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
3,470	[ 700, 800 ]	570	730	Why spend a moment slogging through this awkward and self-conscious movie? Every now and then, after an hour of tedious plot and amateur acting, we start getting bits and pieces of the big band swing that made Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, separately and together, the great musicians they were. Occasionally -- in a jam session with Art Tatum, with Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra doing "Marie" and, a standout, Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra fronting Bob Eberle and Helen O'Connell singing "Green Eyes" -- we get a complete song. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is in the public domain and the DVD transfer is just as bad as the acting. My copy has only four chapter stops. That means you can get arthritis in your fast- forward finger trying to speed through to where the good stuff is. The swamp you're moving through is Hollywood's version of the life and battles of the two Dorseys. Tommy, superb on trombone, and Jimmy, superb on saxophone, usually couldn't stand each other. In 1935 they finally split, with Tommy starting his own orchestra. Each had greater success alone than they had achieved together. They reconciled when their father died in the Forties, which is where the movie ends. They later managed to tolerate each other in the orchestra led by Tommy as the big band era faded out in the Fifties. Tommy died in 1956 at age 51, vomiting in his sleep after booze, pills and a big meal. Jimmy died of cancer at 53 in 1957. Jimmy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, a reasonably easy-going guy. Tommy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, often an overbearing jerk. But good music makes up for a lot of faults, and the Big Band sounds the two created helped define the swing era. <br /><br />They play themselves in the movie, and we see them develop from tussling tykes (with child actors) to grown men battling and yammering at each other. The movie is lumbered with not just their two parents, played by those Hollywood Irish clichés, Sara Allgood and Arthur Shields, who just want their boys to get along with each other, but also with a major sub- story involving a romance between Janet Blair, as a childhood friend of the Dorseys who becomes a vocalist with them and serves as a nearly full-time mediator and enabler, and William Lundigan, as a piano player. Blair is not bad at all. However, if you want to see why she never became the star she quite probably should have become, just look at the films, like this one, that her studio put her in. No wonder she left Hollywood. Lundigan simply takes up space. <br /><br />How bad is this movie, other than when we can actually hear the Dorseys play? Well, here's a song written especially for the movie and given to Blair to warble. It's called "To Me." <br /><br />To me...you're the rose of a rosary...the rise of a rising sea...the glow of a star... <br /><br />The rose of a rosary? The movie doesn't get any better than this, and it can't get worse. Still, if you like the Dorseys and if the price is right...well, in hindsight I'd still not buy it. The highlight, for me, is Eberle and O'Connell singing "Green Eyes." You can watch them on You Tube for free. You'll also find there quite a bit of each of the Dorseys. I wish I'd known.
3,483	[ 700, 800 ]	628	779	The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).<br /><br />I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.<br /><br />Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.<br /><br />Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.<br /><br />As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.<br /><br />This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.<br /><br />When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).<br /><br />This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.<br /><br />By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.<br /><br />PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent.
3,512	[ 700, 800 ]	608	745	"Nuts in May" may be one of the worst films i have ever seen. If Ed Wood was still alive this would be the type of movie he would be doing.To say this movie is bad would be the understatement of the century. But how bad is it really? Well, here are two levels of bad i go by; "it's so bad it's good" or "it's so bad it's GOD AWFUL". This film falls into the latter section. What little unintentional humor it has does not make up for the slow, hard to understand, boring majority of the film.<br /><br />SUMMARY: SPOILERS**<br /><br />Two middle-aged Anglos take a trip to the countryside for some R&R and camping, there they met Ray soon-to-be Jim (I'll explain later), who's tent is next to our main couple. Throughout most of the movie the two leads go sight seeing on the beach, at a rock quarry and other exciting locations. In between these adventures they talk endlessly about the environment, vegetarianism,fossil collecting, the duty of a proper citizen and proper diet, all thing i want to see in a comedy. They bore anyone who will listen to them. The dialogue is not only bad, but the pacing in some scenes is so slow i sometimes felt like dosing off. Scenes would go on forever and just when it begins to build up and something is about to happen the scene ends. Half way through the movie i thought to myself, "Nothing is going to happen in this thing, it is truly a movie about nothing".<br /><br />The characters are annoying and constantly repeat things. At one part i felt the director was playing a cruel joke on his audience. The scene i am referring to is the "Sing Along" scene. In it our two boresome Brits play some of there music for us, actually it was the same 4 four lines over and over and over and over. The idea was to get Ray to sing along with them, but Ray knew, as well as us, that they are the worst songwriters known to man. This scene was beyond tedious, by the fifth time the song was played i started to question the existance of a merciful God.<br /><br />Words can not describe the awfulness of this film. The first thing that strikes you is the indecipherable British accents that most of the cast has. Remember the thick Scottish accents in Trainspotting? Times that by 10.<br /><br />Towards the end our tree hugging, incoherent, couple get into a fight with some of Ray's friends that have complete disrespect for the rules of camping. Our hero becomes so incensed that a climatic battle ensues between our hero and the head hellraiser. To settle their dispute the two men engage in a stick fight. That's right a stick fight! Now this is where the unintensional humor starts. I laughed so hard at the ineptitude of it all that i thought, "This may make up for the other 80 minutes." After this histerical battle our hero runs behind some bushes to cry his eyes out and the other man calls Ray over by calling him Jim for some unknown reason.<br /><br />A stick fight, a crying nature loving 40 year old and a character name change 3/4 into the movie, Ed Wood would be proud.<br /><br />Though, i was again forced to endure the last 10 minutes which to sum up ends with a long take of a pig. Why? who the hell knows. At one moment we see a pig grazing and the next the credits start to role over the screen. One of the worst endings to a one of the worst films of all time.
3,647	[ 700, 800 ]	663	781	A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.
3,654	[ 700, 800 ]	570	749	Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.<br /><br />If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.<br /><br />The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.<br /><br />Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.<br /><br />This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is "weird" and a "nerd"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.<br /><br />But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, "hot" Logan and "kick-ass" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you.
3,658	[ 700, 800 ]	597	709	For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.<br /><br />The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.<br /><br />The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.<br /><br />Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.<br /><br />So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.<br /><br />1 out of 10.
3,709	[ 700, 800 ]	619	749	Brief marital infidelity comes back to haunt loving wife Grace Needham (portrayed by the always sexy Nastassja Kinski).<br /><br />She had left town, and her depressing husband, to embark on a trip to sunny Miami, where she was pursued and ultimately seduced by Julian Grant, a handsomely evil and manipulative business executive, who is portrayed very well by William Baldwin (why do all of the Baldwin brothers play evil people so damn well?)<br /><br />The seducing of Grace took place as the two drank champagne on a deserted beach they reached privately by sailboat. Grace admitted she drank too much for her own good and revealed the many problems in her marriage. Julian gained her confidence by claiming he would never allow those types of problems to occur, if he had a relationship with Grace. Julian's manipulation continued as he described a "lost at sea" fantasy involving the now uninhibited Grace, who sat near, listening to his every word and becoming more and more engaged with his romantic dream.<br /><br />His manipulation paid off as a few subtle nudges led to Grace's soft kisses, paused momentarily by her pulling back as if suddenly thinking to herself `What am I doing? I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I have a real life. Real responsibilities. Sure, the two of us have talked about being together, lost at sea, but that is just a fantasy. Look at what we're doing here. The consequences are real. We're really alone on a secluded beach. Am I going to let this fantasy really happen?'<br /><br />She succumbs to the dream, as her kisses became more passionate. The once guarded Grace, who used to respond to men's propositions by saying "I'm married" enjoyed watching as Julian unbuttoned her shirt, leading to more kisses, body caresses and her climbing onto Julian's lap! She smiles, kisses, moans, laughs and frequently looks up at the sun throughout what unfortunately was a brief love-making scene in which everybody seemed to have most of their clothes on.<br /><br />While I thoroughly enjoyed the look of illicit passion on Grace's face as the once devoted wife was being thoroughly satisfied by having sex with a man that clearly enjoys manipulating others, I will say that on the whole, the scene was undeserving of the movie's "R" rating.<br /><br />Julian returned home to find her husband rejuvenated from his securing of a high paying job, and she is excited about being able to return to a normal life where she can once again be a loving wife and caring mother.<br /><br />But the evil Julian Grant reenters the picture and is not willing to give up so easily on Grace. Grace has a plan to rid her life of Julian, but will it work?<br /><br />Obviously, I don't want to ruin the remaining story line for you. However, I will say that I always enjoy movies involving sexual pretense by a wife (especially when she exhibits uninhibited attraction and behavior that is normally reserved for her husband) but in actuality, is seeking revenge against the antagonist. This movie would have been much, much better if the movie had included more of that in the story line. My feelings are if the movie brings it up, then the movie should finish it. And this movie definitely brought it up. Unfortunately, certain constraints in the story line prevented this from being significantly pursued. There are many other movies available that succeed with that very point, and I'll include their titles in the "recommendations" portion of this section. I'm also open to receiving emailed suggestions of other movies that contain a good story line involving sexual pretense on the part of a seemingly devoted wife.<br /><br />Overall, Nastassja Kinski and William Baldwin are both very good. The movie is not.
3,786	[ 700, 800 ]	587	709	I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.<br /><br />I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.<br /><br />For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.<br /><br />This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as "air speed"! <br /><br />Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or "weightlessness" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of "escape velocity", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained "orbital velocity" ( and "weightlessness" ) by definition.<br /><br />But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.<br /><br />The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating "how far we've come". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently "normal".<br /><br />As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.<br /><br />I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.
3,922	[ 700, 800 ]	530	756	Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama.
4,005	[ 700, 800 ]	675	798	"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.<br /><br />Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.<br /><br />The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one. <br /><br />In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.<br /><br />The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.<br /><br />Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.<br /><br />There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a "Home Alone" scenario to them.<br /><br />"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.<br /><br />The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.<br /><br />There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al "Air Bud," as I did.<br /><br />I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable.
4,132	[ 700, 800 ]	625	795	Well, shuck me sideways. I haven't seen a home movie this bad since the abysmal 13 SECONDS or HALF CASTE. Someone should take away this guy's Sony Handycam! This movie proves that just because you can make a movie on your camcorder for $20, doesn't necessarily mean you should.<br /><br />I remember that one of the things that Robert Rodriguez wrote in his book, "Rebel Without a Crew" was that when you set out to make a no budget feature, you have to use whatever assets you have at your disposal. Rodriguez says that you should take an inventory of all the locations and props that you can beg, steal and borrow from your friends. Robert Rodriquez was friends with the Mayor of some town in Mexico, so the Mayor let him shoot all over for free. What you got in EL MARIACHI was a movie that looked like it cost much more than the actual budget.<br /><br />I'm sure that the director of this movie has a copy of that book, and he took that advice to heart. In this case, he was apparently friends with a guy who owned a cornfield where they put on a haunted house every year. Seems like a pretty good location for a scary movie, but it's hard to keep a cornfield interesting for 90 minutes. Not a single installment of the CHILDREN OF THE CORN series spent more than a few minutes in the cornfield. Hitchcock only spent about ten minutes in one in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Take a hint, fella... cornfields don't make for riveting cinema. It would have been good if the director would have had more friends with more locations, because this thing gets pretty tedious after the first 15 minutes. This movie looks like it cost about $30. (or whatever it cost in admission to the cornfield maze).<br /><br />Apparently he couldn't even find anyone to act in his movie, so he cast himself. Big mistake. Here's a thought, if you really want to make a movie, get an actor. So, as far as assets go, it seems like the cornfield maze is the only thing the poor guy had. Maybe he thought that was enough. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I KNOW he thought that was enough because the movie, before it captured the coveted honor of being the sequel to DARK HARVEST, was called simply THE MAIZE: THE MOVIE. Maybe this he's already planning THE MAIZE: THE MUSICAL or even THE MAIZE: THE MINI-SERIES.<br /><br />Our Jack-Of-All-Trades (and yes, the Master of Nothing part of that saying is definitely appropriate here) plays a psychic dad who can tell when bad things are going to happen. Think of the character from the DEAD ZONE, but not anywhere near as good an actor as Christopher Walken or even Anthony Michael Hall. Psychic Dad has a premonition that his two daughters, who are at the corn maze with mom, are going to be killed. He rushes to save them. From that point on, the whole movie is spent watching Pyschic Dad run around in a cornfield, looking for his two daughters. He finds the two little girl ghosts from THE SHINING, and he helps solve the mystery of their murder.<br /><br />Shot on a $200 Handycam. The director cast himself. Edited on iMovie. Improvised story. If that's not enough to keep you away from this a-maize-ingly corny catastrophe, consider this as a final warning... The WHOLE MOVIE takes place in a cornfield, boils and ghouls. Here's Ghoulie Guru's tip on how to save some money and still feel like you've seen this movie. Next time you see a cornfield, stop the car. Take a flashlight and go run around in there for like 90 minutes.
4,161	[ 700, 800 ]	594	748	There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.<br /><br />When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an "empathy virus", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, "she couldn't understand what she was saying." Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by "listening to the things you didn't say". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't think. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's yours -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.<br /><br />The mélange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.<br /><br />Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.<br /><br />To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it.
4,195	[ 700, 800 ]	592	703	In a nutshell, skip this movie, it's that bad. In short, this movie is about a weapons factory where secret weapons are being developed. Because they make bad things, they aren't popular so to speak. A new female CEO comes in to clear things up, and make sure the reputation of the company will be improved. She does this by leaking company confidential information to the press... Do you believe this? Furthermore she starts to fire people she has never seen. Incredible uh? A pacifistic group tries to destroy the company's mainframe, because there are the blueprint located of those secret weapons. This mainframe is located in the bottom of the building hidden in a kind of vault. Of course the movie would not be complete without the mad scientist and a robot which is the ultimate killer machine, which resembles like an 'Alien' from the Alien movies. The mad scientist likes the female CEO.<br /><br />The mad scientist instructs the robot to kill everyone, and so protects his job, rise in chain of command, and make the movie interesting. The pacifists team up with the CEO and another person of the board of directors to escape from the robot. Further down the line they agree to blow up this evil computer mainframe, whilst avoiding the robot. They also discover that the factory was developing a part man, part machine soldier. They can erase a persons memory and replace it by a veteran soldier's one. One of the pacifists is transformed in such a soldier and will hunt the killer robot. I guess the mad scientist also wrote the script of this movie. This super soldier looks and acts much the same as Robocop, though not as funny.<br /><br />It boils down to this. People are running, being chased by a killer robot, are hurt by it, but they do not seem to troubled by that, besides limping a bit, and of course the female CEO is the leading character of this movie, and cannot be killed, i.e. survives every attack, explosion, you name it. I won't bother you by the chase, let's skip to the end. They have lots of weapons, yes the pacifist too and they know how to use them. When they're at the roof of the building they empty all there weapons upon the killer robot. They step into an elevator which is used to clean outside windows. And then the female CEO knows some magic as well, at the roof she was complaining about being out of bullets, and like magic the gun is reloaded. This way she can shoot the cables and let the elevator plummet 70 stories or so, and let it stop right above ground surface by pulling the brake. And to top it all off, the police is waiting there for them. The robot jumps after them, and kills the cops. Hilarious no? The robot chases them down the vault where the mainframe is, and when finally the robot is so close to her, that he can touch/kill her, it stops. Because the mad scientist did not want her to be killed. A better name for this guy would be the idiot scientist. Although he is the one who made this movie watchable. At this moment I was already pulling for the killer robot to finish them all of, so the movie would end.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this movie rates this high, and this is why I wrote this comment. Avoid this movie like the plague. It's a monster, and I'm not talking about the Death Machine.
4,240	[ 700, 800 ]	585	759	Ben Stryker an ex-green beret stops off at a little town called Agua Dolee to visit an old friend Tick Rand. Soon after riding into town on his Suzuki and settling in. A motorcycle gang known as 'The Savages' who's led by tyrant Pigiron invade and finally take over the place. Stryker doesn't want to get involved, but that changes when he friends become the actual targets.<br /><br />Is there anything good to say about this scuzzy item? Tough call, as the only fundamental reason to watch this low-budget car wreck is for the tremendous b-cast the crew managed to get hold off for this project. While I don't think it's a complete botch job, it's not terribly good either. Now what a cast! Lance Henriksen (being the main character, he strangely doesn't have top billing, but the final one), Karen Black, George Kennedy, Richard Lynch, Bill Forsythe, Mickey Jones and Leo Gordon. Now what went wrong with this scummy low-budget bungle. The shallowness of the material is too one-dimensional that it heavily borrows ideas from better movies (namely Mad Max) and comes up with a complete mess of ideas that just don't gel and could have been better thought out. The clichés that are used can be manipulated into a good viewing, despite being predictable, but "Savage Dawn" seems to let it skimpily rush all by without letting the viewer soak it all up. The cast are mostly wasted in nothing roles. A bleached-blonde Henriksen is capably solid and even with his commending presence that provides an enigmatic glow to his character. He doesn't get up to hell of a lot and sometimes goes missing in action. Too much sideline action, but when he did kick some bikers' ass, the good times flowed. Karen Black's hissing performance is a very odd one and is all about the screaming and cursing. Although she does get into one memorable catfight with Claudia Udy's flirtatious vixen character Katie. A wheelchair bound George Kennedy roams around aimlessly until the final assault and Richard Lynch looks embarrassed as a wayward priest / town mayor in a very redundant role. An on edge Bill Forsythe simply chews it up as the head honcho of the notorious biker pack.<br /><br />The junky story (written by William Milling and Max Bloom) has that cheesy comic book getup and very much is influenced by the western genre. Just look at the villains for that. How they came up with their names is mystery. Maybe they drew them out of a hat. It's pretty second rate material that more often moves onto one lacklustre scene after another. Unfunny comical elements are chucked in and as well a bit of sleaze. Tacky exploitation that doesn't get gritty enough and the deaths are quite laughable. A clumsy script is filled convoluted details and unbearable trite. Simon Nuchtern's spotty direction was by the numbers and tepidly laid out. One or two intense scenes can't makeup for its tortoise-like pacing and many cack-handed stunts. The cardboard sets had down 'n dirty look, but lack that organic sense. The gravel-like cinematography by Gerald Feil was better handled when the main focus wasn't on the town, but on the desolate backdrop (like the beginning and ending climax of the film) with some neat camera touches. Pino Donaggio's clunky music choices are drowned out by its own incompetence.<br /><br />"Savage Dawn" is a forgettable quickie midnight movie that's a definite misfire for most part. There are better and more convincing exercises of the same ilk out there.
4,388	[ 700, 800 ]	581	738	Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.<br /><br />Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in MAS*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative. <br /><br />You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is. <br /><br />For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of "Survivor" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked "reality."<br /><br />It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game "Quintet" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?
4,489	[ 700, 800 ]	532	709	Some twenty or so years ago, Charles Bukowski was a hero of mine. I blindly accepted the image that was created by intellectual types and seen in various films. Of course, I never got to meet the intellectual types that prescribed Bukowski as a hero. They usually could be found safely behind the counter at hipster video stores and record shops. These people hardly talked and when asked a question, usually sneered and nodded in some vague direction. They were useless when it came to locating a specific title, but their shelves were always stocked with strange and unique titles. To be inducted in the secret hipster club, I believed I had to shed my bourgeois up-bringing and espouse the counter-culture.<br /><br />My introduction to Bukowski started with the movie Barfly, the late 80's film that starred Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunnaway. I was a fan of Rourke at the time. He also embodied a sort of modern male fantastical anti-hero, a brooding intellectual type. At the time, this appealed to me. Barfly's hero scoffed at convention. A mid-30's tramp, who lives life with no ties, answers to no one, --Oh--and to be recognized as a genius by a hot female literary snob, icing on the cake. Afterwards, I read Post-Office and Hollywood, the later being Bukowski's take on his experience with the film.Now, allow me to fast-forward to the latest film based on Bukowski's book Factotum, one which I read and enjoyed. Bukowski takes the form of Chinaski in this novel. I often wonder where Bukowski ended and Chinaski began. 20 years after Barfly, the fictional movie Bukowski is still the same. I have watched about an hour of the movie and I have yet to see signs of the facade cracking. Here is why Factotum Bukowski was my hero. Chinaski is handsome (played by Matt Dillon). He has clean neat hair, styled, but not over the top. When Dillon smokes and writes, he looks cool. Chinaski goes from job to job, ignoring and/or fighting with various bosses. He screws two floozies, one of whom he lives with, walks out on, only to return to with little repercussion. Chinaski is his own man and we never see him emote. He's a sterile, one-dimensional, 30 something, James Dean archetype. Factotum lies to the viewer. It does so by haranguing the idea of a man (a writer) without consequence. A poor man, who's suffering for his art. What could be cooler than that? Now, let's say there are some truths to Factotum, in that the events took place. What the audience is missing is the pain that shrouds Chinaski's existence. Maybe the point of this movie, and most movies, is that for 80 mins., we need to escape the world that's filled with consequence and pain and take-up vicariously with an anti-social womanizer, that smokes, talks, drinks with detached coolness. One who rejects conventional behavior of job and family. My hero used to be Movie Bukowski. Long ago, that would have worked. It was easier then. Now, I have yet to claim a hero. Things are not as easy. Hipster logic and movie renditions of counter-culture icons offer no solutions or even ask questions.
4,528	[ 700, 800 ]	609	755	Ugghhh!!! This is exactly the sort of Pre-Code film that could incorrectly convince the viewer that films from this time period are lousy--and they are NOT--it's just that this particular film is horrid. Horrid because while the film tries very hard to be "hip" and "adult", it also is so hopelessly old fashioned, dull and hokey that I was torn between laughing at the film or just falling asleep!! This is a unique combination, to say the least.<br /><br />So why, exactly, did I hate it so much? Well, the film is incredibly sleazy but has no style and the film is meant to shock but lacks subtlety and takes too many ridiculous turns to be believable. The film begins with a cliché--a hooker with a heart of gold. Dorothy Mackaill is a prostitute and she appears to accidentally kill a man! Shortly after making her escape, she meets up with an old boyfriend who insists on marrying her (he doesn't realize her profession). Seeing this man's innate goodness, she determines to change her life and stop living the wild life. This is tough when she hides out on a fictional Caribbean island. Here, alone and waiting for her man to return, there is nothing to do and the place is infested with super-horny and totally unappealing men. In fact this portion of the movie is so dull, that the audience might have a hard time staying focused. The men on the island are so inflamed by the presence of Mackaill that they perpetually seem on the verge of raping her--only to be rebuffed because she isn't that sort of girl any more. Frankly, I got very tired of all these salacious scenes--there is simply too much eye rolling and tongue-wagging to make it seem anything other than a very bad film. And looking at all these ugly horn-dogs was just annoying and stupid.<br /><br />But wait,...it gets a lot worse. The man she THOUGHT she killed shows up on this tiny island (what are the odds?!) and he tries to rape her as well. However, he's not to be dissuaded and she ends up shooting to save her new-found virtue. While the jury on the island is about to acquit her, she rushes back into court and lies--telling them she meant to kill the man and it was premeditated (?) because even if she's acquitted, she knows the evil jailer will have his way with her when she is sent to jail for a gun possession charge. Given that the jailer himself gave her the gun to set her up, her rushing into the court and saying she was guilty seemed really, really silly. Why didn't she just tell them the jailer's twisted plan?! Supposedly she did this in order to preserve her virtue but to admit to killing someone so people will think you are a virgin?! So, in order to avoid a short jail sentence (and, once again, the threat of rape), she doesn't consider telling the court that he is trying to force her into a sexually compromising situation (the jailer has promised to rape her when she is locked up). And, just before she is taken to the gallows (in order to avoid the rape), the boyfriend shows up in time for her to send him off and the credits roll.<br /><br />Impossible situation and coincidences abound--coming so often that the film is just dumb. Combining this with all the sexual innuendo, this makes for a bad AND sleazy mess of a film which will only appeal to the most die-hard fans of Pre-Code films. All others, beware, this is very sticky and silly from start to finish!
4,559	[ 700, 800 ]	616	766	In yet another miserable attempt to make a quick Hollywood cash-in of one of televisions greatest masterpieces, Peter Segal has created a monster. Taken out of context, if one did not know Brooks' work before viewing, the movie would be a lame big budget film that isn't sure if it wants to be fat joke and stupid comedy, or just an ordinary action film with nothing to move on. However, as a young generation Y'er who just recently spent two months obsessing over the five seasons of Get Smart, the 60's TV show, this movie pained me from the moment I entered and saw Steve Carell dumbing down the part. The backstories, agent 99 getting plastic surgery and 86 as an analyst who was formerly morbidly obese, shames the complexity of the original duo and paints a flat boring reevaluation of them. It seems the screenwriters, unable to be truthfully funny in both dialogue and situation, fell back on lame set-ups for Don Adams famous lines, flashbacks to fat camp, references to Carell's part in the office in the interview style camera angles they have, and a female chauvinism that falls flat on its face.<br /><br />For those who have seen the original, the writers of this movie thought they'd include some memories. They mention Herbie, Fang (now a worthless tiny furry dog that Carell covets), the shoe phone, the cone of silence, and his classic red car and the doors and phone that intro'd the show. The classic music is back, but now everything is updated, generally for the worse. Cone of silence is now some weird blue telekinetic force field, control headquarters are right under a museum that preserves Control's past. The movie lacks any creative random tech, and replaces it with crossbows in swiss army knives. Lots of the "humor" in the movie is Carrel hurting himself, or another character being hurt, whether it be carrel spending two minutes shooting himself accidentally with the crossbow, or getting punched by security guards, or throwing up in airplanes. In the original, Smart would insult a big foe, attack him with no success, and try to buddy up with him before getting pulverized. In this one, he attacks without success and gets pummeled. It seems the screenwriters didn't understand the humor was established with the dialogue and not the pointless violence. It's like they took the names from the show, and cut out all that made it good in the first place.<br /><br />The poster hides Carell's face beyond that of Hathaway's. The movie likewise, shies away from anything that could make it good. They intertwine the classic music with the over-dramatic action and romantic music in big-budget films. Whereas the original fed off a campy feel, this one replaces quality with massive doses of cgi explosions and pow sound effects. I was really looking forward to this, as I finished the original series just two months ago and it ranked in my top five shows of all time. However, this was a massive disappointment. The credits say they collaborated with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, but in all the things I've read on the internet, they were largely left out of the writing process. In conclusion, if you want to waste your money on a cash-in with little value and no respect to its namesake, go for it. But be prepared that the ride is not how you remembered it.<br /><br />PS: I almost forgot the George Bush humor. They mention "Nuculor", falling asleep at fine art, President's working for their vice pres, and appreciating tackles over solving real problems. If you're into hearing the same jokes you heard 3-4 years ago in big budget movie form, chuck your money here.
4,690	[ 700, 800 ]	484	704	All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of "Laaaaaa-sie!" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a "this movie has gone to the dogs!" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind: <br /><br />MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, "and with Lassie as Shep!" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!! <br /><br />So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.<br /><br />Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint "Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!
4,860	[ 700, 800 ]	615	750	I loved the blood and gore. The kind of violence is what Alien and Predator movies are about which is no one is spared. This truly answers the question of how it would be like if aliens were on Earth. The answer to that is simple. We are screwed. The effects were beautiful. How ever there are some real problems with it.<br /><br />1) The acting was horrible on the part of the Human characters side witch almost put me to sleep because of how dry and boring it was which really interrupted the flow of the movie and was very annoying. The writers could have done SOOOOOOO much better. The good part was the Alien and Predator acting which I thought was done very well for the most part.<br /><br />2) The size of the Predator ship was much smaller then how it was in the first AvP movie. This I scratched my head on <br /><br />3) Predators having their mask on while still in the ship. This upset people and I cant understand why. Its not a plot hole like most people make it to be. So I say to you people calm the hell down. Its no big deal. If it will make you feel better, remember, they did have face-hugger's on bored in storage so that could be a good reason why.<br /><br />4) Predator firing its plasma caster inside the ship. I thought that was rather stupid on the Predators part. But then I began to think if it was a younger Predator that panicked.<br /><br />5)The hunter and his son almost instantly arriving at the crash site after it fell several miles away. At least they didn't bore us by showing them run through the woods for 30 min. so be happy about that.<br /><br />6) Why did only one Predator go? I thought this was odd. But then I thought that it was because he thought it was only one Predalien that he was dealing with and not an outbreak.<br /><br />7) Why didn't the Predators in the ship self destruct? Well if people were paying attention one did, but he was killed before he could completely activate it.<br /><br />8) The unlimited blue melting goo. I thought that was rather dumb.<br /><br />9) Predator hiding evidence with the goo but skins a cop. That was also dumb.<br /><br />10) The black out. Well come on people, an Alien and Pred did fight it out at a power station.<br /><br />11) Predalien being half face-hugger/queen. This really ticked me off. I am an Alien and Pred fanatic. I know for a fact that Aliens DO NOT DO THAT!! Just like they don't give birth like a human does like they showed in Alien4!! Out of all the comics, games, books, and the movies 1,2, and 3, CLEARLY shows their behavior. They need a queen to lay eggs, the eggs hatch into face-hugger's, face-hugger's infect host, the parasite pops out and kills host and grows into a drone if it infects a human, a Predalien with a Predator, and Runner with any kind of four legged animal. And then after living for years upon years then they molt into a Preatorian (a mini me queen that does not lay eggs) I can go on and on but I wont. But that scene alone nearly ruined the movie for me. If the directors are smart they would go back and edit that by making a face hugger infecting the pregnant women.<br /><br />Any way if you are going to see this movie, just go see it for the Aliens and Predators. And when the scene comes up where the Predalin infects that pregnant women... Close your eyes so you don't have to see that insult to the Alien and Pred universe.
4,862	[ 700, 800 ]	576	747	Anyone who watched "Alien vs Predator" must've known that the conventions of the "Alien Quadrilogy" were not exactly adapted for the film. Amongst some of the unusual elements, the rapid growth of the Aliens over seemingly a matter of minutes, Aliens with extremely long tails, and so on. However the idea of the Predator species providing the impetus of city and temple building to create a hunt for would be warriors sounded so appealing that I couldn't resist.<br /><br />I had hoped the end of the film would not be the impetus of this sequel, and unfortunately I was wrong. For those who forgot how the first film ended, the dead Predator had an Alien burst through his chest which carried the traits of both species'.<br /><br />For this film, I'm going to just go through a list of "good" and "bad" traits.<br /><br />The Good: Lots of gorgeous people, especially the men. <br /><br />The Bad: Lots of gorgeous people get munched by both the mutant Predator/Alien, and the Predator.<br /><br />The Good: An interesting idea of the Predator planet. <br /><br />The Bad: An inconsistent scale of a town. Its a small town without many opportunities, but with a very sophisticated (read: big city) sewer system, and homeless. Is it a small town, or a city? The police force is one Sheriff and three Deputies, or so I counted.<br /><br />The Good: Um.... <br /><br />The Bad: Why do these mutant Aliens/Predators grow so fast? In a matter of five minutes, they seem to grow to their full size. I mean, c'mon...what are these things...Chia Pet Aliens??? And while we're on this subject, why is it that an Alien inside a Predator's body mutates, but an Alien in a human's body doesn't? Does that make sense?<br /><br />The Good: Still thinking... <br /><br />The Bad: Why would only one Predator come? And why does it pour acid over all the remnants of the "Aliens," but it decides to murder a cute deputy, and then skin him and hang him upside down. I mean, so much for being incognito!<br /><br />The Good: Ah...I'm stuck. I guess there's lots of loud sounds! <br /><br />The Bad: How do these mutated Alien/Predators procreate? Apparently they find a pregnant woman and in a kiss type of motion, they deposit several offspring into the woman's body. Yeah, just what you'd like to see, eh? Pregnant women having their bodies explode into mutant aliens- as if the previous way wasn't gross enough!!!. I mean, there isn't even an Alien Queen.<br /><br />The Good: Did I say that the guys in this movie are gorgeous? <br /><br />The Bad: When a nuclear device blows apart buildings, how does a helicopter manage to survive the blast? And how tacky is it for one of the passengers to mockingly chide the pilot "I told you not to crash!" I mean, given the nuclear fallout, when he wakes up in the morning, he'll have no hair left!!!<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I think you get the message. Mutated Alien/Predator bursts through dead Predator's body, grows over the matter of a couple of minutes, kills all the Predators and manages to get crashed on earth. More mutant Alien/Predators are created, while ONE measly Predator comes to earth to destroy this new mutant species. Predator kills humans. Mutant Alien/Predators kill humans. Humans kill humans. Sucks to be a human in this movie, eh?<br /><br />If you're impressed by lots of bangs and bumps, you'll love this movie.<br /><br />If you liked the first, I suggest you skip this sequel.
4,904	[ 700, 800 ]	560	705	After viewing "Still Life", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer". "Still Life" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of "Evil Dead" or "Army of Darkness"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had.<br /><br />The problem with "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if "Evil Dead" or "Dead Alive" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. "Jack Brooks" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates.<br /><br />Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and "Still Life" was amazing check it out), "Jack Brooks" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to "the creation of a hero". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.
4,955	[ 700, 800 ]	586	728	To start, I'm not a person to rate movies that I haven't seen, nor am I a person that rates movies 1's when they don't deserve it. This movie was really that bad. The basic plot was extremely formulaic, and while it wasn't great, the plot deserved about a 5. The part that really bothered me was anything referencing swimming in the film. I compiled a short list of things wrong with the swimming aspects of this film.<br /><br />1. No character development. 2. No sense of time. 3. Completely inaccurate swimming scenes, which include: a. A team of six swimmer going to something called both "Nationals" and "regional" with no mention of how they qualify. b. This same team going to whatever the hell this meet was without swimming a real meet at any point in the film. c. The rival program goes from being a high school to a club team back to a high school and then a club team again. d. In the scene where Ellis is interviewing for a job the banners show high school state wins and placements at nationals, yet the team consists of anywhere from 5 to 12 swimmers depending on which of the 3 meets are happening. e. A team of 5 guys and a girl win nationals/regions whatever. f. Said girl wins a men's 100 butterfly event. g. In this race, said girl beats two guys from a team that the previous year was in the top 3 in the nation. h. The announcer changes a race from the 200 breast to the 100 breast back to the 200 again in the span on about 45 seconds. i. In the final relay, the 4X100, which is being swum in a 50 meter long course pool, one swimmer is seen doing two flip turns. j. In this same relay, the teams anchor swimmer freaks out and steps off the blocks, prompting an inspirational pep talk, which lasts for about two and a half minutes, or about 3 times as long as the leg would take at a national caliber meet. k. The movie begins in the month of July or August, assuming that Ellis was applying before the school year started, and the pool was to be closed in 3 months, so assuming these things both hold true, the swimmers went from not being able to swim to winning nationals/regional whatever, in less than two, as the pool had to be cleaned and the kids didn't start practicing for a while. l. I'm sure there are a couple hundred more, I'm just trying to block them out of my memory. 4. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of a swimmers time. 5. If you're going to have a movie about swimming, it would be a good idea to hire extras that know how to swim well. 6. The scene where the kid is kicked underwater is physically impossible.<br /><br />That being said, all the swimming scenes were way too slow, swimmers had horrible technique, and the idea of being able to qualify for a national meet within three months of learning to swim is just insulting to swimmers everywhere.<br /><br />OK, if you still don't believe me, let me say that this movie is one of the 5 worst films i have ever seen, and this is coming from the guy that owns Gigli, Soul Plane, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Skullduggery, and any number of other total piece of crap that have been put on film. Please don't go!
4,973	[ 700, 800 ]	614	764	I think I win the "bargain" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a "Martial Arts Movie Classics" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the "Black Fist" version of a movie that was released as "Bogard." <br /><br />For a basic "revenge" flick, "Black Fist" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal "rules of thumb" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got. <br /><br />The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front "stamp" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes. <br /><br />Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character "Leroy Fisk", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even I knew (from watching "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a "black brother being repressed" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).<br /><br />The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The "I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of "Fisk's" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.<br /><br />But, once the movie switches all the way from "young fighter rising through the ranks" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing "a long drive for a short day at the beach"..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way. <br /><br />If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next "Rocky", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams. <br /><br />Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him.
5,064	[ 700, 800 ]	601	772	I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime. <br /><br />I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. "Gargoyle"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says "What's down this hole?" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.<br /><br />Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest. <br /><br />Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including "Highlander III". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle. <br /><br />An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of "Gargoyle". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.<br /><br />GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, "Gargoyles", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.
5,118	[ 700, 800 ]	653	754	Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.<br /><br />Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.<br /><br />With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.<br /><br />Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended.
5,270	[ 700, 800 ]	663	768	There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.<br /><br />At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.<br /><br />Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?<br /><br />There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.<br /><br />My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.<br /><br />Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!
5,309	[ 700, 800 ]	595	766	I laughed twice watching this movie and in case you were wondering, I wasn't having a bad day nor was I subjected to anything else that would've skewed my opinion while watching this cinematic bowel movement. This movie is bad. I wanted to enjoy it and I just couldn't. With all of this talent, you'd think this would've been at least watchable, right? Wrong.<br /><br />Let's play Sucked and Didn't Suck! John Travolta- Very likable. Though obviously buried under too much makeup, I found him to be enjoyable to watch. Didn't suck.<br /><br />Uma Thurman- After Kill Bill 1 and 2, the girl deserves more than this atrociously written character. This character's big moment was showing someone how to operate a T-Mobile Sidekick. Sucked.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn- The done to death role of white guy who thinks he's black goes to Vince "Money" Vaughn. Is this character template still considered to be funny? I love the guy but I want to see him in something better than this. It felt like he was slumming. Sucked.<br /><br />Cedric the Entertainer- This guy is good. He delivers a great monologue after being called a racial slur (you can probably guess as to what it is) that was probably the best part of the movie. He was funny and truly elevated the material he was given just with his presence. Didn't suck.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel- Sucked due to a phoned in performance.<br /><br />James Woods- Sucked but not his fault. Actually, yes it was. Reminded me of his role in Casino for some reason. I don't like manic James Woods, I like slow burn James Woods. Victim of bad writing, maybe? Andre 3000- Sucked but he went down swinging. I think he has potential, as long as he's not being directed by a hack on his next picture.<br /><br />Christina Milian- She's absolutely beautiful and obviously talented but this movie isn't going to make her a star. Didn't suck but needs a better vehicle for her talents that isn't directed by a hack.<br /><br />The Rock- This should have been the role that catapulted him to movie stardom but as directed by F. Gary Gray, winds up sadly mishandled. In this movie, the Rock projects this charisma that makes him so likable that I wound up feeling sorry for him. He tries really hard and while he doesn't succeed completely, he gets an A+ for effort from me. This guy is not afraid to embarrass himself and go completely against type, playing a gay bodyguard with his eyes on stardom. I really want to see him make it big. He has what it takes as long as he's not being directed by a hack.<br /><br />Which brings me to what I feel was the weak link in this production. I might as well just come out and say it, right? F. Gary Gray's direction was about as solid as really bad diarrhea. Wow, it was bad. Who had the bright idea of letting this guy direct? The Negotiator was good but what else on his resume convinced people that he was the man for the job? Between his direction and the atrocious writing, I'm willing to chip in for both culprits to get a nice lead salad to the knees. Wanna see John and Uma dance? I might be able to think of another movie with those two that I could recommend watching instead of this. Not worth the ten dollars and fifty cents it cost me to get into the theater.<br /><br />This movie could've been okay and it wasn't even "just okay".<br /><br />RATING: * out of *****.<br /><br />P.S. Fergie from Black Eyed Peas is noteworthy to mention. Sizzling!
5,335	[ 700, 800 ]	641	775	Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...<br /><br />Going straight-to-video/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clichéd dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.<br /><br />Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.<br /><br />Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.
5,404	[ 700, 800 ]	578	755	My, my, my: Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance must have been desperate for work to have lent their talents to this turkey. A horribly muddled story about satanism in modern day Greece, Land Of The Minotaur (aka The Devil's Men) is a misfire on more-or-less every level imaginable. It has precious few scares (always a slight flaw for a "horror" movie, don't you think?); weak performances; countless scenes where characters foolishly wander off alone or turn down the opportunity to remain in the safety of a group; and some rather irritating editing techniques which add nothing whatsoever to the proceedings. I got prematurely excited at the prospect of Cushing and Pleasance working together 17 years after The Flesh And The Fiends - but this film isn't worth getting remotely excited about; it's a huge let-down and rather an embarrassment for its much worthier leads.<br /><br />In a remote region of Greece, outsiders such as tourists and archaeologists keep going missing, and local priest Father Roche (Donald Pleasance) suspects that something sinister is afoot. He writes to his friend, New York private eye Milo Kaye (Costas Skouras), asking him to fly out to Greece to help him get to the bottom of the mystery. In the meantime, three more visitors - Beth (Vanna Reville), Ian (Nikos Verlekis) and Tom (Robert Behling), who are all personal friends of Father Roche - go missing while snooping around nearby Greek ruins. Milo eventually arrives in Greece, but is initially dubious about Father Roche's beliefs that the missing people have been snatched for satanic sacrifices. Milo and Father Roche are also joined by Laurie (Luan Peters), the girlfriend of missing man Tom. Together, they uncover the activities of a Minoan devil-worshipping cult headed by creepy Carpathian exile Baron Corofax (Peter Cushing). These crazed cultists have been busily sacrificing their victims to a statue of the minotaur. Furthermore, they seemingly cannot be killed by normal means, so Father Roche has to use a variety of religious artifacts in his fight against them.<br /><br />Land Of The Minotaur should have been much better than it actually is. The plot is so wacky and improbable that it has all the hallmarks of an enjoyably goofy cult/camp favourite. But the handling is just awful. Director Costas Carayiannis has no idea how to link the narrative together cohesively, so the whole thing progresses like it was being made up on a day-to-day basis. He also has no idea how to coax convincing performances from his cast, so they are left to embarrass themselves in either dreadfully hammy (Pleasance, Cushing) or dreadfully amateurish (Skouras, Peters) performances. What's worse is that the narrative makes no sense. Why would Father Roche seek help from a private eye who is utterly flippant about his beliefs? How does Roche know that the sacrifices only occur during a full moon? How can the minotaur statue speak? Why is one one of the sacrificial victims instructed during a vision to stab Father Roche, only to herself be stabbed a few scenes later before getting a chance to carry it out? And - most baffling of all - why does Father Roche drag Milo halfway around the world to help him when all he needs is a crucifix and and some holy water to dispose of the bad guys? These questions - and more - will pop into your mind during Land Of The Minotaur.... but, alas, there are no answers to be had. Frustrating, dumb and disappointing!
5,465	[ 700, 800 ]	575	724	Where to start? Some guy has some Indian pot that he's cleaning, and suddenly Skeletor attacks. He hits a woman in the neck with an axe, she falls down, but then gets up and is apparently uninjured. She runs into the woods, and it turns out there's the basement of a shopping center out there in the woods. She meets a utility worker and Skeletor attacks again. Luckily, like any good utility worker, he's got a gun and shoots at the guy. Doesn't work, everything starts on fire.<br /><br />Cut to some people walking through the woods. Even though they've been hiking together for some time, they sit down and introduce themselves to each other. Wouldn't they have probably done that when they first met? Anyhow, they're "undercover" Delta team members (undercover, I suppose, because that way they don't have to pay to dress them in uniforms). The cute girls are various things such as a sniper school instructor and, oh, I can't remember the rest. It doesn't matter. Eventually they all take their guns out and immediately start aiming them at various things. ? Anyhow, they meet an old Indian who is sitting out in the woods. He wants beans. You know, like pork and beans? He mumbles some stuff, I can only assume that it's the premise of the movie. I relied on having heard the premise from the commercials, because you can't really understand anything he says.<br /><br />So, they walk around the woods some more. All the dialogue is a load of quasi-military, macho BS. I mean all of it, as in every single word. Like "This reminds me of when we were in Kabul" or "This reminds me of when we were in Laos". Skeletor attacks again. Let me give you a rundown of a basic attack. One of the female characters is crouched behind a tree and she aims her gun at the approaching guy on the horse. For some reason, she doesn't fire but yells several times for someone else. Then as Skeletor approaches, she jumps out from behind the tree so that Skeletor can stick her with his spear. Then everybody starts shooting. The bullets cause sparks to fly from the trees. Apparently the folks who made this movie never shot a tree with a bullet. They don't make sparks.<br /><br />Then Casper Van Diem is all of a sudden driving a semi-truck, trying to run over Skeletor. He misses, and the truck slides to a stop. Van Diem is injured, apparently he slid across the seat and bumped his hip on the window crank or something, so he crawls out of the truck and it explodes. Later he's in the woods dying and everybody says a bunch of quasi-military, macho BS. They meet a couple guys in the woods and blow their "undercover" status by immediately identifying themselves as being from the Army. They beat on the guys for some reason, then they go away.<br /><br />Some other stuff happens, people mumble, the camera shakes, etc.<br /><br />I think it comes to an end eventually.<br /><br />My theory is that the Sci-Fi Channel is getting a little annoyed with everyone bashing their movies, so they put this out to remind us all how bad movies can really be. Like, you think our movies are bad? Well, you haven't seen bad. HERE'S BAD!!! Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, the rest of our movies are pretty good in comparison, right?<br /><br />Well, it's just a theory.
5,466	[ 700, 800 ]	629	771	Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with "predator" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of "Critters." This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm. <br /><br />And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is "undercover." Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the "top" of the "hill" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, "I'm not going after him, I going after it." What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good. <br /><br />The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, "Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face." That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.
5,533	[ 700, 800 ]	565	723	DeCoteau has to be one of the worst "directors" working today in any genre, and it has nothing to do with his movies usually containing homoerotism and having guys run around in their matching boxer briefs. Remember... anyone in tight black underwear is satanic and evil and want to suck out your blood/soul... such deep symbolism here). I just sat through The Sisterhood to give him his fair shakes, I try to watch every horror movie I can and this one had Barbara (FROM BEYOND, RE-ANIMATOR) Crampton in it (I had previously been sucked in to the world of DeCoteau thanks to Linnea Quigley, Adrienne Barbeau and several other actresses I like).<br /><br />Lemme tell you what about The Sisterhood... Like the other reviewer pointed out, the supposed plot involves lesbian vampires on a college campus. But never has a parade of hot young babes ("actresses" if you want) running around dressed in bras, panties and bikinis been so boring. The movie has no plot, no gore, no nudity and the dialog is ridiculous and seems like they made it up as they go along. Parts are put in slow-motion and repeated many times to push the running time up. About ten minutes of this one consists of characters just walking around on campus (oh, the excitement!) that looks more like a hotel resort than any college I've ever been to. And the acting is the absolute worst. The only thing these girls do well is lean forward and bend over to show off their bodies. The cast were so devoid of talent that I'd be shocked to see any of them get a one-day walk-on role on Passions in the future. Ditto for the guys. Yeah DeCoteau squeezed more hot guys in underwear in this one, too... Guys who should be in some K-Mart brochure instead of trying to act. Do these people actually have to audition or just show up in Dave's office and take their clothes off? I think the answer is obvious.<br /><br />I am willing to give any movie a chance if 1.) it's intelligently written, well directed, original and competently acted (or hell, even ambitious and stylish)... Or 2.) it is chock full of gore, nudity, assorted trashiness and/or it's unintentionally hilarious. David DeCoteau's movies deliver NONE of that and they do it on better-than-usual production values for direct-to-video flicks. What a waste! So what is the appeal, especially with the advent of porn of the soft- and hard-core variety that's easily accessible to anyone with a computer? I simply cannot answer that.<br /><br />DeCoteau is a gay horror director and could use his resources to put a unique spin on the genre. Instead, he produces mind-numbing drivel without an ounce of talent or intelligence shining through. Ironically, when you think about it, his films are anything BUT pro-gay. They actually make homosexuality seem seedy, secretive and sinister. The obviously gay characters in his films are always trying to corrupt, seduce and/or kill off the innocent, sexually-confused leads. There's no shading here to make things interesting. The protagonists are naive and seldom prove themselves to be strong, assertive or confident in who they are. I would understand this plotting if Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps or Dr. Laura starting making direct-to-video horror films, but from a gay director, it just goes to show that he puts almost no thought into these beefcake cheese-fests.
5,547	[ 700, 800 ]	589	707	Wow, what's this on the video rental store's shelf in front of me? Nothing other than a questionable "sequel" to 8MM. It wasn't a very good sequel to a movie that had a very definitive end and an abundance of emotional depth far greater than this movie.<br /><br />Basically, from the plot outline verbatim, an American diplomat, David Huxley, and his fiancée, Tish Harrington, venture into the sordid underworld of sex and pornography in Budapest, Hungary to find out who is blackmailing them with a porno video taken of them with a prostitute, Risa. The entire story is based around the various characters who make up these various sex clubs and strip joints throughout the city. The mystery is solved when, in the end, Tish finds out that the ransom money for the video and (essentially later on in the story) her fiancée which came out of her trust fund money is basically going back to her future husband as the story unfolds til the bitter end.<br /><br />I didn't like how this had nothing to do with the original 8MM at all. The only thing close to the original is the type of thriller that it was, the fact that David ends up with some kind of bondage contraption over him to keep him prisoner looks like the kinky world of the first film, and the fact that the entire movie has sex emblazoned throughout almost every key scene. Otherwise, its a totally different movie. It made for a lousy love story, even before the end is known, which makes the ending more of a possibility because I didn't believe the words coming out of David's mouth the whole time. But we were warned that he was a liar about most things that might get him in trouble.<br /><br />There were ridiculous nude scenes in most of the "shocking" moments of the film, which were trying to stir emotions in the audience to cheer for Tish to figure out the plot so she can leave this "hellish" sex debauchery. I counted at least 11 ridiculously filmed sequences when there was nothing but sex to be shown. Even the menu screen on the DVD is nothing but film with naked women on it to make the DVD seem totally provocative.<br /><br />David was no heroic person throughout the film. You could guess he was the main problem long before the end. The actors who played each role were all new to me, which might explain how they got so many of them to strip down to gain acting "respect." There were plot holes (How did David and Richard finally impress Tish's father by getting the lease they wanted when David was so wrapped up in this damn investigation to try and find a prostitute?) There were cheesy technology moments (like the talking email program dressed up like a bondage queen), and a gay brother character which did nothing but show how the director was trying to get a Joaquin Phoenix knockoff to play this character. The tag line featured on this profile for this video is complete BS, too, because it wasn't even about a last breath. Nobody really dies. But they did have a good car crash sequence that came out of nowhere...but that was a good 10 seconds long out of an hour and 3/4 long movie.<br /><br />Go rent (and maybe buy) the original. It's one of Joel Schumacher's better and more original films. It has everything better about it from this film. I wouldn't recommend seeing this unless you want to compare apples to oranges.
5,582	[ 700, 800 ]	573	734	Aside from Frank Kress (who played Abraham Gentry), an appearance by Henny Youngman and the last seconds of the movie, there really wasn't anything particularly good about this film. Why it is currently rated 5.3 and adored by some reviewers is beyond me--the film is 99.44% crap...and exactly what I would have expected from director Hershell Gordon Lewis. In the 1960s and 70s, Lewis was known for making a string of incredibly low budget exploitation films, such as BLOOD FEAST and MONSTER A GO-GO. However, in recent years he's been christened "the father of gore" and he has many, many fans--fans who ignore the ineptitude of his work and only focus on how groundbreaking some of his films were. But apart from the liberal use of fake blood and real guts, at heart, his films are pure crap--and don't believe scores of 9 and 10 for his films. This would be like putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!<br /><br />The film is about a string of very grisly murders that happen to strippers. When I say gruesome, it's very bloody and sick for 1972--though by today's standards the special effects look amazingly lame. So, while some very deviant and cruel murders happen in the film (I'd rather not explain them--they ARE from a pretty sick mind and show a particularly sick disregard for women), at least they won't nauseate you because they were done so poorly. It's obvious that in many cases they are cutting apart rubber dolls and mannequins. But to have them doing some of the sick acts, even if unrealistic, is pretty nasty and shows a lot of misogyny.<br /><br />The only hope in the film, as the police are all idiots, is a guy named Abraham Gentry--whose mannerisms and style of speech are very close to the stock actor, David Lochary, from the early John Waters films. While his acting is bad, he is so flamboyant and funny that he kept my interest. He could be pretty funny and oddly this is the only film he ever made!! It was also odd that so many women wanted him--especially because they just didn't seem like his type.<br /><br />As for the rest of the folks in the film, they are cretins and idiots who could not act. In fact, I was kind of hoping MORE would be killed--they really had it coming! None of their acting was the least bit believable and apparently the director NEVER re-shot a single scene--as most of the scenes in the film were worse than any of the ones in Ed Wood's masterpiece, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, for many of the women in the film, the only prerequisite for their appearing in the film is that they be willing to take off their clothes. Now I know this will sound pretty mean, but most of them were incredibly unattractive and looked like drug addicts who strip to get their next fix. When these ladies take off their clothes, men in the crowd give them money to put it back on (wow--Henny Youngman SHOULD have said that in the film)! But, considering Lewis' budgets, these were probably the best "actresses" he could get.<br /><br />Overall, a sleazy bucket of bile that manages to be worse than most of the director's other films...and that's saying a lot! It's violent (yet dumb), anti-women (treating them like meat and things to be mutilated) and is thoroughly incompetent from start to finish.
5,614	[ 700, 800 ]	646	779	HAPPY DAYS was one of my favorite shows when it aired in 1974. But the critics were quick to show their ignorance combined with a total lack of a sense of humor by slamming this show because they thought it was a cheap attempt to cash-in on the success of American GRAFFITTI.<br /><br />There were some similarities between American GRAFFITTI and HAPPY DAYS.<br /><br />Both opened with "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & the Comets. Both took place in a bygone era and both featured Ron Howard as one of the leading roles. But there were also some major differences. While American GRAFFITTI took place in 1962 California and centered around a group of newly graduated high school students about to take that big step into adulthood, HAPPY DAYS took place in Milwaulkee, Wisconson and centered around a group of teenagers in high school, dealing with the joys and tribulations of adolescence.<br /><br />HAPPY DAYS originally opened with the juke box playing the original version of Bill Haley & the Comets' ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK. But when oldies became hot, thanks to the success of American GRAFFITTI, , and the original 1954 version of ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK, entered the Billboard Hot 100 and became a hit again in 1974, royalty payments went through the roof. So a "remake" of the song (the correct term is now "new stereo recording") was quickly substituted.<br /><br />The current theme song for HAPPY DAYS was then introduced for the second season if memory serves me right.<br /><br />Fans and foes alike agree that this show is escapist. Liberties were taken and details overlooked, making this show less than completely authentic.<br /><br />This is perfectly fine. HAPPY DAYS is supposed to be a comedy, not a history lesson. But occasionally the writers did sometimes stick their necks out by hitting on controversial topics. One episode centered around the Cunninghams building of a fall out shelter. Another episode was about a divorced woman moving into the neighborhood with a dream of starting a new life. The topic of prejudice was addressed when Howard was invited to the wedding of an old army buddy who just happened to be black (in an era when prejudice and discrimination was sadly an acceptable part of the American way of life). The issue of the draft even came up on a later episode!<br /><br />The show as originally set in 1955. One problem that was dealt wisely was with the cast. Most of them were teenagers and as each year passed, it was obvious that they grew older so the series aged with the cast, moving the series out of the safe waters of the Eisenhower years into the Age of Camelot, all the way with JFK and then into the turbulent later half of the 1960s. That, along with the writers running out of ideas, and later, cast members like Ron Howard leaving the series, wisely quitting while they were ahead, left me wishing that they had all done the right thing by pulling the plug on this show and quitting while they were ahead. That, along with the idol worshiping studio audience who just couldn't control themselves every time the Great Fonzie entered the scene, began to wear very thin very fast.<br /><br />This show originally portrayed the Fabulous Fifties as we LIKE to remember that era. Time heals wounds, you know. Everything has its place and though I would prefer hearing the "original hit versions" over those "new stereo recordings", those "new stereo recordings" worked very well on HAPPY DAYS. And this is where I find myself regretting my buying the DVD! Unlike the complete first season DVD, the original music on the complete second season, has been replaced with different music. While it is great that the original episodes were digitally restored to digital perfection, the removal of the original music destroyed what it was that made this show so much fun to watch!
5,657	[ 700, 800 ]	512	709	In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "MAS*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)
5,661	[ 700, 800 ]	582	772	Red Sonja is a career-step-in-the-wrong-direction for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Having made a couple of sword 'n' sorcery films (as Conan) he had moved onto slightly more serious acting roles in films like The Terminator and Commando, only to make a mystifying return to the sword 'n' sorcery genre for this 1985 debacle. It's hard to figure out why he bothered, as this is weaker than both Conan films in every conceivable department. Allegedly, this was to have been the third Conan film, but for one reason or another the emphasis was shifted onto the leading female character, the titular red-head, leaving poor old Arnold to play an incredibly dull supporting role. Spare a thought, too, for director Richard Fleischer who had given the world classics like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler and 10 Rillington Place. In this - his penultimate film - Fleischer also has taken a gigantic career step backwards.<br /><br />Evil queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) wants to rule the world, and she needs a priceless and powerful talisman to do so. She and her brutish army storm a keep populated by priestesses and steal the said talisman, massacring the helpless priestesses as they go. One of the dead priestesses has a sister named Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen), a fiery red-headed warrior, who upon hearing of her sister's death swears revenge upon the evil Gedren. Sonja rides across the land in search of Gedren's lair. Along the way she picks up travelling companions in the shape of a boy prince, Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr) and his bodyguard Falkon (Paul Smith). She also meets the muscular warrior Conan - sorry, I mean Kalidor (!) - who offers to join her in her quest. Initially Sonja doesn't want the help of Kalidor (Arnold Schwarzenegger), preferring instead to prove that she can confront and defeat her enemies alone, but eventually she warms to him and accepts his assistance.<br /><br />Red Sonja is a staggeringly poor film, all the more so when one muses that it was made in 1985 when the sword 'n' sorcery genre was close to its end. It seems so simplistic and amateurish that one could easily mistake it for an early example of its kind. The performances are poor on the whole, ranging from Bergman's embarrassingly OTT villain to Reyes' unbelievably irritating spoilt brat to Schwarzenegger's wooden and unenthusiastic hero. Nielsen is slightly better as the heroine - presumably full of enthusiasm at the thought of being in her first starring role - but she is let down very badly by the stupidity of Clive Exton and George MacDonald Fraser's script. The film is riddled with goofs, including a scene where Schwarzenegger is seen in close-up hacking down bad guys but in a long-shot in the same sequence there isn't a corpse in sight. Technically it is very inept too, with sub-standard special effects and appallingly mechanical monsters. There are a few compensations, such as Ennio Morricone's enjoyable music (Morricone spent a great deal of the '80s providing good music for awful films, e.g The Island, Treasure of the Four Crowns and Hundra). Another compensation is Giuseppe Rotunno's lensing of the locations - in fact, much of the time it's a hell of a lot more gratifying to look at the lovely scenery than the actors standing in the foreground! There were very few sword 'n' sorcery films after Red Sonja, so in some ways it might go down in history as the film which destroyed its own genre.
5,803	[ 700, 800 ]	587	758	A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.<br /><br />Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.<br /><br />Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.<br /><br />OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.<br /><br />And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.<br /><br />But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.<br /><br />In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?
5,844	[ 700, 800 ]	566	721	Call me old fashioned, but I like movies with plots. I thought "stoner comedy" was just a way to more specifically describe a comedy in which lots of weed is smoked and the people watching it are more apt to enjoy it high. "Grandma's Boy," however, has decided this is a full-blown niche and that stoners represent a piece of the comedy pie that need to be reached. Apparently, Allen Covert (star and producer) and the Happy Madison gang were right, but that doesn't make "Grandma's Boy" any less boring and unfunny. They might be completely stoned -- but the characters are mostly half-baked.<br /><br />Alex (Covert, a longtime supporting player for Adam Sandler, first-time star) is a mid-30s professional video game tester whose roommate has gotten them evicted. He could look for a new apartment, but then we don't have a movie. After trying a couple friends, he ends up living with good ole Grandma Lilly (Doris Roberts of "Everybody Loves Raymond"). She wakes him up a 6 am and has him do chores and soon he's falling asleep on the job and so the new video game sequel might not get done on deadline.<br /><br />Like most people, Alex deals with his frustration and eradicates boredom by either playing video games or getting high or both. His friends/co-workers all do the same thing. Most of them are virgins that live at home in addition to loving video games. They're all awkward and all with the exception of Nick Swardson and Joel Moore (only at times) their characters aren't funny. Funny if you're blazed ... sure, i suppose, but I can't say from experience.<br /><br />Maybe all we loser guys like is getting high, playing video games and awkwardly ogling women with specific attention on their breasts, but even so, it shouldn't be the driving force of an entire film. Neither should old women getting high on accident (saw that one coming) or being the but of gross-out sex jokes -- but that's what happens when a film isn't about anything. No conflict occurs until the last 20 minutes outside of the slight problems of being out of pot, Alex trying to get the hot girl (Linda Cardellini) to like him and the guys scrambling to finish their levels for the video game deadline.<br /><br />Characters can be the saving grace for these meandering stoner flicks, but aside from a lovable Doris Roberts, the aforementioned Swardson as the virgin friend who lives with his parents and calls them his roommates and Joel Moore's skill at making robot noises, there's little character ingenuity. Covert is a run-of-the-mill main character with no comedic dimensions, his dealer friend Dante is an inept actor and waste of screen time and Jonah Hill and Kevin Nealon are written so far into the periphery it doesn't matter.<br /><br />If you like movies about nothing and watching them in a state of mind and body that enhance that nothingness, "Grandma's Boy" will likely be just what you're looking for. Those who need a little more talent and wit to get on board with a comedy will be left unaffected. The most I can say for "Grandma's Boy" is that it's watchable despite its pointlessness. It won't feel like a total waste of time but you'll wish you did do drugs so you could at least have made the most of the hour and a half.<br /><br />~Steven C<br /><br />Visit my site at www.moviemusereviews.com
5,889	[ 700, 800 ]	578	702	Had she not been married to the producer, Jennifer Jones would not have been the most obvious choice for the leading female role in this tragic tale of an affair between an American soldier and an English nurse, set against the backdrop of the First World War. Her British accent is not perfect, and in the fifties it was unusual for a big romantic lead to go to an actress in her late thirties, even one as attractive as Miss Jones, especially when she was several years older than her leading man.. There were a number of beautiful young British actresses in Hollywood around this time, such as Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Jean Simmons and Joan Collins, any of whom might have been more convincing in the role, but Miss Jones had one important attribute they all lacked, namely a marriage certificate with David O. Selznick's name on it. In the event, the film turned out to be such a turkey that they were doubtless grateful not to have it on their CVs. <br /><br />The film tells, at great length, the story of the romance between Frederick, an American volunteer serving with the Italian Army as an ambulance driver and Catherine, a nurse with the British Red Cross. After the Italian defeat at the battle of Caporetto, Frederick is wrongly accused of being a German spy and sentenced to death. (The film paints a very harsh picture of Italian military justice; it would appear that Italian Courts-Martial had the power to pass the death sentence after a trial lasting all of thirty seconds without hearing any evidence and without allowing the defendant to be legally represented or to speak in his defence). Frederick manages to escape and to cross the border into neutral Switzerland, accompanied by the pregnant Catherine. <br /><br />Hemingway's novels have not always been a great success when filmed. Howard Hawks succeeded in making a good version of "To Have and have Not", a film that is considerably better than the book on which it is nominally based, but that is because he largely ignored Hemingway's plot and turned the film into a remake of "Casablanca", set in Martinique rather than French Morocco. Like the 1943 version of "For Whom the Bell Tolls", "A Farewell to Arms" is overlong and fatally slow moving. It is also miscast. Jennifer Jones never makes Catherine come to life. As for Rock Hudson, his assumed Christian name could be unfortunately appropriate. He could be as solid as a rock but also as impassive as one, and in this film his Frederick seems an impersonation of the Great Stone Face. Despite the passion and emotion inherent in Hemingway's plot, the emotional temperature is always far too cool. The picture has little going for it apart from some attractive picture-postcard views of Italian and Swiss scenery. It is hardly surprising that it was not a success and that its failure ended Selznick's career as a producer. 4/10<br /><br />A goof. Shortly before the battle of Caporetto, an Italian officer states that Russia had already concluded a separate peace with Germany. That battle started in October 1917, at a time when Kerensky's Russia was still fighting alongside the Allies. The Russian Revolution did not take place until November; it was only the "October Revolution" by the old Julian calendar. The new Bolshevik regime signed an armistice with Germany in December 1917, but a separate peace was not signed until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918
6,050	[ 700, 800 ]	555	736	Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.<br /><br />An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, "Kadosh" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)<br /><br />There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural "shifting objects in space", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget "Kadosh" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.<br /><br />It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found "Kadosh" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for "trite").
6,157	[ 700, 800 ]	596	711	This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.<br /><br />1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.<br /><br />2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she / he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.<br /><br />3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.<br /><br />Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.
6,165	[ 700, 800 ]	551	753	Before I start, I need to inform you that I love horror films with a passion. LOVE THEM! I have seen thousands and rarely does one come along that I do not like. I am very forgiving of the horror genre. One of the greatest lines in movie history is in the film "Ed Wood" where Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) freaks out and yells at the overly critical producers after they comment on "Plan 9's" cheap sets and continuity problems, "You don't know anything! Haven't you ever heard of 'suspension of disbelief?!'" Well, I try to bring that "suspension of disbelief" philosophy with me to every horror film I see and it usually works. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me during the screening of Cheerleader Massacre.<br /><br />Strike One:<br /><br />The first thing you'll notice about this "film" is that it is shot on video and has that crummy hand-held-home-digital-camera style. The camera work and quality are so bad it makes daytime soaps look breathtaking in comparison. In fact, it makes Troma and Full Moon video releases look good. And, that's bad.<br /><br />Strike Two:<br /><br />Jim Wynorski. This "filmmaker" probably fancies himself a chip off the ol' Corman, but nothing could be further from the truth. Roger Corman shot fast, furious and under budget, but was able to deliver a tight original film. Though Wynorski delivers a cheap film, he cheats his viewers (and perhaps other artists) as he steals entire pieces of James Horner's "Humanoids From The Deep" and "Battle Beyond The Stars" musical scores and inappropriately drops them into Cheerleader Massacre. On the back of the box art and during the beginning credits the music score is falsely attributed to, Dan Savio (an extra in Wynorski's "Deathstalker II"). You will also notice how Cheerleader Massacre jumps from video to film and back again as Wynorski lifts entire scenes from both "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Humanoids From the Deep." Wynorski utilized this deception, fourteen years earlier, in his horrible version of "Not of This Earth."<br /><br />Strike Three (you're out):<br /><br />While Cheerleader Massacre does have some nudity, (40-year-olds playing teenagers and the grossest set of fake breasts that I have ever seen in a horror film, ugh), the murders are relatively bloodless. What the heck is that all about? The film is titled, Cheerleader Massacre, but a handful of off-screen killings, in my opinion, does not add up to a massacre. It doesn't even add up to a bad mosquito bite.<br /><br />The "film's" story is fair enough - unseen killer stalks a vanload of cheerleaders (old gals playing teens) until the van runs out of gas and the "girls" are forced to hold up in secluded two-story mountain home. I won't ruin the ending for you but this is one of those "films" where the person who is obviously the killer is not obviously the killer. Cheerleader Massacre would have been great if it were shot on film, directed by Joseph Zito and had special effects by Tom Savini. Instead it is an effect-less, shot-on-video travesty by Jim Wynorski. Ouch.<br /><br />I beg of you, please don't buy or rent this abomination. If we keep supporting these clowns, the more of this talentless video garbage they'll produce. Go out and rent "The Prowler", "The Last House on Dead End Street", "Delirium" or "The Burning" instead. You'll be glad you did.
6,230	[ 700, 800 ]	659	775	Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .<br /><br />First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie<br /><br />When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations<br /><br />I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised
6,299	[ 700, 800 ]	672	761	I have been collecting Iron Man comics since the early 70s and always enjoyed the character who is far far from the average clean cut hero and his many and varied enemies. There have been no less than three attempts at an animated series for Iron Man and only the original and part of the second have ever done the character justice. So I was somewhat hopeful that this newest version would be good. Boy was I wrong! The DVD art is VERY misleading and presents an image that is not the movie. Fist off the good, what little there is... The art and animation are well drawn and the writing and dialog are generally good, though with notable exceptions. Character voices are very well selected and each character is distinctive and well acted. Now for the bad... Unfortunately the writers opted to totally screw around with both Iron Man's origin and especially the Mandarin's. On top of that they decided to do Iron Man and his opponents all in CGI. Bad CGI. This makes them stand out almost as badly as live actors would in a cartoon. The CG work is often repetitive and glaring shortcuts are taken at times. The CG battles are clumsy as well, further enhancing the fact that CG and line animation do not mix well. The movie would certainly have fared better had they opted to actually DRAW all the characters. Another problem is that Iron Man is in his traditional Red and Gold suit for all of ONE battle! And its not even the big fight at the end. All this drags the movie down and it never picks up.<br /><br />********** SPOILERS (or warnings) MAY FOLLOW **********<br /><br />The movie starts off with an interestingly unusual stop motion credit sequence of machinery, welding and gears. Then we are introduced to what looks like a Chinese temple in the process of being restored, and prominent is a statue of what fans will recognize as the Mandarin. Things go strangely, impeding progress in restoring the temple. Overseeing it is James Rhodes, Tony Stark's long time friend. Seems they plan to actually raise the temple up from the earth, despite opposition by a group who insist that raising the temple will bring about a terrible disaster. Rhodes is captured in a raid. Stark, shown in a hot tub with a lovely lady, is informed of the problems and sets out to personally oversee the project and rescue his friend while in the background his father deals with Board Executives who are pushing to have Tony removed. Tony arrives only to have his armored escort ambushed and blown to pieces. Tony later awakens mortally wounded in the heart and a prisoner of the rebels. He is saved only by quick action from Rhodes and a scientist. Eventually Stark must build the prototype gray iron armor and makes good an escape, but only after some loss of life. While with the rebels he meets a troubled girl named Li Mei, and the two fall in love. The Temple is raised and four elemental beings (all done in CG) appear and proceed to start collecting hidden rings of power. Stark and Rhody find trouble back home but manage to confront the elementals without success in really stopping them, First using the Aquatic Armor, then the more classic Red and Gold Armor and finally everything returns to the temple and Stark is back in the bulky gray armor for a final showdown and a run in with what may be Fin Fang Foom (also in CG.) Here the story takes a major twist as it turns out that the Mandarin needs a host body to manifest. This leads to a somewhat tragic final battle marred by the fact that the Mandarin is little more than a ghost and isn't seen till the last 5 minutes of the movie. ugh...<br /><br />If you are an Iron Man fan then you will likely not enjoy this outing. And even non-fans may well find the movie somewhat lacking or not.
6,304	[ 700, 800 ]	539	703	This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.<br /><br />Turkey's winner song "Every Way That I Can" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit "Simarik", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song "Sanomi", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the "lyrics" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.<br /><br />After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with "Ne Ver', Ne Boisia" ("Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.<br /><br />The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.<br /><br />Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with "Take Me To Your Heaven", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with "Listen To Your Heartbeat", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.<br /><br />England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.<br /><br />Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, "Fly On The Wings Of Love". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.<br /><br />I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.<br /><br />I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.<br /><br />Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.<br /><br />4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.
6,327	[ 700, 800 ]	562	728	Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.<br /><br />I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.<br /><br />But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.<br /><br />Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from "The Dirty Dozen" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never "earned the respect" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from "The Great Escape" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.<br /><br />The title, "Uncommon Valor," is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- "Uncommon valor was common that day." Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice.
6,516	[ 700, 800 ]	584	769	The Good<br /><br />Carrey is good actor and he proved it in "Man on the Moon" and in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do "Number 23".<br /><br />The Bad <br /><br />Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure "Falling Down" was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't. <br /><br />And so good actor and poor director finally met and made "Number 23"...<br /><br />The Ugly (23)<br /><br />I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.<br /><br />Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead. <br /><br />All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.<br /><br />Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.<br /><br />Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder/Scully routine. Disappointment. <br /><br />Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.<br /><br />Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. "There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices". Captain obvious to the rescue! "Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me". Cliché. And so on.<br /><br />It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.<br /><br />The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!<br /><br />Flashbacks and editing similar to "what happened in last episode of X-files" isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?<br /><br />I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the "mystery"? It's predictable and easy to guess. <br /><br />Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch "Repulsion" by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, "Spider" or "A History Of Violence" both of that movies deals with similar problems that "Number 23" wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.
6,642	[ 700, 800 ]	616	744	Most films are crappy with high production values, this one is crappy without high production values. Which sets it aside from the large pool of horrible movies. As bad as this film was I need to give due respect to Kathryn Aselton who, I believe if given the proper script, could probably turn in a pretty good performance. She plays Emily the girlfriend to perennial doofus Josh, who often refers to her as "Dude" or "Man" in a non-ironical tone.<br /><br />But heres the thing, Emily is a semi-believable character which means Rhett will soon need to be added to the cast, to counteract this almost believable character with a guy even more preposterous than Josh. When we first meet Rhett we learn that he is "deep" because he is videotaping a lizard which is PROOF that he sees the world "uniquely!" Rhett then shows the tape to Emily and in one of Emily's few unbelievable moments she acts impressed by this amateur tape of a lizard, WOW i believe is how she responds once again with no irony of sarcasm even mildly implied.<br /><br />From the opening scene you are given warning that the camera work will be crappy, we open on a shaky close up of Josh as he attempts to win over the viewers by acting GOOFY! oh how care free this main protagonist is that he will act GOOFY! haha. This film could almost be a case study in just how BAD films can be (and for that matter just how FAR bad films can get in the festival circuit, I mean by comparison of most circuit crap this film probably did appear pretty awesome).<br /><br />I believe SXSW gave this film some minor award (oh south by southwest, why do you encourage them, its only cruel). But here is where I hand this film a compliment, it is the best of the mumblecore movement. Mind you all other mumblecore movies sucked beyond belief and generally included grotesque nudity and incomprehensibly bad acting, but still, its good to be the best of something.<br /><br />I haven't seen baghead yet, but it looks like maybe they have made a few strides forward, the preview at least made it appear tolerable, where as even the Puffy Chair preview couldn't really hide the fact that it was going to suck. I've gotten off topic here, anyways Rhett is most likely not portrayed by a professional actor at all, much like Josh most likely isn't an actual actor but rather the director (or brother of director, there's some mixed messages there). I think Rhett was somebodies buddy and they said hey why don't you play this guy named Rhett in the movie, the fact that Rhett is the name of the actor and character probably means the actor and character are the same, unless I am mistaken, which I am not.<br /><br />If Rhett shaved the raccoon off of his face you would probably say he was attractive. So anyways Rhett, Emily, and Josh team up to bring the Puffy Chair to Rhett and Josh's dad. Some stuff happens along the way, more bad acting, bad supporting actors, crappy camera work, an attempt at significance. This film wouldn't have been bad if it hadnt been so shamelessly pursuing profound self importance.<br /><br />The whole thing is amateurish, if you can view this movie without paying for it, like if its on TV or for rent at the library, then consider looking at it, just to see if you like this super cheap style of film-making. I like what the duplass' are doing the whole make a movie with nothing concept, but I wish they would make a movie that someone would want to see.
6,664	[ 700, 800 ]	511	702	Let me say this new He-Man cartoon is not destroying childhood memories, as I didn't like the old He-Man cartoon either. I loved the action figures, but I found the cartoon to be corny and I hated the storyline (the He-Man I liked was the one from the very early, pre-cartoon mini-comics included in the figure boxes, where He-Man was a Barbarian, the Sword of Power was split in two pieces, and there was no Prince Adam, no Shazam-ripoff premise, and no Orko). Anyway, let's leave the old stuff alone.<br /><br />The new He-Man cartoon (or at least this pilot) is a disgrace on its own, s it represents both the worst cheesiness of the old show, and the worst tendences of nowadays. I watched it because I had heard the in-your-face morals of the old show were (thankfully) gone, and this one had more swordplay and character development. But I encountered an awful mishmash of the worst clichés of the genre, characters I couldn't help but hate, and the sadly inevitable Matrix-esque visual style.<br /><br />I think it was a good idea to give a bit of a background to the characters, as it was showing a pre-face-peeling Skeletor, but that's how far the character development goes, aside from the usual coming-to-age rubbish I see coming in the subsequent episodes, where this teenybopper Adam will be learning the responsibility of his new-acquired powers, blah blah. At least in the old show Adam was not a spoiled brat! I found myself hating his guts. That's what we get when they put out an adventure show aimed at pre-teens: pretty faces and wanna-be-cool-and-look-juvenile clothes. I should check new episodes to see if N'Sync make a special appearance. Man, does this show remind me to the 1996 Flash Gordon stinkbomb cartoon!<br /><br />Dialogue? Ha! It follows absolutely every cliché in the book, from the goody-lil-two-shoes Randor in the opening scene to Skeletor's immortal "Oh, and He-Man... I lied!" in the ending. And Skeletor's voice is still the same high-pitch kind than in the old series. 20 years, and nothing we have learnt.<br /><br />And sure, nowadays there can't exist something remotely action-related that's not Matrix-style. Leave Anime to the Japanese, folks, think fresh ideas. And seeing the characters' poses while fighting didn't help either.<br /><br />Of course, we have our usual dose of PCness: Evil-Lyn (now I think about it, who the hell comes up with these names?) has no yellow skin now, but grey-ish. Oh, so no Asian people will be offended. I bet Jitsu won't appear in the show either. Shades of the 1996 FG again, where Ming the Merciless was a green, toad-like alien!<br /><br />People are complaining about Cringer's lack of speech. I don't think I would have liked this more or less if Cringer spoke, he's corny enough this way. And you have your extra ration of cheese with Orko! The shocking thing is, probably many of the people who (rightfully) hated Jar Jar Binks, might be huge Orko fans...<br /><br />I watched the feature-lenght pilot, and I've had enough. Leave the series alone. 2 out of 10.
6,676	[ 700, 800 ]	597	751	Jeff Morrow is Leslie Gaskell, Barbara Laurence is Vera Hunter, and John Emory is Hubbel Eliot. Along with some ancillary Air Force personnel and a comic geek, they are in charge of a super-secret underground laboratory on the West Coast. Morrow is thrilled when he discovers a meteor passing through the atmosphere but nonplussed when the meteor decides to take a dip in the Pacific Ocean and emerge as a fantastic machine on the Mexican coast.<br /><br />Nobody knows what this colossal, blocky structure is. Obviously it's some kind of carpentered artifact because it's all made up of right angles with a kind of bald sphere half visible on top.<br /><br />It turns out that the machine, dubbed Kronos, is from some far-away planet and has been sent here to rob the earth of energy. You see, here on earth, we have learned how to convert matter into energy, but on Kronos' planet they have figured out the other half of the equation -- how to convert energy into matter. And now they're running out of energy on the other planet. Are you taking notes on this? Good.<br /><br />Maybe you'll be able to fill me in on some of the scientific questions raised by Kronos' mission. For instance, if Kronos' builders can convert energy into matter and vice versa, why don't they just convert a little of their own spare matter into energy instead of sending elaborate machines to earth to extinguish LA's lights? But it's doubtful the writers could explain it either. Reversing the polarities of two antenna is described as an "anthropic conversion," which means a "towards-human change", which doesn't make sense. But it doesn't seem that any of the science makes sense for that matter. The diagram that Morrow draws on the board has the current going in the wrong direction, from positive to negative.<br /><br />There's a problem with Kronos' locomotion too. It marches along the coast, threatening "populated areas" (read Southern California), but it has no joints in its two or three legs. These stumps just thump slowly up and down, squashing some people. The film doesn't make much of these squashed people. They're shown as Mexican peasants, so maybe they don't count for too much. The USAF also drops a hydrogen bomb on Kronos -- while it's in Mexico, mind you. Nobody raises an eyebrow.<br /><br />Not much acting is called for and not much is given. Jeff Morrow has a distinct and resonant voice, great for radio or for TV voice overs. His face is less expressive. He has only one expression, no matter what the situation is -- a tight smile, as if he's having his picture taken at the Universal Studios Tour. Barbara Laurence had a fine, golden quality when she made "Street With No Name" a few years earlier. She was a slender seventeen-year-old as Richard Widmark's wife. Here, her grooming and demeanor reduce her to the level of B-movie actress, though she's still beautiful. It's always good to see Morris Ankrum in one of these movies. He's made so many, I get them mixed up.<br /><br />On the whole, the film comes across as flat, I'm afraid. (There are some nice shots of a B-47 in flight, though.) The sets reveal a low-budget enterprise. That's not necessarily bad in itself, but there's nothing to make up for the barren settings. Little tension in the script, no directorial display, and little effort put into the performances.<br /><br />You might get a kick out of it -- a relaxed high -- because this is distinctly unchallenging. It's just that there are so many better films of the genre out there.
6,677	[ 700, 800 ]	568	710	I once heard this movie described as either you'll love it or you'll hate it. From reading some of the other reviews and the ratings, I would venture to say that this is true. I am placing myself in the hate it crowd. I have seen some truly bad movies, boring movies, and even low budget movies. This movie is bad on all three fronts.<br /><br />This Island Earth's Exeter (Jeff Morrow), returns to his sci-fi/b-movie roots as Dr. Les (minus giant head prosthetic). The doctor and his assistant Arnie (George O'Hanlon - aka the voice of George Jetson), along with Les' girlfriend assistant Vera, are tracking a meteor. This is the crux of the cast and is almost a double date. Les has Vera and Arnie has his "Susie" (Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor - aka the computer). Lets just say the relationship between George and his robotic maid, Rosie, (and his relationship with "Susie") is more believable than the cold, clam-like feelings Vera has for Les (and vice versa). The object of their all their interest is no ordinary meteor, however. It is really an alien art nouveau/art deco energy storage device, which moves around like a 3 legged dog. There is also the little alien "energy" being that controls Dr. Hubbel (aka, the chief scientist there). The alien is obviously and from the get-go, malicious and evil. Is this the kind of science we are handing out? No wonder the aliens from the Explorers were afraid of us. From watching some of these movies, we shoot first. There's no need for questions afterwards. <br /><br />The whole movie is synonymous with watching some really boring science experiments, like boiling an egg or adding food color to celery. Its not the fact that this is a low budget sci-fi movie or thats its a bit cheesy and outdated. It is really, really, really boring. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what is going on. That is it. Most of the things we learn about what's going on are through monologues and self dictation. Now add crappy dialog, cardboard acting and cheap-sets and you have the makings of an Ed Wood clone (by the way, Ed has made some really boring movies as well - please avoid the Orgy of the Dead). The dialog ... oh, the dialog. Jems such as :<br /><br />"..from under 2 miles of ocean ?<br /><br />Why not ?! It came through a billion miles in space."<br /><br />or<br /><br />"Do you think you'll be able to respect a husband who's probably pulled the scientific boner of all time ?"<br /><br />This movie is obviously trying to pull a Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Magnetic Monster or in the same light as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. Namely, a low budget sci-fi movie (or TV episode) that is compelling enough to get past the technical difficulties and strange situations. At the core, these movies are enjoyable on some level (the story, the underlying meaning or the sheer comical nature of the dialog or situations). This movie has none of that. It is just 90 minutes of boredom. I couldn't even enjoy this on a Ed Wood level. I definitely recommend skipping this one and seeing one of the movies I mentioned above instead. It is so bad, that if my name was Dr. Forrester, I would never think of showing this movie to anyone ... except Frank maybe.
6,699	[ 700, 800 ]	572	709	The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.
6,703	[ 700, 800 ]	562	729	I saw that "The Foreigner" was ranked in the "Bottom 100" movie listings here on IMDb, so I wasn't expecting much when I tuned into it on the USA channel a week back, but I did have hopes. "Belly Of The Beast" (which aired a month ago) was a mess, but it had great scenery and photography and some pretty cool moments scattered throughout, so I thought that this movie might have some of the same. <br /><br />Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings. <br /><br />Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes. <br /><br />So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience. <br /><br />Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart. <br /><br />There are 'cool' movies (like "Versus"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like "Underworld") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like "The Bourne Identity" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul. <br /><br />This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as "Manos", "Killer Shrews" or "Hobgoblins". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch "The Foreigner" again even once.
6,762	[ 700, 800 ]	560	754	After consuming "Human Pork Chop" and properly digesting it, I felt urged and obliged to inform potential viewers, that chewing on this product is NO FUN and its substance of LOW nutritive value.<br /><br />According to the dull nature of this film, the following is gonna be a WARNING more than a REVIEW. This is the first time I wished, that there is an "I-don't-care-to-rate-this-movie"-button on IMDB, because the only reaction to this boring piece of TRASH is stasis and indifference. Every possible rating would do injustice to all the other items listed here, a "10" is out of question anyway, "1" might persuade some readers, that this is one of those cases where "it's so bad that it's actually REALLY bad and that's kewl!", and "5" is unsatisfying as well, people might think, that it's an OK-flick and alright if you wanna have some cheesy fun, which it is not... Honest to God, it's neither a "10", a zero nor a 5, it's nothing, a black hole, A FUTILE WORK CONCEIVED BY AN EMBRYO. I bought the region 3 DVD, which was cheap (7 bucks!!!) at least and of good picture-quality, I bought it mainly because of the positive and promising reviews posted below my own entry. Oh boy, was I to be DISAPPOINTED. This movie is neither shocking nor disgusting nor unnerving nor... it's not even laughable, it doesn't take itself too serious to be laughed at, but still serious enough so as not to be comic. A truly unpassionate, amateurish effort. The only sequence that I found MILDLY DISTURBING is when two giggling thugs put an ugly dog in a bag and bash it against a brick wall... but even such a cruel premise only lead to a poor execution. The further down cited TOILET SCENE is unrealistic and filmmed without any sense for suspense, suffering or humiliation - the feces look like painted marsh-mellows!!! There is a butchery scene at the end of a loooong 85-minutes where three men dressed in plastic raincoats (a setup which one finds also depicted on the front cover of the DVD) start to dispose of the female body. Reminded me of "American Psycho" and "Shallow Grave", now these flicks are worth watching and true masterpieces.<br /><br />Let's be REALISTIC for once and not rush to make a myth out of every Asian-wannabe-scary-movie, as seems to happen lately...<br /><br />If you are looking out for some eastern horror then try Danny Lee's masterpiece of the very same (English) title "Ba Xian fan dian zhi ren rou cha shao bao" (Human Pork Chop) it's from 1992 and has - not without reason I might add - been compared to "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". There is also a similar film telling the same story by a different film crew called "Ren tou dou fu shang" ("There Is a Secret in My Soup") of the same year, sort of a rival production. It's available as a region 3 DVD and by most regarded as superior to "Peng shi zhi sang jin tian liang". I might add a few more words on the special effects... what special effects?!?... there are a few chopped off limbs, they look awful - in a wrong sense - probably "Made in Hong Kong".<br /><br />That's about all the info I can share on this subject, hopefully it will prove helpful... ENJOY YOUR MEAL!
6,798	[ 700, 800 ]	575	736	...I normally hate puns, but this seems the only appropriate summary for "Barnyard". I suspect I am not the first. And I'm sure many, MANY comments focus on the idiocy of bulls with udders. It certainly bothered me right off the bat. But there's much more wrong with this movie than a fundamental lack of knowledge about how mammals work.<br /><br />Personally, if I was a parent, I would be irritated by the violent turn it takes near the end in the showdown with the coyotes. (Although for me, it at least injected a little action.) And from a conventional screen writing point of view, you might expect the coyotes to play a greater role in the conflict(Gee- you have a "widow" cow...maybe her "husband" was killed by coyotes? Nope...there's a much dumber explanation.) And what kind of a farm is this? Otis vows to protect all the animals from harm, but there certainly seems to be no threat from humans. They make reference to the farmer being vegan, but what is he raising pigs for? In all children's animal stories- Babe, Charlotte's Web, you name it...the reality of farm life is at least touched on. Perhaps our friendly farmer is running some sort of rescue shelter (there is some reference to this, but it's never explained.) But all the farmer gets in return is abuse from a horse in a scene that is supposed to be funny, but left me seriously wondering if he was going to wind up buried in a shallow grave behind the barn. And what the heck is the deal with "Wild Mike"? It was like the Gimp scene in Pulp Fiction without the ball-gag.<br /><br />Add in some truly awful attempts at emotional scenes, a nearly complete lack of laughs, and THOSE UDDERS, and you've got the worst kids movie I've seen in ages. I generally only post to IMDb to highlight a film that's not so well known- not to slam the current #2 box-office hit. But this movie ANGERED me. It was taking up space in my local theater, space that could have been used to show something worthwhile. There's been plenty of good family entertainment this summer- in fact there were at least 2 more kids films playing at the same multiplex. But I'm not allowed to see something like "Little Miss Sunshine" so Viacom can cheat families out of an extra $30. At least I had a free pass.<br /><br />I know that as a 35 year old with no children, this film was not designed for me. But there's just no excuse for such a lazy, dreadful children's film as "Barnyard" in the age of Pixar. I was bored by the "Ice Age" films, but they certainly didn't anger me like "Barnyard". "Shark Tale" was a weak attempt at street hipness, but it had quite a few laughs. For that matter, you could turn on Nickelodeon at any time of the day, and see something more entertaining and intelligent- which is why they should be ashamed for putting their name on this garbage.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 2 out of 10, only because Pip The Mouse was sporadically amusing, and Maria Bamford had a few amusing lines as the farmers wife. Well, not THE farmer's wife. Some other farmer. They didn't really explain who she was. They didn't explain a lot of things. Especially not why Sam Elliot- the ultimate "man's man"- had an udder jiggling around down there. Creepy.
6,816	[ 700, 800 ]	606	713	I see this movie as a poor tribute to the old slasher movies. Because it really doesn't hold a candle to the 70's and 80's gold-era of horror, this is of course where personal taste comes in.<br /><br />This movie just falls into the category of "New generation of slashers" in my book, the cast is the typical ones 18-24 years and potential models. I'm personally quite tired of that image in horror movies, the old movies at least had some variation in people. One or more fat people, and dorks in general. Just plain looking persons, of course having a couple of good lookers is fine they always been there. But when the entire cast is just a bunch of nice racks and butts it's getting silly. I mean, OK yeah i like to watch HOT chicks. But not in a horror that is supposed to reflect some ordinary people getting hunted down by for example a knife-wielding maniac... You expect the people being hunted to look something like any random person you see on the street. I think. There are of course a few movies with just good lookers that is perfectly alright, but they aren't many. "Wrong turn" is one example of the better ones.<br /><br />Next point is the killing scenes that slashers should be all about. In this poor movie, all you get to see is 2-3 frames of sudden high pitched sound/scream and music in crescendo. And that's it. The little you do get to see isn't very graphical at all, not for people who have seen some horrors during the years. The old-school slashers compared to this had much more and better death, blood and gore. Not to mention the killers in those movies, who surpassed the one you'll get to see here.<br /><br />As for true horror fans it is more fun and exciting to watch horrors with new approaches because of the originalities that pops up, the killer in this one doesn't add anything new and fresh to the genre in my opinion. I have to agree with what someone previously stated as well, the CGI is something i hate to watch. Personally i preffere the makeups in that sense I'm conservative, (unless the CGI is really well done). But most importantly is to set a good setting of mood which allows you to "get into the movie", a good background story is one very good thing. Also revealing and explaining too much of everything in a movie to the viewers takes away all sense of mystic that adds very much of the mood, and doesn't give you much to think about. Just as an example: keeping the killers background a complete mystery for the viewer is a good move in many cases. I mean if everything about the story or the people in it has to be explained or shown in detail, then it's not much content left over for the viewer at all to ponder about... That's like watching a porno movie and hope for a great story in the meantime.<br /><br />Why the old-school slashers still works, at least for some people. Is because they are established cult movies from the era when they were a new thing, making new ones of that sort today is admittedly hard. The exception might be for people who are newer to that sort of horrors of course. I have noticed that many people does like this sort of horror movies, so there are of course not "A right taste" for horror movies.<br /><br />But for people out there that might share my opinion; here you have a frame of reference what to expect of this flick.
6,953	[ 700, 800 ]	541	723	It is high time that American critics and fans alike start to debunk their unquestioned, sloppy veneration of films like Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America'. The checkered history of this opulent film (and the grand, fanciful myth associated with it's production and many versions) belies its mediocrity on a narrative level. The film lurches backward and forward in fits and starts, its central figures adrift and seemingly out of place surrounded by the ersatz decadence of towering sets, the minutia of production detail and the, by 1984, cliche'd but gorgeous cinematographic confection on offer to the audience. The plot's time frame is confusing, gimmicky and laboured, leading some critics to imagine the Noodles figure's opium binging to be the antecedent of some future 'dream reality' as well as the sepia-toned remembrances. This ham handed, overly fan boy-apologetic interpretation glosses over the glaring narrative irregularities on display. Even at this full (?) running time, figures appear and disappear with alarming suddenness: the Deborah character is fleetingly established in child form, a cold and unattainable 'trophy' female, not even hinting at the gravity with which she will re-establish her relationship with a post-prison Noodles, the said re-union henceforth rings completely false. The deadening pace is somewhat to blame, certain sequences drag along stagnantly for far too long, signifying very little, hinting at a director with so little restraint and narrative economy that he often feels obligated to usurp every iota of screen time possible in order to show off his production, fatal for a film that contains figures so sullen and aloof. The trajectory of the figures' lives is presented to us as a microcosm mirroring the historical trajectory of America's teens through prohibition and its spoils, ending with the (arguable) ruin of its moribund central figures (save Deborah- a make up department fumble or intentional one wonders). This notion is commonplace, even banal. The cast of characters as imagined in the one note script (written by seven Italians no less) are flatly and awkwardly played by all but the younger actors, who at least venture a few variant facial expressions. This is understandable given the almost unworkable material. Some critics state that the characters may seem so impenetrably self-absorbed, but actively seek their own goals, assuming the compliance of others (e.g. when Noodles gets out of prison, Max picks him up and offers him a hooker without asking him whether or not this is what he desires and later makes deals assuming Noodles will comply). This explanation of their abrupt, abrasive dispositions is unsatisfactorily extraneous and merely serves to highlight the complicated ends the films unwavering supporters will go to to defend their positions regarding a film unfortunately short on sense. Although Ennio Morricone's score is much revered, it is undeniably schmaltzy and repetitive, it gushes with an emotional redolence that the scenes themselves, many violent, just do not warrant. At points it is questionable whether or not Morricone was watching the same film I was so incongruous is his work. As a paean to American Filmmaking, it succeeds in terms of mood (helped by a few strokes of masterful editing segueing between time periods) and visuals (not helped by said score) but lacks narrative cohesion and fluidity.
6,968	[ 700, 800 ]	589	723	Yeah, I know his character was supposed to be a drunk, and he may have been just acting goofy. But something tells this critic that Mr. Pleasence really was drinking a lot and was intoxicated during his scenes in the film. Basically everything he says is slurred and often unintelligible. Or maybe it was just the poor productions values... hard to say.<br /><br />Anyway, The Race for the Yankee Zephyr is a film that just doesn't work. That's a shame, too, since the film has a terrific opening and a generally interesting plot. Ultimitely the production values are just too low and the action just too sparse for this New Zealand adventure to deliver the goods. The story deals with a US war plane which is filled with gold, money, and medals, which crashes into a lake in New Zealand during WWII. The plane remains lost for about forty years or so until it somehow washes ashore and a drunk (Pleasence) literally stumbles onto it. At first he gathers up all the purple heart medals and tries to sell them in town, actually getting $75 apiece for them! Little does he know that once he sells them, the local jeweler gets on the phone and starts trying to track down info about the plane. Before you can blink, all of the attention brings a wealthy scumbag (Peppard) and his henchmen into town and they quickly try to force the old guy to give up the location of the plane since they know there is much more on it than just medals. The old drunk's business partner (Wahl) and his daughter (Warren) then race out to try and claim the fortune before the bad guys can get to it. The resulting action just isn't as fun as you'd hope it would be.<br /><br />The acting is rather awful, save for Pleasence. George Peppard tries to do some kind of (I guess) Austrailian accent, but it is hardly convincing. Lesley Ann Warren isn't too bad, but Ken Wahl is really bad. He's basically doing his best impression of Michael Pare on his worst day. And that's saying something. Hopefully he made enough money on this film to fix his front teeth which looked a bit crooked. I don't recall if he'd had them straightened by the time he was in Wiseguy. The rest of the cast are pretty untalented. Probably mostly locals who never did much else. I guess the biggest problems for me were the lack of action for much of the film, and the lack of danger. The villains are just too nice and goofy to be taken seriously. And honestly, there are NO helicopters in the film that look like the ones on the DVD cover. And none of the boats in the film have teeth painted on them, either.<br /><br />The film does have its strengths, though. The beginning which starts off as a newsreel and then becomes part of the story was a nice touch. Brian May's score sounds a little too much like the one in Mad Max 2, but he included a nice little march they play for Pleasence in some scenes. Sounds just like the one in the Great Escape! There are some neat helicopter stunts and a great boat chase that apparently killed three stunt men during filming. The scenery, despite the grainy look of the picture, is still quite beautiful. The thing you'll remember most is the drunken antics of Donald Pleasence, though. He was almost enough to save this film. Almost. 4 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.
6,974	[ 700, 800 ]	534	710	Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).<br /><br />And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.<br /><br />Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?<br /><br />About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.<br /><br />Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.<br /><br />Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.<br /><br />This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.
7,202	[ 700, 800 ]	582	738	Something strange is happening in remote areas of the Arctic. An Air Force weather station is found wrecked, its occupants missing. An Eskimo village is destroyed. A fishing vessel disappears. Curious spoors are found in the snow. A four-foot piece of a living organism is found near a destroyed airplane. The piece looks like half of the claw of a giant Alaskan crab. The military (Craig Stevens as an Air Force officer) and its experts are baffled. A distinguished scientist (William Hopper) and his pretty assistant (Alix Taltan) are called in from New York. Hopper deduces from this flimsy evidence that they are dealing with a monstrous praying mantis. He's right. The pretty assistant happens to look out the window of the office and sees the hideous face with its bulging eyeballs staring in at her. She drops what she's carrying, claps her hands to her cheeks, and screams in horror.<br /><br />The mantis begins flying South along the Gulf Stream, pausing now and again to attack major population centers like Washington and New York to overturn buses and eat people. Military weapons don't affect it much but finally Stevens crashes into it in his jet fighter and mortally damages the beast, which comes to earth and occupies the "Manhattan Tunnel" linking New York and New Jersey.<br /><br />Stevens, having survived the collision, leads his team into the tunnel and kills the big bug with "3RG mines" despite its fierce appearance, threatening behavior, and earth-shattering roars. Stevens and Taltan kiss in front of the body while Hopper chuckles and takes their picture.<br /><br />Ho hum.<br /><br />Like the deadly mantis itself, the formula by this time was panting and gasping for air, flopping around, seeking as its prey not human beings but anything at all in the way of a fresh or original idea. As it is, they overlooked one cliché. Hopper should have hurriedly had to invent a Super Duper DDT that, alone, could defeat the insect. That's what the 3RG mines should have been filled with, rather than ordinary explosive.<br /><br />The model work is pretty good, considering what the budget must have been. Not much money could have been spent on anything else because everything else is pretty routine. Craig Stevens is bland, a face and style made for a TV series. William Hopper looks right -- tall and silver haired -- but his instrument has only one note. The pretty assistant is rather plain, considering her role. The part calls for Joan Weldon or Laurie Nelson. They couldn't act either but carried with them slight but distinct intimations of molestibility. Anything would have helped this fagged-out movie.<br /><br />I wish the deadly mantis hadn't roared so loudly and so often because you can't roar -- you can't even whisper -- if you don't have lungs. I didn't mind, though, when the monster met its demise in the tunnel. A praying mantis is a graceful insect in its own spindly way and it's great to have them in the garden because they eat caterpillars and whatnot. But when you get right down to it, they aren't really very appealing. The male mantis is smaller and weaker than the female, as in humans, and when the couple are just about through copulating, the female bites the head off the male, also as in humans. But at least human males know when to stop. The male mantis keeps on copulating for several minutes even though he is now without a head. We humans don't have mindless males copulating with goal-driven females. Do we?
7,208	[ 700, 800 ]	601	740	Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.<br /><br />Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.<br /><br />Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.<br /><br />It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.<br /><br />Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.<br /><br />Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending.
7,212	[ 700, 800 ]	567	715	Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for "Eastenders" being paraded as realistic.<br /><br />Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.<br /><br />Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.<br /><br />Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from "The Queen's Royal Charity" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.<br /><br />Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.<br /><br />Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?<br /><br />[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.<br /><br />As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.<br /><br />BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.<br /><br />Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.
7,244	[ 700, 800 ]	658	789	Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film "is what it is." And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an "and" and an "&." It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. "Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table" WAIT! "Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about "badassdom." Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.
7,254	[ 700, 800 ]	619	796	SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clichéd and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.<br /><br />Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.<br /><br />And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the "wiff" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching. <br /><br />It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, "I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone." The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, "old guy," in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line ("stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because "this is the sheriff's territory." Busey wants the bar because it's "in a great location" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.<br /><br />But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking "please don't tell me he's impaled on something..." and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.<br /><br />Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.
7,447	[ 700, 800 ]	629	757	PEP SQUAD is at a very low point with its confusing plot line and horrible acting.<br /><br />First, let's tackle the characters. Cherry (Brooke Balderson) continues to hold an outrageous, boiling anger throughout the entire film, which is due to her overwhelming passion to become prom queen. However, it becomes completely unknown to the audience why Cherry wants to become prom queen in the first place. Before the nominations are even read off, she storms around the school with a constant disinterest upon being there, and shows no interest in the place or its students to begin with. Why does she care so much to be their prom queen? Brooke Balderson apparently presents an "acclaimed" performance but in reality just spends the entire time with an angry face, stomping around, killing people. Maybe it's just me, but I think if you handed any young actor/actress a script that only requires him/her to act insanely angry, you're not asking for much. You're also not allowing the character to develop very well.<br /><br />Beth's character, played by Jennifer Dreiling, is even worse. Dreiling shows absolutely no emotion and no connection to her character whatsoever. When being harassed by her principal, she knocks him down (after several seconds) with no feelings of disgust or shock or anything equally traumatizing. Her lines are read like she is reading trivia off the back of a cereal box.<br /><br />Throughout the rest of the film, the students in charge of his kidnapping sound more like they are planning a barbecue than deciding what they will do with their principal, sitting tied up in their basement.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Cherry is off killing several female prom queen candidates, and no one even notices or cares. (Yeah, I get it, I get it, the whole town is worried about prom. Very realistic. At least you could throw in some funny scenes with the cops, but that might be asking too much.) For example, right after Cherry drives by the school and shoots down a handful of students, Beth is found being interviewed by the local media. The reporter mentions "the shooter" in a way that makes it seem like no one knows who killed these innocent students, but then one second later asks, "What do you think about guns in the hands of minors?" or something to that effect. Where did the reporter jump to such conclusions? <br /><br />At the end of the movie, after Cherry kills the winning prom queen and prom is deemed over, with the media showing up again, Beth simply adds that "she understands (Cherry's) need to be heard" and walks away with her friends, smoking cigarettes in a calm, unaltered mood. No one is even strayed by the fact that they just witnessed a murder.<br /><br />Not to mention the students constantly parking in a yellow zone, and no one seeming to care that there is a sudden rise in violence in the town, Julie living in a large house with no parents present, and the bizarre party at her house (Maybe I'm a little left out of the scene, but last time I knew, high school parties did not involve naked women artistically dancing in a pool of water while men bob for marshmallows and everyone basks in their "I'm so indie and mod" attitudes), Beth's parent's horrible acting with her mother acting over-the-top and her father simply nodding at everything the mother has to say (and not in an entertaining way either), along with stupid scenes such as the new black principal running after Cherry as she tries to shoot her with a gun. Yes. Very realistic.<br /><br />The only compliment I can give this movie is that the photography is wonderful. The angles are flattering and the screen is very clear and crisp with each shot.<br /><br />Too bad the acting and script aren't.
7,450	[ 700, 800 ]	618	761	Guy Pearce looks like and acts like a Calvin Klein underwear model, or one of those bimbo guys who wear Levi's Jeans and stand in front of a herd of stampeding Buffalo because they realize that Buffalo like Levi's too. In every scene, Guy Pearce looks like he is saying, "Look at me, I am so pretty!" As a hero, his character is a total wimp. In every scene that calls for courage, Pearce gets the short end of the stick. SPOILERS: Yet, at the end of the movie, this wimpy book-worm character out-runs a pack of baboon-like Morlocks who can run and leap along the side of the walls (like Spiderman). Around the same time, the TIME MACHINE seems to cause a Nuclear Explosion of some kind that wipes out an entire valley. Strangely, even though Pearce and his gal-pal Mumba are about a foot away from the last Morlock that gets killed; seconds later Pearce, Mumba, and the tribe are watching the valley blow up from the safety of their mountain. Now THAT is FAST RUNNING!!! Jeremy Irons as the King of the Morlocks is great. He really makes the movie a lot better than it was. Mumba, the model-turned-actress is not very cute, and she does not do much acting in this movie. The scenes which take place in the 1900s lack any real atmosphere. Even though the period dress and vehicles are shown, the characters act like caricatures of how they imagine 1900s people would walk and talk. The original version of this movie was a lot better in this respect. The period characters were much more realistic, and they were much better actors. The original version of this movie made the PAST seem like the real base of the characters. This new version lacks substance and feeling. The scenes in which Pearce deals with the death of Emma and then fails to save her from her fate are very good. The issue of the Morlocks being cannibals is not very well explained, and it does not make sense that they have some large dark butcher shop filled with knives and cutlery, yet they are never seen using any weapons except for a blow-dart. Also silly is the giant pit full of water and bones. All through the underground, the Morlocks are all walking around chewing on meaty bones. So how can all those skeletons be in the pit? It seems like there are some Morlocks that Bar-B-Que their humans and eat them off the grill, and other Morlocks only like filleted flesh?? And where are the restrooms for all of these creatures? As I was watching the dozens of Morlocks who were gorging themselves on human flesh, it occurred to me that they must have a very advanced toilet & plumbing system, considering that they were tossing in lots of bones. All these issues were never addressed. At the end of the movie, Pearce is holding Mumba's hand, but you can see that he is eye-balling her friend, Mandingo. One other totally irritating thing about this movie is the non-stop LION KING music which is in the background. Once Pearce arrives in the future (802,710 a.d.); the LION KING music never stops, and every time the natives are around, there is that African Moaning Singer (Is it Peter Gabriel or Paul Simon?) that starts wailing and moaning over the LION KING jungle music. I watched the credits at the end of the movie, and the jungle music is not specifically identified, but I think that Elton John should probably look into this matter. Time Machine was a mediocre movie with some good FX. See it once, then forget it.
7,456	[ 700, 800 ]	524	716	If you loved the early-60's version of "The Time Machine", don't waste your time; as with last year's "The Planet of the Apes", this has been "reimagined", and not for the better. And, just as with "Planet...", its lead actor is woefully miscast and leaden; Guy Pearce, a terrific actor of great range, is all wrong for this role, giving a one-note performance that elicits zero sympathy; he's so dour and serious, and lacking in awe of the (supposedly) amazing things he sees that you don't believe for a moment that he's experiencing them. Worse yet, whose idea was it for him to resemble the love child of David Spade and Calista Flockhart?? A handsome actor, here he is sickeningly gaunt, which is, believe it or not, a major distraction. Frankly, the man looks gravely ill and is photographed cruelly. He shares absolutely NO chemistry with anyone on the screen, a direct result of a performance that is out of sync with anyone else's. Sadly, even with a proper leading man this movie doesn't stand a chance for it is fatally burdened with both a totally inept director - whole scenes go nowhere and are poorly realized - and a screenplay that is utterly inferior, scattered and at times incoherent - not for a single moment do you care about anyone in this film, for the single fact that there is NOTHING in the way of character development! In the original, you got to KNOW the Eloi, so therefore you felt for them, and felt their terror of the Morelocks; here, as the movie stresses several times, they are nothing but sheep and act accordingly. Unless you're a member of PETA, scared sheep are HARDLY the stuff of entertainment! <br /><br />Samantha Mumba does as well as possible, in her movie debut, but, like everyone else in this mess, most especially Jeremy Irons (if he's the leader of the Morelocks [who look like rejects from "The Mummy Returns"], why then does HE look like Edgar Winter's long-lost brother?) is COMPLETELY WASTED. Also wasted was the money spent on the endless 'special' effects, which belie the $70M spent on the film; they are uniformly lackluster, obvious and unconvincing. And then there's the look of the film: poorly photographed, its art direction and sets are just "there" and its costumes are typical in design. There isn't an original thought or idea expressed behind or on the screen. Most of all, it isn't even fun! (The filmmakers use the now-ubiquitous Orlando Jones as "comic relief" but, as usual, Jones is irritating, and just HOW does his electrically-driven character survive in a world seemingly devoid of electricity?)<br /><br />All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE "Planet of the Apes"??? (At least THAT had the fortune of some strong performances!) <br /><br />SPOILER! The final insult (beyond a head-shakingly terrible, not to mention convenient, ending)? Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore! (If "The Sopranos" had a time machine, THIS is exactly what it would look like.) Pathetic...
7,526	[ 700, 800 ]	590	717	The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).<br /><br />Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!<br /><br />The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.<br /><br />Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.<br /><br />And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.<br /><br />No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, "It still sucks".
7,540	[ 700, 800 ]	540	723	LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...
7,597	[ 700, 800 ]	629	797	Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.<br /><br />All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.<br /><br />The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.<br /><br />You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.<br /><br />Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.
7,611	[ 700, 800 ]	627	710	Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience <br /><br />!!!! SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance <br /><br />As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered <br /><br />The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land <br /><br />I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical<br /><br />As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this
7,973	[ 700, 800 ]	505	705	Being a completely broke film buff with a house to furnish, I'm a big fan of IKEA. My whole domicile, practically, is packed to the brim with the cheap particle-board stuff. And you know how all those stylish household items at IKEA have those funny names--a bookshelf called "Holika" and a bathroom mirror called a "Grundtal"--well, it just adds to the whole Euro-charm.<br /><br />Like those interestingly-named (but horribly translated) items on the shelves at IKEA, I'd like to provide a bit of translation to some of the reviews I've read about the Swedish-made "Kraftverk 3714." <br /><br />Original Comment: "For a low budget film, this is pretty cool stuff. It would be great to see what these guys could do on a Hollywood budget!"<br /><br />Translation: The film stock is crappy, the lighting is pedestrian, the cinematography is uninteresting, the sound recording is hollow.<br /><br />Original Comment: "David Lynchesque sci-fi drama set in a strange forest town with equally strange characters!" <br /><br />Translation: These "actors" are acting for free, the storyline is circular and tiring, the ideas that undergird the flick desperately try to be existential but are simply mundane, and the settings (especially the interiors) are dull and filled with ugly wallpaper.<br /><br />Original Comment: "The editing is well-done, and the conservative use of computer graphics shows that compelling CGI effects don't have to come out of a Hollywood studio!"<br /><br />Translation: When you've got sketchy cinematography to begin with, hide the imperfections by digitizing all of it onto a Mac and blending vigorously for three minutes. Ingenious!<br /><br />I took a chance on this DVD because I'm a sucker for independent films, especially those that attempt to tackle the often-expensive and awe-inspiring genre of science fiction. I mean, some of the best sci-fi flicks of all time have been realized with little or no budget, spfx, and specious actors. Take Peter Fonda's eco-warning-time-travel flick "Idaho Transfer" for example! A classic.<br /><br />But "Kraftverk 3714" doesn't fit the category of "carefully-crafted, low-key, idea-dependent sci-fi." It relentlessly focuses on characters that don't do much and don't say interesting things. It goes round and round in circles. It is much too long (this coming from a major Tarkovsky fan). Worse, its concept of "reality shifting aliens" is Twilight Zone fodder from 40 years ago. It's just not a well-made film -and I really wanted it to be, dammit!<br /><br />However, being the IKEA fan I am, I did make one ground-shattering observation. First, anyone who has shopped at IKEA knows how their tricky shopping carts work--all four wheels being multidirectional. The carts can spin a perfect 360 degrees, and it takes some familiarity to handle them like a pro, as any avid IKEA shopper knows. Well, I'll be damned, but one of the lead actresses in "Kraftverk 3714" goes to some inky-dinky grocery store in the middle of nowhere and what is she pushing around? A multidirectional shopping cart! So, that's not an IKEA invention after all, but is yet another wonderful invention (let's call it a "Tacklebee" for the hell of it) from the land of hei-doo!
8,002	[ 700, 800 ]	618	730	This is one of those movies that is so bad it is awesome!!! It has everything an early eighties movie needs: Flared pants, Big Moustaches, Chicks with Farrah Hair, and most importantly, NINJAS!!!! I have a few choice moments to recant for you. Cole's army buddy has a strange monkey-like face and always seems to speak without moving his jaw. He gets his ass handed to him about every other scene by the thugs wanting his land so he gets drunk through the entire film. At one point his farm workers finally return after being run off by the gangster guy's hired goons and Frank, I think his name is Frank, is so moved he shouts to the whole group "Lets Have A Cock Fight!!" and they all gleefully move to the cock fighting area of the farm to begin the festivities. This is funny on every level possible. Whether you take it dirty or literally it still warms my heart. Another funny thing is Sho Kosugi's little grunts and over animated ninja style movements. I remember this dude from when I was a kid and he used to say he was the world's only real ninja (he had ads in martial arts magazines) if I remember correctly. My friends and I were a little ninja crazy during the time this movie came out and I can recall seeing it in the local theater many times. I was wondering as I watched this on Starz last night why every sleazy American gangster type always has a stronghold in the Phillipines and wears a white Steve Martin suit. As a matter of fact this guy goes way beyond that in requiring all of his thugs to wear white Steve Martin suits. There is a scene where it looks like 20 Steve Martin impersonators are attacking a 1970's Sears underwear model (Cole). As we wind up for the final battle Cole very clumsily breaks into the bad guy's headquarters and is immediately spotted by a secretary who in turn alerts a guard who fires off a round from his pump action shotgun not 30 feet from the bad guys and no one seems to notice or care. Cole, Wearing a completely white ninja outfit, proceeds to sneakily ascend a staircase then does a flip right into the area where all the bad guys are. The second in charge tells him he didn't need to kill everybody as they were expecting him, then gives him a ride to the bad guys huge Cock Fighting arena. Don't ask me why Cock Fighting is a huge part of this movie but it is. When they arrive Cole is still wearing his ninja mask even though everyone involved knows what he looks like without it. The final battle is approaching as Cole has killed everybody and now Sho, as I like to call him, reveals himself to have kidnapped Cole's lady aka Frank's wife, and they meet in the snazziest cockfighting arena you ever saw. Sho then, very politely I might add, releases said lady and the battle is about to start. They do their bowing and start circling each other, both masked by the way. When they join in battle it appears Cole becomes someone else intermittently ala "Finishing The Game" a funny spoof on completing Bruce Lee's "Game of Death". Cole eventually comes out on top, Kills Sho, who dies with honor by being decapitated and all is well. Next we see Cole, after ruining everyone's life is about to split town again but not before foreshadowing the brutal death of a fat guy with a hook hand and then he inexplicably winks at the camera, freeze frame, credits, done.
8,028	[ 700, 800 ]	663	792	First I have to say that I have read everything about this subject and I know it inside out, and I was excited about finally seeing it, too. But you have to read only the book this mini-series is based on to realize that it's not the true story of what really happened almost 90 years ago. It's loosely based on the facts, the rest is taken from the scriptwriter's imagination. And unfortunately these changes are anything but successful and mostly totally unnecessary.<br /><br />Where do I begin? Vita and Violet didn't use the names Mitya and Lushka until their affair started, and during it Violet also called Vita Dmitri and Julian. It was Violet who chased Vita with a dagger when they were teenagers. The 'seduction' scene when their affair started Violet was much more passive than represented here and certainly didn't kiss Vita first. I could go on and on, these examples were all included when the series was only just started. Besides all these alterations from the facts, the characterizations are also all wrong. At times Vita behaves like a mad woman. Especially the scene where she saw from the newspaper Violet's engagement announcement is just ridiculous. Vita kept her surges of emotion inside. It was Violet who was temperamental and let her feelings (good or bad) show. All Vita did when she read it was that she nearly fainted, that's all. Being a gentle nature, Harold avoided confrontations in real life, but here he is sometimes pretty stern and accusing. Harold and Vita always discussed their intimate things in letters, not verbally. And Violet... I know that this series purposely concentrated on Vita and Harold, but that doesn't mean that all the other characters have to be mere puppets on the sidelines. Here she is totally one-dimensional character, and the lines gave to her are mostly embarrassingly shallow. Actually she was intelligent, gifted, quite an extraordinary woman who has rarely given the credit she deserves. I have always thought her much more interesting person than Vita. In this series her unhappiness, loneliness and her problems with her mother are totally ignored. Viewer has also little clue of her background and family, what kind of relation (and marriage) with Denys Trefusis she had or how hard she battled over Vita. Vita was the only love of her life, her raison d'etre, and if Harold suffered during affair, so did Violet. After it her life was in ruins, and it took time that she could pull herself back together again. Statue could have acted the role of Denys, that much depth his character has. Lady Sackville-West is just a badly drawn caricature; an annoying chatterbox with exaggerating french accent. <br /><br />The series ends to the totally badly written scene in Amiens, and that was the end of this affair, according to scriptwriter. No, it continued a whole year after that, and it's ending was much more lingering and sad than what was presented here. But what one cares about the stupid ending if the whole series has been stupid from the start. I have to give some credit to actors, they tried to make best of those roles given to them though Janet McTeer as Vita is the only one who really shines through. One can't complain the settings either. All complaints go to director and most of all, scriptwriter. Instead of insightful character studies, there are too many sex scenes and bland conversation. Many of the scenes are too long, some are pointless and don't bring anything to the story line. On the other hand many details are shortened or omitted altogether. Especially there should have been more information about Vita's and Violet's youth, and how their friendship developed. This is one fascinating story which would have deserved a much better adaptation. Maybe someday someone will do it. At the moment one can make much more of this story by reading the actual book or Violet's letters to Vita, which are brilliant stuff.
8,059	[ 700, 800 ]	596	705	Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with. <br /><br />SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR. <br /><br />What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow. <br /><br />The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.
8,090	[ 700, 800 ]	593	755	Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.<br /><br />That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.<br /><br />The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.<br /><br />But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.<br /><br />Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about? <br /><br />Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.<br /><br />And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.<br /><br />I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.
8,107	[ 700, 800 ]	540	703	This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.<br /><br />Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.<br /><br />Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'. <br /><br />There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.
8,116	[ 700, 800 ]	546	742	The cast and crew of this cheap horror potboiler are more interesting than anything that occurs throughout the movie itself; we have Barbara Payton, Raymond Burr, Lon Chaney Jr., Tom Conway, Paul Cavanaugh and Woody Strode in front of the camera and writer-director Curt Siodmak, cinematographer Charles Van Enger, editorial supervisor Francis D. Lyon and production assistant Herman Cohen behind it. The ill-fated Payton turns the head of virtually every male she comes in contact with deep in the African jungle where she lives on husband Cavanaugh's plantation: doctor Conway secretly desires her while hot-headed foreman Burr's approach is, quite literally, more hands-on. On the other hand, Chaney is (surprisingly enough) the laid-back but knowing authoritarian figure and Strode is a native police official. The plot is very simple but, frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense: after a particularly agitated dinner complete with thunderstorm, Burr and Cavanaugh (art imitating life more on that later) come to blows in the garden over their affection for Payton and, conveniently for Burr, a large snake just happens to be crawling near where Cavanaugh hits the ground! Witnessing the event from behind the bushes, Payton's enigmatic maid (a native witch, no less), for some inexplicable reason, puts a curse on Burr (who has in the meantime married Payton) that periodically turns him into a gorilla...starting from his very wedding day (when his hand briefly turns hirsute)! Consequently, Burr takes to losing himself in the jungle for days on end even if the ape creature itself is barely glimpsed throughout the film. It must be said, however, that the version that I watched ran for just 56 minutes when the 'official' length is elsewhere given as either 66, 70 or 76!! Therefore, the film feels understandably rushed and disjointed if never less than campily enjoyable as it culminates in the gorilla's subjectively-shot chasing of Payton in the jungle, with the former being itself pursued by the gun-toting Chaney and Conway. To get back to the film's tragic blonde leading lady for a minute: after a promising start in movies next to such Hollywood legends as James Cagney and Gary Cooper in, respectively, KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE and DALLAS (both 1950) her career soon nose-dived into B (and lesser) grade territory thanks to her own 'colorful' off-screen antics: her most notorious misdemeanor was being the cause of a much-publicized bar-room brawl between suave husband Franchot Tone and brutish former lover Tom Neal which ended with the former in a coma and Payton actually deserting him for the latter shortly thereafter!! But that was not all: nymphomaniac Payton also boasted that Woody Strode was among her conquests (a controversial issue at the time); short-lived husband Tone, having caught Payton's infidelities on camera, spread the damning photographic evidence around Hollywood and this virtually served to end her days as a starlet her last film appearance being Edgar G. Ulmer's MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) which I happen to have in my "Unwatched Movies" pile. The last 12 years of her tumultuous life were spent on Skid Row in the throes of booze, drugs, prostitution, beatings, arrests and even a stabbing before, eventually, dying in 1967 in her parents' home at the young age of 39!
8,229	[ 700, 800 ]	620	798	First and foremost I wish to aim a big & mean middle-finger towards the Troma DVD-distribution crew, who were actually stupid enough to reveal the identity of this movie's pivot killer on the back of the cover! The synopsis just randomly mentions who's the person responsible for the massacre on graduation day, for Christ's sake! I don't care how terrible or how predictable an 80's slasher can be; just mentioning who did it ruins the whole point! So, a word of advise in case you also purchase the Troma double-feature containing "Graduation Day" and "Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell", do not repeat DO NOT turn the box around and read the back! Watching the film is already a painful experience, but reading the back would really spoil everything.<br /><br />Now, as for the actual the actual movie Oh boy! Personally I'm a fan of the cinematic 'work' of Herb Freed. Well actually, I don't really know whether I should admire himor pity him! All Herb's films are pretty bad & amateurish, but at the same time you can tell his direction is spirited and full of good intentions! Unlike with "Haunts" and "Beyond Evil", he followed a contemporary popular genre trend and tried to cash in on the typical high-school slasher films. Just to offer a minimum of originality, all the victims in "Graduation Day" are promising athletes and members of the same track of coach George Michaels (awesome name! I guess Herb Freed is a fan of "Wham!"). During the opening credits, we witness how a young girl dramatically dies on the field, moments after winning a 30 seconds running race. The debate of whether or not her coach and fellow track team-members weren't pushing her physical limits too much is raised, but one particular individual goes one step further and begins to sadistically kill everyone he/she considers responsible for Laura's death. What a demented little movie! The script must be one of the most incoherent ones I ever beheld, with loads of red herrings and sub plots that go absolutely nowhere and death sequences that are almost too cheesy for words! There's a bloke impaled by a football attached to a javelin, others are decapitated with an absurdly big sword and the unluckiest bastard of them all even falls to his death on a disguised bed of spikes! Herb concentrates on the ingeniousness & the fast pacing of the killings so much that he totally forgets about the sub plots he introduced earlier in the film! For example, Laura's sister returns home from her military training and seemly starts an investigation regarding the circumstances of her death. Halfway through the movie, however, her character hardly appears in the movie anymore. Also, the girls' stepfather is referred to as a violent drunkard but this interesting given immediately gets ignored as well. Instead of carefully mounted suspense and misleading red herrings, we're served disco-dancing & roller-skating sequences and of course numerous images of unattractive 80's chicks stripping their tops off. Despite being really bad, "Graduation Day" could count on a respectable cast! Christopher George ("Grizzly", "City of the Living Dead") greatly stars as the demanding coach, Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls", "The Accused") briefly appears as a police detective investigating the rising number of missing teenagers and Michael Pataki ("Dead & Buried", "Dracula's Dog") has a very amusing part as the school's stressed out principal. The teenage beauties on duty include Linnea Quigley and Vanna White. Heck, for some horror fans, the presence of these two ladies is enough reason already to count "Graduation Day" among the most quintessential slashers of the early 80's. It's a dumb film, but entertainment and chuckles are guaranteed!
8,235	[ 700, 800 ]	575	715	The title for this review about sums up how I feel about this movie. I can't imagine what audience there would be for this thing, if not for the die-hard fan of 1980s slasher films who simply has to see -everything- from that era. Otherwise, don't even waste your time on this.<br /><br />The story is similar to most films of its type: something awful happens to one of the characters in the opening scene, which inspires a bloodthirsty killer to go on a murderous rampage. Been there, done that. Truth be told, none of these '80s slashers were known for their originality, so I can't see the point in harping on the film simply for this.<br /><br />But where the film fails is in its suspense and murder sequences. I've seen some pretty scary slasher movies from the 1980s that had far lower budgets than this. This one just fails to create any real suspense. The director throws in some nice camera angles and some semi-professional directorial touches here and there, but they mean nothing if you're not frightened. The gore is pretty tame as well, so anyone who watches these things with the intention of seeing some cool 1980s makeup effects will be sadly disappointed.<br /><br />The movie manages to clunk along rather dully. Honestly, the key ingredient to almost any slasher is the tight pacing--you have to keep things moving along swiftly and keep the murder set pieces staged at regular intervals, because, let's face it, we don't watch these things for the great characterization and stellar plots. But the pacing, whether due to the script or the editor, is all off. The murders are spaced out at odd intervals, leaving us with some long-winded scenes (no doubt meant to build "character") that serve only to bore you and leave you praying for the next kill (which, as I've said, usually isn't executed all that well anyway).<br /><br />As for the killer, don't expect anything original or even remotely frightening. He (or she?) wears a jogging suit, a fencing mask, and his (or her?) primary weapon is a sword. I bet the writer just wet himself over thinking he came up with an original, "cool" murder weapon, but the idea just comes off as impractical and silly. There's also not much emphasis placed on the "whodunnit' nature of the film, as if they either forgot or don't care to place any red herrings in the mix to throw us off.<br /><br />I have the sense that the people behind this were trying to make something decent and respectable, and at times, it shows their intentions were probably a bit more genuine in regards to making a quality film as opposed to countless other knockoff slashers from the era. But alas, the attempt fails for the most part. There is, however, some pretty good acting (at least, for this type of film). There is attempt at characterization, but none of it ends up meaning anything in the end, so...what a waste. Here, all it manages to do is bog down the plot and make the murder sequences feel like they can't come soon enough.<br /><br />In the end, if you're really into these old '80s slashers, by all means, check it out, if only to say you've seen it. There's a completest in all of us. But don't expect to be blown away or anything. What we have here is a very mildly entertaining slasher movie that leaves no real impression at all.
8,346	[ 700, 800 ]	618	799	One of the worse gay-related movies I have ever seen. Since these are not characters in this story it's hard to comment on the actual film. Therefore, since Colton Ford (aka Glen) laid his life open for all to see, I guess he's fair game to criticize. And that's not hard to do. Here goes. 50 something Glen is a big time porn star who wants fame and fortune as a big time singer. (I guess 11 films makes him a "star") Being gay and forty, I have seen porno and I did not recognize him or his lover. Personally they all look the same to me with different hair styles. Face it, guys, he's no Jeff Stryker, Jim Bently or Casey Donovon. That's OK, though. The purpose of these films takes place in about 6.5 minutes, so they all pretty much have the same requirements, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />So Glen wants to be a serious (legit) singer after he dumps the porno industry but he can't get anyone to take him seriously. I wonder why? Was he so stupid to think that he could whitewash taking his clothes off and having sex on film. And according to the film it's not just porn flicks he indulges in, it's living in a house with other "stars" where people can hook into their bedroom, the bathroom and where ever via webcams . It's 500 dollars an hour to entertain at a private party. Strip gigs at clothing optional "hotels". Doing something called meth which I presume is a drug. And then you have the balls to get angry when someone at a club gig tries to touch you ---- because he's "legit" now. Oy!<br /><br />The only interesting, non-cardboard character is the Academy Award winning gay screen writer who wouldn't give his name. And considering this is a documentary, well, porn is as porn does. You can tell he's most amused by the dumb-bunny porn star.<br /><br />Glen has one hyper-nellie manager (Kyle) who wants to "sell' him as a porno-participant in hopes of getting him gay-club gigs. He tries to do the Svengalli-routine. "Wear this" "Don't smile" "say this" in what amounts to controlling issues. But our anti-hero will not be controlled or told what to do. That's the first mistake. I'm not saying Kyle was right but if any budding singer starts questioning the manager, they're not going to get far. Kind of like: He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.<br /><br />All of this wouldn't have been bad if it weren't for one small tiny bit of information. Drum roll, please. He's bad. He sucks. His singing talent ranks up there with Ashlee Simpson. It's hard to root for someone who -- while trying make his dream come true --- at 50! --- doesn't work like normal people. No job. Can you say lazy-ass? And the whining, and the "Why don't they accept me." song and dance. And after a few months of scraping the surface of the music industry, he spouts off, "Why don't I have a record deal by now." What? Actors are waiters. Writers work in low-level newspapers or mags -- whatever. This guy is above that. It's true. He wants his success now merely because he decided he wanted it. Whine. Whine Whine. His lover leaves him to return to nursing but I tell ya I wouldn't want that moron dispensing medical care to me. Both of them were useless. Airheads. The movie is useless. Unless you really like Whine and Cheeesy people stay away. Do not waste your money on the crappy lives of useless people, there are far more interesting things stuck to the bottom of your shoe.
8,360	[ 700, 800 ]	573	736	Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.<br /><br />Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.<br /><br />Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).<br /><br />Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.<br /><br />As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, very few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.
8,400	[ 700, 800 ]	586	740	At least if you're a Disney fanatic (well, of the variety who loves their live-action films as well as the animated stuff), if you're a kid, if you're a kid at heart almost to the extent that you hardly realize you're an adult, if you love absolutely any film that features animals, especially when they're doing tricks, or if you're just not too demanding, Air Bud: World Pup is somewhat enjoyable to watch. I'm a Disney fanatic. I enjoyed this film enough, and I'll gladly watch it again.<br /><br />But boy does it have a lot of problems. The main flaw arises from a combination of too many characters, too many plot threads and not enough time to take care of them all. In the space of 82 minutes, we've got adults getting married, teens falling in love and trying not to be awkward at it, teen competition for love and jealousy, preteens playing spy games, dogs falling in love, dogs playing soccer, dogs having puppies, manipulative parents who'll do anything to make their kids win being taught a lesson by their kids, housekeeper dilemmas, and crooks cooking up and executing elaborate plots. I'm probably forgetting something, but that's 10 big plot issues to be dealt with, with less than 10 minutes per thread to deal with them, and presumably weave them into a coherent whole that's both not too complicated--this is a kids' film, after all--and that's also humorous and heartwarming. Not surprisingly, director Bill Bannerman, on his first turn being completely in charge (he has a lot of previous second unit experience), wasn't quite up to the task. I'm sure it didn't help that there were at least three screenwriters involved, and probably dictating producers, as well.<br /><br />The end result is that Air Bud: World Pup is extremely choppy. Events occur with little justification, and worse, often little explanation. People figure out and do things primarily because they need to--and fast--so that everything can arrive where it needs to arrive in less than 90 minutes. From one cut to the next, time might jump ahead six months or so. We have both adults who seem like maybe they're mentally disabled and kids who just intuitively figure out what a dog is thinking and rush into some unexpected action. Some of the threads should have simply been removed, because it's difficult to become too engaged in the film when as soon as you're introduced to an idea, it's already passed you by.<br /><br />Also not helping is the fact that one of the threads is basically a rip-off of One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), minus a Cruella De Vil character. And another problem is that given the way the film is edited, I have to assume that the dog, Air Bud, probably couldn't do much with the soccer ball. Unlike the first two films, a dog playing a sport is almost an afterthought here, and when we see him, it's in very quick glimpses; every once in a while, these snippets appear to be even aided by computer animation.<br /><br />Yet, for someone like me, there's a cheesy charm to Air Bud: World Pup. The script and performances often teeter between ridiculous, hokey and kinda clichéd. I tend to like that combination. It makes the film both a bit predictable and subtly bizarre. And at times, like the ending, when the film completely abandons consistency and basically becomes a commercial for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, Air Bud: World Pup is so blatantly tacky that you can't help but love it.
8,416	[ 700, 800 ]	565	717	'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.<br /><br />There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, "aw, shucks, Roark".<br /><br />'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this.
8,443	[ 700, 800 ]	613	738	(This review is based on the English language version)<br /><br />Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.<br /><br />While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.<br /><br />The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.<br /><br />However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film. <br /><br />While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.<br /><br />Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.<br /><br />However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.<br /><br />Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.<br /><br />The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: "When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?"
8,474	[ 700, 800 ]	566	707	Despite having an absolutely horrid script (more about that later), this film is still vaguely watchable just because it stars two excellent actors, Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Aside from one or two REAL stinkers, I'd probably watch just about anything with them in the film, as I am a huge fan of Hollywood's golden age of the 1930s and 40s. However, no matter how much I love their films, I just can't recommend this film.<br /><br />The movie begins with Fonda and Stanwyck on vacation at some ski resort. The two haven't yet met, but the film begins loudly and obnoxiously with a scene in which Fonda horribly yodels while skiing. It was done so unsubtly and made my teeth grind but I stuck it out--especially when Fonda fell into a snow bank and this stopped the yodeling!! In hindsight, perhaps I should have just turned it off then! Fonda is knocked out in the fall and Barbara goes for help. Back at the ski lodge, he seems okay but fortunately she is ALSO a doctor and has him x-rayed and nurses him back to health. He, in turn, becomes infatuated with her and proposes to her. Despite hardly knowing each other, they marry and so far the film seems like a sweet but very slight romantic comedy.<br /><br />Once home, however, all isn't rosy as she jumps right back into her job as a family doctor and he begins exhibiting signs that he is a controlling and potentially dangerous man due to his jealousy. The film plays it all for laughs, but frankly Fonda's behaviors were really creepy--spying on her and her male patients, attacking or threatening ANY man she treats, tripping a patient who already has a back injury and stomping into a surprise party and insisting that everyone there (men and women) are out to steal away his wife. He comes off as a combination of a sociopath and paranoid schizophrenic, but it's all supposed to be for laughs. Considering that he seems like a dangerous nut, you would think that Stanwyck would file for an annulment along with a restraining order! But, oddly, she gets mad but just can't stay mad at Fonda because he's so........? I can't think of the right word--'creepy' is all that comes to mind!!! Later, out of the blue, multi-millionaire Fonda gets a job working the counter at a department store. Then, through magical thinking, he and Babs seem to assume his hostility and violent jealousy is all a thing of the past--so a job apparently cures anger and suspicions. When this job falls through, the film ends with Fonda buying his own hospital, giving Barbara a job there and they live happily ever after. They don't go any further with the story, but I assume based on Fonda's character that he then spent most of his time as hospital administrator beating up all the male patients.<br /><br />The first portion at the ski lodge and the next did NOT fit well together, nor did the final "Horatio Alger" inspired section where the rich boy made good in the business world. They were like three separate plots but despite this, the most serious problem with the film was its seeming to excuse away domestic violence and delusional jealousy! What a creepy little film! Thank goodness neither Fonda nor Stanwyck are known for this yechy film but for all their other lovely films.
8,532	[ 700, 800 ]	631	761	Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.<br /><br />The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.<br /><br />First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.<br /><br />The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.<br /><br />The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.
8,550	[ 700, 800 ]	563	711	"I remember waiting to be born..." <br /><br />"Vision quest that was the American West." <br /><br />"We went to a psychic..." <br /><br />"I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo" <br /><br />"...the place is haunted..." <br /><br />"I think there's another dimension right here." <br /><br />An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.<br /><br />What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a "feeler" and "sensing" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.<br /><br />Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift. <br /><br />I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.<br /><br />By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.<br /><br />By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices.
8,589	[ 700, 800 ]	589	707	I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of "five stars!" on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.<br /><br />I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.<br /><br />It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.<br /><br />Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.<br /><br />Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.<br /><br />The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole "if ya cant beat em join em" reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.<br /><br />If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good.
8,592	[ 700, 800 ]	643	753	The Evil Below starts on 'The Straits of San Sebastian 1683' as the 17th century treasure ship the El Diablo sinks in a violent thunderstorm. Jump to 'The Straits of San Sebastian Present Day' where two divers are exploring the beautiful underwater coral reefs that are rich in wildlife, the come across the sunken wreck of the El Diablo & explore it but are attacked & killed by something that looks like a vicious eel. Captain Max Cash (Wayne Crawford) owns & runs a boat-for-hire named the 'Vagrant Viking' which caters for tourists who want to fish, dive & generally explore the islands. Sarah Livingstone (June Chadwick) is an art teacher who dives for treasure as a hobby (well we all have to do something to pass the time right?), she hires Max & his scantily clad assistant Tracy (Sheri Able) so she can try to locate the El Diablo & get rich. Talk of sunken treasure excites some of the more unscrupulous members of the local community, as they dodge the criminals & thugs it is brought to Max & Sarah's attention that the El Diablo has a sinister past, a past that supposedly still leaves it's supernatural legacy behind even now...<br /><br />Directed by Jean-Claude Dubois, according to the IMDb with a little help from star Crawford although the version I saw only listed Dubois, I thought The Evil Below had some potential & is a bit different but unfortunately that's not enough to save it from sinking to the bottom of the sea like a stone. The script by Arthur Payne starts off OK with the two divers being killed by some sort of sea creature but this opening is NEVER referred to again, the creature is NEVER seen again & there are no more supernatural killings. The Evil Below then suffers from a serious & terminal case of identity crisis, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be as it chucks bits & pieces of various genres in there from underwater adventure, horror, action, thriller, crime & it even has time to throw in a little murder mystery & religious nonsense as well. As a result The Evil Below feels very bitty, fragmented & since the best scene in the entire film is the opening sequence I found myself sat there becoming more & more frustrated at the lack of any consistent horror as it went downhill rapidly & the fact we never see the sea creature thing again. The Evil Below is dull, slow, uneventful, predictable, silly & lacks any sort of charm or intelligence, in short The Evil Below doesn't do anything right that a good film should.<br /><br />Director Dubois fails to liven things up although he obviously shot plenty of underwater wildlife material as at times I thought I was watching a National Geographic documentary with all the shots of fish, coral & the wildlife in general. Forget about any gore, some blood stained water & blood coughing is about as gory as it gets I'm afraid.<br /><br />Technically The Evil Below is very basic, it's bland & totally forgettable apart from nice underwater photography of fish. This is point & shoot stuff & as a whole the production values are very low, even the place where this was shot doesn't look very sunny or appealing. The acting is poor, but then again did you expect anything else?<br /><br />The Evil Below is a poor film, it's basic story is all over the place & it can't decide what it wants to be & as a result it ends up being a mess. Add that to the low production values, the fact there's no gore here & absolutely minimal horror content you have a film that is probably best avoided unless your absolutely desperate & even then surely there are better ways to spend 90 plus minutes of your life...
8,615	[ 700, 800 ]	573	739	Mansfield Park, in its second half, is my favorite of Austen's novels, and Fanny Price my favorite of her heroines, so I'm saddened by the unhappy fate she's suffered in her big- and small-screen representations. The only good reading of the character I've heard was done for radio by Amanda Root, who gave it the same quality as she did the character Anne in the film of "Persuasion": a stern, sure, heartfelt moral centeredness. If the actress had been younger she would have been good visual casting as well; but the Fannys that have reached our eyes to date have more resembled, respectively: Mary Crawford; Ruby the scullery girl; and (in this incarnation) a jovial serving wench, or possibly tart, with her high moral principles pulled down a peg.<br /><br />Well, I had hoped for better, but had feared worse. The serial had a solid Edmund, in an actor who was best at likable saps, and the perfect, i.e. perfectly abominable, Mrs. Norris; otherwise it was dullish. The film, which was apparently intended as a deconstruction or some other bad theatrical idea, came off as a mixed-up burlesque. After such disappointments, and the more recent disappointments of this production's sister pieces (the new "Persuasion" and "Northanger Abbey"), I couldn't help but have mixed expectations for this one; and on the whole, it left me feeling slightly better disposed to it than not. It condensed the novel intelligently, and in the end left me with much the same feeling, as a comic-book version might. On the other hand, to do so it had to rework most of the characters, except the Crawfords, and it incidentally diminished or eliminated most or all of the most memorable things in the book, including its most famous character and what should be, if it isn't, its most famous scene.<br /><br />The character is the officious Aunt Norris, always ready to direct other people in what to do, but always managing to avoid having to do any of it herself; here one gets no sense of that at all. And with her goes much else: her remark that cuts through Fanny, "...considering who and what you are"; Sir Thomas's discovery that she has forbidden Fanny a fire in her room all these years, and his roundabout apology for her; Fanny's honesty in acknowledging, during a visit home, that Aunt Norris, for all her faults, could manage the household better than either of her sisters. But then, that entire trip is missing from the story, and so is most of what goes on at the theatrical rehearsals and most of what discomfits Sir Thomas on his return; and in fact Sir Thomas himself, and his wife, are different from what they were. Above all, the scene in which Crawford proposes to Fanny, one of Austen's most complex, is simplified to a bare telling; missing from it is Fanny's staunch upholding of what she knows to be right, and what she knows to be very probably true, against all the distractions Crawford and anybody else can throw at her. To a male reader, now no less than when it was written, it reveals with unmatched clarity--unmatched, at any rate, as far as I know--what a woman goes through in trying to deal fairly but firmly with a man she has reason to distrust. It's a brilliant scene, in the novel; on TV it's just a scene.<br /><br />And, Fanny, oh, Fanny: when will we see your like?
8,720	[ 700, 800 ]	652	793	I really tried to like "Saw." The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clichés and elements that while they may have looked "cool," they really made no sense.<br /><br />First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.<br /><br />Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).<br /><br />I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of "Se7en," way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like "Hey, look what I can do." Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing "Final Destination 3" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.<br /><br />What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While "Saw" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be "cool" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and "Cabin Fever" are the future of horror, I'm very scared.
8,785	[ 700, 800 ]	570	710	For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards "Thing". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote "Day Of The Triffids", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.<br /><br />However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story "The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of "ordinary" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader "see" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.<br /><br />Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing "Where did that come from??" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that "You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.<br /><br />Good things about "Thing"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, "simple" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.<br /><br />Which this definitely is.<br /><br />But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like "The Cave", "Wrong Turn" or the remake of "House of Wax" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock.
8,873	[ 700, 800 ]	643	762	I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.<br /><br />1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.<br /><br />2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.<br /><br />3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.<br /><br />4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.<br /><br />5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.<br /><br />I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.<br /><br />In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.<br /><br />I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10
8,956	[ 700, 800 ]	554	702	I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.<br /><br />The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!<br /><br />No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. <br /><br />He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.<br /><br />He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.<br /><br />When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!<br /><br />If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.<br /><br />Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)<br /><br />No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!
9,015	[ 700, 800 ]	533	702	Have you ever wondered why these guys -- Seagal, Stallone, Willis, et al -- manage to survive all those gunfights in which they're outnumbered? I think I've got it figured out. The enemies always miss, and the hero doesn't.<br /><br />Here, Seagal has a pistol and outshoots a half dozen heavies firing at him from a few feet away. One of the heavies has a shotgun. Or maybe two of them have. It doesn't really matter. There could be a thousand shotguns blasting away at him and Seagal would still emerge with his ponytail intact.<br /><br />And when it comes to mano a mano combat -- forget it. The evildoers may or may not be armed with swords or knives or blunt object but Seagal, with his skill in aikido or tempura or sushido or play-do or whatever it is, brushes them aside with a few dismissive blows. Not only is he a master of these outré skills but his physical strength is Herculean. More than once he snaps somebody's long bones as easily as we would break a toothpick. One he breaks a guy's SPINE over his knee.<br /><br />I'll tell you something. (I'm getting into the spirit of the film here because Seagal uses that line, "I'll tell you something," several times, along with, "What's that supposed to mean?") These guys are fully deserving of extinction in any good Xenophobe's handbook. They are all black, speak with unintelligible Jah-MAY-can accents, wear dreadlocks that look in dire need of a shampoo, they torture and murder with aplomb, and -- here's the worst part. They're unchristian. That's right. They practice voodoo.<br /><br />Actually the voodoo element comes close to being the most interesting element of the film. They got the constituents of the ritual pretty well -- cigar smoke, rum spitting, the sacrificial chicken. They only left out the possession dance in which the spirit rides the dancer. They should have read Metraux on voodoo.<br /><br />Otherwise the plot adheres to the usual conventions. What was done to Jaqueline Bissett by the voodoo-practitioners in "The Deep" is done here to a friend of Seagal's. What was done to John Wayne when he was stuck between trucks in "McQ" is done here to Seagal himself. At the movie's very opening, when Seagal makes a brief speech about having seen too much pointless violence in his DEA career so he's now happily retired, and when we are introduced to his friends and family, I tried to keep track of his affiliates to see if I could pick out which ones would be horribly murdered or maimed to generate his quest for revenge.<br /><br />The acting doesn't really require much comment. But Charles, the Jamaican cop, played by Tom Wright, is really pretty good. Wright has considerable range. Here, he's an associate of dubious allegiance, rather sinister. But in "The Pentagon Wars" he has a comic part that he underplays perfectly.<br /><br />The Jamaicans never flew as movie villains. I don't know why exactly. It's a small movie market. And if you go to Jamaica stick to Montego Bay. However, if you want to see Jamaican voodoo drug dealers as heavies, and if you're in the mood for another typical-standard action flick, this should be a satisfying view.
9,033	[ 700, 800 ]	561	708	Another gray, horrible bit of schlockiness from the family Corman. The first space capsule into outer space crash lands back on Earth(with some of the worst special effects ever), and the pilot appears to be dead. But appearances can be deceiving. He's actually more alive than the rest of the cast, including a patronizing misogynist old doctor(who'd also really, REALLY boring), a greasy guy who looks like he's cornered the market on hair oil, another guy so dull he doesn't even make much of an impression, a female scientist who never seems to be hurt or angry over the old guy's patronizing, and a female photographer with a Farah Fawcett haircut(pre-Farah, of course) and about as much liveliness as a dead duck.<br /><br />What are any of these people's names? I think it was Steve. Apparently, everyone in the cast, including the women, were called Steve. Anyway, the dead pilot Steve turns out to not only be alive, but to be incubating baby aliens(or seahorses, or shrimp, or whatever) inside his torso. The Momma beast that implanted these little critters looks like a giant bald parrot with claws. Once again, I am impressed by the laugh-ability factor of the monsters created by the House of Corman. The space carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World is still officially the worst, most laughable monster I've ever seen grace the screen, but the Cormans always manage to deliver when it comes to bad, cheesy looking monsters.<br /><br />They also managed to deliver on their other trademarks as well; i.e. a boring, confusing plot, long gray shots(thank God Corman did most of his films in black and white, since his color stuff still manages to look somehow gray)two or three locations max, stupid and lame props and special effects, and lots and lots of dull dialog. There's only two deaths in the film(if you don't counted the roasted parrot..err..alien blood beast being offed at the end of the film). Cheers rang out through the land, I'm sure, when the alien rips the old doctor's head off and(apparently) eats it. Now it can talk in English and has the doctor's memories. It can also move the pregnant astronaut around as though he were Pinnochio. <br /><br />The monster's apparent intent is to rebuild its race using human beings as food and giant wombs. There's a confusing bit at the end(well, more confusing than usual, anyway) in which the creature tries to explain why it is doing this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Something about how humanity is about to follow in its race's footsteps and destroy themselves by something they'll soon create. It never really said what that was. It could have been anything from toaster ovens to digital watches, who knows. Its baby minder stabs himself rather than let the alien shrimp crawl out of his body, and the oily guy(and the other guy) burn the parrot-alien to death with a Molotov cocktail. Ahh,the smell of roasting chicken..err.. alien. End of story, in which the rest of the characters wander off and leave their dead comrade laying on the ground to rot. Oh, Hell, why not save yourself the expense of a funeral? I'm sure that was what Corman was thinking, when he was trying to cut corners and make his scenes as cheaply as possible.
9,183	[ 700, 800 ]	558	716	I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!<br /><br />Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.<br /><br />None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.<br /><br />The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad! <br /><br />Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel! <br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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