'mongoloid' (this is before the use of the term Down Syndrome) and David, having a history of losing a little sister because of a birth defect) decides to send Phoebe to an asylum for the mentally challenged: Caroline is to make the delivery and Norah is told the second twin died at birth. <br /><br />Caroline follows instructions, sees the conditions of the 'home' where Phoebe is to be deposited, shrinks in horror, and decides to keep the child. Aided by a friendly trucker, Caroline changes her solitary existence and mothers Phoebe, finding a new life in her trucker's Pittsburgh. Norah insists on a formal funeral for Phoebe - a fact that deeply disturbs David's psyche, and the Henry's life goes on with only the one child Paul, leaving submerged pains about the lack of Phoebe's presence. Norah gifts David with a camera ('peoples lives are like a camera, that's where they live - in a room captured by a moment') and David becomes obsessed with photography. Norah grieves, drinks, and loses David's attention, while David traces Phoebe's existence with Caroline - sending money and letters to Pittsburgh. Paul (Tyler Stentiford to Jamie Spilchuk) grows up, discovers his mother's infidelities and is angered about his father's lack of communication and understanding, and decides to fulfill his goal of becoming a musician, and off to Juilliard he goes. Meanwhile Phoebe (Krystal Hope Nausbaum) has matured into a very highly adapted young girl, and the manner in which the broken marriage of the Henrys happens and the healing atmosphere of Phoebe's and Paul's lives coupled with the courage that has supported Caroline Gill's struggle to gain acceptance in the world for those born with Down Syndrome forms the conclusion of the film. <br /><br />The cast of well-known actors tries hard, but only Emily Watson is able to resurrect a credible character from this squishy script. Jamie Spilchuk gives evidence of a young actor with much promise. Dermot Mulroney and Gretchen find it difficult to mold empathetic characters form the corny lines they are given to deliver. The film is a mess, but the message about acceptance of Down Syndrome children and adults is an important one. Grady Harp
9,223	[ 800, 900 ]	678	826	Solomon and Sheba has come down in Hollywood lore not for the quality of the film, but for the fact that Tyrone Power died while making it. I was in the 5th grade and well remember the huge news for days when that tragedy happened. I didn't know who Tyrone Power was then, but I learned and learned to appreciate the body of his work.<br /><br />I often wonder if Ty had a sense about this film and what a dud it proved. He was the unnamed producer of this as well. Maybe he just didn't want to face the critics. Good thing Power actually went out with Witness for the Prosecution although you can see him in long shots if you look close. <br /><br />What we have here is a biblical stew that probably would baffle the great Solomon himself. Several incidents described in the Bible that the Bible treats separately are woven together into one plot with a few additions tossed in by Hollywood. <br /><br />The actual story about the Queen of Sheba is that she went on a trade mission to the Kingdom of Israel, chatted Solomon up a bit, came back with a lot of trade goods and that was that. The story of a romance between her and Solomon is of legend. The ancient kingdom of Sheba is about where Yemen is now and her people purportedly moved to the African continent which is how Ethiopia was founded.<br /><br />The Queen never witnessed Solomon's famous case involving the two women with separate claims for a baby, nor was she involved with the building of the First Temple. Nor was she around for the destruction of same. For that matter neither was Solomon.<br /><br />And she was not involved in the dispute over the succession when Solomon's brother Adonijah put in a counterclaim. That is the heart of this film. Adonijah upon hearing the news that King David is dying declares himself king. Of course David rallies temporarily and says that God came to him and said Solomon should succeed him. When David hears about what Adonijah did, he says that's what got God all bent out of shape, Adonijah being greedy. After that Adonijah gets to plotting.<br /><br />Things seem to come full circle in that Ty Power collapsed on the set while dueling with George Sanders as Adonijah. Sanders and Power were rivals in many films, most particularly in Lloyds of London which was Power's breakthrough role. If Sanders is not quite the jaded sophisticate he was in Samson and Delilah, he's still Sanders the biblical cad.<br /><br />When Power died Yul Brynner was brought in to play Solomon and given a wig so that existing footage of Power in long shot could be salvaged. Brynner invests the dialog with the proper dignity, but I think he probably regretted doing the pinch hitting.<br /><br />Gina Lollobrigida is the Queen of Sheba and she is alluring as a biblical temptress in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. She seems not to have any real conviction and my guess is she was shocked at Power's sudden demise and having to do it all over again. Marisa Pavan as Abishag may give the best performance in the film.<br /><br />The real story with Adonijah is not as elaborate as this film. He disputed with Solomon for the succession and gathered around a group of some of King David's court as supporters. Solomon pardoned them once and then Adonijah asked for Abishag in marriage. Abishag in the Bible and here was an adopted daughter of King David in his old age. When Solomon hears that, he decides Adonijah is getting greedy again and has him killed. The Bible mentions someone named Berniah who was going around basically doing contract hits on Adonijah's supporters.<br /><br />What we have in the film is a spectacular climax involving a miracle that I searched for and couldn't find. It came from the fertile imagination of director King Vidor who ended a long and distinguished career on a sour note. It was a question of Vidor trying to out do Cecil B. DeMille in biblical spectacle. <br /><br />He didn't make it.
9,306	[ 800, 900 ]	674	887	Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.<br /><br />Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!<br /><br />To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.<br /><br />The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre.
9,536	[ 800, 900 ]	716	861	THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.<br /><br />The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.<br /><br />The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.<br /><br />The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.<br /><br />You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.<br /><br />Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.<br /><br />The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.<br /><br />There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.<br /><br />The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.<br /><br />The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.<br /><br />Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.<br /><br />I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!<br /><br />The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.<br /><br />If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.
9,760	[ 800, 900 ]	708	829	Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).<br /><br />The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem.<br /><br />Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.<br /><br />Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life.<br /><br />The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.<br /><br />What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out <br /><br />The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.<br /><br />The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.
9,782	[ 800, 900 ]	662	843	In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.
9,869	[ 800, 900 ]	682	866	Strikes me as routine, as far as TV movies go. I can believe that it's based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills.<br /><br />For instance, good old John Ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill, then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. Fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. Why fourteen years? I would guess that though the narrative doesn't demand it, history does.<br /><br />Some of the particular scenes, however, are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. Pawing through her attic, Helgenberger, Ritter's first wife, stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black-and-white flashbacks with stings on the score -- suddenly she recalls when, fourteen years ago, she discovered Ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier, carefully collecting them, and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it's called). Later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well.<br /><br />Frankly, I don't believe it. I don't believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that Ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. Selenium is referred to in the movie as a "toxic metal" and I suppose it is, in sufficient quantity, but it's also an anti-oxidant that's sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. Someone will have to demonstrate -- as no one does in this movie -- that it is a topical poison. Many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. So how come some selenium in her shampoo gives Marg Helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches? And her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup? I think the anthropologist E. B. Tylor called this simple-minded idea "sympathetic magic," but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Mais je divage. Anyway Ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later, although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. Wife Number Two is taken to Mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. Circumstantial evidence piles up against Ritter, who plays the villain with all the stops out -- when his first trial is dismissed he SMIRKS at Helgenberger, who has prompted the investigation.<br /><br />You see, Helgenberger was good friends with Ritter's second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (I'll bet.) And she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in Ritter's marital schedule. (Sure.) The best performance is given by the guy who plays Detective Mauser -- Lawrence Dane? Everyone else acts by the numbers. They project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. But Dane does little things that are original. "I'm told you want to report a murder. (Long pause while he sits down and waits), then abruptly thrusts his face towards Helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice, "So who was murdered"? I suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events, nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. I mean, what the heck, Ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and Helgenberger's character is dead, so who is to object? I wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. Ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals -- let me see, selenium, cyanide, a massive dose of chlorine, and maybe something else -- that I was confused by it all. Not that I was rooting for Ritter. Here's a mathematician with a Ph.D. who insists people call him "doctor." He even corrects people who address him merely as "professor." Most Ph.D.s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. "Jes' call me Whitey, even though I know how to get a standard deviation and you don't." Average TV fare.
10,103	[ 800, 900 ]	643	822	Some describe CALIGULIA as "the" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.<br /><br />For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited "R" and original "Unrated" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.<br /><br />The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.<br /><br />Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.<br /><br />In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.<br /><br />On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.<br /><br />The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
10,111	[ 800, 900 ]	625	803	Although its plot is taken from the history of ancient Rome, 'Caligula' is not made in the style of sword-and-sandal epics like 'Spartacus' or 'Gladiator'. (That style of movie-making was out of favour in the late seventies). Rather, it more closely resembles a cross between a soft-core porn movie and a video nasty. At least, the shortened 150 minute version does. I have never seen the full 210 minute version, but to judge from the descriptions of it on this page, it would seem closer to a cross between a hard-core porn movie and a video nasty. <br /><br />As one would expect from a film produced by the publisher of 'Penthouse', there is much naked flesh to be seen, and the film lovingly catalogues Caligula's sexual perversions, including his incestuous affair with his sister Drusilla. What is perhaps unexpected from the publisher of a magazine so closely associated with the heterosexual male lifestyle is that there is as much male flesh as female on display and distinctly homoerotic overtones to many scenes. The obsession with sex is balanced by an equal obsession with violence, as though Bob Guccione, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass were trying to kill two taboos with one stone. (It is a remarkable coincidence that the director of such a brazen film should be called 'Brass' and the scriptwriter of such a gory one should be called 'Gore'). Characters are put to death or mutilated in a variety of sadistic ways, and there is a charming scene of homosexual rape. <br /><br />The Emperor Caligula and his predecessor Tiberius were certainly known for their debauched lifestyles, so the film's concentration on sex and violence is not necessarily historically inaccurate. I do, however, question whether such a concentration is necessary to help us understand this period in Roman history. Both 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' and 'Gladiator' were set during the reign of Commodus, an Emperor quite as cruel and licentious as Caligula. In neither case did the filmmakers find it necessary to turn their film into a mixture of 'Up Pompeii!', 'Emmanuelle' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', and both those films are artistically far better than 'Caligula'.<br /><br />The acting in the film is not particularly bad, with a few exceptions such as the horribly wooden Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla. Malcolm McDowell makes a suitably insane Caligula. (Suitable, that is, in the context of this film. The real Caligula was doubtless both cruel and eccentric, but historians have debated whether he was actually mentally ill). The great mystery is exactly why so many distinguished British actors should have agreed to take part in such a trashy production. In the case of Helen Mirren (the only Dame of the British Empire with a past as a porn star) it was probably connected to her rather regrettable tendency to alternate between the highbrow and the sleazy, but heaven alone knows what Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud thought they were doing. Unlike some other famous stage actors, such as Laurence Olivier and Richard Burton, Gielgud did not always look completely at home in the cinema, but here he gives a dignified interpretation of the role of Nerva, a decent and honourable Senator of the old school. Unfortunately, in the context of this film any attempt at dignity is as out of place as a pearl on a dunghill. <br /><br />Guccione clearly succeeded in his ambition for this film to become something of a cult classic of decadence. (Whether Brass and Vidal had quite the same ambition for the film is open to question). The film does not, however, succeed upon any other level, either as art cinema or as a study of the politics of dictatorship. Even seen as erotica it is second-rate. 4/10
10,264	[ 800, 900 ]	668	806	Stealing is a crime, and these guys, Kenny Yakkel and Corbin Bernsen look like their going to get away with it. I haven't even seen this film, but not only do i know it sucks, but the fact that it steals the story of another film, or 2 films for that matter, is such bull crap (and if IMDb would allow profanity much more than just bull crap) that I become filled with rage and feel as though I should just throw myself out the window and just end it all. O.k that's a little much but stealing is worse.<br /><br />Ever seen Pontypool? It was this awesome little zombie film made in 2008, this radio host goes into work, and then this zombie attack happens. We only see what's going on inside the radio station, and the only guess we have on what's happening on the outside are the occasional calls from their eye in the sky Ken Loney (easily the funniest moment in the film in my mind) and the BBC calling in for an update on the situation. From all the reviews I've read, and from the conversation I had with my friend (who has seen this film and Pontypool) this film was exactly like it in the story, with minor tweaks here and there. So throw originality and creativity out the window. As for the Zombies, or the infected, whatever you want to call them. They are the exact same thing, just because they got infected does not change the fact that they walk around mindlessly, and have a never ending quench for flesh. They are Zombies. ZOMBIES!!<br /><br />ZOMBIES!!! Okay one to many, but back to this crappy movie. The Zombies from what I've heard are a lot like the ones in 28 Days Later, another better movie, with their insane rage and even more insane quench of flesh. This is where Zombie movies define themselves, story does not matter in a zombie movie (as long as your not taking the idea of another film). Sure a zombie movie can be enhanced by the story, as is the case with Pontypool, but the zombies have to be, in a way, original. 28 Days Later started the insane raging Zombie. Pontypool I can't even begin to explain those guys without ruining the film. The Evil Dead, I think all i have to do is just type the name again because, come on it's The Evil Dead. Romero is the master, and he went through all different types of zombies, from the painted face zombies in Dawn of the Dead to raging zombies in Diary of the Dead, and he did each one with his own unique style.<br /><br />So, after talking about other great zombie movies, I think it's about time I explain why I hate this movie without even seeing it. This movie down right steals the original story outline to Pontypool which i think is called plagiarism and is illegal in this country and many people get kicked out of school for doing this very thing, yet in Hollywood it's allowed, and apparently approved of. This is not the only film that takes the outline of another movie, and just tries to tell it differently. The 90's is like the worst period for movies ever, sure it had some gems but what decade doesn't, and it's because all the movies were the exact same. My favorite, the crime movie with a twist so big that you'll never guess it till the very end. They force feed you one suspect, make it seem impossible that it's not anybody else but him, then, bam, all this time it was this guy, you just had to look at the scenes where he wasn't there and then when he would mysteriously show up out of the blue, say "hey guys, what did i miss?" OH! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YA! Well, I'll leave a cliché as my closing statement. This is one film you'll surely want to miss.
10,485	[ 800, 900 ]	621	800	Is the Cannes controversy-meter remarkably esoteric, or is that we Americans are so callous and cynical that we never bother to read between the lines anymore? Be that as it may, with plenty of careful analyzing, "Falscher Bekenner" at no point seems to live up to the hyped controversy it supposedly brought to Cannes in 2005, a puzzlingly drab and aimless movie that rather lives up to it's glum American re-title ("Low Profile").<br /><br />Building on familiar themes of Bourgeoise angst and subsequent sexual liberation (kind of), admittedly it's a film not without it's surface-level interests. It starts out with a grabber, as a haunting shot of a desolate off-the-highway road focuses in on a teenage drifter, who ultimately walks by a totaled car, where supposedly a brutal hit-and-run has left the driver dead in a gory mess. Stunned, he does nothing but pick up a scrap of the remaining engine.<br /><br />Just out of school, the drifter turns out to be Armin Steebe, a product of the German suburbs with minimal ambition. Persisentily pressured by his caring but somewhat nagging parents to find a good job, he endures interview after interview with every haughty interviewer along with it, every one with the same fruitless outcome. Getting mighty sick of it, his aforementioned highway encounter soon provokes his first act of rebellion: claiming responsibility for the crime which he did not commit.<br /><br />Pretending to fill out more applications and going to more and more bizarre job interviews by sunrise, he partakes in roadside sexual fantasies and petty vandalism way after sundown. As the days get shorter and the nights get much hotter, as he goes on living in his suburban neighborhood as if he's doing nothing out of the ordinary.<br /><br />If you seem confused about what exactly is going on, don't worry about being the only one: this is about as far and coherent as the story gets. The plot seems simple enough, and perhaps due to it's seemingly direct purposes that's why "Falscher Bekenner" becomes pointlessly convoluted, becoming enamored with endless false conclusions, dreamlike situations and graphic sex scenes to try and enlighten a story lacking clear logic to an already vague argument (supposedly the soul-numbing effects of the modern suburban wasteland, or something about youth's fascination with crime. Hey, it could even be a coming-out movie.) at hand. It spends a lot of time creating numerous symbols, both tangible and surrealistically allegorical, but they don't seem to be really symbolizing anything of interest. <br /><br />The most fatal flaw, however, is how the filmmakers paint all it's characters in a rough shade of vanilla. There's hardly any distinguishable traits to help understand their purpose, and how the secondary characters (especially the confused relationship between Armin and his rather normal- perhaps too normal- family) catalyze the already under-developed lead character's "plight" never comes into focus. How are we supposed to identify with this young almost-adult's rebellion, with little sense of the world he's living in or the prominent figures around him that help comprise it? <br /><br />Many people drop in and out of the movie (including Armin's sort-of girlfriend Katja, and a strange, affluent visitor who for some reason finds pleasure in watching the protagonist eat brownies) and seem to exist for no reason whatsoever. They ultimately just seem like prolonged padding to an already thin story with pointless subplots that continue to prove the movie is drawing a total blank about where to go next.<br /><br />And even a movie that supposedly toys with reality (especially with Armin's nightly exploits), it ends with a literal, almost moralizing head-scratcher that seems to halt questions to a "story" that does little but put it's viewer in a state of pointlessly exhausted perplexion.<br /><br />Without any color, it's impossible to shade anything vital in.
10,554	[ 800, 900 ]	650	818	After the opening credits over a black sheet of paper with spots of white paint sprayed onto it, oh OK I'll be generous and call it a star field, we witness an alien spacecraft crashing into a meteorite and being forced to land on earth. A terrible looking model spacecraft lands on a terrible looking model field. Three nearby campers investigate. From the burning spacecraft a reptile like looking alien, the 'Nightbeast' emerges, OK so I lied it's a guy in a dodgy rubber monster mask and silver spacesuit. The campers are quickly killed by the Nighbeast's laser gun which shoots awful special effects at people. The towns Sheriff Jack Cinder (Tom Griffith) is informed. He alerts his deputy Lisa Kent (Karin Kardian) and gathers a posse of men together to investigate. Meanwhile the Nightbeast has killed an unlucky motorist who stopped on the side of the road for a leak. His two annoying kids run for help. They approach a house, inside two young people are kissing, the girl says "someones running towards the house". The guy gets up to take a look and is attacked and gutted by the Nightbeast, it kills the girl as well. Then it manages to kill the two kids with his laser, maybe the Nightbeast ain't so bad after all. Once the Sheriff and his men arrive at the scene they have a gun/laser battle with the Nightbeast. After possibly the most unexciting gun fight in film history only the Sheriff, his deputy and a local man Jamie Lambert (Jamie Zemarel) survive. But the Nightbeast is still alive, bullets seem to have no effect on it. The next day the Sheriff visits the towns Mayor, Bert Wicker (Richard Dyszel) and his girlfriend Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) to get permission to evacuate everyone in the town. He refuses saying a party he is holding for the Governor (Richard Ruxton) cannot be cancelled, and that he doesn't want to create a panic situation. The Sheriff evacuates the town anyway. Two doctors, Steven Price (George Stover) and Ruth Sherman (Anne Firth) are attacked by the Nightbeast before they can leave. However, they manage to scare the Nightbeast away and survive. Together with the Sheriff his deputy and Jamie they decide to stay behind and fight the alien. Written and directed by Don Dohler this has to be an amateur film, made with family and friends, look at the credits and see how many Dohler's are involved. For that reason I should probably cut it some slack but that still doesn't stop it, or excuse it from being a throughly awful film in every department. It has no story or purpose, things just happen to waste time, whats with Drago (Don Leifert) strangling his ex girlfriend Suzie (Monica Neff)? This and many more scenes add nothing to the film. The script has no logic either, why does the Nightbeast stick around the town once it's been supposedly evacuated? The special effects are embarrassingly bad, just look at the effect when the Nightbeast shoots someone with his laser, a computer effect an 80's spectrum would be ashamed of. There's not really much blood or gore in it, a ripped open stomach, a severed arm and a decapitation but they all look predictably poor. Credit where it's due, the Nightbeast itself looks alright for the most part. There's a sex scene between the Sheriff and his deputy which has to be seen to be believed, music that even a porno would be embarrassed about and two really ugly naked people make this a difficult sequence to watch. Less than stellar acting, photography, music, lighting and editing make it a real chore to sit through. And the worse thing about this film? It commits the mortal sin of being boring and not fun in the slightest. Sorry Don mate, but don't give up the day job! Definitely one to avoid.
10,805	[ 800, 900 ]	663	840	I went to see this movie to kill some time. I remember Cole Hauser in "Tigerland", and although his acting is wooden, he does portray a tough "leader" character. Same here. This movie was about a bunch of young, hot scientists and divers exploring a cave in Romania that one has to dive to see. The beginning scene was very interesting, with a bunch of Romanian or Russian men exploring the cave in search of booty. Flash forward 30 years, and we have a team of divers called in by some scientist and his crew to explore some cave for some unknown scientific purpose. <br /><br />There is a lot of clichéd, useless talk. The women are too hot for their jobs, let's face it. I hate to watch the lips of these women talk about the guys while drinking beer at the pre-cave exploration party. I mean it was like we were at some bar with frat and sorority types talking about the opposite sex--not a group of scientists and divers. Every character had ZERO personality, with perhaps exception of the scientist, who at least wasn't one of the young and beautiful people. So, the acting, although workmanlike, was not inspiring. <br /><br />The dialog was pretty bad. At one point in the movie, Cole Hauser ("Jack"), the lead diver--his irises morph into the Cingular wireless symbol, and stay like that. We are led to believe that, since he was scratched by one of these monsters, that he is turning into one of them. Fair enough. But first of all, nobody says the obvious thing to him: "What is up with your EYES, dude??" No. Everybody just talked about how he's "changed" and that he should not be the leader of the group anymore. And then this guy says, "you see how he's not HUMAN". Huh? If they really believed he was a friggin' monster, then why not act like it? Instead, the group splits in two--those who go with Jack, and those who go their separate ways, I guess thinking him to be a monster. It makes no sense.<br /><br />The best scene in the movie was this blonde diver woman crawls up a cave wall, and gets attacked by this goblin. Her scream really sucked--but she fought like hell to dispatch the goblin.<br /><br />The photography was fine when the camera was STILL. But any action sequences, the director found it useful to confuse the hell out of us by flashing bubbles, flashlights, dark space, god knows what. I wish they would just show us a scene straight once in awhile. Just because you move the camera all over the place doesn't make the movie any SCARIER, folks. <br /><br />This movie could have been a lot better if the following changes had been made:<br /><br />1. every actor was replaced by someone who looked real. Let Cole Hauser be the lead, it's OK to let him be the good-looking one. I'm getting tired of seeing 20-something supermodel scientists. Give me a break, people!<br /><br />2. The cinematographer was fired, and replaced by one who just pointed the camera and sat still. This could be the director's fault, I don't know. Jumpy camera (as in Constant Gardener) is getting old, folks.<br /><br />3. We got to see the goblins actually devour the people. How bout some gore? There's not much else in this movie. We barely got to see the creatures--I felt a little ripped off about that. <br /><br />4. The ending was pretty lame. During the denouement, the sexy British scientist has a secret...guess what that is? It's a bit canned. The ending would have been better if they all died instead of the Black guy (Morris Chestnut), who seemed to breathe a little sympathy into his character just by his worried expressions. All the other actors had NO expression.<br /><br />I gave it a 4 out of 10, because after all, the acting was without noticeable errors, and the concept was fairly original. I'd like to see Cole do more military roles--he's good at it.
10,809	[ 800, 900 ]	663	868	Mixed group of "experts" (explorers, divers and scientists) venture a mile underground and go another 2.4 miles underwater to a spot even more remote, where they find salamanders, giant albino moles (??) and some big, razor-fanged, winged, computer generated creatures lurking about. The cave is sealed off by a rockslide and then the monsters attack and start killing everyone off as they search for an exit. And that's all she wrote with this low-aiming effort that even fails to combine action, science fiction and horror on the most elementary of levels. Imagine if someone gave the folks at the Sci-Fi Channel 30 million dollars to make a monster movie. That's precisely what THE CAVE is like; almost startling in its ineptitude at times, full of clichés and almost entirely dependent on the special effects to entertain. The only difference is they had more money to build sets, more money to polish up the monsters and more money to hire supposedly professional actors who give awful performances anyway. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Some of these movies are still fun to watch. This one is not and there are loads of reasons why: <br /><br />1.) It takes itself far too seriously and has no sense of humor whatsoever. So you get a completely unoriginal and predictable movie that doesn't even recognize how unoriginal and predictable it is. <br /><br />2.) The opening sequence serves no purpose whatsoever other than killing a few minutes and adding to the redundancy.<br /><br />3.) Unoriginal looking CGI creatures are not impressing anyone in this day and age. <br /><br />4.) Utilizing shakycam and quick-cut editing for your horror scenes is simply lazy, unimaginative film-making. And why further obscure the action by making things too dark AND adding annoying distractions, such as fire and explosion of bubbles? It makes these scenes not only difficult to see, but also impossible to enjoy even on a no-brainer action level.<br /><br />5.) Even though it wants you take to it seriously, the script is full of clichés, the dialogue is awful and there's no attempt whatsoever at characterization. Casting 25-year-old-looking model types in roles as brilliant scientists and gruff veteran explorers might provide some eye candy but it completely kills the credibility of a movie that otherwise plays out completely straight. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.<br /><br />6.) There were two exceptions to the model rule, as they did decide to cast an old guy and an average looking Joe. These were the first two characters killed off. <br /><br />7.) For a little diversity, they also squeezed in a black guy and a Chinese guy. Strangely, neither are given much of a voice in this film and basically stand in the background as whitey discusses what their next move will be. Insulting. <br /><br />8.) Furthermore, how many movies have to be made where a black character sacrifices his life at the very end just to ensure Hot White Female Lead and Hot White Male Lead end up together at the end? Ugh. Give me a break already.<br /><br />9.) Much of the acting was HORRIBLE. Cole Hauser's performance was completely laughable. The other male lead looked like he just walked off the set of a Soap Opera and coasted by using the patented dimpled-smile-makes-all-the-ladies-swoon technique, which is the PG-13 gender-switch equivalent to my-large-breasts-make-all-the-guys-swoon technique often used by ladies in R-rated films. Either way, his performance was completely phoned in. Daniel Dae Kim (from the TV series "Lost") and Piper Perabo also stunk up the room with their stilted and monotone line delivery.<br /><br />10.) Was the ending a joke? Absolutely terrible. Please God, we do not need a sequel to this garbage.<br /><br />So basically I wouldn't bother with this one, unless you've never seen a monster movie before or if you're just really desperate and the only other thing on is "The Simple Life." The sets were good, the blue-tinted photography is OK and a few of the actors (Lena Headey, Marcel Iures...) tried their best, so I decided to boost the rating up one notch to a "2."
10,810	[ 800, 900 ]	697	808	I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.<br /><br />So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.<br /><br />Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.<br /><br />I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.<br /><br />Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than "run!" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.<br /><br />Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.<br /><br />So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.<br /><br />My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=cave
10,816	[ 800, 900 ]	720	871	I can't help but forget that incredible scene in Alien, when the extra terrestrial burst out of one of the men's chest. Or even in Predator when the invisible monster snuck upon the bewildered soldiers and cut them to pieces. Both these movies expressed fascinating ideas on the run-of-the-mill creature feature. Back track to the era of cheesy B-movies and watch big men in phony suits parading around killing people in small towns. Now recognize that the two movies above revolutionized this genre. The Cave does nothing to improve on it. It tries nothing new, and worst of all, The Cave doesn't even have good gore. Shame on them, shame on them all. <br /><br />Parading around in sexy spandex are the one-dimensional characters of The Cave. All of which seem to not care when they witness the death of their colleagues. They just stroll along, unbeknownst to the evil creature lurking in the darkness. The plot is very easy to understand. So you got the two brothers, the black guy and the sexy female scientist. The rest (by the rest I mean all of those meet grisly demises) are even more unexciting then the others. We have the Korean assistant, the risky outdoor chick, a Russian scientist and two divers, both lacking a sense of emotion and are stupid enough to wander off by themselves. This movie exceeds to be extremely clichéd, since everybody but the black guy, one of the brothers and the female scientist meet an end. It also seems only Americans can survive the terror, since the Russian and the Korean die. Don't be offended if I give away details. There's no real surprise anyway.<br /><br />To be straight forward they find this cave. They go in the cave. They get stuck in the cave. They start dying in the cave. One of them gets infected in the cave. More die in the cave. They get out of the cave; only to discover that one of them has a parasite that will turn them into a ghastly monster, which really doesn't seem to bother them. That's the simplicity of the lackluster plot. It doesn't even try to be original. It even has the part where they decide their leader isn't capable and split up. We have just seen this way to many times before.<br /><br />I know in a movie like this, people don't care about the performances but it's worth mentioning how bad they were. Everyone is just so dreary. Cole Hauser was especially unsophisticated and don't get me started on Eddie Cibrian, who is frequently a lot better. Morris Chestnut is hands down the best thing in the movie. His performance is actually decent. He portrays the guy who calms everybody down. All the other actors are average at best. In a show like this, that's really not a bad thing.<br /><br />Now to the reason we go to this genre of film; the action, of course. Well, to my regret, the action was dull. The death scenes are all boring, hell the whole movie was. There is barely any blood at all. It's either they disappear and found later or they are attack and die without a bruise. Seeing the Koreans man's death was the only exciting action I could find. <br /><br />It's pretty amazing. The bad things over shadow most of the things that are good. A good example is to say the special effects were well done, which they were. The only thing wrong is that since everything takes place in a cave, it's going to be dark. I found it extremely hard to distinguish between the cave walls and the monsters. So it was pretty hard to even see the creatures. Although I liked the special effects, there was nothing original about the monsters. They all resembled each other and they weren't frightening at all.<br /><br />The Cave marks the directorial debut for Bruce Hunt. I don't see what he was trying to accomplish by making this film. He obviously made a huge mistake. Almost everything about this movie stunk like a stink bomb. A stink bomb is probably even more pleasurable than watching this mess again. Only the most forgiving moviegoer will find this forgivable. I gave up all hope in the middle of the film when I heard the phrase "what the hell was that", for the third time.
10,946	[ 800, 900 ]	641	807	Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.<br /><br />Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.<br /><br />It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.<br /><br />So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?<br /><br />Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.<br /><br />I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.<br /><br />At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.<br /><br />3/10
10,991	[ 800, 900 ]	695	803	There's something going on in this film directed by X-Files scribe John Shiban that has eluded me. You get that feeling as the film moves that everything is not what it seems, yet I feel the movie fails at giving you enough to go on to truly care afterward. It's about perception. There are characters the heroine Nicole(Jaimie Alexander)meets in the film that she talks to that up and vanish. This might seem like a spoiler, but it's something that really only inherits a wee bit of focus on the filmmakers' part. They seem to be poking fun at us as we watch curious at whether we should trust what Nicole is seeing or not. It never gets a proper answer and I for one was a bit clueless at the point. There comes a time in a film when ambiguity can just be frustrating because the viewer is led on a wild goose chase that ends at a dead end with little explanation at what we just saw..it ultimately feels like an exhausting exercise instead of a thrilling psycho-drama. Now there's nothing wrong with ambiguity itself, but give us something to latch onto or you will evade us. That's how I felt as I watched "Rest Stop." This film is supposedly about a young woman named Nicole who decides to run off to California with lover Jesse(Joey Mendicino)to make it big in Hollywood. They make what is supposed to be a slight detour at a rest stop so that Nicole can pee, but it descends into terror for her when she finds that her Jesse is completely missing. Someone in a crusty, dusty yellow truck is a nut job who seems to be causing a lot of trouble to Nicole and we soon realize that he is behind Jesse's disappearance when things start to occur, signs provided to her if you will, she will have to find a way out of a very difficult situation. Nicole is far from any existing town and with limited resources to defend herself against a maniac who provides her with some strong evidence of how evil he can be.<br /><br />That's the easy part. When a female character comes into play, the film makes a really bizarre leap from logic as we are not sure where she ever came from, how she got there, and more importantly where she goes once Nicole tries to break her free from her supposed prison in the restroom's utilities' cabinet. She meets another, a Police officer in the area(Joey Lawrence), who might seem like her savior, but when he too is a victim of the truck driver startling things occur again that questions if he was ever actually even there to begin with. The truck driver commits torturous acts to Nicole(like holing her up in the restroom and as she tries to untie a wire that the killer has wrapped around the door lock, she receives a nasty bite from him). He then sets fire to the restroom leaving her without a lasting place of refuge from the beast.<br /><br />It's the timing of the truck driver's attacks that has me listless. Perhaps he just likes tormenting her, but he appropriately appears in certain situations where Nicole has time to flee or prepare. It doesn't make much sense, his motives, which propel the film into an illogical idea. Why does he make himself so obvious? Why does he allow her to prepare? It seems, I'm going out on a limb here, that he likes having his quarry believe they can find a way of escape only to stomp that hope out when he comes up with his next grisly attack. Yet, why does Shiban decide to play with the viewer by having Nicole experience odd meetings with people that don't exist? What is Shiban and the writing team trying to say? And, to cap off the film's unhinged weirdness is a family in a RV. They play a small part in the scheme of things as religious bigots themselves, but the film doesn't do enough for the viewer to explain why they should be in this film at all.
11,224	[ 800, 900 ]	642	846	Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? UmyeahPronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie "Dial: Help" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but "Dial: Help" revolves on err never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted "Dial: Help" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent "Dial: Help" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?
11,241	[ 800, 900 ]	701	871	End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.<br /><br />That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.<br /><br />I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:<br /><br />(SPOILER)<br /><br />After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?<br /><br />Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.<br /><br />All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?<br /><br />The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.<br /><br />As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and falls on it physically.<br /><br />The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.<br /><br />How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.<br /><br />In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.<br /><br />Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?<br /><br />Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".<br /><br />The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire. <br /><br />(END SPOILERS)<br /><br />It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.<br /><br />Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
11,285	[ 800, 900 ]	665	846	Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like "The Avengers" and the remake of "Diabolique" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget. <br /><br />A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.<br /><br />If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.<br /><br />The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.<br /><br />Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.<br /><br />But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.<br /><br />Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.<br /><br />The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.<br /><br />Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!
11,300	[ 800, 900 ]	742	885	I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.<br /><br />I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.<br /><br />Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.<br /><br />The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.<br /><br />The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.<br /><br />The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.<br /><br />There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.<br /><br />The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.<br /><br />Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.<br /><br />Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug.
11,372	[ 800, 900 ]	729	881	Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.<br /><br />The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.<br /><br />In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.<br /><br />Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.<br /><br />Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny.
11,460	[ 800, 900 ]	547	817	*SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call "Cimarron" a "film", because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.<br /><br />Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. "Hello," the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.<br /><br />Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. "Mommy! Mommy!" he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. "Look what an Indian gave me!"<br /><br />"How many times do I have to tell you!" she snaps at the boy. "You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!"<br /><br />Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.<br /><br />Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one<br /><br />at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. "Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?" Isaiah says with a pout.<br /><br />"No!" Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. "You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!"<br /><br />The characters--not to mention the actors--in "Cimarron" couldn't<br /><br />act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...<br /><br />Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,<br /><br />and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.<br /><br />Not only was this story not "shooting for realism", but it was very<br /><br />lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)<br /><br />Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in<br /><br />Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on<br /><br />calling his paper "The Oklahoma Wig-Wam."<br /><br />Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called "spaghetti westerns" of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.<br /><br />If you like cliche westerns, "Cimarron" will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.<br /><br />
11,497	[ 800, 900 ]	622	808	I'm really surprised seeing all these positive reviews for this movie. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like 'these kind of movies'.<br /><br />While I very well can enjoy a good mindless Hollywood action blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0, I like the 'dogma' kind of movies, or 'real-life-as-it-is'-movies just as much, IF they are well made.<br /><br />A good example is Festen (1998): no music, no dramatic camera angles, no special fx, no fancy locations. Just a good story combined with excellent acting and the result is an excellent movie.<br /><br />Is Nine Lives devoid of dramatic camera angles, special fx and fancy locations? Yes. Is it a good movie? I'm glad you asked. <br /><br />The answer is: Absolutely not.<br /><br />First of all, everyone is raving about the acting performances. I'm terribly sorry, but you can act all you want, but if the story and the dialogue is not believable, the acting falls on its behind immediately. And that is exactly the case with Nine Lives.<br /><br />Not once did I have the feeling while watching 'Nine Lives' that I was watching real people having a real conversation. I had the feeling I was watching actors trying to come across as 'real characters' while they were were saying things a 'real person' would never say under the circumstances.<br /><br />You can hardly call it a SPOILER, but there are some dialogue excerpts below. If you think that reading ten lines of (ridiculous) dialogue will ruin your movie experience STOP READING HERE. If you want a good laugh, continue reading.<br /><br />The dialogue was often so ridiculous that it was tragical. You want examples? Plenty of those in 'Nine Lives'.<br /><br />EXAMPLE1:<br /><br />Picture this. Couple visits their filthy rich friends in their new mansion. Woman sees this castle of a house and says to her husband:<br /><br />Woman: I could get used to this (meaning the expensive house). Man: Don't. Woman: Why not? It could be. Man: No. They are who they are and we are who we are. Woman: I like the sound of that -- we are who we are.<br /><br />She likes the sound of that? Her man is acting like a jerk, but she likes the sound of that. Then an elderly couple walks past them holding hands. This is what the woman comes up with:<br /><br />Woman: Look! They are like children after school. They lived through so much. Shared everything. I love you.<br /><br />They are like children after school? And then the most overused cliché lines you ever heard? Finishing with 'I love you'? She says this while her man is being a jerk to her? Yes, very logical, very realistic, NOT. If anything, this kind of dialogue made me wanna strangle some of the characters in the movie for saying these horrible, horrible things.<br /><br />EXAMPLE 2:<br /><br />Elderly mom, dad and younger daughter at a funeral. Dad: I didn't realize Andrew was religious. Mom: It's for comfort. Daughter: It's for strength. Mom: Life is fleeting. Dad and daughter BURST OUT LAUGHING. <br /><br />Yeah, this one-liner cracks me up any time, especially at a funeral! Sorry, I must have missed the joke here.<br /><br />And it goes on and on and on....<br /><br />How about the camera work? Don't even go there. 'Boring' would be a compliment. It supposed to come across as 'realistic'; instead, you miss half of the actors facial expressions (the only thing left to watch in this movie), while half the time the camera is aimed at someone's back or side instead of the face.<br /><br />Conclusion? Well, don't say I didn't warn you! It's a good movie to rent if you want to make out with your date or something during the movie, because you won't even care whether the movie is playing or not after the first five minutes.<br /><br />Overrated and more boring than watching grass grow kinda sums it up.
11,674	[ 800, 900 ]	734	855	Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies "Psycho" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast. The best way to describe this movie is by comparing it step by step, acting by acting and process by process to the original.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest movie directors ever lived, had an intention to shoot the original in black and white despite the availability of color at that time. Okay, people in 1960 may not have been used to bloodshed or horrifying scenes as much as we are today but that didn't prevent people from liking it and getting nominated for 4 Oscars. Gus Van Sant had absolutely no reason to release this in color except that the year was 1998. What should have looked realistic in color did not. After the shower scene Norman washes his hands it is easily comprehendible that whatever was used for blood looked like some kind of red wax. Once he washes off the blood his hand is red in color. <br /><br />About acting, perhaps there couldn't have been a better cast of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in the original. Perkins suited well for Norman and he was incredibly natural when he smiles and talks to the stranger. Hitch wanted a handsome and good actor and it worked just fine. In this version, I personally think Vince Vaughn looked perfect and handsome and strong to play Norman's role, unfortunately his acting was nothing less than terrible. In the motel office where Norman and Marion have the long conversation, he had zero expression on his face and his voice and face never changes throughout. In the original in the same scene when the madhouse is described, we can clearly see the sudden change of expression on Perkins's face and he looks scaringly angry although not aggressively. Vince Vaughn here works out the entire conversation like he's just had his lines by heart. Again, terrible acting. Same is with Anne Heche. In the opening scene in the original, we can see how tensed and nervous Marion (Janet) is when she drives to Phoenix. She was happy in getting the money but at the same time scared for life. That's what I call acting. In the remake, Heche has no signs of fear and she smiles periodically for getting the money. I don't think anyone would be "happy and smiling" when they've just stolen $400000 and the entire state police is behind them. In the shower scene, Janet in the original grips the curtain, turns around and dies after getting stabbed. In the remake, Heche gets stabbed, turns around, then sways the other way, has a foolish expression on her face and manages to die with great effort. Again, terrible acting.<br /><br />There are also some specially introduced changes in this movie from the original that seems to have nothing to do with the plot line and the ongoing situation. In the scene where Arbogast gets murdered, two scenes blink in between the stabs. One with a naked woman and the other with a sheep. Many people including myself aren't exactly sure whether the second scene showed a sheep or a cow or whatever it was. What on earth does a beast or a naked woman have to do with an investigator's murder! The changes were just inappropriate and unnecessary. There are a couple of changes in the ending scene as well. <br /><br />Let me add some (and the only) positive points along with that. I felt Julianne Moore did her job well and played a good character of Lila. And William Macy acted well, that was almost exactly how Arbogast's character should have been played.<br /><br />It is common man's knowledge that the purpose and intention of a movie remake is to make the present generation aware of a movie that has a good classic plot line, and to try and make it look better than the original. And if anything has happened here according to what I just said, it is directly the opposite. Unfortunately many people like me weren't impressed after watching this movie unless we came to know of the existence of an unforgettable original version. <br /><br />Please do not watch this movie, it is nowhere near the original and the original will always remain one of the best ever created movies if not THE best.
11,777	[ 800, 900 ]	675	821	This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of "Pre-Code" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!! <br /><br />The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).<br /><br />Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.<br /><br />But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.<br /><br />So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.
11,801	[ 800, 900 ]	711	887	Wesley Snipes latest straight to video film is a convoluted mess, horribly reminiscent of Steven Seagal's latest works. The script is horribly written and makes no account for the low budget it is and tries to be too clever for its own good. Sadly too, Snipes has fallen into the trap of having an ADR voice double doing much of his dialogue, and an entire narration that comes every now and again through points in the movie. It's sad to see a guy of Wesley Snipes talent doing garbage like this film, and producing a tired and clearly bored performance, barely bothered to produce his own dialogue. It's become somewhat of a joke with Steven Seagal, the fact he doesn't perform his own dialogue, but it's not something I'd have expected from Snipes. Perhaps it's due to the producer, Andrew Stevens who has worked with Seagal previously, or the director Po-Chi Leong, responsible for Seagal's epically bad Out Of Reach.<br /><br />The plot involves shady government officials, terrorists who coach soccer teams, disks with incriminating evidence on and a hefty chuck of missing money. Oh and biological weapons. Now how they are connected I don't know but what I can tell you is the diabolical script is pretty hard to fathom and like many of these DTV movies, this likes to include one twist too many. The plot is also uninterestingly told, playing out it's cards with people having shady one to ones in offices and dark alleys etc. It's all kind of "lets have a sit down and dish out some plot points for the sad bastards watching this film!" The pace of the movie as such suffers because despite the dullness of the performances and the storyline, the film does have some nice action scenes. As an example of how a DTV film has successfully put across a storyline of a twisting nature, I give you Dolph Lundgren's directorial debut, the Defender. That movie had it's share of twists and over complexity but the movie has a last hour of almost entirely action, with Dolph under siege form terrorists. The plot points are told in the context of action, on the move, while avoiding death. The movie doesn't stop to tell us what's happening, it doesn't break up the pace. As such although the plot was a little convoluted, it was more forgivable cause the action never let up. The Detonator like too many of these films, stops everything to give us a convoluted walk through of who's bad, and who isn't, before inevitably shifting that round in the pulled from the rear end twist at the end. These movies can often suffer with pacing issues.<br /><br />Snipes himself as I mentioned is pretty bland here. At the beginning he's putting on a camp persona as he's undercover with some arms dealers. Initially it seemed as if he was enjoying himself but unfortunately the rest of the movie sees him and his occasional voice double sleepwalking through the role. Snipes only comes alive when he's called upon to kick ass. There's some nice action here though, with some swift and crunching martial arts and some nicely punchy shootouts. The film also features a decent car chase. Silvia Colloca co-star and she's not much of an actress, but she is gorgeous, with a costume that screams "look at my cleavage!" The rest of the cast flit in and out with clichéd and uninteresting roles.<br /><br />Snipes thankfully has better projects lined up from now. He has another team up with Mario Van Peebles, called Hard Luck, then he will do Chasing The Dragon, from the director Chris Nahon, who did Jet Li's Kiss Of The Dragon. Finally Snipes is apparently doing Toussaint, a biographical drama, directed by Danny Glover. The future is suddenly looking brighter for Snipes, but lets remember he was getting extremely well paid for his DTV films, around $7million a movie, possibly more. It's also funny to consider that of all these DTV god's Dolph Lundgren is doing the better films, directing himself, with the enjoyable Defender and the supremely violent and nicely done The Russian Specialist, and what's more he's doing them on a fraction of the budgets of these diabolical offerings from Wesley and Steven Seagal are producing. *1/2
11,807	[ 800, 900 ]	661	826	The Detonator is set in Bucharest where some sort of ex CIA Government agent named Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) has tracked down a arms dealer named Dimitru (Matthew Leitch), things go wrong though & Dimitru finds out that Sonni is working for the US Government. After a big shoot-out most of Dimitru's men have been killed by Sonni which the local Romanian police force are unhappy about, top man Flint (Michael Brandon) decides to send Sonni back to the US & at the same time protect a woman named Nadia Cominski (Silvia Colloca) who is also being sent back to the US. However it turns out that Nadia is wanted by Dimitru & his football club owning boss Jozef (Tim Dutton) who need her in order to complete a deal for a nerve gas bomb which they intend to set off in Washington killing millions of people...<br /><br />This American & Romanian co-production was directed by Po-Chih Leong & The Detonator confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Wesely Snipes has joined the washed up action film stars club who are relegated to making generic action films in Eastern European locations, yep Snipes has joined such luminaries as Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer & Chuck Norris. I give Snipes a bit of credit since he held on a little longer than the rest with the excellent Blade: Trinity (2004) still fresh in a lot of cinema goers minds (every film he has made since has gone straight-to-DVD) but it had to happen sooner or later, like a lot of the names I've mentioned Snipes has lived off the reputation of a few great films & if you look at his career he's been in more bad films that good ones. Like the recent films of JCVD & Seagal The Detonator is pretty awful. The script by Martin Wheeler is as predictable, boring & by-the-numbers as anything out there. The Detonator is the sort of film you expect to see on an obscure cable TV channel playing at 2 O'clock in the morning. The Detonator is chock full of clichés, Snipes is forced into a situation where he has to protect a woman & at first they dislike each other but by the end they are in love, his closest friend at the CIA turns out to be a traitor while the obnoxious by the book boss no-one likes actually turns out to be a pretty decent guy, Snipes character is allowed to run around Bucharest shooting, killing & blowing people up like it doesn't matter & he never gets arrested, the action is dull & forgettable, the bad guy own a football club so there are lots of annoying football terminology & there aren't even any funny one-liners.<br /><br />Director Leong doesn't do anything anything to liven things up, The Detonator looks cheap with a car chase in which the two cars never seem to get over the 30mph mark. OK the action scenes are relatively well staged but they are few & far between & utterly forgettable in a 'bad guy shoots at Snipes & misses, in return Snipes shoots at bad guy & kills him' sort of way. There's a half decent car crash & explosion but very little else. It seems some of The Detonator was shot in a Romanian football stadium, I think I'd rather have watched the game for 90 minutes rather than this film.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 The Detonator is reasonably well made but not that much really happens. Set & filmed in Bucharest in Romania. The acting isn't that great, Snipes just doesn't seem interested & feels like he is just there for the money which I don't blame him for at all.<br /><br />The Detonator is yet another poor clichéd action film starring a has been actor & set in Eastern Europe. Why do Sony keep making these things? Not recommend, there are much better action fare out there.
11,833	[ 800, 900 ]	717	870	First of all, I would like to clarify that I consider this one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I have watched it almost 10 times just because I've wished to spread the deliciously tasteless innards of this film to other unsuspecting victims. It has the captivating essence of a hand-held camera recording of a distant nephew's seventh birthday. It has all the writing of a WWE match. And most of all, it has the consistency of a face scraped along a sidewalk. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film begins with an almost instantaneous mutilation of three, drunken teens in the desert. This scene convinced me that I was onto something big when I picked this film from the DVD rack (being drawn to the box because of the graphic of a velociraptor yelling the word "RAPTOR" on the front of it). The scene contains such treasures as tomato sauce, spaghetti intestines, vain attempts at humour and rubbery dinosaur puppets that repeat throughout the course of the movie. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film contains erratic backdrops and prop use that causes one's mind to melt at the thought that someone could just have so little shame when it comes to creating a film. An example is when a truck, in the middle of the night, is parked beside a cliff wall. The very next day, they find it in an open grassy area. The driver couldn't have driven it there since he had his face bitten off by an unnamed bipedal carnivore (I will explain why it's unnamed in a second). So, my only guess is that either the velociraptor drove it, the livestock the driver was transporting did it, or Jim Wynorski doesn't think very highly of his viewers. Hell, in one part they expect me to believe that they are walking down a main street at night when the road doesn't have gutters, the fire hydrant is precariously placed next to a phone booth, and there's only a single street light. Yet, still, I feel compelled to watch and re-watch this film, just so I can find more things that will make me giggle the next time I watch it. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The directing on this film is horrific. Long extended pauses. Strange cuts to characters that weren't even in the general vicinity of the conversation. People discussing things casually while facing the camera (and in turn, making them face the wall). They can't even give the dinosaur a coherent species, flipping between calling it a baby dinosaur and using a rubber velociraptor puppet (distinguished by the intensely long, fat, disproportionate claw). This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The editing is prominent on this film. This is not a good thing. I am well aware that the film is a collection of scenes from other films, masterfully crafted into a single piece of crap, but there has to be a limit! Sub plots end as abruptly as they began. Explanations for the sudden disappearance of characters not being limited to, well, not being explained at all! And an ending that felt like driving a muscle car into a brick wall without a seat belt. You just never know what is going to happen because the film doesn't follow a coherent structure. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />Now, I'm going to just have to mention a single scene (the greatest one) that occurs near the end. This is a spoiler, but not really. The final scene contains a showdown between tyrannosaurus rex and Sheriff Tanner. It is like the showdown between Sigourney Weaver and the Alien Queen in Aliens, except without all the emotional power/budget/epic battling. It pretty consists of Tanner ramming the dinosaur with a piece of construction machinery. A white bobcat. In a space of several minutes, through a series of sneakily slipped in cuts, the director manages to turn that white bobcat into a yellow forklift/crane looking piece of machinery. Now, as I said, I know that this film is made from scenes from other films, but what two films warrant a showdown with a t-rex in a construction vehicle? This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />This film gets a 1/10 for quality of film making, but a 10/10 for how much it makes me laugh and enjoy myself.
11,859	[ 800, 900 ]	691	868	Some of the films produced by Roger Corman's New World film company in the 1970s represent the best kind of B-movie, where the limitations of the genre actually act as a kind of freeing influence on the writers and directors such classic drive-in films as "Deathrace 2000", "Hollywood Boulevard", "Grand Theft Auto" and "Caged Heat" emerged from this environment. Unfortunately, his former confederates at American International Pictures were running out of steam in the 1970s, particularly in the absence of Jim Nicholson, and they often produced second rate imitations of Corman's films, sometimes featuring his self-made stars. "Black Mama, White Mama" is one of those films. It's basically a cheaper imitation of "The Big Doll House with some of the same stars doing a lot of the same things. Yes, this is a John Ashley co-production (yes, the same John Ashley who was the hilarious Elvis wanna-be in "How to Make a Monster" and paired up with Debbie Walley in "Beach Blanket Bingo") with all the signature marks of his productions women's prisons where everyone except maybe 2 or 3 lead characters including the inmates and the guards are Filipino actors in mostly non-speaking roles, where we see supermodel-type women taking on the roles of revolutionary militants, and where the primary joy of the film is derived through rudimentary S&M exploitation.<br /><br />The print I saw most recently was horribly light-damaged (good ole Will Viharo described it as "Yellow Mama, Yellow Mama"), but I think even in the best conditions the photography and directing are extremely routine. There's also very little visual value here Corman must not have had very much to do with the film itself because he was always canny enough to at least give his films some extra production value by filming in free public spaces that would make the film look more impressive. This film doesn't look impressive, it doesn't have an impressive soundtrack, and you just feel embarrassed for anyone who shows a shred of talent. The only remotely interesting performances come from Pam Grier as a feisty whore out to escape the life, Filipino actor Dindo Fernando as her grotesquely self-indulgent pimp, and Sid Haig as a cowboy styled mercenary. The story places Grier and co-star Margaret Markov in a low budget female version of "The Defiant Ones", but does very little with the melodramatic possibilities afforded by that premise. It's basically just an excuse to ensure that the two protagonists can still stop for a good mud wrestling match while they're trying to escape the prison together. This is all in the spirit of good fun, but the film ultimately fails even as exploitation because there's a certain edge and rawness that should be present in such scenes that is instead replaced under this director's hand with a kind of yawning predictability.<br /><br />So the film will have little value for fans of hard-core exploitation value at least in the version I saw it's no more explicit than "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" from over a decade earlier, and far less interesting visually and thematically. For those who just enjoy getting a laugh out of "so bad it's good" films, this one might provide some fun but it's not in the upper tier. People would be more advised to seek out "Caged Heat" or some of the others that revel in their own brutality to the point that it becomes camp; this one is more similar to less ambitious efforts like Cirio Santiago's "The Muthers". Sadly, the best thing about this particular film is the title and the presence of Pam Grier, who was better in other films around the same time (particularly Jack Hill's "Coffy"). This film perhaps illustrates a midway point in Miss Grier's journey from Corman secretary to B-movie Queen-For-A-Day, but other than its historical "significance" as such it will have little value even to Grier's big fans because she is given very little to work with here.<br /><br />Worth skipping, unless of course you get to see it in a movie theater with a lot of friends and a lot of beer like I did. And even then its value is questionable.
11,860	[ 800, 900 ]	738	839	And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like. <br /><br />The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.<br /><br />And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.<br /><br />The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.<br /><br />(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.<br /><br />In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice. <br /><br />Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film 'It's better to win, isn't it?' <br /><br />Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???
11,866	[ 800, 900 ]	648	832	The worst part about this film is that it did not have to be so terrible.<br /><br />They had a nice budget, though so do many films; they made it look slick and pretty, and best of all they had the 21st century lesbian-savvy audiences who would embrace a lesbian positive film... and yet the writer and director went out of their way to lift every single redone film bit about lesbian torment and confusion at boarding schools, (you know, the place all lesbian love lives and dies). <br /><br />This is a theme that has been done again and again and AGAIN in film, but something that viewers-if one uses this voting forum as a clue- cannot seem to get enough of.<br /><br />Every element of this story was so over the top, excessively phony and contrived that it was painful to sit through. The lead characters say it all: the crazy, abandoned, genius, rebel lesbian tough girl (well, they took a super pretty femme like Piper Perabo and tried to rough her up, but it didn't stick much) seduces pretty rich girl who is destined to betray her. <br /><br />Watching them every step of the way is character 3, a dopey, well-meaning, wide-eyed, good girl observer. I say 'every step' because she shares her every thought with the audience via the stiffest, most inane monologues.<br /><br />Her lines seem to have been WRITTEN by a fifteen year old, though they are trying oh so, so hard to sound like how a fifteen year old would really, um, you know, well... talk. "Hearing them (make love) with their noises was um, you know, like, well... okay!" she says about her 2 wanton roommates, who roll around in the bed next to her.<br /><br />Later she asks Graham Greene- the accomplished native American actor who is completely wasted in a roll as a gardener (!) "Is it wrong to care what people think?"<br /><br />Sorry, but is she a teenager, or is she age 7?<br /><br />Granted, Piper Perabo (as Polly the tortured dyke) & others do an okay job for the horrible lines they are forced to utter. Perabo has a nice energy level and is obviously very comfortable in front of a camera. She would do well in a decent project, so this is in no way a criticism of the acting.<br /><br />But this story is SHAMELESS in perpetuating every single stereotype about lesbians all rolled into one character. They couldn't stop with her (Polly) being an angry, crazy-passionate, secret genius who finished math problems for the speechless teacher. Oh but that's after she argues with the teacher who dares accuse her of "gabbing".<br /><br />"That's a word THEY (males) use against US (women)!" she says, stomping out of the classroom.<br /><br />Is this ALL the writer could come up with? Or maybe we should ask: Why stop there? <br /><br />Poole and co. went on and made Polly a poetic dark child who communicates with wild hawks by screaming their name in the woods.<br /><br />Cue the slow motion, sci-fi, Xena atmosphere!<br /><br />Then we have her writing to her birth mother... (most lesbians are love-starved orphans, in case you were in the dark).<br /><br />Then we have two teachers (one uptight, one a zany type with loose neck ties) who hover around all of the action (the school looks awfully big for just 2 teachers)... and give dark child/ seductress/bird girl tense looks. Hmmmm. I wonder if something well, you know... um, FUNNY is happening between these TWO TEACHERS??????<br /><br />There is simply no excuse for something this poorly done. Heartbreak happens, but surely the writer and director know that lesbians exist in much more sophisticated times than this schlock.<br /><br />I cannot reveal the ending out of respect to those who force themselves to sit through til the end, but if you are not laughing, I can only guess you are crying. And not for the right reason. And I don't mean the wimpy make out scenes.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.