id int64 0 25k | interval listlengths 2 2 | len_words int64 6 2.21k | len_tokens int64 8 2.75k | text stringlengths 32 13k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,965 | [
900,
1000
] | 720 | 979 | Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Most of Laurel's 'parody' films are only mildly funny, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. Fortunately, 'Mud and Sand' lampoons a movie which is still well known: 'Blood and Sand', starring Rudolph Valentino. 'Blood and Sand' was released only nine weeks before this parody, giving you some idea of how quickly Broncho Billy's movies were ground out, edited and distributed.<br /><br />Various sources (including IMDb) state that Stan Laurel's character in this film is named Rhubarb Vaselino, with a final 'o'. I've screened a print of 'Mud and Sand' with the original titles (in Hobo type font), so I report that Laurel's role is actually cried Rhubarb Vaseline, with an 'e'. But I agree that 'Vaselino' is funnier. Laurel copies the elaborate sideburns which Valentino wore in 'Blood and Sand' (he should've made them longer!), and there's a parody of Valentino's dressing scene from that movie, which made female movie-goers swoon in 1922. A señorita named Carmen in the original film is parodied here as Caramel (a girl I'd like to sink my teeth into).<br /><br />This movie (like the original) apparently takes place in Spain, yet there's a Prohibition gag. Laurel uses a distinctive hat-tipping gesture here which could have become a trademark for him (like Hardy's distinctive necktie twiddle), but I've never spotted it in any other Laurel film. There's some amusing dialogue: Rhubarb Vaseline tells the other matadors to 'Save a bull for me.' When Vaseline becomes a successful toreador, a lackey tells him 'The bull is without, sir' ... which is funny, but I was disappointed that Laurel didn't reply 'Without WHAT?'.<br /><br />There's one funny moment here which almost certainly wasn't planned, when Vaseline shows up for the bullfighter auditions. Laurel swaggers into the bullring, and -- before you can say 'corrida querida' -- he tosses a bull over the fence, where it lands with a thump near the other auditioners. The bull is obviously a fake, but the gag is funny anyway ... and, aye, there's a title card with a joke about 'throwing the bull'. The serendipitous moment occurs when Laurel repeats the gag, and Vaseline slings a second bull over the fence. This one lands on its butt, and balances upright for just an instant before toppling. VERY funny! If somebody planned that gag in this quickie comedy, I salute the unknown gagsmith ... and the tech man who rigged the bull to land in that position. More likely it happened by luck, and the director and editor were smart enough to keep it in.<br /><br />During the silent era, whenever Hollywood made a big-budget feature film which was set anyplace where the people don't speak English, it was a common cinematic device to show a piece of text or an inscription in the local lingo, then dissolve to a shot of the same text in English. I was surprised that this low-budget comedy spent the money to copy that device here: we see a notice-board outside the corrida with a message in Spanish, then it dissolves to the same text in English. Unfortunately, the photography in this cheapo movie is so dark that the effect is wasted.<br /><br />The actresses in this movie are attractive ... including Broncho Billy's wife Leona Anderson and Stan Laurel's common-law wife Mae Dahlberg; the latter briefly does a pretty dance. (Mae had danced in Stan's vaudeville act.) I was surprised to spot Charlie Chaplin's half-brother Wheeler Dryden in a brief role, since Chaplin had nothing to do with this movie. In 'Mud and Sand', Laurel gives a funny performance that's quite unlike his later familiar Stanley character ... but this film is much less funny than his brilliant work with Oliver Hardy. My rating: just 3 out of 10. TRIVIA NOTE: Twenty-three years later, in Stan Laurel's very last American film -- 'The Bullfighters' (1945) -- he again played a Spanish bullfighter (with his Spanish voice post-dubbed). Coincidentally, that film used stock footage from 'Blood and Sand': not Valentino's movie, but the Tyrone Power remake. 'Mud and Sand' is funnier than 'The Bullfighters', but not much. | 0 |
3,269 | [
900,
1000
] | 762 | 950 | Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.<br /><br />To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary. <br /><br />Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.<br /><br />Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable. <br /><br />Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.<br /><br />Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'<br /><br />Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact. <br /><br />Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered. <br /><br />Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!! | 0 |
3,319 | [
900,
1000
] | 787 | 982 | Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't. | 0 |
3,417 | [
900,
1000
] | 779 | 978 | Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong! <br /><br />Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.<br /><br />The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).<br /><br />It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.<br /><br />Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney! | 0 |
3,531 | [
900,
1000
] | 777 | 931 | The film's tagline is "You think you know who you are. You have no idea." I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.<br /><br />A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.<br /><br />The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.<br /><br />This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.<br /><br />Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally "cinematic" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.<br /><br />The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad. | 0 |
3,564 | [
900,
1000
] | 717 | 921 | What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.<br /><br />And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.<br /><br />Just a few examples: <br /><br />1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.<br /><br />2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.<br /><br />History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.<br /><br />3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie! <br /><br />Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.<br /><br />WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.<br /><br />One star, because there's no way to rate it lower. | 0 |
3,565 | [
900,
1000
] | 728 | 928 | Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then? <br /><br />That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?<br /><br />Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.<br /><br />As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.<br /><br />But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:<br /><br />- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body, <br /><br />- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death), <br /><br />- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother, <br /><br />- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators, <br /><br />- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"<br /><br />All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all. | 0 |
3,676 | [
900,
1000
] | 768 | 928 | Snake Island is one of those films that, whilst one sits and watches its amazing level of stupidity, makes one wish the film camera had never been invented. The real reason why Plan 9 From Outer Space will hold onto its honoured title of Worst Film Of All Time for a while to come is not so much because of how bad it is. It is because of the fact that it is the most entertaining bad film you will ever see. Snake Island is the other kind of bad. Snake Island is just so bad that it is excruciating. A stupid premise combines with a script that was written by monkeys tapping one-key typewriters onto transparencies that were then overlapped in order to resemble dialogue to make the most obvious problems here. Filmed entirely on location in South Africa, the environments in which the film takes place are about the only element that can truthfully be considered well-realised. Many shots involving snakes consist of close-ups so surreal in appearance that one begins to wonder whether said snakes are CGI, puppets, or real snakes that have been fed really hard drugs.<br /><br />William Katt stars, if you can call it that, as an author traveling to an island resort on what appears to be a river ferry. Coming along with him is an assortment of very generic, poorly-defined characters. It is all a matter of random screen writing as to who survives to the end, but Katt certainly appears to be contemplating firing his agent. The rest of the cast seem to be from the Home And Away acting school, where any contemplation of an unpleasant plot point is accompanied by open-mouthed gaping and darting one's eyes about in every direction. The foley effects are often worse, with one memorable scene where a double-barreled shotgun sounds like the rather flat sound effects that used to accompany gunshots in such games as BioForge. Meanwhile, snakes continually explode or jump about at random. It would have been more accurate to call the film Snake Holocaust.<br /><br />Of course, no Z-grade horror or sci-fi film is complete these days without gratuitous scenes of nubile women in a state of undress. As every woman in the cast, almost, gets their clothes off, the film starts to become less Snake Island and more Snake Island Orgy. But like all the worst piles, all there really is in this case is a lot of setup with no real payoff. The sex scenes never eventuate, and the deaths of characters are so flat, so uninteresting, that the entire film becomes pointless. Unless you consider watching William Katt running through a muggy forest wearing ill-fitting cricket gear and smashing snakes in all directions with a cricket bat a payoff. For the record, I don't. I used to think that Anaconda was the worst film ever made about predatory snakes. I was so very, very wrong. At least Anaconda had a snake one could be afraid of if they suspended disbelief for quite some time. Some of the snakes shown killing the human cast are no bigger than the shoelaces from some pairs of combat boots I have worn.<br /><br />So we so far have the checklist for bad horror films running along nicely. The unrecognisable, lame cast are accounted for, as are poor audio and visual effects. The dialogue is so wretched, so ill-timed, that I have seen better writing and delivery during some of the school plays I have acted in many moons ago. Unfortunately, where Snake Island falters in this respect is the area fatal to all bad films. In essence, it forgets to be so bad that it is funny. It is so bad that it stops being good after the opening credits and becomes painful the second that the cast start to speak. Compared to William Katt's performance in Snake Island, Jon Voight's performance in Anaconda was as Oscar-worthy as Russell Crowe's in Gladiator. Not that Voight or Katt are necessarily bad actors, but with material like this, you're hard-pressed to say a single word naturally. Listening to some of the lines here was like being the victim of a violent crime. One's mind tends to blank out the experience, primary as a self-defense mechanism.<br /><br />Because of the aforementioned failure to be entertainingly bad, I gave Snake Island a two out of ten. My special score for films that are so bad they cannot possibly be good, but not bad enough to entertain. It is all just so boring or pointless that one might as well be watching the test pattern. The proper way to spell "crap" is S-N-A-K-E-I-S-L-A-N-D. | 0 |
3,767 | [
900,
1000
] | 762 | 939 | If Corky St. Claire in WAITING FOR GUFFMAN had directed the citizens of Blaine in a horror movie with comic undertones the result would have been very much like THE MILPITAS MONSTER.<br /><br />To be generous, this was the longest hour and twenty minute movie I've ever seen. To call the pace glacial is to be kind.<br /><br />Almost nobody associated with this project ever made another movie with the exception of Ben Burtt, who did the really admirable (considering the budget) special effects. He went on to do sound for movies like MUNICH and several other big budget projects. The narration is by veteran voice-over actor Paul Frees, who probably donated his efforts.<br /><br />When you're watching the opening titles and see the Milpitas Unified School District listed as one of the producers you know you're going on a long, strange trip.<br /><br />Pollution at the down dump in Milpitas, California, becomes so toxic that it creates a monster. Remember that this is 1975 and ecology was a hot topic. Just a few years previously moviegoers had been treated to GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.<br /><br />So far so good. The monster is a winged creature at least fifty feet tall and has the capacity to tear the town apart. Instead it steals garbage cans.<br /><br />Central to the premise is the idea that this monster can prowl a small city and leave eight foot long footprints behind but not be noticed by anyone. There's a nicely conceived scene where it walks through the middle of a carnival at night but somehow nobody notices.<br /><br />The only person who sees the monster until the final scenes is George, the town drunk. All through the movie I hoped, hoped, hoped that George would be torn to shreds on camera but this didn't happen. Drat. In fact, nobody gets killed. George supposedly sacrifices himself to save Priscilla (he's tied to a helicopter to lure the creature- George smells worse than garbage and the monster is attracted to the scent).<br /><br />The nominal leads are a group of high school students. There's pretty Priscilla and her nondescript boyfriend and some "bad" boys who (surprise, surprise) whip themselves into shape to help defeat the monster in the final scenes.<br /><br />The monster is involved in four main set pieces. He attacks a Browning-Ferris garbage truck and leaves it beside an elevated highway, but nobody notices. He walks through the carnival, again unnoticed. He tears up a building (nice miniature work) and nobody sees him but George. Then he attacks the high school during a dance and grabs Priscilla and carries her off just like a certain very tall ape has done several times, most recently this past winter.<br /><br />There are plot ideas that come out of nowhere and are dropped. Local citizens picket at City Hall because they want their garbage cans back. An elaborate secret weapon for tracking monsters is flown in by private jet, examined, and forgotten.<br /><br />So why did I watch the whole thing? Because these people were having so darned much fun. I had the idea that the firemen were firemen, the businessmen were being filmed in their own offices, Priscilla may well live in that suburban tract house, and scenes of people in their yards may well have been in their own yards.<br /><br />They may not be great actors, but they are real people. Nobody is stunningly good looking. In fact, I'd estimate that four out of five of the adults on screen wear glasses. Since this is the mid seventies we see some really bad clothes and some of the men have awesomely bad facial hair. One dignitary being interviewed before a meeting at Ciry Hall has such a loud tie and sportcoat that you think he's on his way to play Marcellus in THE MUSIC MAN.<br /><br />And that got the movie two extra stars. Zero for the story. Two points for the sometimes decent special effects. And two points for the fact that people in the community actually got together and did this. They can actually say they've performed in a movie; despite lots of stage experience and working behind the scenes in live television I can't say that, and I'm happy for them.<br /><br />Remember those great old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland? At some point somebody would say, "Let's put on a show! Aunt Edna has all those old clothes in the attic, and we can use Uncle Ned's barn!" Then they'd do 'neighborhood shows' with sets and costumes that would cost well into seven figures if duplicated today.<br /><br />That's the spirit that the good people of Milpitas had for this project, and bless them for that. | 0 |
3,981 | [
900,
1000
] | 796 | 967 | The creative team behind Evan Almighty really should have been able to make a better film. Starring one of America's favourite funnymen and helmed by Ace Ventura Pet Detective director Tom Shadyac one expects a higher laugh count than the picture provides. Hell even Steve Oedekerk who wrote and directed last years atrocious Barnyard, and attains a writing credit here has done better work. The fact of the matter is that Evan Almighty isn't the worst picture of the Summer season but it might well be the most disappointing. The title and creative team behind the picture suggest this is a sequel of sorts to 2003's Bruce Almighty. That picture had Jim Carrey in the lead, and whilst both Steve Carell and Carrey are both funny guys it's the latter who's better suited to this sort of material. I've heard that Carrey was offered this sequel before anyone else, but the actor declined staing he saw no other places for his character to venture. Thus Shadyac moved over to Carell, who ever since an amusing bit part in the 2003 original has been gunning for stardom. After sleeper hits The 40 Year Old Virgin and Little Miss Sunshine the man has become big business, and so it's him rather than rubber faced Jim who leads this production into theatres. The story see's Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) having been elected as a Congressman and thus he and his troop move house and state so Evan can find success with his job. His wife (Lauren Graham) and three kids have doubts but overall show a supportive side towards Evan, who himself looks at the future with optimistic eyes. However things start to go belly up fairly fast, God (Morgan Freeman) appears to Evan stating a flood is coming and that the politician must build an Ark. Initially ignoring the encounter, Evan is quickly granted some robes a beard that refuses to stay shaved and animals are beginning to appear two by two. Evan then begins to put the boat into construction but the neighbourhood aren't happy and neither is a fellow Politician (John Goodman). Anyone expecting the wacky laughs of some of Tom Shadyac's other films will probably be left completely cold by this movie. Ace Ventura, Liar Liar and hell even Bruce Almighty where largely very funny pictures, but all of those ;projects have one thing in commen and thats Jim Carrey's presence. Shadyac hasn't made a worthwhile film without Carrey at the helm, he's worked with Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy and now Steve Carell, but still only Carrey seems to meld successfully with Shadyac. Carell after the disappointing Box-Office and critical mauling won't be desperate to work with the director again, and with Carrey now doing more serious projects Shadyac had better find a new comic muse fast. Carell himself is fairly dull here, whoever felt that his bit part in the first movie (Despite being quite amusing) deserved a full length feature should be taken out back and shot. I expect after Bruce Almighty's Box-Office draw it was Universal studios themselves, but you know when a quality comedian can't do anything with a character then the scren persona is a dud, and thats exactly the case with Evan Almighty. Lauren Graham isn't any great shakes as Evan's wife nor do any of the children strike the right note. Freeman lets it all hang loose as God in another amusing and chilled performance but he appears to sporadically to carry the piece. Indeed the most consistent source of laughter is Evan's Secretary (Wanda Sykes) and creep co-worker (Jonah Hill), both made me laugh twice as much as any other character in the project. Oedekerk's writing has been worse (Barnyard) but also better (Ace Ventura When Nature Calls) than his work on this production. His script does have genuinely funny moments but it's also full of cloying family moments and the humour is never weird or indeed offensive enough. The film takes tame and easy swipes at religion when it ought to rip the concept to shreds, indeed the opening church sequence in The Simpsons Movie shakes religion harder than Evan Almighty's whole 95 minute run. With a bit more daring and heart this could have been a far better picture. I don't doubt that the core family audience will be mildly entertained by this film, but if they'll be satisfied is a completely different question. There's a line between being watchable and being worthwhile, a line that Evan Almighty is always on the wrong side off. Maybe when you're feeling bored and the films on cable you can afford to watch, but I can think of plenty better ways to spend my time and indeed more importantly my money than tuning into this mediocre comedy. | 0 |
4,002 | [
900,
1000
] | 755 | 952 | As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.<br /><br />Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.<br /><br />Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece "Violator", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.<br /><br />When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable "highlight" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.<br /><br />The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.<br /><br />And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.<br /><br />But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.<br /><br />As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format). | 0 |
4,398 | [
900,
1000
] | 751 | 970 | To call this film a disaster will be an understatement. I don't even know where to begin! I have questions though, and lots of them. I would like to know who conceived of this script? Who gave them money to make this film? Who was in charge of casting and costuming? They should all be sued! I saw this film in my local library's catalog and I thought "Hey! great!" I had just seen the two FOG movies that Hollywood had produced and then realised that Bollywood had a version. Unbeknowst to me, that it would turn out to be a total and utter crap-fest! <br /><br />Dhund - the fog, is a film about four friends (actually just one of them but you should know that there are four friends), one of them is a beauty queen (played by India's 1st Mrs. World, Aditi Govitrikar) and the director spares no expense at letting you know this. The script even claims that she (the character's name is Simran) has Aishwarya Rai eyes, Kareena Kapoor lips and Rani Mukherjee hair. Feel free to barf if you want to, at least at this point you haven't seen the film, unlike poor me. :*(<br /><br />Anyway, Simran receives a death threat one day from one of the contestants' uncle, who tells her to drop out of the contest so that his niece would have a better chance of winning, but Simran's boyfriend doesn't allow her to do this and thus she participates in the pageant and wins. This causes the crack-cocaine-sniffing uncle of her former college classmate Tanya to come after her. But with the help of her cousin Kajal, Simran drowns the culprit and they enlist both their boyfriends in the task of getting rid of the body. It's tough but they eventually get around to doing it.<br /><br />In a scene that borrows from Hollywood's film Diabolique, the pool where the dead body is hidden is drained only to reveal that the body is missing and this begins a conundrum of Whodunit and Where-is-it? By the time the film is over, the film successful steals scenes from 'I know what you did last summer, I still know, Scream 1, Scream 2, Scream 3, Murder she wrote episodes and not to mention, Columbo and Scooby Doo'! Shameless, I tell ya!<br /><br />Inconsistencies and problems within the film include but are not limited to: <br /><br />1. A scantily clad Simran answers phone-calls three times from her would-be-killer, the camera shows her drop the phone off the hook yet the phone is able to ring again each time and she picks it up to answer. <br /><br />2. Tanya tries to kill herself because she doesn't win the beauty contest? WTF? Even Aishwarya Rai who is ten time more beautiful did not attempt suicide when she didn't win Miss India!<br /><br />3. In the pool scene, the kids who come to retrieve the ball that has fallen into the pool conveniently disappear as soon as the police arrive. And the ball disappears too. <br /><br />4. The cliché blue contacts lenses of the killer change from blue to brown in the drowning scene, yet when his corpse surfaces again, his eyes are blue. <br /><br />5. Nobody who dies in the film is mourned (strange, especially for Indian society).<br /><br />6. When Vikram jumps into the dirty murky pool, an underwater camera shows us his actions and miraculously the pool is transformed to Olympic size and is clean and clear as day. <br /><br />7. Sexy belly-dancer performs a pseudo-orgasm drenched song and dance number about coming of age. That would have been cool for some bachelor party, but they were celebrating Simran's pageant win! Hello!!!! <br /><br />8. Kunal, Sameer, Simran and Kajal can neither dance nor Lip Synch properly. But don't blame them, just accept that there was no choreographer for the dance numbers.<br /><br />9. Nothing within the film was choreographed, it was like they just told the actors to show up and do whatever the want. <br /><br />10. The film played out like there was no script. Either that or the director was high and drunk when filming this junk!<br /><br />11. When Simran's picture was published without her consent in a magazine, she flew to the police headquarters to have the photographers arrested, yet she receives death threats and never bothers to alert the police.<br /><br />Just to mention a few of course. This film was a painful experience for me and I advise everyone to skip it by all means necessary and possible. Bollywood should be terribly ashamed of this kind of film-making. | 0 |
4,614 | [
900,
1000
] | 783 | 954 | Against my own better judgment I went to see this film today, and God I wish I hadn't. Awful. The first AvP film looks like a classic compared to this, it's THAT bad. These guys actually make Paul WS Anderson look like a master storyteller. In fact, this is what I'd expect an Alien and/or Predator film to look like if it was made by Uwe Boll! This movie actually offended me, and Lord only knows what would transpire if Ridley Scott or HR Giger were ever forced to watch this piece of crap. I can't understand how any fan of either franchise could like this film.<br /><br />Truly I don't know where to begin. I mean, the first AvP was poop, but it at least a semi-interesting story and setting, and occasionally some genuine tension. It didn't take itself overly seriously and it could at least be semi enjoyed on a purely "leave your brain at home" basis. But this one, it felt to me as though the people behind it thought they were making the next horror masterpiece. One after the other was a contrived 'suspenseful' scene in a dark room or corridor with creepy music playing, essentially bashing you over the head saying "be scared NOW". As James Cameron once said, you can't be told to be scared, you can only have your own senses heightened. The guys that made this film obviously weren't paying attention because they tried everything in the book to force you to be scared rather than letting you come to that level yourself. It's a cliché for internet nerds to say "God, I was so bored from this movie and felt like leaving", well this is exactly how I felt, even in the middle of the action scenes. They took this film totally seriously, which removed any possibility of enjoyment. Even the gag about how governments don't lie to their people was played without a hint of irony.<br /><br />As for the characters, I knew going in that the human characters were going to be completely pointless to this film but seriously if they're going to be on-screen at least have them doing SOMETHING that is relevant to the story. I don't care about this guy being beaten up by his dreamgirl's boyfriend, I don't care about the mother who's "own daughter doesn't even know her, boo-hoo!" (a pair of night-vision goggles for a present? Give me a break!) or the released criminal just trying to make a decent living and set an example for his brother, what a guy. Hell, even the obligatory hot-chick-in-panties moment was more contrived than usual. I get the feeling they expected the audience to be so shocked at the ending, as well as seeing chestbursters come out of kids, expectant mothers being raped and the like, that that would make up for everything. I don't think so.<br /><br />Then we move onto the stars of the film, and again very little to write home about. Were the aliens well-designed? I wouldn't have a clue because you can never see the damn things. All you see is one of a mouth, a head, a tail or a really dodgy cg outline climbing a wall, and barely enough to actually process that it is in fact an alien before Mr "I cut Marilyn Manson and NIN music videos, think I'll do the same thing here" Editor goes at it with the slice tool. Also, notice how hack action directors always set their films at night and in the rain? Hmmmm. The Predator could've been fighting giant sea monkeys for all we knew! Yes, the Predator was more impressive this time around, and I did think some of the new weaponry was cool, but that was about it. Also, since when does a Predator sound like a dinosaur from The Lost World? There were a couple of things that I kinda liked though. One was the use of sound effects and music from the original films (I also giggled a little bit at "Get to the chopper!"), although other references were stupid (The main character's name being Dallas, give me a break). I also liked the visual FX for the Predator's vision, as well as how the hybrid alien looked (certainly beat the one from Resurrection). But really, those are the only positive things.<br /><br />Overall I found this movie inane, pointless, insulting and above all else offensive to the vision of the original creators of both creatures. That they've left the door open for another one leaves me almost depressed.<br /><br />If they had any decency they'd remove Dan O'Bannon, Ron Schusett and HR Giger from the credits of this film. They've done nothing to deserve this. | 0 |
4,836 | [
900,
1000
] | 848 | 974 | The movie starts off promisingly enough, the use of imagery and simple short clips convey the bigger story, which would normally need a considerably higher budget than the one here. However it did start to worry me as it continued, combined with another overly husky Max Payne type voice over the movie was starting to look not so good. I hoped it was just the introduction to the story.<br /><br />The story is what really caught me and took me to this movie. The idea that a research scientist has created a virus that actually protects the cells it infects from other infection was an interesting scientific idea. Then that subjects who had the most bizarre disorders sought out the scientist and offered to be his human experiments made me think this could be one very good small movie. Yet the introduction hadn't gone well.<br /><br />There did seem to be a change of pace as the movie turned to recorded interviews with the four main characters in the movie, the test subjects. Although the acting wasn't superb, there seemed to be a lot of scope for character development throughout the movie, and the recordings were done quite well with a varied mix of characters. However these faded through the movie. They weren't used again after a few brief clips and I did feel that there was a missed opportunity to provide some great character development by reflecting back to them, however it wasn't to be.<br /><br />The imagery becomes increasingly disconnected from the story, often repeating to represent something that is still happening. This disconnection and repetition is reflected in the annoying and distracting commentary. It began reciting words one after the other. Short, meaningless sentences and reciting none too relevant or interesting scientific ramblings. If there was something to be described, four or five words would be used, it was too long, repetitive, circular, looping,...you're getting the idea.<br /><br />Now this could have been to reflect the confusion and of the character, slowly becoming caught up in his own thoughts, rambling due to lack of food and water. What it actually did was to cause me to totally switch off to the voice and by the closing stages of the movie I found that I hadn't been listening to some of the ramblings.<br /><br />A number of times that an event occurs the camera shows all the characters one after the other for their reaction, which seems to be somewhere between confused and thoughtful. There are repeated fades from the same scene to the same scene, for instance a character sleeping fades to black, then fades back in on the character sleeping again. Look, we know the character is asleep, we know time has passed, please move on. Overall there are just too many atmospheric cuts and long, hanging shots to fill time.<br /><br />The acting was not bad, and the characters were okay, but not exploited and developed. When they were interacting there were some truly cringeworthy moments. For example when one of them asks if they are hungry the camera looks to each of them and returns to a group shot, they pause, look to each other, turn back to camera and say slowly "No". It raised a snigger or two. Their dialogue was slow, glossy and either it was missing altogether or totally unnecessary, there seemed to be no middle ground where the dialogue hit spot on.<br /><br />However, there were some good scenes, but they were really hard to find unless you viewed them in isolation, and this is what it almost looks like has happened with this movie. The film has been looked at as a series of scenes and not as a complete story.<br /><br />Nowhere is this seen more than in the main storyline. The characters are infected with the virus that has been killing the animals, the one that was being engineered for them. We're told that it develops in stages to something dramatic, and so that is what we expect. What we get are the characters eating loads together, all throwing up once together, water pouring from their mouths in unconvincing streams, then they all fall asleep, these are the phases which all happen really early in the movie. Then, they all say "Good" together when asked how they are, and that's it. That's the virus done, nothing else happens.<br /><br />There could have been so much more done with this movie, so much more developed with the virus and it protecting them from all manner of harm. It could have explored a serious change of these characters as it infected and took over them, it could have developed these characters, shown them making decisions and doing things that connect back to their character shown in flashbacks to the interviews.<br /><br />The ending isn't even confusing, intriguing or thought provoking. It just shows something that happens and that's it, although in the long, drawn out style with the irritating voice over above it. I really struggled with this movie and watched a number of Press members walk out (including one famous TV critic leaving within the first twenty minutes), I stayed, but regretted the lost time. | 0 |
4,953 | [
900,
1000
] | 838 | 977 | It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase "Inspired by a true story" when watching Pride. It's sort of like "You could save up to 50%," which can quite literally be translated to "You can't save more than 50%." It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of "up to" is "zero." Similarly, "inspired by a true story" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.<br /><br />There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.<br /><br />At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance. <br /><br />The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement. <br /><br />When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim. <br /><br />Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet. <br /><br />That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort. <br /><br />Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.<br /><br />We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.<br /><br />But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment. | 0 |
5,067 | [
900,
1000
] | 761 | 963 | Gargoyle starts late one night in 'Romania 1532' as a peasant girl (Daniela Nane) travels along in her horse & cart minding her own business when from the moonlit clouds above a living Gargoyle swoops down & attacks her, she manages to escape the Gargoyle & happens upon a castle of some description where an angry mob of local villagers & a Priest are able to put an end to the Gargoyle, or so they think... Cut to present day Bucharest where two CIA agents Ty Griffin (Michael Pare) & Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are about to negotiate the safe return of the son of a rich American ambassador from his kidnappers. In pursuit of one of the kidnappers Griffin loses him on the roof of a building but finds a large pool of blood & no visible signs of what happened to him. Meanwhile Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) & her colleague Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are renovating a church when the church labourer Gregor (Mihai Bisericanu) informs Richard that he has found some ancient relic, the two investigate & find a cave with lots of slimy cocoons & one very angry & very much alive Gargoyle who wastes no time in killing them both. Griffin & Wells are on the case when they are reported missing & soon realise that local legends of monstrous Gargoyles are true with a local priest named Father Soren (Fintan McKeown) planning to flood the world with them...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Jim Wynorski under his usual pseudonym Jay Andrews Gargoyles is yet another masterpiece Wynorski can add to his credits, not. The script by Wynorski, Ion Ionescu, A.G. Lawrence & Bill Munroe is crap, is unexciting, dull & is as simplistic as you can get. For a start I would like to know if there was only one Gargoyle left who laid all those eggs because I'm pretty sure it couldn't have made itself pregnant. How did it survive in that hole for 500 years? What did it eat? How did the priest know it was there? Why has no one else ever figured it out? Why did the priest want to flood the world with them? To rule it? The Gargoyles are hardly going to take over the world & then let some priest just rule it like a king & if they did what would be left to rule? Much like the guys who wrote Gargoyle I don't think he thought it through that well did he? Whichever way I look at it, whichever way I approach it, from whichever angle I try to figure it out from, no matter how many times I try to square the circle Gargoyles just doesn't make any sense & they story has huge plot holes, lapses in logic & isn't that great to start with anyway. The character's are dull & clichéd, the action repetitive & unexciting while the film as a whole is a real bore to sit through. People do illogical things & everything that happens is far to convenient like when the priest is try to convince Griffin that Gargoyle's exist & one just suddenly shows up & attacks them. The cave full of cocoons is such a rip-off of Aliens (1986) it's embarrassing & the ending was lame. The bit on the large Ferris Wheel at the fair was funny though when the guy mocked the boys fear of heights & forced him to get on it.<br /><br />Director Wynorski cuts costs & steals footage from other films, in fact the best scene from Gargoyle is a car chase through Bucharest but it was taken from the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Maximum Risk (1996). There are no shocks, scares or atmosphere. The special effects are terrible, the CGI Gargoyle looks like it belongs in a computer game & has little interaction with any living cast members, there are lots of scenes of people looking up to the sky & trying to appear scarred. There isn't even any worthwhile gore to make the thing watchable, there is one awful decapitation & that's it.<br /><br />Technically the special effects are awful but otherwise it's passable, the Romanian locations look suitably Romanian. Gargoyle went straight-to-video & it shows with a pretty cheap look & feel to it. The acting isn't up to much, personality bypass victim Michael Pare makes for the dullest of dull heroes.<br /><br />Gargoyle is a crap film, it fails at everything a decent creature feature should strive to achieve. A total waste of 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned, one to avoid. | 0 |
5,308 | [
900,
1000
] | 757 | 922 | Back in 1995, Barry Sonnenfeld directed a movie that ended up on many critics best of lists by the time the year's recaps were being printed in entertainment publications. The movie was Get Shorty and it gave lead star John Travolta his second big hit in as many years after Pulp Fiction put him back in front of the paparazzi's lenses. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, the film focused on wise guy Chili Palmer (Travolta) and his attempts to break into the movie business. I, for one, was completely captured by the diverse characters and crisp dialogue of the original. So much so, that when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I seemed to forgo my usual shivering that occurs when a studio tries to rehash what was a good idea over ten years later. The sequel, also based on a novel by Leonard, is this time directed by F. Gary Gray who's Italian Job in 2003 was one of the years highest grossing films. Couple that with the cast now expanding to include Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Cedric the Entertainer, The Rock, Vince Vaughn and James Woods and you have all the makings of a great continuance in the exploits of one of the more interesting characters of the 1990's. This time round we pick up as Chili (Travolta) is leaving the movie business after being disappointed in both himself and the industry for participating in the making of a sequel to his successful first film. Thanks in small part to his friend, Tommy Athens (Woods) and the misfortune of his death, Chili decides to look into the lucrative and dangerous music industry. This first leads to the famous Viper club where Chili meets singing sensation Linda Moon (Christina Milian) who as lead of an upstart trio, can belt out tunes like Whitney Houston (that is, the Whitney before Bobby Brown started bringing home the small packages of sugar). Linda is under contract with Raji (Vaughn) who, with his overly apparent gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhelm (The Rock), plan to ensure Linda fulfills the final five years of her contract even if that means putting Chili on ice. So with Linda's future in the balance, Chili weaves an interesting web which will include a record producer (Thurman), a gangsta sound mixer (Cedric), the Russian mob, the police, Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler and a whole lot of angry gun pointing. Woo-Wheee! That sounds exciting. So why wasn't it? Be Cool tries too hard to, well, be cool. But the result is a film that unlike the original, has no heart and no soul. Be Cool feels instead like it was directed by a Saturday Night Live producer as there are individual scenes or skits that don't string together over a whole movie. Take for example the scene where Travolta and Thurman dance together for the first time since Pulp Fiction, as Black Eyed Peas performs live in the background. The scene is forced and should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Instead, it is coupled between two other needless chapters that do nothing to push the story forwards with any real thrust. The Aerosmith concert, and The Rock's trip to a boot shop are also prime examples of individual moments that don't amount to much of a movie when put together. But those aren't the only issues with the sequel - which could probably be renamed Product Placement with the amount of 2-Ways and Diet Pepsi's that seem to stare at you more intensely than Chili's serious look. The story contains just about every stereotype imaginable and each one has just enough screen time to become slightly offensive or embarrassing. Whether it is the gangsta entourage or the gay muscle guy that has a movie poster of Sylvester Stallone's Rhinestone on the wall, no characters is above offering us anything we haven't seen many times before and in much better films. With the magic all but gone from the first film, we end up with an inferior product that is the second film in the past six months (Ocean's 13 being the other) that cram a bunch of stars onto a marquee only to end up as a movie that no actor would bring to an open audition. Be Cool was a major disappointment. I so wanted it to be the Get Shorty of the new millennium and I ended up with a film where the outtakes must have been a gas, but experience left me with a stinker. | 0 |
5,316 | [
900,
1000
] | 744 | 933 | Sometimes when I hear an A-list cast will be bunched up together for 2 hours in a movie I hope, and pray that it is good, not for the sake of my 10 bucks or 2 hours, but for the sake of these actors' careers. In the case of "Be Cool", everything went to waste.<br /><br />In the beginning of the film John Travolta (aka Chili Palmer) and a music executive played by James Woods are driving in a car talking about movie sequels, and how most aren't good. If you look passed the fact that this scene was shot the same way Quentin Tarrantino filmed his car scene in "Pulp Fiction", and listen to the dialogue you can't help but ponder whether this is 1) a disclaimer to the audience that this movie is going to suck, or 2) an attempt to get the audience laughing at the sheer humor of 2 people talking about sequels in a sequel. Oh the irony! (In case you were wondering, choice 1 is correct.) The cool and slick Chili Palmer from the first and good film "Get Shorty" is revived to play a mobster gone music business pro. He steals a young hot singer (Christina Milian) from her ghetto pimped out Jewish manager (Vince Vaughn), and turns her into a singing sensation. Of course a movie about an ex-mobster can never be complete without new mobsters causing havoc. This time around the mobsters of choice are Russian, played by American actors who cannot act Russian if my entire family hit them upside the head with their Russian bare hands.<br /><br />As a Russian I wasn't so much offended by the way this film portrayed Russians, but instead as a writer I was more offended by the horrible dialogue. This film tried too hard to get the audience to laugh. It turned potentially good lines into a redundancy. The Russian, black, and gay jokes were the same ones only reworded a couple of hundred times. After calling The Rock's character a f***** (he plays a gay bodyguard to Vince Vaughn), and Cedric the Entertainerer's character a n***** (he played a black rapper with an entourage who threaten those who don't play his tracks with guns) I wanted to walk out of the movie theater, because it was painful to sit through. If this was "Get Shorty" none of this would've even needed to be in the film to build up drama, or a really bad laugh.<br /><br />What lacked in this film that didn't in "Get Shorty" was Chili's hot spicey attitude. He's a completely different person in this sequel. For one thing the old Chili would've had more dialogue. John Travolta doesn't have more than 20 speaking lines in "Be Cool", because he is out staged by the repetitive lines, and the hundred and two cameo appearances by the most random celebrities. I won't ruin the shock by revealing all of the cameos for those who actually plan to see this movie (PLEASE DON'T!!!), but I will say that it will forever amaze me that these people agreed to be in a film of such inanity.<br /><br />What was even more stupid was the very lame dance sequence with Travolta and Uma Thurman (she plays the widower of James Woods who LUCKILY gets killed in the first 10 minutes of the movie). Tarrantino never made Pulp Fiction for an idiot like the director of "Be Cool" to mess around with. This dance number was boring, long, and just plain throbbing. The Black Eyed Peas playing in the club with a total of 10 people didn't make the scene any memorable.<br /><br />There were so many plot holes that I left the theater asking myself WHY?! Everything about this film was a big question mark. I just didn't understand the point to anything. I couldn't even explain to you why the Russians were after everyone, or why this film was ever made, because I'm baffled. All I took out of this movie was that everyone in L.A. has a sidekick, and the only way this movie was probably funded was through all of the advertisements by Diet Coke, Yahoo!, Honda Insight Hybrid, T-Mobile, Trimspa (even the spokeswoman herself is in the movie) and the Bad Screenwriters Guild. Plot holes, stupid dialogue, too many random cameos, horrible acting (even by the pros), and a not-so-entertaining attempt to mimic "Pulp Fiction" makes this film the worst movie of 2005, and it's only the third month of the year. | 0 |
5,611 | [
900,
1000
] | 767 | 907 | As other reviews have said, another of the countless number of Alien clones, this time with a great wodge of The Terminator thrown in, add a bit of the classic SF Story "Who Goes There?", and a insanely stupid plot device lifted from The Andromeda Strain (apparently flashing red lights make rampaging killer 'droids unable to detect scared people standing three inches away from them).<br /><br />OK, the story: after a sequence of people running around in a space ship and killing each other we get a caption. <br /><br />"25 years later". <br /><br />The crew of a relay station orbiting Mars, due to be relieved in 48 hours, detect a ginormous space ship on a collision course. It's The Siberia, the ship we saw in the opening sequence. Not a good time to have taken everything useful off-line on the relay station to do some repairs then. The approaching ship doesn't deviate from its course and is broadcasting a "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning. After a lot of shouting at each other, the crew of the relay station patch something together and get the station out of the way just in the nick of time. But the ship changes course and rams them any way - impaling one of the crew on a stick-outy pointy crew impaler thing. The satellite starts to "loose integrity". Bits de-pressurise. Lots more shouting and running about in which only two crew people are sucked out into space backwards. (Why are they ALWAYS sucked out backwards?). <br /><br />After a few keystrokes the wheelchair bound techy (who is called 'Wheeler' - the only only detectable joke in the whole movie) deduces that the Siberia is draining them of all their power and they need to go aboard her and switch off its engines. They all go on-board and take their helmets off. "Do NOT Enter This Ship!" obviously means get on board the ship and expose yourself to possibly fatal infectious diseases. One team head for the Main Computer room where they find a dead frozen guy clutching what looks like an American Express card but turns out to be a minidisc. The other team find some switches. Amazingly the dead bloke turns out to be the father of the attractive female crew member voted most likely to survive an encounter with a rampaging alien. They switch the engines off but this means the ships reactor will explode. A spooky Point of View Shot starts killing people. There's some guff about the Siberia having discovered an new ore, a petential power source worth millions, which mean the more venal members of the crew immediately thrust themselves into danger to get hold of it. The POV shot returns with whoosh! whoosh! walking noises on the soundtrack. Unfortunately these give you the idea the killer is wearing corduroy trousers and the effect is wasted.<br /><br />After that it's all just running around and getting killed in order of ugliness and acting ability, until only the obvious survivors survive - along with the cute dog which had managed to lead at least two crew members to their deaths. Just why space hardened veterans wander into the jaws of certain death looking for their pets cats and dogs has long been a mystery of this kind of movie. Other stupid highlights include everyone forgetting to act the falling levels of oxygen until reminded by the voice of the on-board computer (not that the low levels of oxygen in any way dampen any of the impressive fires this load of idiots start). If the Killer Droid id so clever it can steer the ship in a tight curve and have another go at ramming the relay station why didn't it turn off the "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning signal.. I'm sure if it was looking for more people to kill then yelling GO AWAY! was not a good way of going about it.<br /><br />Musetta Vander is the only person who gets to do any acting - everyone else just flares their nostrils all the time while baring their teeth and shouting and pointing guns at each other. It that sort of script; full of exclamation marks - the only thing that kept me watching till the end was the hope that the script demand she take all her clothes off, or get wet while not wearing a lot. Unfortunately it didn't. One of the things wrong with this movie (apart from it having more cyan put on screen than in any other movie ever) is that there was no gratuitous nudity. | 0 |
5,746 | [
900,
1000
] | 797 | 991 | The growth of tax funds and sale-and-leaseback schemes has led to a raft of unsaleable films that are gathering dust in laboratories and vaults all over the British Isles because they seem to be made purely because they fit the financial criteria rather than had any potential audience. A lucky few get a week at a small screen in London before going to budget DVD, but The Riddle distinguished itself by completely bypassing cinema, TV or even the rental market to premiere as a free gift DVD in the Mail on Sunday.<br /><br />It's all too easy to see why this ended up being literally given away. Aside from a couple of glitches (a boom mike is clearly visible in one shot) it's not particularly badly made, and while Vinnie Jones comes over like modern British cinema's version of Freddie Mills Mills as the greyhound reporter who wants to move up to the crime desk and the supporting cast veer from ham to vaguely passable, nobody's distinguishing themselves here by being either outstandingly good or outstandingly bad: mediocrity is more the norm here. The real problem is that like so many sale-and-leaseback tax fund films, it's a 'soft' film - there's no reason to watch it. It exists because the circumstances existed for it to be made, but it lacks pace or forward momentum. It seems to be aiming for the Sunday teatime telly audience (despite being shot in Scope) but doesn't cut it. There are a couple of okayish ideas in this determinedly inoffensive tale of a unpublished Charles Dickens manuscript and a couple of suspicious deaths in modern-day Limehouse, but the mystery element is so painfully obvious - as is the last-minute supernatural twist (you'll never guess who Jacobi's literate tramp really is. What, you guessed?) - that you're almost expecting the Scooby Gang or the Double Deckers to turn up to solve it.<br /><br />It's a very misconceived film for all kinds of reasons: a few cast members are playing double roles when they shouldn't even be playing one, and the whole shock reveal of the truth of the Dickens manuscript is completely bungled because it's all narrated in the first person by Dickens rather than the supposed character of the novel. The main murder in the film is clumsily integrated into the main plot, with characters suddenly reminding Vinnie that he's forgotten about that one already, heralding an increasingly desperate final half hour that sees wicked developer Jason Flemyng's secretary puts some Rohypnol in Vinnie's drink so she can have her wicked way with him and leave incriminating photos behind "to make you look a git with your girlfriend," leading to him having a dream where he talks to Charles Dickens ("You're Charles Dickings" "What's in a name?"), who offers the somewhat less than likely suggestion that "You read too many books." But all that's as nothing compared to the finale, which falls into utter absurdity, with logic and common sense going completely out the window as it plays like some bizarre Jacobean revenge tragedy with handguns on the banks of the Thames, with two-day guest stars Flemyng and Vanessa Redgrave looking like they'd much rather be somewhere else (Mel Smith turns up in a one-day cameo, so it's clear that the film's 'names' are mainly there for an easy $10k or to meet their alimony payments). The film's final image is so utterly absurd and pointless as to almost make it worth watching, though.<br /><br />One curiosity is a fairly prominent role in the first third for Vera Day, a sort of prototype Liz Fraser and one-time mainstay of 50s British films - the barmaid in Hell Drivers, the barmaid in Quatermass II - here promoted to pub owner, while standup comedian Kenny Lynch turns up briefly to give the best performance as an old school gangster. Oh, and the late Gareth Hunt makes his last bow as - oh the irony - a coroner...<br /><br />Just to round out the package, the freebie DVD also included a trailer for the director's other film with Vinnie Jones, Bog Bodies, a naff-looking British horror with transAtlantic scientists and Vinnie in Elmer Fudd duck hunter outfit terrorized by a reanimated 2000-year old sacrificial victim from the nearest peat bog ("Be wewwy, wewwy qwuiet: I'm hunting dwuids"). I can hardly wait...<br /><br />The one thing I can guarantee, however, is that every indie producer in the UK is going to spend the next few weeks trying to find out exactly how much the Mail paid for the license to press the DVD (they paid Prince £250,000 for his new CD). With so many British tax-shelter indies on the shelf and with money so hard to find at the moment, this could become an interesting fallback market for British flicks. | 0 |
6,041 | [
900,
1000
] | 733 | 935 | 1993 was a time of change in the WWE but for this Wrestlemania they decided to wind back the clock as Hulk Hogan returned, along with his good friend Brutus Beefcake, who had been out of wrestling since a paragliding accident in 1990.<br /><br />This was not a great event. Only two matches had any real build and the whole thing came off as being rushed. The in ring action wasn't great and the twist at the end, which I'll discuss later, really wasn't the earth shattering moment the WWE hoped it would be.<br /><br />This forgettable night started off with Shawn Micheals defending his Intercontinental Championship against the undefeated Tatanka. Tatanka had beaten Michaels a couple of times leading into the fight. Michaels had a new manager, Luna Vachon while Tatanka was accompanied by Michaels' former manager and future WWE Hall of Famer Sherri Martel. Tatanka won by DQ. Michaels kept his title and went straight back into his feud with Marty Janetty, which had been put on hold just for Wrestlemania. Why, I have no idea.<br /><br />Next up saw the Steiner Brothers (Scott and Rick) defeat the Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) with Scott scoring the pin after hitting Samu with the Frankensteiner. Good match.<br /><br />Doink the clown needed help from another clown to win his match against Crush. A second Doink distracting Crush when he was in complete control and allowing Doink to get the pin and the victory. Doink was an entertaining gimmick character, who got old rather quickly.<br /><br />Razor Ramon easily defeated the returning Bob Backlund in the next match.<br /><br />This brings us to the first in our double main event. As the Mega Maniacs Team of Hulk Hogan and Brutus Beefcake, with the newly turned good guy Jimmy Hart in their corner, took on Hart's former buddies Money Inc (Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster). This was a fairly sketchy finish. Beefcake, as mentioned, had been in a paragliding accident requiring full facial surgery and had wrestled the match with a face mask on. Shyster ripped the mask off him and beat Beefcake to a pulp. The ref went down, Hogan grabbed the face mask and knocked out DiBIase and Shyster and then Hart, who was wearing a referee shirt, counted the three. Another ref came down and reversed the decision, declaring Money Inc winners by DQ.<br /><br />Next up Lex Luger or the Narcissist as he was also known at the time defeated Mr Perfect. This match came about because Luger was being managed by Perfect's old manager Bobby Heenan. Perfect had is feet on the ropes when he was pinned, but the ref missed it.<br /><br />The Undertaker picked up a lacklustre DQ victory in a pretty poor match against the Giant Gonzales. THe Undertaker had earned the ire of Gonzales' manager Harvey Wippleman in 1992 and Taker had defeated his big monster Kamala at Survivor Series. Wippleman vowed revenge and took it at the Royal Rumble as Gonzales attacked Taker, costing him the match. Gonzales dominated Undertaker in this match, but was DQ'd for choking Taker out with chloroform. Weird finish to a bad match.<br /><br />This bought us to our main event as WWE Champion Bret Hart, seriously challenged as champion for the first time, put his title on the line against Mr Fuji's unstoppable monster Yokozuna. Yokozuna controlled the early going, but Hart resisted and then took control. He had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter, surely he would give in and Hart would be established as an heroic hero after taking out the big monster. But Fuji had other ideas, throwing salt in Hart's face, rendering the Canadian helpless as Yokozuna got the pin.<br /><br />What a downer ending. But wait here comes Hulk Hogan. He's checking Hart to make sure he's OK. Suddenly Fuji challenges Hogan to a WWE Title right then and there. Hogan accepts. Fuji throws salt towards Hogan, but hits Yokozuna instead. Hogan hits the leg drop and wins the match and the title. What did I just watch? And so, what most fans thought was going to be the night we either saw Hart establish himself as a giant killer, or Yokozuna establish himself as an unstoppable monster, we instead saw Hulk Hogan pick up a meaningless title win. A title that he would not defend for three months. As a matter of fact this was the only match Hogan wrestled for the WWE before the King of the Ring PPV in June 1993. | 0 |
6,118 | [
900,
1000
] | 826 | 962 | Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...<br /><br />Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clichéd & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.<br /><br />Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.<br /><br />Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.<br /><br />Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why... | 0 |
6,142 | [
900,
1000
] | 836 | 988 | Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. <br /><br />Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. <br /><br />Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless. <br /><br />This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. <br /><br />The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.<br /><br />I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. <br /><br />(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.) | 0 |
6,166 | [
900,
1000
] | 776 | 996 | When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled "Slumber Party Massacre IV," but "Cheerleader Massacre" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.<br /><br />Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's "Cheerleader Massacre."<br /><br />Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, "Cheerleader Massacre" is definitely NOT a new installment in the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.<br /><br />Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From "Sorority House Massacre II," to "Hard to Die," to "Chopping Mall," Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.<br /><br />Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's "Sorority House Massacre II." The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.<br /><br />Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original "Slumber Party Massacre" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new "SPM"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.<br /><br />Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in "Humanoids from the Deep" (which was also recycled prior for "The Coroner") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.<br /><br />After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the "Sorority House Massacre" films, now titled "Final Exam." I think I'm seeing a pattern here... | 0 |
6,258 | [
900,
1000
] | 698 | 912 | The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.<br /><br />If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.<br /><br />Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.<br /><br />Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points: <br /><br />1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.<br /><br />We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.<br /><br />We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.<br /><br />I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.<br /><br />Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in "True Lies", or Pvt. Hudson from "Aliens". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film? | 0 |
6,311 | [
900,
1000
] | 783 | 983 | Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?<br /><br />Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother. | 0 |
6,471 | [
900,
1000
] | 752 | 947 | There's something wonderful about a "revenge" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of "the movie," and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the "hero" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the "real world" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.<br /><br />"Swimming With Sharks" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ("Company Of Men" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current "torture-porn" genre everyone is so obsessed with ("Saw", "Hostel"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in "Saving Private Ryan" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.<br /><br />The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to "pay him back" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named "Guy") is an "everyman" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle..."What do you want?", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as "Punchline"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, "Buddy," is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no "hero" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.<br /><br />It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most "monsters" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, "surprise" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.<br /><br />There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ("9-to5," "Working Girl," "The Devil Wears Prada") and not so much ("War Of The Roses", the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from "Prada" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, "worked it all out" by now... | 0 |
7,065 | [
900,
1000
] | 757 | 976 | Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.<br /><br />What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.<br /><br />A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.<br /><br />Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, "Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk." Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.<br /><br />I told you not to get me started.<br /><br />There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's? <br /><br />At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The "scares" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the "gotcha" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.<br /><br />There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).<br /><br />The movie even makes a 1/5th-hearted attempt at a plot "twist." Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.<br /><br />And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure "look, we might have another sequel" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.<br /><br />We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a "stain" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.<br /><br />THE GIST <br /><br />If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge. | 0 |
7,198 | [
900,
1000
] | 764 | 970 | In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.<br /><br />Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.<br /><br />That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. "Broken Embraces" is a remake of "Law of Desire", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.<br /><br />For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.<br /><br />As in "Bad Education", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in "Bad Education", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.<br /><br />Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.<br /><br />But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which "Broken Embraces" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually "Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown" (1988), only this time it is called "Chicks and Suitcases". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of "Broken Embraces" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch "All about my mother", or "Tie me up", or "High Heels", or "Matador", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good. | 0 |
7,325 | [
900,
1000
] | 727 | 954 | A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.<br /><br />Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)<br /><br />Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical. <br /><br />Contemptible. 1 star out of 10. | 0 |
7,457 | [
900,
1000
] | 850 | 976 | The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.<br /><br />Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fiancé Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.<br /><br />The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.<br /><br />The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead. | 0 |
7,551 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 940 | A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10. | 0 |
7,657 | [
900,
1000
] | 751 | 920 | Amando DeOssorio was never one to let a lack of budget get in the way of telling one of his stories. His "Blind Dead" series started off great but had some truly laughable moments, such as shots of a small model boat in a water tank for "The Ghost Galleon". In "The Sea Serpent", he hits rock bottom and takes some notable actors along with him, telling the tale of a silly sock monster that brings google-eyed terror to a few water tanks and miniature aquariums.<br /><br />A vague opening sequence sets the stage and demonstrates an aborted military mission where American pilots, for some unknown reason, drop an atomic bomb (brazenly cartooned into the frame of the film) somewhere in the ocean off the coast of Spain. The military commander gives this order from an office that features a prominent American flag and a portrait of a deranged-looking Ronald Reagan, one of only a few things that makes this movie really seem like the Eighties. The other two are the hilariously inept subtitle that declares the year to be "1.985" and Tyria Power's dated Sheena Easton hairdo, which would have looked really cool next to some ripped neon sweats.<br /><br />One of the kookiest monsters you will ever see rises from the depths, disturbed by the explosion caused by the bomb. We learn that the errant atom bomb has killed off a great deal of the local fish. Unfortunately for our cast, it has no effect on the Sea Serpent, which swiftly descends on the coast of Spain for some miniature-set mayhem.<br /><br />Now when I say the monster is unrealistic, I am not exaggerating. It's not just "sort of" fake looking. I'm sure the filmmakers did the best with the ten dollars that they seem to have been allotted, but most of the time it looks like it was made out of Crayola markers, a ping pong ball, and an old sock. Not only that, it has this ominous music that accompanies it wherever it goes, music that sounds so much like the "Jaws" theme that it's a wonder nobody got sued.<br /><br />Along with Tyria Power, Timothy Bottoms and Ray Milland are caught slumming, and the dialogue could not have been any more dismal. Through a series of plot contrivances, our leading actors are thrown together in a quest to...well, I'm not sure what the purpose is. Bottoms and Power have got to prove the serpent is real in order to save their butts (he is blamed for a serpent-induced shipwreck, she is locked in the loony bin after a sighting). None of this matters, because by the end of the movie nothing has been resolved. Nobody admits the serpent is real, and it's not even dead. Furthermore, Power and Bottoms are still on the lam from the law. <br /><br />As illogical as it seems, nobody but our heroes knows that the serpent exists (despite numerous disappearances, a trashed lighthouse, and a crushed railroad bridge), and they embark on an extended non-adventure to track down and chase the monster away...not kill it, since they know they are no match for it. Their big plan is to use flares to scare it off. Although their scheme is botched, the serpent causes a big explosion in the water after it attacks a bridge support (don't ask), and the giant sea snake is so frightened that it swims away. The critical viewer would wonder why the serpent wasn't frightened off earlier in the movie when it caused a couple of big explosions after crashing into a dock. But never mind. It swims away, and our heroes are sure it's gone forever. The end.<br /><br />I can only imagine the horror that the stars felt when they saw the completed film they just worked on. A lamebrain script and a couple of dim reaction shots could never have prepared them for the embarrassment of sharing screen time with a spliced-in sock puppet/stop motion beastie. At least the supporting characters got to have fun screaming and pretending to be swallowed by a giant serpent head. I'm not sure what was going on when they made this movie; the monster is cheap, but there are some rather elaborate miniature sets, so somebody did spend some time making those, not to mention the stop-motion animation involved. It's seemingly played straight, although maybe this film's sense of humor went over my head. In the end, the film is nothing more than an easy target for a drunken commentary. Watch it at a party for best results. | 0 |
7,791 | [
900,
1000
] | 759 | 941 | This is a fact that this is the 1st Saudi feature film to be shown in cinema theaters but not in Saudi Arabia for a simple reason we don't have cinema theaters in our large kingdom .. not only one cinema theater! The government forbidden opening cinema theaters after the Islamic extremists OR the religious police (or both) asked for closing it in the late 1970s & the early 1980s .. accusing the 7th art with encouraging wrong sex relationships and stuff like that .. I don't see a powerful reason why we don't open cinema theaters!! .. we have many videos stores throughout the kingdom, we watch movies in the TV from some satellite channels, we can install the "Showtime" set channels and after all movies in general seems harmless in many ways .. I know many people how go to neighboring countries only to watch a couple of films .. I personally went to Bahrain several times only to watch films in theaters because watching it there is big fun unlike watching a movie home. Saudis pay the most expensive cinema ticket in the world, we travel to watch movies while the rest of the world have cinema theaters around every town. This is one of the problems that we are having!! ..<br /><br />The movie is produced and presented by Rotana Filmed Entertainment which is a major company belongs to the Saudi tycoon-prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (the 8th richest man in the world).<br /><br />The movie's title is a word means literally "how are you?" but it is also a slang means "what's up!", sometimes used as a slang to say "bad" about something and sometimes is used as a slang to tell someone politely to mind his business & not to interfere in someone else's affairs. Anyway, I think they meant (how are you) & (what's up!) in the same time, I could be wrong though.<br /><br />Male actors are from Saudi Arabia like Hisham Abdulrahman who is very famous and has some popularity after winning 1st prize in Arabian realty show more like "American Idol", he works in some TV programs like the Arabian version of "Cash Taxi" .. the other famous actor is Khaled Sami who is funny and has a very good sense of humor .. other actors like Mishal Al-Mutairi, Turki Al-Yusuf and Ali Al Sabea are less famous and they work on some TV series shows. Female actresses are non-Saudis and they did a very good job speaking the Saudi accent .. Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan in leading role & Emeriti actress Fatima Al-Hawsani .. not that we don't have Saudi actresses but are few and not that good.<br /><br />A Saudi critic " Rja Al-Mutairi" who writes for Alriyadh Newspaper (the most popular newspaper in the kingdom) wrote about it saying: "lets not expect much of the 1st Saudi feature film. It was born in unusual circumstances therefore we can't judge it under the usual standards like any other film. It is a fact that the movie hit a huge financial success in its 1st opening days only in Kingdom of Bahrain. The movie is fresh and is about a Saudi family deals (interacts) with controversial fresh issues inside the Saudi society like: women driving cars, the low-shallow thoughts about the arts, the guardianship of the society by a certain group & the differences between being conservative and being an extremist. The ideas are good but you feel you are lost in the middle of the movie. One of the movie's advantages is the beautiful music score by Rajeh Dawood which was good but sometimes it doesn't match or express what's in the picture. Turki Al-Yusuf did a great job .. his performance was the best alongside with Mais Hamdan .. the biggest loser is the leading actor Hisham Abdulrahman who came behind the supporting actors Mishal Al-Mutairi, Ali Al Sabea and Khaled Sami who did a good job within the limits of their roles. <br /><br />after all, " Keif al-hal?" even with all of its disadvantages still an OK movie and it is a very good 1st step of Rotana .. and the movie became the speech of people and streets which is a golden goal to make a strong debates inside the Saudi society about movies in general until they become aware of the importance of the 7th art and other arts"<br /><br />PS: there is another Saudi filmmaker "Abdullah Almohaisen" claims that he directed the 1st Saudi movie titled "Shadows of Silence".<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie yet .. I hope I've been helpful. | 0 |
7,939 | [
900,
1000
] | 735 | 922 | First thing I note is the music. It's nothing as amazing as Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust's haunting theme or the masterpiece waltz from A Tale of Two Sisters, but I don't let that stop me so early in the film.<br /><br />One must assume that the woman researching her hypothesis for her PHd dissertation that cannibalism as a organized practice has never existed, one would think they must take into the consideration that they are wrong and prepare for the trip accordingly right? Or why go at all if you already believe the hypothesis to be true before even being tested? That's fairly unbelievably ignorant and makes the movie seem that much more unrealistic and badly scripted.<br /><br />That actually is similar to the Ruggero Deodato's film, just totally ill-prepared. No guns, no decent hiking clothing, just nonsense through and through.<br /><br />People don't go on trips like this for college without months of planning and preparation.<br /><br />But I digress...<br /><br />Things don't get off to a very good start for our brave yet stupid adventurers as they swerve to miss a jaywalking iguana, and their decoy pet ferret falls out of the truck nearly to it's demise, then to fall into a mud hole, well I guess it's time to walk.<br /><br />Okay then they flip a coin to see whether they keep going or forget the whole thing. How does that scene even make any sense? All their conviction rests on the flip of a coin? After they must've spent time, and money, and preparation just getting out there. This just keeps getting worse. Defiinitely some of the worst acting and scripting and music ever concocted for the film industry.<br /><br />Mike talks about how he and his friend's were captured by the cannibals and put into cages in mud pits with 3 inch long leeches sucking on their blood. I found that interesting because if you remember the first cannibal they run into in the jungle, a man they mistake as a simple native, is sitting on the ground eating such leeches... wonder if they are the same ones? Really though this movie is just terrible because the script is horrible and the acting is emotionless considering the content. They just agree to off themselves rather then get eaten by cannibals like it's no big decision.<br /><br />Obviously Mike is insane, but just like in the first movie they treat the natives with such terrible behavior it's simply unrealistic.<br /><br />Ruggero Deodato's movie easily feels the Americans got what they deserved, while in this movie one can hardly blame the natives for what befalls the Americans yet again.<br /><br />And because of that the movie feels somewhat pointless. We already got the point from the first movie, so why was the sequel made? The lieutenant's name is Rizzo?! Could it get any worse? Oftentimes with movies such as these when you look up the cast you find they haven't really acted in much other films and their bios are all but non existent, so you can imagine I was surprised to find Giovanni Lombardo Radice in this movie who was in Scorsese's Gangs of New York. Now Lt. Rizzo looked familiar and I found he was in the 2002 movie Spiderman as a very tiny role as a tugboat captain. Reminds me of how William Shatner went from being the admiral on the USS Enterprise to a cop in a car. Irony, sometimes irony works out. Shatner never could get the music right until his recent album "Has Been" which is really good, just like Bono of U2 never could get a haircut right, and Dan Marino never could win no Superbowls.<br /><br />Sometimes irony is just sad, like Christopher Reeve, Superman can't walk irony. The man will always be a legend though because he was such a great guy, I digress yet again though.<br /><br />At this point you can tell I'm fairly bored of even discussing Cannibal Ferox.<br /><br />Cannibal Holocaust's message was about who are the real savages and what is truly evil? What the savages do in natural living unknown to our moral records, or what we do to others with malicious intent? Cannibal Ferox's message seems to be 'Be careful what you go looking for, for you just might find it.' I will say this for Cannibal Ferox. When Gloria comes back and writes her dissertation, asserting that Cannibalism does NOT exist, she saves others who would be curious and go where angels fear tread, but overall this movie was really bad.<br /><br />***/10 | 0 |
8,054 | [
900,
1000
] | 704 | 920 | Los Angeles, 1976. Indie film brat John Carpenter, fresh out of film school and with one film - his class project's no-budget spoof of 2001 called Dark Star - under his belt, finishes a gritty actioner called Assault On Precinct 13. The story of an almost deserted police station under siege by an unseen LA gang, it was a minor hit on the drive-in circuit and garnered small praise from the few critics who cared, but it hardly set the film world on fire, unlike Carpenter's follow-up smash Halloween (1978). On Precinct, Carpenter was still learning how to exploit his almost non-existent budget by using lower-shelf actors, keeping the action to the one hellishly small location, and moving the film along at a tight pace with a combination of editing, intelligent camera work and switched-on genre savvy.<br /><br />No-one wants or needs to be hungry in Hollywood anymore, particularly if the week's catering bill on the 2005 version of Assault On Precinct 13 is more than the entire cost of the original. It does translate into a certain kind of laziness on a filmmaker's part - you have a stupidly large union crew, a studio and a marketing firm all doing your thinking for you. Which is why twenty years after watching Carpenter's film I can still see every glorious moment, from the small girl gunned down in cold blood while buying an ice cream, to the relentless pounding synth score. A week after Assault 2005, I remember Larry Fishburne's unmoving ping pong ball eyes and little else.<br /><br />"Forgettable popcorn actioner" fits the top of the poster perfectly. It's New Years Eve at Precinct 13, a station closing down with a skeleton staff to see in its final hours. On call is Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke), an ex-narc now deeply troubled and hopped up on Jack Daniels and Seconol after his partners were iced in the opening scene; Iris (The Sopranos' Drea de Matteo), a nympho with a thing for criminal types, and Jasper (Brian Dennehy), a crusty old timer one scotch away from retirement. As in Carpenter's Assault..., a bus with four heavy-duty criminals is rerouted to the Precinct. All boozy eyes are on gangster kingpin Bishop (Fishburne, still beefed-up from his time in the Matrix) who has narrowly survived an assassination attempt from an undercover cop and plans to blow the lid on the endemic corruption in the organized crime unit led by Marcus Duvall (a tired-looking Gabriel Byrne). Soon the phones are out, the power lines are down, and both crims and police find themselves heavily armed with a serious police arsenal and consumed with paranoia while waging war against a task force of Duvall's corrupt cops sporting white balaclavas, bullet vests, infra-red bazookas and more high-tech gear than the Skywalker Ranch. This, we're expected to believe as the helicopters buzz around the top of the police station shooting rockets into windows, is a clandestine operation to cover Duvall's tracks. He may as well have taken out billboards on Hollywood Boulevard.<br /><br />As with the recent Seventies genre reworking Dawn Of The Dead, Assault 2005 takes the barest plot essentials of John Carpenter's original and, to quote the Seventies, "does it's own thing, man". The main question is - why bother? John Carpenter's 1976 is a cult favorite among genre buffs, but is hardly branded in the public's collective consciousness. Carpenter himself was busy reworking Howard Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo into a tight, claustrophobic urban thriller for only $20,000. French wunderkind director and rap producer Jean-Francois Richet, a self-professed fan of John Carpenter's work, seems less concerned with making an homage to either Hawks or JC - although the script is peppered with references to cowboys and injuns - and seems intent on squeezing in as much flash and firepower as the multi-million dollar budget can withstand. The result: some tense moments with hand-held POV cameras, an unexpectedly high (and bloody) body count, a few neat plot twists, but essentially a B-grade urban actioner with a much inflated price tag. As for name-checking Carpenter, it's pure conceit on the part of the filmmakers that doesn't pay off.<br /><br />To Monsieur Richet, I say bon voyage, and I wish you luck on your music career. | 0 |
8,130 | [
900,
1000
] | 764 | 951 | I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't "get it" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.<br /><br />I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought "Don't tell them, show them," then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.<br /><br />First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of "show, don't tell" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.<br /><br />Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and "show, don't tell" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.<br /><br />Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's "real world" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. <br /><br />Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those "visually arresting images." The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask "so what?" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was"so what, who cares?", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the "real" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.<br /><br />My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway. | 0 |
8,285 | [
900,
1000
] | 640 | 925 | I have no qualms with how the movie does NOT capture New Jersey (like Zach, I'm from there). Fine. Whatever. I lived there WAY long enough. I don't need to see a movie that captures the Garden State.<br /><br />What I do have qualms with is how bad this movie is. Let's make it easy on you. We'll use some bullet-points. There are probably some spoilers that follow. (Not that you wouldn't be able to predict the movie ANYWAY): <br /><br />-The music placement was maddeningly forced and patronizing. Example: Large: "What are you listening to?" Sam: "The Shins. Ever heard of 'em?" "No." "Listen to this song - it will change your life!" And then they proceed to play that Shins song that was in a McDonalds commercial. (Don't you love when the characters in a movie blatantly tell you - the viewer - how to react to something? I love that! Hey, they should have put subtitles during various scenes instructing us to "chuckle," "Say 'aaaaaw'" "cry" "feel inspired" etc.) <br /><br />-The scenes were SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example: The entire movie. But no, really, example: They're in the rainy quarry by the ark. Large runs up - in the pouring rain (oh he's SO TORMENTED!) - on top of a piece of heavy machinery and SCREAMS! Oh how moving! But wait! Here comes Sam and his buddy (the annoying drug addict), and they ALL SCREAM!!!! BUT WAIT!!!! OH MY GOD!!!! Here it comes! THEY KISS!!! LONG, DEEP!!!! IN THE RAIN!!!!!!!! <br /><br />-The dialogue was SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example. They're leaving the ark and Sam says something like, "Hey. Good luck exploring the infinite abyss." And the guy says back, "You, too." Oh...Oh my! I never realized...could it be? Oh my God it is! Large's life is like...ohmigod...AN INFINITE ABYSS!!!! Another example: Large and Sam in the airport. Sam says something like, "Is this goodbye?" Not enough for ya? OK, Largeman says something like, "This isn't a period at the end of the sentence... it's an ellipses." And guess what happens when he tries to walk down the jetway and go back to his life in LA. You know, what? Don't guess. It's a waste of your time.<br /><br />-It's a Grade Z Wes Anderson rip-off movie. When not busy being melodramatic and cliché, the movie spends lots of times with crazy-kooky-off-kilter characters. Hey, Sam's brother... thank you Zach Braff for including him, because it really made the movie so much more textured. Also ripping off Anderson: the dialogue. Scene: Sam and Largeman are in a bar. In walks friends, "Vagina!" says one of them. Then they see him sitting with Sam, so one of the friends says, "Sorry I said vagina." And Sam says, "It's OK." <br /><br />-Inventive cinematography that's not inventive but pointless and annoying. Give me a break with the speed-up/slow down of film. Again, Wes Anderson does it effectively in his movies. And it was done well in "Donnie Darko." But, really, it was pointless. Wow. A crazy party where people are taking X and snorting coke. Better roll out all the tricks! <br /><br />-You can count the good moments on one hand (even if you're missing fingers). That's what makes it even WORSE. The retarded quarterback thing...well, that was good! The little thing he (largeman) says as they're about to enter the quarry (something about huffing turpentine)...that was good! Oh, wait, that's about it.<br /><br />You know, Zach Braff is, I think, always a little too cute. But, he's likable. But, man, this is forced, pretentious, melodramatic (have you gotten that yet?), overly cute, overly everything. This movie is terrible. Apparently, I'm outnumbered, as this waste of time is currently rated an 8.0.<br /><br />Please, though, if you're looking for something truly poignant and subtle and unique DO. NOT. RENT. THIS. MOVIE. | 0 |
8,297 | [
900,
1000
] | 741 | 933 | My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.<br /><br />Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...<br /><br />Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. <br /><br />More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her. <br /><br />More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew). <br /><br />But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.<br /><br />So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.<br /><br />In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.) <br /><br />This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.<br /><br />In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow". | 0 |
8,452 | [
900,
1000
] | 779 | 927 | Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.<br /><br />The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.<br /><br />This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.<br /><br />One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.<br /><br />The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.<br /><br />And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.<br /><br />So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.<br /><br />If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5. | 0 |
8,493 | [
900,
1000
] | 821 | 985 | Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare/fade-to-black/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.<br /><br />The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interferencesupposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.<br /><br />Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series "The Visitor"I still need to check out his first role in "Northern Exposure," a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.<br /><br />If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise. | 0 |
8,633 | [
900,
1000
] | 770 | 914 | I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, "Why have I never heard of this movie?" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself. <br /><br />First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins. <br /><br />On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with. <br /><br />As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie. <br /><br />In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL. | 0 |
8,757 | [
900,
1000
] | 781 | 960 | There are so many things wrong with this movie that it is hard to pick just a few. Let's start with the silly and annoying songs. Like "Ride Little Cowboy" which just tended to accentuate the city-slickers look of Klinton Spilsbury. The silly kiddie cowboy songs going on in the background during the movie hurt any credibility or momentum that the story had going for it.<br /><br />I had seen the media hype before this movie was released, and I saw Klinton Spilsbury interviewed on various TV shows, and he had a very soft, sweet, lilting voice. His body language was not exactly what people remembered who were fans of Clayton Moore and the Lone Ranger TV series. Spilsbury did not help things by acting like a diva and talking trash about Clayton Moore after the Producers got an injunction prohibiting Moore from appearing at Conventions and other events as the original Lone Ranger. Clayton Moore was not even allowed to sign as "Clayton Moore, The Lone Ranger." He could only sign as "The Masked Man." The incredible amount of negative publicity that this move gave the film was only added to by the petulant attitude of Spilsbury who was very quick to tell reporters that Clayton Moore would be quickly forgotten once the movie came out! <br /><br />Sadly, even after the movie was a total flop, the company that owned The Lone Ranger refused to lift their Injunction against Clayton Moore, and he was never again permitted to sign anything except as "The Masked Man" and he could not don his black mask at any public appearances. Between Spilsbury's diva personality and the negative publicity the movie got, it certainly did not help to make a good impression on the public. Worse yet, a few weeks before the movie was finally released, the news was leaked that Spilsbury's voice in the movie had been over-dubbed by James Keech because the Producers thought that Spilsbury did not sound very convincing as a cowboy. The ridicule and derision that this news brought on the talk shows and comedy shows of that era put the last nail into the coffin.<br /><br />But then there was Merle Haggard narrating his way through the movie. Apparently, the Producers were hoping that the macho image of Haggard (one of the Outlaws of Country Music) would add credibility to Spilsbury as The Lone Ranger. The narration by Merle Haggard was just another annoyance that audiences had to deal with. At times Haggard rhymes his narration, and it sounds like some weird kiddie movie. Combine the rhyming narration with the "Ride Little Cowboy" songs and any credibility that Spilsbury could have mustered was destroyed by Haggard and the soundtrack.<br /><br />Tonto was played by Michael Horse, and as others have pointed out, Horse had a lot more personality than Spilsbury. In fact, perhaps because of Spilsbury's allegedly combative attitude during filming, it seems like Horse was given a lot more dialogue and screen time than anyone would have expected of Tonto. Tonto takes charge and often is the leader instead of the Lone Ranger. I was expecting (or hoping) that Billy Jack would make a cameo as Tonto's brother (it would have made the movie a lot better). Horse is not only more interesting than Spilsbury, but he says more and has better scenes. Perhaps it was a case of Horse stealing the show from Spilsbury. However, since the movie was so wretched, Horse did not get much recognition. Unlike Spilsbury, Horse has had a very productive career in the film industry.<br /><br />Perhaps the last negative about this movie is the Powder Blue outfit of The Lone Ranger. The material that was chosen for Spilsbury was more powdery blue than what Clayton Moore normally wore at appearances. That choice of color for the outfit just made Spilsbury look more effeminate in his role. The comic book version had shown The Lone Ranger also wearing a red shirt and black pants, and that alternative outfit would have helped Spilsbury look more convincing as The Lone Ranger.<br /><br />The supporting cast mostly mailed in their performances. They all look as if they were working on a TV episode and nobody seemed very convincing. Even the villain, Cavendish lost his edge due to the people around him. Overall, I feel sorry for Spilsbury. Not only did he do a terrible acting job, but it is obvious that the production and publicity were horrible and effectively sabotaged any chance the poor guy had. Even if he had been an excellent replacement for Clayton Moore, I doubt that the movie would have done well as a result of the other factors. As it stands, this film is funny in a sad way. | 0 |
8,845 | [
900,
1000
] | 694 | 916 | **SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).<br /><br />The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.<br /><br />This leads to... well, nothing.<br /><br />They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.<br /><br />Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.<br /><br />The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.<br /><br />Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting. | 0 |
8,914 | [
900,
1000
] | 777 | 947 | I'm going to recommend putting this one in the "skip it" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fiancée rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....<br /><br />The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.<br /><br />The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fiancée is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the "soul" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.<br /><br />Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.<br /><br />Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.<br /><br />Stellan Skarsgård was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.<br /><br />Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.<br /><br />The script reads like one of the "choose your own adventure" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.<br /><br />Disappointing.<br /><br />(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum) | 0 |
8,959 | [
900,
1000
] | 776 | 926 | I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.<br /><br />He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God<br /><br />He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations. <br /><br />Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.<br /><br />As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us. | 0 |
9,031 | [
900,
1000
] | 737 | 950 | WARNING: SPOILERS Dear Roger,<br /><br />During your distinguished career, you've made a wide range of entertainment, some good, some notsogood. "Night of the Blood Beast" falls in the latter category. It's not as unredeemingly awful as say, "The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues" or, maybe, "The Dunwich Horror." Nonetheless, one of my greatest criticisms of this movie is that I could have made it for you faster, better and cheaper.<br /><br />Let's start with the foreward and titles. Roger, the rocket sequences look like something from Disney's "Man Into Space," not as good, of course. The futuristic rocketship looks like nothing in contemporary 1958. Why didn't you just use a Vanguard, Atlas, or even a Viking launch? Better still, why not dispense entirely with the launch and start with a shot of space and the capsule floating in it? That's what I would have done for you, Roger. Second, why have the spaceship crash upon reentry? Even a middle school physics student could have told you, your astronaut would have arrived on earth extra crispy and largely deboned. I would have shown your astronaut becoming "possessed" by the monster (maybe by using that great "negative/positive" stuff you used in "War of the Satellites"), losing contact with earth and landing in the wilderness. That would also explain how you "blood beast" could impregnate your astronaut during the tremendous heat of reentry, but still be destroyed by fire. Even with these stupidities. The first half of your movie is pretty good. Had you spent some money on decent music, it would have been as good as a mediocre episode of "Outer Limits." But, once again, your writer describes Ed Nelson as the designer of the landing system, then gives him some stupid dialogue regarding magnetism. The biggest problem with the second half of "Night of the Blood Beast" is Michael Emmet. He's terrible as the doomed astronaut. You should have fired him on the spot and replaced him with Ed Nelson. You could have combined Nelson's responsibilities with those of John Dunlap and saved yourself the cost of one actor. I don't know if you actually PAID any of these people; but, at least you would saved the cost of catering three meals a day. I'd had also ditched the "scorched parrot" costume and spent the extra money using makeup to have the astronaut turn into the "blood beast". Maybe that was a little too close to "The Creeping Unknown" for you, but it would have helped the pace of the second half immensely. if you are going to have a "blood beast," wouldn't it be a good idea to show a little blood? Yeah, I know the title comes from the embryos in the astronaut's blood, but Kowalski could've done a LOT better job for you if he poured a little chocolate syrup around. After all, it LOOKS like blood in black and white. What've that cost you, maybe two bucks? I'd have also used some closeups. For some reason insipid dialogue and bad acting don't seem quite so bad in closeups. Look at almost 70s TV series and you'll see what I mean. Oh, in closing, Roger, a note to your writer. You can't use a fluoroscope to show some poor schmuck full of alien embryos when you DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICITY. Remember, you fried the generator in the first reel? Oh,and I almost forgot. Roger, couldn't you afford a fake knife? You know, the kind where the blade goes into the handle. I had one of those when I was 9, which also happens to be the year "Night of the Blood Beast" was made.It cost, maybe, another two bucks. I think I knew enough then to make you a better movie. I KNOW I know enough now to do so. So, Roger, if you decide to remake "Night of the Blood Beast," or if you are looking for a writer/director to work with you on SOME OTHER PROJECT, I'm your man. I'll work cheap, 'cause I'd really like to make a movie for you, Roger.<br /><br />I give "Night of the Blood Beast" a "3". SPECIAL NOTE: If you like to watch kitschy movies like "Night of the Blood Beast," the DVD I bought for $3.99 was very good quality. You can also get "Night of the Blood Beast" along with a lot of other terrible horror/scifi movies at places like Bestbuy for about $6. | 0 |
9,300 | [
900,
1000
] | 815 | 979 | Take a bad script, some lousy acting and throw in a politically incorrect morality tale and what do you get? Something that is supposed to pass for quality family viewing.<br /><br />Seven Alone is the story of a family in the 19th century who travel across America in a wagon train, hoping for a new life in Oregon. There are seven children (three boys, three girls and a baby whose sex I'm not quite sure of) hence the title of the film.<br /><br />The story opens up with the family living a seemingly normal 19th century life on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Eldest son John is a precocious teenager, 'lazy and good for nothing' as his father constantly reminds him. We see right off the bat that he has a penchant for practical jokes when he ties string to the hair of his sleeping sisters and connects it to a nearby mule. When the mule is moved of course the poor girls are jolted out of bed. John is caught by his father and is immediately punished with a strap.<br /><br />That same day a wagon train passes through. Pa is tempted to join up as it promises a new life in the wild, wild west. So the family hitches up their belongings and head off.<br /><br />From the very beginning the film seems weak and amateurish. The acting is below grade, as if from one of those films shown in school about the pioneers. I can't blame the actors, however, because the lines in this film are silly and just too sickeningly sweet and optimistic.<br /><br />I must tell you that I caught this film while flipping channels one boring Saturday afternoon on a Christian television station. Not of a religious mind myself, I watched in horror as Seven Alone offered up moral statements that were not only outdated, but downright offensive! If I were a good Christian I would hope that I would have had the good sense to complain to the television station for airing such trash. However, because I am a cynical, non-believer with a wicked sense of humor, I chose to sit back and laugh myself silly.<br /><br />In one of the opening scenes, the role of the father as the stern ruler of the house is established when he proposes the idea of heading off for Oregon to his wife. Her response is a heated "Over my dead body." We are expected to laugh, I suppose, as the film cuts to the next scene with Pa and Ma smiling as he steers the wagon along through the prairies. Oh I suppose even the most staunch feminist would have to admit that this 'Father-knows-best' attitude was the norm in those days, and one could argue the need for such dictatorial rule when living conditions were difficult, but I somehow got the feeling that this film supported that notion, even for today. Lovely message coming from a Christian television station.<br /><br />Anyway, things get worse for the family, and the films moral integrity is further diminished. An Indian (or Native American) robs John as he lay sleeping in a field. Like a common savage, the Indian takes Johns clothes and belongings. Thankfully Pa, with the help of passerby Kit Carson, is able to kill the Indian, as well as a couple of his delinquent friends. Kit Carson tells John that his father is a true hero.<br /><br />The family is accompanied by the wagon train's resident doctor, Dr. Dutch (played by Aldo Ray). He shares Pa's sentiments about John, stating that he is a useless brat. Perhaps so, but he also the best thing about this film. Aldo Ray's doctor is buffoon, who seems unable to tie his own shoes, let alone treat one of the girls for a broken leg. Thankfully the young child didn't cry when the wagon ran over and snapped her leg in two, because Dr. Dutch didn't seem to have the appropriate bedside manner. We know the drawbacks of constantly belittling a child. Here's a film that promotes that behavior.<br /><br />Later on Pa develops food poisoning, or something, I wasn't paying much attention, and he dies. His death bed scene is the stuff great acting is made of. Frankly, the man didn't even look sick.<br /><br />Soon after, Ma dies too. The children are left to fend for themselves. And that's when the real adventure begins. Slugging it through the rapids, encountering more Indians (these ones are nice though) and venturing through snowy terrain, these children do it all. And I was left thinking, "What a bunch of garbage!"<br /><br />Sorry, but there was nothing redeeming about this film. This low-budget Little House on the Prairie is a shameful waste of time and an insult to 'families' everywhere. I'm surprised that in 1975, at the tail end of the feminist movement, and at a time when treatment of Native Americans was coming into focus, that something like this could actually be made.<br /><br /> | 0 |
9,409 | [
900,
1000
] | 672 | 926 | Another entry in the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre. You know the drill: young hotshot with hubristic flaw (in this case, Matthew McConaughey, trying to jump-start a flagging career by latching onto Pacino's coattails -- hey, it worked for Keanu and Colin, didn't it?) is discovered by glamorous and delightfully corrupt father figure (Pacino, natch). Young Hotshot learns from Father Figure all the ins-and-outs of a lucrative yet degrading career (this time, it's football handicapping). Father Figure plies Young Hotshot with money and hookers and power, but we all know that this decadent state of affairs is on a collision course with dissolution and despair . . . that is, until the Young Hotshot finds his moral center by rejecting the Father Figure and all, or almost all, that he stands for. (Clearly, Stone's *Wall Street* pretty much set the ground rules for the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre.)<br /><br />We are also meant to take these latter-day Pacino films as a parallel to reality. Again, you know the drill: Living-Legend Actor demonstrates his unquestioned superiority as compared to an Inferior Young Actor. The latter may bear and grin through the process, but he must recognize that he isn't going to get any of the good lines, much less get a chance to chew major scenery before the denouement. Now it must be said that there are actually two good movies in the Pacino-As-Mentor canon: *Scent of a Woman* and *Donnie Brasco*. In the former case, it was a one-man show, anyway; in the latter case, Pacino had met his match as a scene-stealer in the person of Johnny Depp. However, those two movies were serious-minded, not merely an exercise in showboating for showboating's sake. Pacino has made damn certain that his younger co-stars in the films since *Brasco* are nowhere near as charismatic as Depp. By the way, none of this speaks very well about the Living-Legend Actor. Like his contemporary De Niro, Pacino has spent the last 10 or 15 years resting on his laurels. *Two for the Money* is the worst example yet, worse even than *Devil's Advocate*, which at least had the virtues of featuring a naked Connie Nielsen and being chronologically prior to this movie. Well, this is what happens when you're crowned King too damn early -- just ask Marlon Brando. Frankly, I've seen one too many Al Pacino films with the same plot -- and the same overacting from the star -- to be charitable any longer. Did I say "none of this speaks well"? Actually, it's humiliating for everyone involved, including the paying audience. No one's going to accuse Matthew McConaughey of being a Shakespearean actor, but even he doesn't deserve the role of second-fiddle to this intolerable old show-off, with the added implication that he, McConaughey, will never measure up to the Greatness That Is Al.<br /><br />I've not wasted space on the plot particulars. If you want a synopsis, IMDb provides a no-nonsense summary, though I think I laid out a fairly comprehensive summary in my opening paragraph. Basically, you've seen this movie before. Many times. The particular milieu in *Two for the Money* is the seedy world (underworld, really) of sports handicapping. Pacino runs an office of "bet advisers" -- that is, middlemen between you and your bookie -- and even has a cable TV handicapping show, co-hosted with several of his top guys. One thing the movie got right was the sleaziness of these type of shows . . . but one detail they got dead wrong was the constant use of the words "gamble" and "gambling". If you've ever seen ProLine or other shows of similar ilk, you'll NEVER, NEVER hear Jim Feist and his cohorts say the word "gamble". They ask you to call their 1-900 number to get their picks . . . but if you were from, say, Mars, you'd have no idea what you were supposed to do with those picks. "Gamble" is the F-word on sports-handicapping TV shows -- strictly verboten.<br /><br />Gambling is against the law, you know.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. | 0 |
9,600 | [
900,
1000
] | 774 | 972 | I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.<br /><br />Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.<br /><br />Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.<br /><br />Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.<br /><br />To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.<br /><br />You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.<br /><br />Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.<br /><br />If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead. | 0 |
9,756 | [
900,
1000
] | 743 | 977 | "Jefferson in Paris" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated "darky" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how "massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, "do you swear?" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, "Jefferson in Paris" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about. | 0 |
9,784 | [
900,
1000
] | 792 | 948 | Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...<br /><br />Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned! | 0 |
9,870 | [
900,
1000
] | 761 | 905 | Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"<br /><br />Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.<br /><br />The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.<br /><br />All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.<br /><br />All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace. | 0 |
9,954 | [
900,
1000
] | 702 | 996 | The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man. <br /><br />-ahem- But that's not the point.<br /><br />The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.<br /><br />Sit tight and here goes:<br /><br />-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.<br /><br />-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.<br /><br />-WHERE DID AXEL GO? <br /><br />-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16. <br /><br />-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.' <br /><br />-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.<br /><br />-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.<br /><br />-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.<br /><br />-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.<br /><br />-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her. <br /><br />And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:<br /><br />-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.<br /><br />Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop. <br /><br />A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School? <br /><br />*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf <br /><br />With love,<br /><br />Caitlin | 0 |
9,958 | [
900,
1000
] | 778 | 959 | My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.<br /><br />Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.<br /><br />The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.<br /><br />To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.<br /><br />Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.<br /><br />I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.<br /><br />Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.<br /><br />All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book. | 0 |
9,964 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 920 | When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.<br /><br />So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.<br /><br />Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.<br /><br />Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.<br /><br />What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. "Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?<br /><br />Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clichéd Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.<br /><br />Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans. | 0 |
10,071 | [
900,
1000
] | 675 | 911 | Uhhh ... so, did they even have writers for this? Maybe I'm picky, but I like a little dialog with my movies. And, as far as slasher films go, just a sliver of character development will suffice.<br /><br />Unfortunately, The Prey provides neitherand if you think I'm being hyperbolic, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Scene after scene, we just get actors standing around, looking forlorn and awkward, abandoned by any sense of a script. Outside of calling out each other's names when they get separated in the woods (natch), the only instances where these people say something substantive is when one character explains the constellation Orion (clearly plagiarized from Funk & Wagnalls; scintillating slasher fare, no?) and another rehashes an old campfire tale that doesn't even have anything to do with the plot (wait, what IS the plot?) At other times, The Prey actually has the gall to film its characters with the boom mic just far away enough so that we can't exactly hear what they're saying. So we get entire scenes wherein the actors are murmuring! Deliberately! Seriously, I've seen more dialog in a silent film. It's as if the filmmakers sat down at a bar somewhere in Rancho Cucamonga in the heyday of the '80s slasher craze and one looked at the other and said, "Hey, I gotta really sweet idea for a gory decapitation gag. Let's somehow pad an entire feature around it." And ... well, they did. <br /><br />To be fair, The Prey probably had some sort of writer on board. I mean, somebody had to jot down the scene sequence and label the dailies. However, I am fully convinced that this film did not have an editor of any kind whatsoever. There are glaring pauses, boring tableaux, and zero sense of pacing throughout. The filmmakers don't have anything else in the "script" to film, so they fill out the running time with exhaustive taxonomies of the flora and fauna that inhabit the forest in which our wild and crazy teens are getting sliced and diced. These critters are all filmed in straightforward, noontime daylight in a completely reserved fashion and with no attempt at atmospheric photography. If it feels like a science film, that's because it is. I'm pretty sure this is all nature show stock footageall that's missing is a stuffy narration from some National Geographic alderman.<br /><br />More exciting footage that was graciously spared from the cutting room floor: a scene in which two men discuss cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches, and another scene wherein a supporting character strums away on a banjo for what feels like an entire minute-and-a- half! A minute-and-a-half! That's a lot of banjoing to commit to celluloid to begin with, let alone insert into the final cut of the film! Way to go, guys! Brevity and concision are the real victims of this slaughterfest.<br /><br />Admittedly, the film picks up quite a bit of steam (comparatively) in the last 25 minutes, into which much of the carnage is condensed and where a rip-off of Béla Bartók's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta" cuts in. Vaudeville great Jackie Coogan makes a fun appearance as a tubby, bumbly park ranger (this was his last role, if you can believe it). And there are some nice gory moments, including a splattery neck tearing and the aforementioned decapitation. The make-up used for the killer (Carel Struycken, aka "Lurch" from the Addams Family movies) is also quite effective, and makes him look like a strange hybrid of young Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Plus, if you love wacky, straight-outta-left-field endings, you need to check out how they wrap this puppy up. You'll do a spit take, I promise.<br /><br />Usually, I love films that are on this level of ineptitude, but the first three-quarters of The Prey are just so interminably boring that they pretty much spoil the rest. Overall, this is a largely pallid and tedious affair, and, while it ain't all bad, it should really only be seen by debilitated slasher completists. Why do we do this to ourselves, anyway? | 0 |
10,134 | [
900,
1000
] | 767 | 937 | ALERT: This review contains major SPOILERS. Do not read on if you plan to see this film.<br /><br />Judging from the amount of votes this got (my vote was the fifth one) very few people know or care who Mimi Lesseos is. Well, back in the late 1980s, professional wrestling was pretty decent. An all-woman's federation called the Ladies Professional Wrestling Association opened. It was a great league, and Mimi Lesseos was one of the names on the roster. I always thought she was one of the best people the LPWA had in terms of ring skill and acting ability. Unfortunately, the LPWA closed down in the early 90s, so it only seemed natural for someone with as much talent as Mimi to start an acting career, right? But surely there was an alternative to stuff like this? This movie is really bad. As it was going along, I kept comparing it to an underrated movie called `Survivor Quest,' only this film lacks everything that made `Survivor Quest' enjoyable.<br /><br />As I started the tape, I went to fast forward through the preview to get to the meat of the tape. At first, I wasn't paying much attention, but then I realized that the preview was for a movie starring Mimi Lesseos. `Oh,' I thought, `here's another movie featuring Mimi to look for.' But as the preview dragged on, I became aware that is was a preview for
.'Beyond Fear!' You know you're in trouble when the only preview at the beginning features the movie you are about to watch! The plot of this thing is pretty standard. Lesseos plays an ex-kickboxer that is living with the guilt of injuring an opponent/friend, so she focuses herself on her second career which she shares with her friend Sammy: being a wilderness guide. On this particular occasion, she gets a troop of three couples. Two of the couples are just there to take up space. You think that one couple, a Caucasian husband and a Korean wife, will be explored, as an issue appears between them halfway through the film, but it is ignored in favor of repeated jokes about bears in the woods, which consistently scares the Korean wife. The joke is funny the first time you hear it, but it certainly isn't by the ninth time they do it. The third couple is just painful to watch: it consists of Mr. and Mrs. Page. They trade insults back and forth, and Mr. Page uses his video camera for the art of voyeurism when he's not busy playing cruel jokes on his portly wife
.just like your typical American couple! Before the hike, Mr. Page is spying on two stupid guys and their prostitute. One of them accidentally kills the prostitute and finds out Mr. Page taped it. So begins the peril, as the two guys track the group on their trip, and we wait
.and wait
.and wait
.and wait for them to finally do something. When they do, it's a fiasco.<br /><br />You can't blame the cast. They try as hard as they can with the material they have to work with. The main culprit is director Robert F. Lyons, who needs to go back to playing bit parts and stay out of the director's chair. Lyons starts and stops scenes in such a sloppy, sudden matter that you start to think he was suffering from dyspepsia throughout the entire shoot. There's even one incompetent moment when a broad daylight scene with the thugs is slipped between some nighttime scenes. Then there is the sound department. The music and background noise completely overpower the dialogue so that you have to move your ear right next to your television's speaker. Don't bump your head on the screen! It isn't worth it to hear the poorly written lines. Speaking of poor writing, Lesseos gets some of the credit there as co-writer. The few interesting developments between characters are often abandoned for shots of the thugs or bad practical jokes. Early on, Lesseos knocks out a thug with a switchblade knife, so not once do you think they are in any danger from the two stupid thugs. When the crooks finally get their rear ends kicked by Lesseos in a well done and long fight, our cast all have a huge laugh together, despite the fact that one of them has been shot and is bleeding everywhere. Yes, everyone is happy in the end. Everyone except the poor souls witnessing the film, wishing for the good old glory days when Mimi performed in the wrestling ring. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10 | 0 |
10,172 | [
900,
1000
] | 756 | 912 | Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.<br /><br />Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.<br /><br />We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.<br /><br />So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.<br /><br />This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.<br /><br />It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.<br /><br />This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.<br /><br />And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?<br /><br />Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.<br /><br />For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.<br /><br />This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes. | 0 |
10,477 | [
900,
1000
] | 764 | 938 | Blackwater Valley Exorcism is set on a small town ranch where teenager Isabelle (Kristin Erickson) is found wandering around covered in dog's blood. Her parents Ely (Randy Colton) & Blanche (Leslie Fleming-Mitchell) own the ranch & are deeply worried about their daughter, recently she has not been herself & is considered a danger to herself & other's. Ranch hand & ex-priest Miguel (Del Zamora) recognises Isabelle's symptoms as a possible case of possession & when she starts to speak ancient Latin in a strange voice he becomes convinced of it. Blanche calls priest Jacob (Cameron Daddo) who is her other daughter Claire's (Madison Taylor) ex husband to see Isabelle, he confirms Miguel's suspicions & accepts the job of performing the exorcism that will hopefully banish the demon inside Isabelle & an innocent girl free...<br /><br />Directed by Ethan Wiley I was sat there in my house in front of my telly watching Blackwater Valley Exorcism & I kept asking the same question over & over again, why do I do it. Why do I keep sitting through all these awful low budget horror films that look like they were shot on a camcorder? Right lets honest about this, Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete total & utter unashamed rip-off of The Exorcist (1973) & you literally tick off the major plot points that the two share. There's the possessed teenage girl who starts to get very horny & suggest inappropriate things, the demon that uses past misdemeanour's against other's, the worried parents, the way that the possessed girl is shunned by doctor's, the priest with a troubled past & the possessed girl is tied to her bed amongst other things. I suppose where Blackwater Valley Exorcism is different (other than it's total crap) is that it tries to give all the character's some screen time & tries to get across how the situation is affecting them but it's so badly written & acted it just ends up being boring. The film starts with Isabelle already possessed so we never knew what she was like as a normal person so we never really care about her or what is happening to her either, the rest of the character's are poorly written & fleshed out. At times I wondered whether Blackwater Valley exorcism was a spoof, there's a silly scene in which a vet tries to sedate the possessed Isabelle with horse tranquilisers & after he states that she needs a 'little prick' he enters her room with a huge needle hidden behind his back! There are a few scenes in which people are punched accompanied by a silly comedy sound effect. The film has an uneven tone as a result as it goes between silly spoof & serious horror drama, or it did in my opinion at least.<br /><br />According to some text before the opening credits Blackwater Valley Exorcism was based on 'Actual Events', yeah right actual events from 1973 that happened in a film called The Exorcist... This piece of text also states that the exorcism scenes were supervised by a real priest. There isn't even any decent gore or exploitation to liven things up, there's a scene of a cut arm, there's a dead dog, someone is stabbed with a crucifix & that's about it. There's surprisingly no bad language in it either despite the demon trying to be offencive. I would imagine the only reason Blackwater Valley Exorcism has an adult rating is because of one very brief scene in which a pair of breast's are seen. One pair of naked female breast's is not worth the time watching this or the money you might spend on it. There is zero scares, no atmosphere & a really amateurish feel to the whole film too.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 I must say that I am wondering where all the money went, the film looks ugly & cheap throughout. There are no special effects to speak of & the production values are rock bottom. The acting is very poor from all involved, genre favourite Jeffrey Combs gets near top billing during the opening credits but has nothing more than a cameo in what amounts to about five minutes of screen time. Even he must have feared how bad this was going to be has he hides behind a moustache & a terrible accent, he is better than this.<br /><br />Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete rip-off of The Exorcist without anything that made that film such a classic & the makers are thirty five years too late anyway. A total turkey from start to finish. | 0 |
10,570 | [
900,
1000
] | 767 | 967 | The Toxic Avenger, Part II starts with the startling revelation that after the Toxic Aveneger (John Altamura who was apparently fired during production & replaced with Ron Fazio) had rid his home town Tromaville of evil it actually became a nice place to live. This meant that Toxie had no use as a superhero anymore & now suffers from depression & a feeling of utter uselessness (just like directors Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz should feel like after producing this), Toxie now works as a concierge at the 'Tromaville centre for the blind'. It's not long before trouble rears it's ugly head though, an evil chemical producing company called Apocalypse Inc. plans to take over Tromaville for some stupid insignificant reason or other but to do so they need to get rid of Toxie. After the evil chairman's (Rick Collins) first plan fails he bribes Toxie's psychiatrist (Erika Schickel) to tell him to go to Japan & see his Father. Leaving his girlfriend Claire (Phoebe Legere), his Mother (Jessica Dublin) & his home behind Toxie heads for Tokyo, Japan. Once there Toxie sets about finding his Father & a woman named Masami (Mayako Katsuragi) helps him in his quest. Meanwhile back in Tromaville Apocalypse Inc. move in for the kill & without Toxie the citizens are powerless to defend themselves. Toxie eventually finds Big Mac Bunko (Rikiya Yasuoka) whom he has been lead to believe is his Father, however Big Mac is all part of Apocalypse Inc. plans to destroy Toxie once & for all...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz this follow up to the successful The Toxic Avenger (1985) basically proves the first film was a complete fluke, a lucky accident to combine the right blend of bad taste comedy, outrageous violence & so-bad-it's-good film-making, The Toxic Avenger, Part II is a load of crap in comparison. The script by by Kaufman, Phil Rivio & Gay Partington Terry with a load of 'additional material' credits does not contain one single funny moment during it's entire 102 (uncut director's cut) duration. The visual gags are terrible, Toxie walking through Tokyo with a wig & glasses to blend in for instance, or a scene where he heats up a bath with a bad guy in it & as he cooks Toxie throws in a load of vegetable's & spaghetti, a scene where he sticks electrical wires up a woman's nose, sticks an antenna in her head & a microphone in her mouth to which a Japanese radio announcer talks into, a bit where a Japanese bad guy has his nose burnt into the shape of a fish, a bit where Toxie grabs a swordfish head & uses it as a weapon, or the embarrassingly bad overacting & stupid idiotic facial expressions, a guy who literary has a fish for a head & gets turned literary into sushi, the awful comedy music & sound effects & the whole film in general is a pale imitation of what made the original mildly amusing & memorable. The bad taste gags aren't there this time round & the silly childish juvenile humour of the first is also missing, it just feels like a real step back from the original & lets not forget this is Troma here so that is most definitely a bad thing. There are a few gory fights & some serious gore & violence, at least in the supposedly uncut 102 minute version I saw, crushed heads with the bodies spurting out blood, smashed faces, intestines, roses poked in someones eyes & thorns wrapped around their throat, ripped off ears, severed arms & a very graphic & gory scene of a man being chopped to pieces. Unfortunately the special effects by Pericles Lewnes aren't particularly convincing & come mostly within the first twenty or so minutes. The acting is of embarrassing proportions as I've already mentioned. Action wise there is an ultra cheap looking car chase at the end & a few unexciting, lacklustre fights utilising cardboard ninja throwing stars at one point. Horror wise there is nothing a few gory set pieces apart. Comedy wise this is very unfunny. In fact The Toxic Avenger, Part II sucks on all levels really & to top it all off it's atrociously made as well, most of the cast appear to be people plucked from the nearest street corner, continuity is none existent, cinematography is basic point & shoot & the special effects are anything but. One or two gory scenes apart this is total crap plain & simple, do yourself a favour watch the original again instead. | 0 |
11,053 | [
900,
1000
] | 713 | 907 | Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence. <br /><br />The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.<br /><br />The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.<br /><br />Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's "The War Zone (1999)" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.<br /><br />Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.<br /><br />I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:<br /><br />* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on "City of God (2002)". Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.<br /><br />* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.<br /><br />The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film "Au revoir, les enfants" ("Goodbye, Children", 1998).<br /><br />--- Released as "Beatrice" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work. | 0 |
11,105 | [
900,
1000
] | 714 | 918 | Let me get this out of the way before I trash this film: I love Park Chan-Wook's work as a director. While I disagree with the masses saying he's is the best director working in our time, I can't deny that he understands how to use a camera very effectively. I really liked one of his other films, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, Min-sik Choi's acting was the only thing that allowed me to take this film seriously . . . for 1/5 of the runtime, that is.<br /><br />Now the bad: The plot is simply the oldest cliché used in cinema/literature. I'll never understand how critics can trash a Hollywood blockbuster for being cliché, then hail movies like Oldboy which are just as unoriginal and clichéd if not even more so. Regardless, Oldboy is flat-out one of the most generic, unoriginal movies ever conceived. *Spoilers* Man is held captive, man seeks revenge, man finds out he had sex with a family member, man's life is over. *End spoilers* Simply put, this plot line has been used in everything from Greek plays to modern melodramatic soap operas and countless movies/books in between. It is so melodramatic and unoriginal when the major reveal happens, I laughed out loud. Does that mean I'm a desensitized freak without emotions as some reviews of this film say about people like me? No. What it means overdone plots make people laugh. The Scary Movie franchise proved that, and Oldboy proved it as well. Why can't people think of something that is truly disturbing instead of just spewing out tried clichés masked with fancy camera-work and classical music? That brings up the issue of blood/gore. Simply put, it isn't there. The director is too timid to even point the camera at the screen when something "gory" happens, as if we're watching a children's movie or something. Maybe we were. Anyway, I've heard Oldboy called the "most brutal movie of all time" and "the most disturbing movie ever" but when I watched it I failed to see ANYTHING even remotely gory or disturbing. All the "gore" is off-screen, and even then the violence level is nothing you haven't seen in PG-13 movies like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale before. Why this even got an R-rating confuses me, much less "the most brutal movie of all time". Seriously, I've seen movies that just make Oldboy look cute on every level when it comes to violence/gore.<br /><br />The other huge glaring, cheesy flaw is the main villain. The majority of his screen time he's showing his bare butt off for the audience in comedic American Pie-style, but I'm supposed to think he's oh-so-evil? When he's wearing clothes, his hair is slicked back like a bad Asian mix of the cheesiest James Bond villain mixed with something out of Austin Powers. He talks like a brain-dead teenager recovering from an acid overdose, and his dialogue is so bad it had me laughing yet again. Seriously, Oldboy had me laughing more than any comedy this year . . .<br /><br />In the end, Oldboy is for those of you who sip fine wine, have no sense of humor, and talk about how boring your lives are at dinner parties. It's for those people who are so stuck up in their own ego they forgot how unoriginal they are, and consequently forgot how unoriginal and boring the "films" (never "movies") they enjoy are.<br /><br />To those people all I can say is this: I like "films" and also like "movies". I like thoughtful dramas that actually say something about the human condition, and I also like pointless action movies that thrill me into a coma. But the thing is, for me to like both "films" and "movies", they have to be original. They have to be something I haven't seen so many times I lost count of the number of times the plot has been used. When something isn't original, it's expendable. If it does exactly what everyone else does, it's forgettable and boring. Before you give Oldboy yet another perfect rating because it "touched" you, maybe you should think about something: wouldn't a movie equally as touching, but at the same time original make you think more? I just wish someone other than me would understand this.<br /><br />Overall: Oldboy is forgettable and cheesy.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
11,107 | [
900,
1000
] | 674 | 900 | A pretentious but - to varying degrees - watchable collection of mostly pointless "stories".<br /><br />But let's start from the top.<br /><br />Kaurismaki: If one ever wondered what Finnish love/romance was like, perhaps this dull little oddity is some indication. Subdued feelings, non-emotions, apathetic faces and a very depressing prospect of moving from Finland to Siberia! I guess the sequel to this story will be "For Our Honeymoon We Move From Siberia to Greenland". Aki obviously had no clue what to write for this little movie, so he just made up some half-assed non-"story" centering around a band he particularly likes (or maybe they're his friends) because we get to watch them and listen to their music more than the two principal characters.<br /><br />Erice: First off, I've never heard of this guy before and now I know why. Nice black&white photography and pretty much nothing else - unless being bored silly can be considered an asset. But you'd be surprised how many movie-critics and film students love boredom in movies so I hotly recommend Erice's 10-minute snooze-fest to those two groups of humanoids.<br /><br />Herzog: Not a movie but probably a slice out of his documentaries about tribes in South America. This isn't a short film but a report, but considering how dull the first two entries were, Herzog's bit is almost refreshing and does have some interesting moments, and if nothing else fits into the movie's pretentious "time" concept very neatly.<br /><br />Jarmusch: As was to be almost expected, this once-interesting film-maker (with the brain of a peanut; a talented idiot savant) serves us yet another doze of pointlessness. He has become lazy and can't be bothered to write anything interesting, either for his own movies or a collection such as TMO. The only bright side in watching how a dumb veggie actress spends 10 minutes in a trailer is that she is played by the lovely Chloe Sevigny. Otherwise, skip this nonsense. Oh, and btw: I don't believe that any young actress listens to classical music; was Jarmusch trying to be surreal by making Chloe listen to that kind of music? Does Lindsey Lohan perhaps listen to opera? Maybe Drew Barrymore is a jazz fan? Who am I to say they aren't?!<br /><br />Jim Jarmusch is a moron. Oh, right... I already mentioned that...<br /><br />Wenders: Here is the actual shock of the whole movie: Wenders can actually make something good!!!!!? Everything else I've seen from this overrated charlatan has so far been dull and pointless. However, this short little story is done with style(! atypical) and is the best part of the movie. It leaves one wanting to see more of it, even though the story has a resolution.<br /><br />Spike Lee: Oh, dear Lord
What can I say here? Lee makes anyone seem talented by comparison. Like Herzog, he chooses not a story but submits a report and a left-wing political propaganda report at that! CNN, but in black and white, and one-sided, of course. Naturally, "We Wuz Robbed", the retarded title of this little sleep-inducer, is about how the poor, gullible and infinitely idealistic Democrats WUZ ROBBED by Bush and his EVIL EVIL team of THIEVES. This is by far the dumbest and dullest entry in this movie, and I had to utilize the fast-forward button so as not to doze off. Spike Lee truly is a product of Affirmative Action. God knows how many really talented (black) directors never had a chance to make movies because this pretentious and talentless little runt keeps getting opportunity after opportunity to make them. And he gets it wrong EVERY TIME! Now that does take some kind of talent, right? <br /><br />Kaige: The Chinese story has a solid premise. It's okay, nothing more.<br /><br />All in all, there are many and far better movies to spend your time on, but if your time isn't that valuable (as is apparently the case with my own) you can check this little film out.<br /><br />"Ten minutes sure can be an eternity in the hands of anti-masters of cinema. Time is precious. Waste it on better movies." - Fedor Miklowitz, 1588 | 0 |
11,669 | [
900,
1000
] | 803 | 962 | No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.<br /><br />That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.<br /><br />The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.<br /><br />The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.<br /><br />Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)<br /><br />A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.<br /><br />Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen) | 0 |
11,688 | [
900,
1000
] | 782 | 986 | Okay, so Gus Van Sant wanted to remake Psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences, who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black & white, while they conveniently forget that both "Clerks" and "Schindler's List" were filmed in black & white and are great movies.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the same narrow-minded people who wouldn't want to see a great movie just because it's in black & white are the same people who wouldn't like "Psycho" anyway, because it doesn't have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. And the murders are not the grisly blood/guts/gore/bone-snapping that people are used to from having seen "Halloween," "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street." This is why remaking "Psycho" almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work, because it's really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. Everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next "Scream" sequel comes out, and for that reason, they will be disappointed. "Psycho" relies on suspense and mystery, not blood and guts. (And just so nobody thinks that I must be a senior citizen if I like older movies, let me set the record straight by saying that I am 21.)<br /><br />So if doing the movie in color was all that Van Sant wanted to change, why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it? I mean, what's the point of remaking a movie if you're not going to change *anything*? The least he could have done was to put his own director's spin on it, rather than just copying Hitchcock's - or even better, hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original "Psycho" book. But it seems that Van Sant couldn't decide whether he wanted to remake "Psycho" *exactly* or not. This should have been an all or nothing project - either remake the movie exactly or do it differently - but as it stands, this movie is about 95% the same, but with a few touches thrown in that don't seem to have any purpose. Such as having Norman masturbate while he spies on Marion undressing. It doesn't serve the plot at all, and the only reason he put it in was because he *could*. He wanted to say, "Hitch couldn't show people masturbating in 1960 so I'm going to do it." Whoopee, big deal, like I'm so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. And what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes? And then he leaves *out* an important scene, where Lila and Sam meet the Sheriff outside the church.<br /><br />Plus, by using the almost exact same script, the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. The opening credits say that the year is 1998. Then what's with Marion's 60-ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her? Why do Marion and Sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room, when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing? Why are there no air conditioners in Marion's office? Why does the Bates Motel have no tv's in the rooms, and apparently no automatic locks on the doors? Why does the Sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the Bates motel? This was why using the exact same script was a mistake - just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. It needed a whole reworking.<br /><br />While Vince Vaughn turned in a good performance as Norman, he just didn't seem right for the part. Part of what made the original "Psycho" so creepy was that Norman had that innocent, boy-next-door quality, so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. With Vince Vaughn playing the part, is anyone really surprised that Norman was a psychopathic killer?<br /><br />That said, I can understand that Gus Van Sant was obviously a fan of the original "Psycho" movie, and wanted this to be a tribute. This isn't a bad movie, but the problem is that this may be some people's only exposure to "Psycho." I really think you should see this movie only if you've seen the original. Since I am a fan of anything to do with "Psycho," I bought a used copy of the remake, which I may watch occasionally. The original movie was a filet mignon, whereas the remake is a hamburger. But even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday, so it's nice to have a hamburger once in a while, for a change. | 0 |
11,890 | [
900,
1000
] | 709 | 900 | I really wanted to like this movie. Great cast Walter Pidgeon in a role that reminds us of his iconic "Forbidden Planet," Barbara Eden and Robert Sterling as young lovers, Frankie Avalon as a musically inclined sailor (is a guy on a submarine a sailor?), even Peter Lorre as a scientist with a fondness for sharks. Maybe it's a good kiddie movie but I had trouble staying awake. Lorre was severely underused. I guess he was a red herring, like Pidgeon you expect him to maybe go nuts and try to throw the hero or his gal in the shark tank. No such luck. By the way, why is there a shark tank on a submarine? It's typical of the movie's lack of ambition. They explain why Lorre is walking the shark back and forth (because we're seeing it) but just expect us to accept the fact that there's a shark on this sub for some reason. "Research?" Yeah, scientists are always doing that research stuff, who can understand them? Of course, if there wasn't a shark, who would kill the evil psychologist lady (Joan Fontaine)? I'm sorry but even kid's movies in the 50s are capable of being less predictable and frankly idiotic (not to mention exploitative).<br /><br />The first 10 or 15 minutes really got my hopes up. Great theme song sung by Frankie Avalon. Pidgeon leading Floyd the Barber (Howard McNear actually, sorry Howie loved ya in "Blue Hawaii") and Joan Fontaine on a guided tour, careful to skip the room with the huge "WARNING" sign on the door, past Peter Lorre with aforementioned sharks, and then we see a full screen shot of Eden shaking her moneymaker to Avalon's impassioned horn playing! The movie quickly goes downstream from there. There's no real explanation for the firestorm threatening the Earth, so there's a distinct lack of dramatic tension and no villain to boot. Instead Pidgeon's character is made into an unconvincing red herring vaguely of the Ahab variety (I guess "The Caine Mutiny" was still fresh in people's minds), and Fontaine's character suddenly turns evil for no reason at the end. Oh, I suppose the reason is that it's a surprise for the audience. And it is kind of surprising, since the only negative thing she's done is to talk bad about the captain's mental health and there's STILL no reason why she did the sabotage after she's revealed to be the villain. Very poorly done and unconvincing. The guy who was the pessimistic bible nut was better at least his character made sense.<br /><br />So what else could go wrong? Endless, interminable scuba-diving footage. I never understand the appeal of that kind of thing. A giant squid attacks the ship for a minute, just so there's a monster for the theatrical trailer. Maybe that fooled some people into thinking it was going to be a fantasy adventure film, instead of a half-baked suspense movie about military scientists who are never wrong. Yes perhaps worst of all, it's barely a fantasy movie much less a science fiction movie. It never did anything for my imagination because the whole premise was nothing but another disaster/apocalypse and these characters never experience any feelings of wonder or discovery. I'm through with Irwin Allen. I never liked his later movies anyway, but this one got me by pretending to be Jules Verne when it's really just another formula exercise in disaster escapism. The whole movie is just waiting to see which character will improbably turn evil and die. He always hired an actor/actress with a charming and personable screen persona to play these roles and that's the only element of "surprise" to be found since there's no logic to these characters anyway. What a pathetic waste of time for these actors. George Pal's movies are 100 times better (the only one that was lame was "Atlantis," which, not coincidentally, was the most Allen-esquire), full of wonder and excitement and think of it! ideas! Other than a few effects scenes and Barbara Eden, there's nothing worth seeing here in my opinion. I guess it's good fun for those who are into disaster movies, but I think they are a hollow and dull genre of films. | 0 |
12,153 | [
900,
1000
] | 768 | 940 | A Chicago couple, Dillon and Dougherty, are falsely accused of killing their daughter. People begin to wonder if they did it. The police investigate and find suspicious evidence. The couple are maligned by the public and accused in the press. The cops speculate that they are Satanists and have ritually murdered their own daughter. They are charged and brought to trial. They are represented by publicity-seeking lawyers who give them bad advice and bill them for $100,000. The evidence presented against them is twisted or hidden by the police. Fabricated intimations of sexual abuse are presented. Their other child is taken away from them and put in a foster home. Dougherty is pregnant and gives birth to find her baby removed. Verdict, she didn't do it but he did. He goes to the slams with a sentence of 45 years.<br /><br />In the last third of the movie, with Dillon in jail and Dougherty wondering what to do next, we see people who have been antagonistic now slowly coming to the couple's defense. Witnesses admit to having lied. Other facts are brought to light that, finally, result in Dillon's release. The killer is never found, though the movie gives us a thorough whacko as a plausible perp.<br /><br />This is a weeper from beginning to end. Nothing seems to go right for the couple. Oh, there are a few happy moment, maybe a party where everyone is glad to be together and tearing up with joy, or some point of evidence in their favor is discovered and people hug one another. But it's never long before someone rushes through the door with more bad news and all the faces are frozen in tragic disbelief. (Usually a fade to block follows.) There isn't necessarily anything wrong with moving tragedies, although I can't imagine what pleasure we get out of seeing people suffer. There's plenty of tragedy in Shakespeare too. I suppose whatever we find interesting about tragic stories lies in the way they're told. "Oh, but I am Fortune's fool!" Romeo cries after killing Juliet's brother. Here we have Dougherty running in her robe through a hospital corridor, screaming, "Where's my baby???" There isn't any ambiguity or irony in the story -- as I'm sure there must have been in the real life events on which it's based. People are either good or bad here. Or else they're bad, then they turn good.<br /><br />The film isn't aimed at exploring human quirkiness, or the way things work out. It's aimed at wrenching tears from the audience. The actors provide first-rate role models. I can't remember the last movie in which I saw so many tears. There are rivulets of tears. Showers of them. Cascades of them. A veritable Niagara of them. A Lake Lacrymose of them.<br /><br />Well, I'll give one example of the efficiency with which the movie is crafted. Dillon and Dougherty hire a Chicago cop who works on the side as a private investigator (Ed Asner). Asner is sympathetic to them but he doesn't really accomplish much. He seems to be in the movie not because of his importance to the case but because he can provide the victimized couple with a kind of philosophy -- "Learn to live with it," which is okay -- and because he suffers from colorectal cancer, so we can watch him take his medicine, double over with pain, and finally pass away.<br /><br />What's frustrating about the movie is that in focusing so intensely on the suffering of the couple, it sidesteps one of the more important issues that it raises -- the function of gossip in regulating private lives.<br /><br />Gossip is a strange thing really. If we call it "gossip" it's bad, but if we call it "public opinion" it sounds acceptable, at the very least. Of course we all have convictions about issues that may or may not be justified. (As I write, Michael Jackson is once again being brought to court accused of molesting a young boy, and I wonder how many of us thrilled at the news and immediately assumed he was a pedophile.) But gossip isn't all bad either. It's like water. When it's properly controlled it's a community asset. We need gossip to keep each other in line. It helps us to maintain public order. But, like water in a flood or a tsunami, it is ruinous to a village when it rages out of control.<br /><br />This is a movie that's okay if you're not looking for too much in the way of insight into human nature. It's done so cleverly that, given its goal, it's hard to argue with it. | 0 |
12,706 | [
900,
1000
] | 711 | 907 | In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.<br /><br />1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.<br /><br />Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.<br /><br />However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.<br /><br />It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 |
12,713 | [
900,
1000
] | 725 | 905 | Sorry about the "extremely clever" summary phrase. I don't know what I was thinking, but I really couldn't help myself.<br /><br />I've been meaning to see 'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me, the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part.<br /><br />In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people, since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?)<br /><br />Like I was saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film, looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress, singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P<br /><br />So basically, this movie is fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives. This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all. I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much.<br /><br />So, now you know: you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss it ;) | 1 |
12,728 | [
900,
1000
] | 788 | 978 | The vampire "craze" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and, coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you didn't see as of now.<br /><br />Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of "guy" and "girl" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into "sides". I think men are prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future "neutral" pics since they grew up with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon.<br /><br />The plot follows an Emile Zola novel called Thérèse Raquin, which I have not read. According to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her. The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover each other's plans, and commit suicide.<br /><br />Now, transcribe this nearly 150 year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it.<br /><br />The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients.<br /><br />Let's continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil more prominently).<br /><br />The woman character is a caricature, and her profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without divine intervention. | 1 |
12,733 | [
900,
1000
] | 723 | 928 | The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and "idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.<br /><br />That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.<br /><br />Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.<br /><br />If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10 | 1 |
12,757 | [
900,
1000
] | 713 | 925 | I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study). <br /><br />It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).<br /><br />Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:<br /><br />1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. <br /><br />2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .<br /><br />3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.<br /><br />4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.<br /><br />5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).<br /><br />6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.<br /><br />These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. | 1 |
12,833 | [
900,
1000
] | 763 | 906 | Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) has been sent on a classified mission into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to assassinate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) as he has gone completely insane and is no longer taking orders. And since Kurtz is one of the most decorated men in the armed forces, it is hard for Capt. Willard to understand how Col. Kurtz could go off the deep end as he has, killing without clearance and taking the war into his own hands. What possibly could have pushed this great man over the top? Through Willard's long journey through the jungle to find his target, he tries with some success to understand why. But what will he decide to do once he finds him?<br /><br />Any movie that can start out with The Doors' "The End" is a great movie in my book, especially if it can flow with the mood and imagery shown with the song. Apocalypse Now does this perfectly. I can't think of anything better for it to be set to, the Vietnam War and the insanity in the soliders' minds that it created. AN is a dark and brutal story about a long journey through some of the hairiest jungle in Vietnam, the ultimate destination of which is murder. Through it's use of music and score alone, we are thrown into a dark world of mystery, violence, and insanity. A perfect example of how to set mood through music alone is this film right here. <br /><br />An overall great cast, with the exception of Laurence Fishburne, of which Sheen and Brando give us more than enough acting skills to spread around on our movie desire bread. I just don't like Fishburne, ever since I found out he was Cowboy Curtis in PeeWee's playhouse my contempt and hatred for this man has increased ten fold. I realize the pettiness of this but I simply do not care. We need to sick Gary Oldman on him. Brando is excellent as Col. Kurtz and I can't think of any other actor that could have played the good man gone insane and hold such screen presence. Sheen is also fun to watch as Willard and we can identify with his questioning of his mission and the war in general. My favorite character in the movie has to be Robert Duvall's Lt. Colonel Kilgore. Before this film I never pictured Duvall as a wartime cowboy but honestly it's my favorite of his parts to date. He simply nailed his character, which is one of the best in the entire film, as the gung-ho Air Cavalry commander who loves to surf. Maybe a little over the top but still brilliant. I also love the smell of napalm in the morning.<br /><br />The plot is a fairly simple one and it doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out what's going on. Willard's mission is to kill Kurtz, plain and simple. But it's the journey of the film that is really it's heart and also the dire situations of war itself. In the Redux version we are forced to sit through the extended French plantation scene and the Playboy bunny scene which really adds nothing to the film's entirety other than it makes it a longer journey. I don't feel they take away anything though, it's just a matter of if you want to watch a three and a half hour movie or the original. Through this journey, the film points out the utter futility and irrelevance of the war to the Americans and the massive effect it had on the soldiers who fought in it...in fact, that's the entire point. On top of that, the troops were not supported by the public and that could very well have helped cause a character like Kurtz' to go completely mad. <br /><br />A big war movie lover, this one is up there with Platoon and The Deer Hunter, all of them classics. I sometimes try to compare films of the same genre to one another but it has gotten me in trouble in the past in my reviews as I have had to go back on what I've said. All three have their own strengths and add their own twist to the Vietnam War....so to really say one is better than the other is fairly pointless...even if after having most recently view AN I think it's a tad better. In the end, Apocalypse Now is a true classic in either version and worthy of the status it's been given. As a fellow reviewer has previously stated, AN is one of the most ambitious films ever made. | 1 |
12,835 | [
900,
1000
] | 754 | 922 | Even with all the cinema dealing with the trauma of the Vietnam War (Jacob's Ladder, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver to an extent) one feels that we don't even know the half of what happened. Even contemplating the horror feels inhuman. And a progression - or retreat? - to the inhumanity that it necessitates is a key part of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's greatest and one of the most important films ever made. Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness" which chronicles the loss of sanity and corruption of morality that comes with distance from civilization - a surfacing of a bestial nature, as it were, a la Lord of the Flies - it brings the story of a physical and psychological journey to Vietnam. The story is of Willard, a general commissioned on a special mission to Cambodia after his first tour of duty in Vietnam is served. Willard at the beginning of the film is stuck in Saigon, psychologically unable to go back home - eerily echoing Nicky in The Deer Hunter. So he is contacted: his mission is to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has isolated himself in a remote outpost on the Nung River, and who has purportedly gone completely insane - worshiped like a god by the natives, and killing indiscriminately. This man's name is Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando in the second best role of his career (the best being Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire). As Willard journeys upriver in an army boat with some soldiers accompanying, his witnessing the horrors and the insanity - and the overwhelming pointlessness of it all - leads to an eerie sympathy and identification with Kurtz before they even meet. By the time they do, Kurtz's methods don't really seem as wrong or as they should, and they certainly don't seem too unusual or out-of-place. Apocalypse - a place beyond morality, the outpost on the end of the world. The loss of civilization, the loss of judgement, of self. Kurtz's monologue about an atrocity he witnessed as a Green Beret, and his later revelation, is one of the most chilling and well-delivered speeches in cinema history. The film is about trauma, about the human spirit and its breaking point - here, it's a lot like The Deer Hunter, and just as good. Apocalypse, however, takes the boundaries of what we can endure to a global level - Coppola's sweeping footage of the humid, murky jungles of Cambodia and an opening sequence of helicopters amid exploding forests and an orange sky - set to an oddly fitting Doors soundtrack - as well as chilling scenes on the river and of an air raid on a village with Wagner blasting from speakers (a scene which has gone down as one of the most chilling, darkly humorous, and strikingly pointless war scenes ever) - this all contributes to the sense of Apocalypse - the end of the world - and not at some distant point in the future, but Apocalypse Now and forever. The Deer Hunter is much more up close and personal, you can even tell by the title, and shows the totalling effect trauma has on the individual psyche, the breaking down of the human soul, and its ability to either surrender completely to forces of darkness, or to limp on. This is why both films are equal - they are two parts of the same thing. In "Heart of Darkness", Kurtz is shown as conflicted between morality (civilization) and his inner savage. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz has left all conflict behind. He is beyond good and evil. He has let go of morality like a drowning man lets go of a saving hand in the moments before his death. Kurtz indeed is only waiting for death, quoting T. S. Eliot in his temple to himself, lost in the jungle. His last words, and the words echoed at the end of the movie, are, "The horror...the horror." He is referring to the infinite void of existence, of the human psyche, and to the pitch black emptiness within his own mind, where atrocities are born again. It is impossible to express in words the experience one goes through watching this film - the experience, in short, that Willard experiences on his journey. The end part, at the outpost, almost in fact comparable to its brother scene in The Deer Hunter, is one of the most deeply, calmly, and seductively disturbing things I've ever seen. | 1 |
12,857 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 979 | Comic secret agents have made a comeback in recent years, with Mike Myers' 'Austin Powers' and Rowan Atkinson's 'Johnny English', and more recently Steve Carell in the big-screen version of the hit '60's show 'Get Smart!'.<br /><br />Back in 1974, it was David Jason who was wearing a shoulder holster and carrying an attaché case full of documents marked 'Classified'.<br /><br />'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs' was his first starring role in a sitcom, after years of being a supporting actor in such shows as 'Six Dates With Barker', the 'Doctor' series, and 'Hark At Barker'.<br /><br />Humphrey Barclay had found him working in a pier theatre in Bournemouth and was sufficiently impressed to include him alongside Michael Palin, Terry Jones and Eric Idle in the children's comedy show 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!'.<br /><br />'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' cast Jason as 'Edgar Briggs', a well-meaning but incompetent agent for the Secret Intelligence Service. Whereas John Steed wore a bowler hat, Briggs had a trilby. Whereas Napoleon Solo carried a radio pen, Briggs owned a pipe. Objects fell to bits in his hands. He read Confidential documents in bed while his wife ( Barbara Angell ) perused Woman's Own ( on one occasion it would be the other way round ). When he tracked a pair of Russian agents to a heliport, he accidentally switched on the airport's Tannoy system, and broadcast his plans to capture them! When he hid on a train so as to photograph a meeting between an S.I.S. man and his enemy-contact, it moved off with him aboard and took him straight to Brighton! When he tried to organise the defection of a female Russian scientist, he took a 'short cut' to elude his pursuers, only to wind up hopelessly lost in a car park. Yet, like 'Inspector Clouseau', he always seemed to come out on top at the end, much to the dismay of his colleagues.<br /><br />As previously mentioned, he was married. His wife Jennifer was understanding about the sort of work he did. Though they had a row once which resulted in her yelling at him from the window of their high-rise flat: "Secret Service this, Secret Service that! You never stop thinking about the Secret Service!". He shouted back: "Think of the neighbours! They're not supposed to know I'm in the Secret Service!".<br /><br />Briggs was part of a team of agents whose number included 'Coronation Street' villain Mark Eden ( he was the psychotic Alan Bradley ) as 'Spencer', Michael Stainton as 'Buxton', and 'Doctor At Sea''s Elisabeth Counsell as the lovely 'Cathy Strong'. They answered to 'The Commander', played by the late Noel Coleman. The Commander was kidnapped in one episode, leaving Briggs temporarily in charge of the S.I.S. - which naturally horrified everyone.<br /><br />This hilarious show was by Richard Laing and Bernard McKenna, who had written for the 'Doctor' series. Rather than spoof Bond, it was more of a send-up of the serious spy shows such as 'Callan' ( though it had a Bond-style theme tune ). Furtive meetings in underground car parks, code-breaking, stolen missile plans, that kind of thing. Jason brought a lot of energy to the role, doing a lot of his own stunts, such as Briggs falling off a ladder whilst decorating his flat, and tumbling down a hill in a wastepaper bin, and were reminiscent of those to be found in the 'Pink Panther' films.<br /><br />'Briggs' had all the ingredients to be a smash-hit. Unfortunately, it was not networked. In the London area, it was put out on Sundays at 7.25 P.M. where it was trounced in the ratings by the B.B.C.'s soapy drama 'The Brothers'. It was then moved to Fridays at 7 P.M. because I.T.V. wanted to showcase its latest American import - the T.V. version of 'Planet Of The Apes'. Briggs never found an audience. A similar fate befell Jason's next major show: 1976's 'Lucky Feller'. It was not until 1977 and 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath' that he found his first successful solo vehicle.<br /><br />You can see the title sequence ( along with two brief excerpts in German! ) for this series on YouTube. Unfortunately, that is all you can see. Jason will not permit his early starring shows either to be repeated or released on D.V.D. A great shame. For the moment, however, Edgar Briggs' life will have to remain top secret.<br /><br />CODA: I have seen a number of episodes recently and I'm pleased to say it stands up incredibly well. | 1 |
13,006 | [
900,
1000
] | 758 | 999 | One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.<br /><br />What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).<br /><br />Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.<br /><br />Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.<br /><br />Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.<br /><br />And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.<br /><br />STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self. | 1 |
13,130 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 904 | Witchery, or Witchcraft as it's commonly known in Europe, beings with Jane Brooks (Linda Blair) waking up from a nightmare involving a witch. Jane's Mother & Father Rose (Annie Ross) & Freddie (Robert Champagne) are interested in buying an old deserted hotel on an island about 50 miles from Boston, renovating it & reopening it. Together with Jane & their young son Tommy (Michael Manchester) Rose & Freddie are planning to travel to the island with an architect named Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland) to check on the amount of work that needs doing, they also meet up with the estate agent Jerry Giordano (Rick Farnsworth) & hire a local fisherman named Sam (George Stevens) to take them to the island. Once there they enter the hotel & begin to inspect the property while back on the boat Sam is killed & the boat is let loose to sail off into the distance. They discover two unexpected guests in the shape of a photographer named Gary (David Hasselhoff) & his virgin fiancé Leslie (Leslie Cumming) who happens to be researching a book that she is writing about the gruesome legends & superstitions surrounding the infamous island & hotel. As the night draws on a raging storm outside isolates them from the mainland as a mysterious 'lady in black' (Hildegard Knef) keeps popping up as the ancient evil that resides in the hotel seeks fresh victims for demonic possession, human sacrifice & Satanic rites...<br /><br />The director of this American Italian co-produced film is somewhat shrouded in mystery as the IMDb lists Fabrizio Laurenti as Martin Newlin but there are rumours that Joe D'Amato did the honours, either way to be honest despite it's bad reputation I found Witchery quite entertaining in a so-bad-it's-good cheesy sort of way. The script credited to Harry Spalding & Daniele Stroppa on the IMDb again is confusing too as the actual credit on the film itself is Daniel Davis, anyway whoever wrote this thing did a decent job, please stop laughing. At heart it's a haunted house horror but adds some gory deaths & a surreal feeling to everything. The different sets of characters have reasonable motives & didn't get on my nerves as much as I'd thought they might, it's not plotted very well, it doesn't make a whole a lot of sense & the dialogue isn't exactly top drawer stuff but as a whole Witchery entertained me for it's 95 odd minute duration plain & simple. It's reasonably well paced, a little slow to get going maybe but there are plenty of surreal, bizarre goings-on & gruesome deaths to keep one amused. One part of Witchery which destroys some of it's credibility is this so-called storm, there is no storm in sight & the sea is probably calm enough to swim in, Witchery's supposed 'twist' ending didn't really work for me either & just check out the dumb expression on Cummings face on that final freeze-frame. The hotel provides for a good isolated location & adds a certain atmosphere to the film which has the distinctive indefinable 'horror' feel throughout, cheap horror at that. Technically Witchery is not too bad at all, it was obviously shot on location so it looks good throughout & while not exactly the pinnacle of film-making finesse it's overall production values are slightly better than expected. The violence & gore is of typical Euro explicitness, a woman has her lips sewn shut & hung inside a fireplace so she can't scream as the others light it, someone is crucified & then burned alive, impaled on a swordfish, someones veins expand & pop & a woman is raped by a man with no lips. Witchery was shot in English so there is no dubbing, as far as acting goes David Hasselhoff & Linda Blair in the same film what more can I say?! Yes ladies Hasselhoff does take his shirt off & for the lads Cummings takes hers off. Both Hasselhoff & Blair are a hoot to watch in this thing, however the little kid is very annoying & really can't act at all. I sure most sane film-goers will disagree with my opinions but I still stand by the fact that I liked it & would happily watch it again, Witchery is pretty good fun & definitely worth a watch if your into 'bad' films or your a horror fan in general. | 1 |
13,216 | [
900,
1000
] | 817 | 995 | If you're in the middle of a ferocious war and it's still not clear that you're going to come out on top, among the things you'll be concerned with is to keep up the morale of the civilians...to demonstrate that our troops have the bravery, the resourcefulness and the dedication to overcome all the odds in a noble cause. And that's just what director Anthony Asquith provided the British with 1943's naval war film, We Dive at Dawn. After more than 60 years, it's not surprising that some of the movie is dated. It doesn't help that the class stereotypes which help define the enlisted men from the officers can be jarring. Here, as in so many other British war films, the men invariably have thick regional working class accents while the officers speak with an educated fluency that would place them at home in England's finest ruling-class establishments. In this movie, Freddie Taylor (John Mills), the captain of the submarine Sea Tiger, is clever, confident, resourceful, aggressive, in control, good with his men, humorous with his peers, quick to make a decision. And it helps that he's lucky. His men are jolly tars, for the most part, competent at their jobs and always ready with a joke when things get tense. Although we spend the first third of the movie getting to know these people while they're on leave, after that things get tense quickly. <br /><br />Taylor and his sub are ordered to destroy the Brandenburg, a new German battleship. They just miss the ship when it enters the Kiel Canal and heads into the Baltic. Taylor assesses the risks and decides the Sea Tiger will go after it, through mine fields, anti-sub nets and with a real risk of not having enough fuel to return to home base. After several tense situations, the confrontation takes place. The Sea Tiger lets loose six torpedoes but has to dive, not knowing if it had done its job. After a clever subterfuge, Taylor outfoxes a couple of German destroyers but then realizes there is not enough fuel. He plans to scuttle his sub and surrender when, just at the last moment, James Hobson (Eric Portman), a seaman who had been sullen and a loner and who speaks German, says there is a small Danish coastal village that had been a fuel depot. He thinks it might still be for the Germans. The last third of the movie is a rousing action sequence as the crew of the sub attempts to hold off the Germans long enough to pump in enough fuel to get the Sea Tiger back to Britain. This is a wartime propaganda movie, so don't expect failure. And did the Sea Tiger actually put the Brandenburg down? Are the men reunited with their wives and sweethearts? Did Hobson have a reconciliation with his wife and small son that left him smiling for once? Did Freddie Taylor finally have a chance to make use of all those female names in his little black book? You'll have to see the movie. <br /><br />There are propaganda war movies and there are propaganda war movies. Some, like Powell's and Pressburger's One of Our Aircraft Is Missing and The 49th Parallel, still stand up to viewing today because the stories are solid and unexpected and the creators didn't use obvious shorthand clichés. Others, like We Dive at Dawn, were made with enough clichés that when watching we have to remind ourselves how dire the time was when the film was made. Still, Asquith can build a lot of suspense even with a few clichés. The Sea Tiger's forcing its way through a sub net was tense. The stalking of the Brandenburg and the plotting needed for the torpedo firing was realistic; John Mill's no-nonsense attitude while he prepared to attack was well-handled. The fake-out preparations to make the Sea Tiger look as if it had been destroyed by depth charges was as realistic, inside the sub as well as out, as you could hope for, and the battle for the fuel depot was dramatic and exciting. We Dive at Dawn is not a classic war film, but it's a well-made, well-acted example of its type and time. <br /><br />John Mills, it's worth noting, had a long, long career. Especially in the Fifties he played in a number of serious-minded films looking back at those WWII days. He had the quality of showing grit, cheerfulness and perseverance, but of also being trustworthy, a man England could be proud of as he fought the war. Top-billed in this movie was Eric Portman, a fine actor with a unique voice and the ability to give stares so cold you'd want to put on a sweater. Everyone on the sub is very much in the joking but stiff-upper-lip mode, but Portman manages some complexity for his character. Mills and Portman did fine jobs working together on this film. | 1 |
13,249 | [
900,
1000
] | 803 | 966 | **SPOILERS** Beautifully photographed slice of life home-front WWII love story with Norman Rockwell paintings in the beginning and end of the movie about how a "war hero" is not just someone who kills for his country but is also someone who thinks for himself and isn't corrupted by the war propaganda that's constantly drummed into his head. Washing out of the Marine Corps Marion "Hedg" Hedgepeth, Jan Michael-Vincent,is kicked out of boot-camp, after five weeks, and forced to put on a Baby Blue Marine uniform that shows that he just didn't have it to make the Corps. Humilitated and scorned wherever he went as he's going home to St. Louis and terrified what his family, whom his dad was in the Marine Corps in WWI, would think of him in that he couldn't "Cut the Mustard" as a US Marine. <br /><br />Hedg stopping in a bar and finds sitting next to him is a Marine member of the fearless and deadly Marine Raiders Richard Gere whom a admiring Hedge buys a beer. Making conversation with Richard Hedge is shocked to find out that not only is he being sent back to the Pacific Theater after all the battles he fought in, and combat medals he got, but the totally gray hair and mid-thirty looking Richard is going to be 21 next month! That's what being in the Marine Corps and WWII did to him! Buying Hedge a number of drinks Richard takes the drunk Baby Blue outside and knocks him out taking his Baby Blues and leaves his impressive US Marine uniform with some money in it for Hedge to ware. <br /><br />As soon as Hedge puts on Richard's uniform, that fits him perfectly, he's confronted by this big drunken US paratrooper who calls himself Cement-Head wanting to have a fist fight with the Marine Raider. Hedge doing everything he can to avoid trouble is forced by Cement-Head to belt him, after he himself cracked two beer bottle over his cement-head, to get himself warmed up for the big bout between Marine,Hedge, and Paratrooper, Cement-Head. Hedge incredibly floors the big cement headed buffoon knocking him out cold with one punch! "I guess the trick is not hitting him in on top of his head" a stunned Hedge tell his, Cement-Heads, fellow G.I's.<br /><br />Hitch-hiking to this small town of Bidwell Hedge notices this US Military internment camp for Japanese-Americans who are there because their considered a threat to US security. It's later in the movie that Hedge shows everyone what a real hero he is, not who the people in the town think he is, by risking his life to save one of the hated "Japs" who mindlessly together with two of his friends escaped from the interment camp, where the hell did they think they were going anyway? Hedge risked his life by saving the scared to death Japanese-American from drowning in the dangerous rapids outside the town. Hedge in his actions taught the people of Bidwell that not all "Japs", even those who are American citizens, are bad and treacherous banzai screaming suicidal kamikazes like they were thought by the newspapers magazines and movies at the time to think that they were.<br /><br />Hedge strikes up a conversation with the very cute and pretty waitress at the local diner Rose Hudkins, Glynnis O'Connor,who's just crazy about him that even Hedge at first thinks that it's his uniform not him that impressed her. Later when Hedge admits to Rose that he's not what she and her parents think,A US Marine Raider,that he is Rose had by then gotten to know the sweet and caring washed-out marine so well that it didn't matter to her at all what he was supposed to be, a Marine a Paratrooper or a Post Office worker, it was what was inside his heart that really counted.<br /><br />The film has a number of touching and beautiful scenes in it between Hedge and Rose that shows how movies used to be made years ago without all the sex and profanity that we see and hear in movies today that involved two people in love with each other.<br /><br />The way the film accurately, not phony baloney, shows the true feelings of average Americans, back then in 1943, about the war in general and Japanese in particular couldn't have been done in more authentic and accurate as well as good taste. "Baby Blur Marine" does it's best not to be too politically correct in not showing the hero's or leading actors and actresses in the film having the same feelings and ideas back then during WWII as most people have now, which would have come across as phony as a three dollar bill, to those people watching the film who lived during those historic and momentous times when the film was to take place. | 1 |
13,446 | [
900,
1000
] | 785 | 935 | This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called "Big Fat Liar". When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it. | 1 |
13,523 | [
900,
1000
] | 652 | 903 | The first of the Italian rip-offs of the French soft porn blockbuster (though it might be interesting to note that the boot-shaped country actually got their first with Cesare Canevari's 1968 IO, EMMANUELLE starring Erika Blanc) is a very different kettle of fish than the sleazy sequels provided by the late, questionably great Joe D'Amato. It is much closer in spirit to the now very dated Just Jaeckin film from 1973, taking a pokerfaced look at male/female relationships, questioning such then hot topics as fidelity and jealousy, all in luxurious exotic surroundings. Unlike D'Amato, director Albert Thomas (aka Adalberto Albertini, who also made the hard to find YELLOW EMANUELLE, actually a sexed-up version of MADAME BUTTERFLY !) does not present us with predatory drug lords, snuff movie makers or rampaging cannibals, making for an admittedly less sensational yet far more erotic viewing experience.<br /><br />Photo journalist Mae Jordan aka 'Emanuelle' (lovely Java-born Laura Gemser in her first lead role following bit parts as a Thai masseuse in EMMANUELLE 2 and an 'unspoilt native' in Just Jaeckin's portion of the rarely seen COLLECTIONS PRIVEES) flies down to Nairobi where she's to shoot the stills accompanying an article by noted British writer Anne, played by the very Teutonic Karin Schubert with a butch haircut that takes some getting used to. Anne shares an 'open relationship' (remember when this was made) with her Italian husband Gianni (Angelo Infanti), meaning that both pretty much jump anything with a pulse. Contrary to her subsequent reputation, Emanuelle appears positively reticent compared to her heavy breathing hosts, smoldering seductively at Gianni by way of foreplay until the exquisitely tantalizing pay-off. Okay, so she does make up for this lack of wantonness at the end when she does an entire male hockey team on the train. I kid you not.<br /><br />Production on this sexploitation classic is quite impressive, especially the superb cinematography. And Nico Fidenco's musical theme is a solid favorite of anyone with more than a passing interest in the genre, a hilarious Eurotrash pop ditty (try to make out those totally nonsensical lyrics and have a full evening's worth of fun with the family !) that turns up throughout the entire film in every conceivable type of rendition from slow 'n' sexy to hip-gyrating disco.<br /><br />This is entirely Laura Gemser's show though. Billed simply as 'Emanuelle' (as was another actress on the same director's elusive EMANUELLE NERA 2), she lights up the screen from start to finish. Not yet submitted to endless rape scenarios (as she would be once D'Amato took over), she seems much more relaxed than in later films, even smiling from time to time, a rare occasion as anyone who has seen some of the lady's work surely knows. A flawless Eurasian rather than as the title suggests black beauty (she hails from Dutch India now Indonesia and is actually quite close in physical appearance to the supposed author of the novel Emmanuelle Arsan), she projects a slightly passive, even submissive sensuality which somehow detaches her from the 'depravity' her morally corrupted cohorts indulge in. Unlike the French film, cheapskate moralizing is kept to a bare minimum, almost thrown in as an afterthought near film's end when Emanuelle tells Gianni that he hasn't lost her as he never possessed her to begin with. I swear you could hear audiences of the Just Jaeckin version groan whenever Alain Cuny's supremely irritating Mario showed up on screen as it meant we were in for too many minutes of halfbacks libertine philosophizing as an alibi for getting the divine Sylvia Kristel (now living in the Belgian capital of Brussels by the way...) to disrobe, the real reasons theaters were packed for years on end. Gemser's later husband, Gabriele Tinti (now deceased, she has remarried), appears on the sidelines as the constantly drunk 'Scottish' (huh ?) writer who forces himself briefly on Emanuelle amid the African ruins at some point, but no real sex scene though. | 1 |
13,654 | [
900,
1000
] | 733 | 928 | Following is a little-known 1998 British film, which was made with a budget of £8000 and has a running time of 70 minutes. When watching it, you'd never expect its director to go on to make it in Hollywood and become one of the most acclaimed and celebrated directors of the 21st Century well, everybody has to start somewhere I suppose.<br /><br />The director of Following, as you probably already know is Englishman Christopher Nolan, who directly after Following would go on to direct the critically-acclaimed independent film Memento; a few years later he would be hired by Warner Bros. to direct the new Batman series, which further brought him acclaim, and so on and so forth. My point is, everybody has to start somewhere even if it's not in the most astounding debut and Christopher Nolan introduces himself to the world in 1998 with Following.<br /><br />When watching it, I couldn't help but draw resemblances to another directorial debut, avant-garde auteur David Lynch's Eraserhead. Following is not a surrealist psychological horror film in that sense, but the similarities are noticeable; most notable, it's shot in grainy black-and-white and has an atmosphere about it that makes it unique. It's hard to describe in words, but it loosely resembles the smoky atmosphere you'd find in the film noirs of old. Hence, it can be said that Following is a contemporary film noir, or a neo-noir. Overall, it's an amalgamation of that and a psychological thriller, and the story is most appropriate to these two genres.<br /><br />The main character is nameless, and the movie's title stems from an early, obsessive-compulsive trait he possessed randomly picking out people on the street and following them, sometimes even for hours on end. During one of these 'stalking expeditions', the main character becomes noticed by one of the people he is following, and is confronted. Turns out that the 'confronter' is a man who is willing to befriend our narrator, and he introduces himself; his name is Cobb, and he's a petty burglar who invites the narrator to follow him on his burglaries.<br /><br />From there, the main character becomes swept up in Cobb's world, and he becomes embroiled in crime, passion and violence as he gets more and more intimate with Cobb. Following is not so much a character study, but instead a film which follows the tumultuous relationship between these two main characters, and the devastating ramifications it has on our narrator. Nolan succeeds in making the film resemble a film noir, and emulates the respective atmosphere well.<br /><br />As a thriller, Following is taut and atmospheric; however as a film in general, it's somewhat of a disappointment. If not that, then one could definitely call it underwhelming. The entire film is shot in a non-chronological and non-linear fashion, and it makes the story and film-experience unique, to some extent this style has been done so many times now it's almost commonplace technique and the story itself is unique to some extent.<br /><br />However, Following is ultimately underwhelming for the entire film, and is disappointingly unspectacular. The story calls for more more action, more suspense and more thrills but it becomes too embroiled in its own storyline, and instead focuses on creating an intricate story. Following does succeed in doing that, but without any other elements it's a film noir that doesn't quite work out; it's got a sense of emptiness which isn't enormous, but still noticeable nonetheless. Furthermore, the film's shocking revelation at the end almost a mandatory convention in film noirs is one that makes us feel cheated; it's unpredictable and comes out of nowhere, but in relation to the story it's disappointing, as it essentially makes the preceding scenes, and the entire film, seem like an enormous waste of time.<br /><br />But the positives far outweigh the negatives, and in the end Following turns out to be a flawed but satisfying film, Yes, everybody has to start somewhere. Christopher Nolan does it with Following, and he does it in a fine manner. A quiet, meek but fine manner. It's not the most astounding movie, and it isn't quite worthy of the accolades the director would go on to receive in the following decade, but it's still a good film nonetheless. When singling out Following, you find a well-made, taut and atmospheric thriller, one which lacks noticeable nuance or innovative style but still manages to grip audiences nonetheless. | 1 |
13,719 | [
900,
1000
] | 745 | 993 | WrestleMania 6 took place April 1, 1990 at the SkyDome in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.<br /><br />Match 1: Rick Martel vs. Koko B. Ware - For what it was, a very solid opening match. Koko was always fairly popular with the fans, and at this point Martel was still getting over as a heel talent. In the end Martel is able to snag the win in a pretty non memorable match.<br /><br />Match 2: The Colossal Connection (Andre The Giant & Haku) (c) (with Bobby 'The Brain' Heenan) vs Demolition (Ax & Smash) for the WWF Tag Team Championship - At this point Andre's health was really awful, so his performance was really nothing special. The crowd is 100% pro Demolition in this match. In the end Haku is pinned and we have New Tag Team Champions. After the match Andre lays out Haku and Heenan and turns face at what would turn out to be his last WrestleMania.<br /><br />Match 3: Earthquack vs Hercules - Very short match. Big dominant heels were really a popular thing at the time. R.I.P. to both men in the match. John Tenta (Earthquake) passed not that long ago and same with Hercules. In the end Earthquake pins Hercules for the win.<br /><br />Match 4: Mr. Perfect vs Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake - The first really good match of the night. R.I.P. to Curt Henning (Mr. Perfect). Really solid back and forth action from both of these talented guys. In the end Brutus gets the win thanks to a lot of his major fan support during the match.<br /><br />Match 5: 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper vs Bad News Brown - Not a technical classic, but a pretty decent brawl for WrestleMania. Piper comes out half black/half white in what is considerably a classic moment. In the end both guys fight to a double count out with no clear cut winner.<br /><br />Match 6: The Hart Foundation vs The Bolsheviks - Complete squash match. The Hart Foundation gets an easy win. Surprising that WWE used to have a tag team division.<br /><br />Match 7: The Barbarian vs Tito Santana - Bobby Heenan's "Heenan Family" fairs better in this match as The Barbarian takes the win against Tito Santana. Not memorable, but good to go back and watch years later.<br /><br />Match 8: Randy Savage & Sensational Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes & Sapphire - Big inter-gender tag team match. Dusty Rhodes wears the uncomfortable polka dot outfit out to the ring. In the end Rhodes and Sapphire get the win over "The Macho King" and Sensational Queen Sherri.<br /><br />Match 9: The Rockers vs The Orient Express - Surprisingly another tag team match. Tag wrestling used to be so much better during this time period. A young Shawn Michaels and his partner Marty Jannetty take a loss by count out in this match to the Orient Express.<br /><br />Match 10: Dino Bravo vs Jim Duggan - Duggan gets a decent reaction, despite his American Patriot gimmick. Bravo, a member of Jimmy Hart's group, comes to the ring with Hart and Earthquake. Although he has support, Duggan takes the win.<br /><br />Match 11: "The Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase (c) vs Jake 'The Snake' Roberts for the Million Dollar Championship - The first major main event of the night. Roberts was extremely over with the fans. Match was considerably good for what it was. DiBiase is able to pick up a count out win on Roberts. But Roberts ends up possessing DiBiase's money and giving it away.<br /><br />Match 12: The Big Boss Man vs Akeem (with Slick) - One Man Gang's sad attempt at being an African Dream named Akeem. A really short match that needed some more time to develop itself as a match. Boss Man wins with a slam.<br /><br />Match 13: Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka vs Rick Rude - Heenan comes to the ring with Rude for this match. Snuka, never really got it good at WrestleMania. He always seemed to be on the losing end. After a short 5 minutes, Rude gets the win over Snuka.<br /><br />Match 14: WWF Champion Hulk Hogan vs Intercontinental Champion The Ultimate Warrior - Dubbed as "The Ultimate Challenge" we get some interesting promos from both men earlier in the night. The match was actually very good, given that people tend to think Hogan can't wrestle. A lot of near falls that really got the crowd and people that watch at home into it. In the end Warrior gets the win on Hogan and wins both titles. A stunned crowd looks on as Hulk Hogan suffers his first loss at WrestleMania. | 1 |
13,811 | [
900,
1000
] | 731 | 923 | i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the way... where is the sequel!!!<br /><br />the budget is obviously extremely low... but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a 'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI fights (starwars).<br /><br />The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10 years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story.<br /><br />The acting is good, except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control? <br /><br />Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery, get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not star wars/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening. <br /><br />In fact, I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene. <br /><br />OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The 'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end? This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy rest'<br /><br />Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end. | 1 |
13,958 | [
900,
1000
] | 818 | 976 | The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time.<br /><br />However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s.<br /><br />MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan Atkinson.<br /><br />Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context.<br /><br />Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends, rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve.<br /><br />Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always reassuring.<br /><br />Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years, MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have come, gone and been forgotten.<br /><br />Some critics claim the show only appeals to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they did the first time.<br /><br />The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen. The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie). As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt.<br /><br />Returning to the TV series, each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable and well ahead of the two movies.<br /><br />My favourite episodes are the first three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless.<br /><br />To summarise, MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series. | 1 |
13,993 | [
900,
1000
] | 723 | 926 | I am fifteen years old and have seen thirty-three of Sinatra's films (not counting videos of TV shows and documentaries) and have been unimpressed by only two of them. ''Till the Clouds Roll By," and "The Miracle of the Bells" don't really count, however, considering that in the first all he does is sing a magnificent "Ol' Man River," and in the latter he's not half bad-only the picture is pathetic. My favorite records, radio shows, TV shows, and movies concerning Sinatra change virtually every day-everything taking on a different connotation at each viewing and occasionally seeming the best thing he ever did and occasionally the worst until the cycle comes around again, but there are a couple things that are beyond comparison. When it comes to movies, "The Man with the Golden Arm" heads that list. Everybody who knows anything about Sinatra knows he thought this was his best-ever performance; he was Oscar-nominated; it was the first serious look at drug addiction; etc.,etc. The jazz score is unforgettable, Kim Novak's likable despite a ludicrous accent, Eleanor Parker is annoying and waaaay too dramatic, the turtle-like Arnold Stang is amusing the first time but more embarrassing every time out, and Darren McGavin makes a wonderfully slimy drug dealer, the sets are unconvincing - at first glance it seems a peculiar mixed bag tossed together by the great Otto Preminger with an off-center charm. <br /><br />Then you come to Sinatra. Like everything else in his life - other than music - reports of his acting are alway divided in half. Directors like Fred Zinnemann, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, and Otto Preminger, all agreed that had Sinatra worked as hard on his films as he did on singing, he'd have been among the greatest actors in the world - if not THE greatest. Humphrey Bogart even said,"This guy has the most natural acting talent I've ever seen." Not bad for a man who never took an acting lesson in his life, was at the same time producing the discography that would make him "the greatest singer of the 20th Century," and did almost all his scenes in one take. <br /><br />In direct conflict with all of this are those other reviews and biographies that sniff haughtily about what a lousy actor was this Mr.Sinatra, and how many "bad" movies he made. The question will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction because controversy was among Sinatra's greatest assets, and both arguments were in a sense playing into his hand. In any case, at this time, in this role, Sinatra is magnificent. A reviewer said in the late fifties,"Sinatra may not be the greatest actor in the world, but there is none more fascinating to watch." No matter what Sinatra is doing in a film, it's hard to take your eyes off him. This, of course, is a "charisma," that I've only seen in a handful of other people-Orson Welles, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift-perhaps James Cagney. There's no real definition for it and it often makes it hard to figure out whether you're really enjoying a performance or just spellbound, but that quality on display here is what makes the movie. Sinatra is downright riveting, real, intense - transcending decades and thousands of paper-doll pop stars with something called quality. Like it or not, this is a one-man show with a few character actors hanging around in the background. He covers every emotion with remarkable subtlety, from sweet, lonely tenderness with Kim Novak to the terrifying shock of Frank Sinatra (Frank Sinatra!) whimpering and screaming in the agony of "cold turkey." Sinatra was right - this is his best performance. No question. <br /><br />I was eight when Frank Sinatra died. I wasn't around for all the years of bobby-soxers and ''Anchors Aweigh,'' Mr. Ava Gardner and ''From Here to Eternity," albums with lamp posts and ''swingin' lovers," Kennedy, Vegas, ring-a- ding ding. Basie and Mia and Reagan and concerts from Madison Square Garden to South Africa to the White House to the Sands. I can't say I like Sinatra because I heard him at the Paramount or because I hear "September of My Years" autobiographically-the usual excuses. And my excuse? When I was eleven I watched a movie called "On the Town"... | 1 |
14,167 | [
900,
1000
] | 702 | 947 | After the across-the-board success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, CBS television permitted Barbra to create an even more elaborate follow-up as her second special. Streisand wisely knew, in order to follow in the ground-breaking success of MY NAME IS BARBRA, that her second special would indeed need to raise the bar even further in inventiveness and spectacle. Not surprisingly, she succeeded once again. Even more impressively, Streisand managed to mount this large production without sacrificing the intimacy and vision of MY NAME IS BARBRA.<br /><br />Once again, the special is divided into three distinct Acts. Filming on location at Bergdorf Goodman's department store was so successful in the first special, that Streisand and company decided to film on location once again for the first Act of this second special. The decided-upon location this time was the Philadelphia Art Museum, which would allow endless chances for Barbra to "enter" different art works that would correspond with the songs being performed. In addition to the numerous artistic possibilities that this location made possible, the museum would offer the perfect opportunity to take advantage of filming in color.<br /><br />After the recording of "Draw Me a Circle" that is set against the opening credits, Barbra then dashes around the museum in a maid costume to the strains of Kern and Harbach's "Yesterdays." She stops to admire various paintings and statues, often becoming the character that is depicted and singing a thematically appropriate song. Streisand performs a bittersweet rendition of Hammerstein and Romberg's "One Kiss" as Thomas Eakin's CONCERT SINGER, delivers a hilariously campy performance of Chopin's "Minute Waltz" as Marie Antoinette, embraces abstract art with the frenetic rhythm of Peter Matz's "Gotta Move," and performs a wrenching rendition of "Non C'est Rien" as a distraught Modigliani girl. The high point of Act I, however, is when Streisand compares profiles with the bust sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, while singing a tour de force rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When." The Act II circus medley allows Streisand to interact with various farm and circus animals, while singing various songs with farm/circus/animal themes. Some highlights include Barbra singing "Were Thine That Special Face" to a baby elephant, performing "I've Grown Accustomed to that Face" as a serenade to a piglet, the campy "Sam, You Made the Pants to Long" sung to a group of baby penguins, and Barbra comparing profiles with an anteater while crooning "We Have So Much in Common." Streisand also swings on a trapeze and leaps from a trampoline to the chorus of "Spring Again," and then slows things down by performing a haunting version of "I Stayed Too Long at the Fair" while seated alone on stage. Barbra also gets the chance to show off her pet poodle Sadie in this segment, and even speak a little French.<br /><br />The Act III concert is once again the high point of the hour. Dressed in a slenderizing white wool dress, the concert segment is performed on a uniquely-designed stage with a partial staircase that leads nowhere. Streisand opens the Act with a sultry rendition of Harold Arlen's "Anyplace I Hang My Hat Is Home," before launching into heartfelt versions of the familiar standard "It Had to Be You" and the rarely-heard "C'est Si Bon (It's So Good)." Streisand then really amazes the audience with a breathtakingly powerful, octave-soaring performance of the Sweet Charity ballad "Where Am I Going," of which Streisand delivers the definitive rendition of. Streisand also introduces the then-newly written Richard Maltby, Jr.-David Shire ballad "Starting Here, Starting Now," which contains an impassioned vocal from Streisand that ranks among the very best vocal performances of her long career.<br /><br />More than anything else, Color Me Barbra was a showcase for Streisand's ever-increasing, mega-watt star power. Despite the presence of even more visual razzle-dazzle, Streisand herself is always the main attraction. Her voice sounds as beautiful as ever, and this special was the first to showcase how strikingly she photographs in color. As with MY NAME IS BARBRA, COLOR ME BARBRA was another rating-smash and spawned yet another Top-Five, Gold-selling soundtrack album. Simply put, COLOR ME BARBRA defies tradition and emerges as a sequel that is nearly on par with a classic original. | 1 |
14,431 | [
900,
1000
] | 759 | 960 | ROCK STAR / (2001) *** (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> "Rock Star" is the story of a nobody who becomes propelled into fame, only to realize living his dream is not the way he imagined it. We have seen all this before (in better movies), but this human story does capture the world of rock and roll with a brutally honest and insightful edge. It garners a recommendation because of its visualization of the atmosphere. The script, by "Crazy/Beautiful" director John Stockwell, portrays the hard-core universe with memorable images-it doesn't explain what it is about, it shows us.<br /><br /> "Rock Star," originally titled "Metal God," stars Mark Wahlberg as Chris "Izzy" Cole, a Pittsburgh office supplies salesperson who dreams of becoming Bobby Beers, the fiery lead singer for the heavy metal rock group, Steel Dragon. Although Chris already sings for his own tribute rock group called Blood Pollution, instead of writing his own songs, he insists on performing only those by Steel Dragon, and only in the exact way they perform them. His group becomes irritated with Chris' obsessions and gives him the boot.<br /><br /> This devastates Chris, as well as his supportive parents and faithful girlfriend, Emily (Jennifer Aniston from TV's "Friends"). He then receives a phone call. It's the Steel Dragon band. They have seen Chris' tapes and want him to replace the recently fired lead singer. In an instant, Chris rockets into the dizzying world of sudden stardom-from the biggest rock fan to the biggest rock star. Unfortunately, it's not as rewarding as he expected.<br /><br /> A true story inspired the "Rock Star" concept. An Ohio supply salesman, Tim "Ripper" Owens, really did replace Rob Halford, the lead singer in Judas Priest, after initially singing for a tribute band. The rest of the film is probably fiction, although most of what happens must represent the experiences of many other bands. The film details the various ordeals of being a rock star. It explores the aspects of touring, personality differences, the danger of drug abuse and violence, struggling relationships, sexual freedom, dishonesty, and the extreme measures of the producers all to please the fans and keep popularity high. <br /><br />I have seen all of Mark Wahlberg's movies, and this is the first that has earned my affection. Wahlberg, a former singer/model, has made movies like "Fear," "Boogie Nights" "Three Kings," and most recently Tim Burton's lacking remake "Planet of the Apes." I am starting to admire the young actor more and more. Although he has not performed in many successful films, he has taken many chances, and done a variety of roles. "Rock Star" is his best film to date. I can't think of many actors who could have convincingly portrayed Chris Cole's struggles and aspirations. Wahlberg truly makes "Rock Star" rock. <br /><br />Jennifer Aniston lights up the screen as well. She creates a chemistry-rich relationship with Chris that induces audience participation. It's tragic of what happens to their relationship. We care about these characters a great deal. <br /><br />During the film concert scenes, director Stephen Herek (who also directed "Holy Man" and the live action version of "101 Dalmatians") creates a gripping atmosphere. He captures the scenes with an intense urgency, and a raw, unmistakable energy. The musical numbers provide the film with the best, most involving scenes. <br /><br />Unfortunately Herek cannot sustain the energy and zest throughout. At the three-quarters mark, he looses the spark as the movie becomes dull and unpleasant. I understand where the story needs to go in order to portray the negative side of fame, but this movie loses everything it previously had going for it. In "Almost Famous," a much better film about rock and roll, there is a certain amount of interest and life in even the most sorrowful scenes. Here, it feels as if the filmmakers lose their passion.<br /><br />The message comes a bit too late and suddenly in the story. The film turns into a morality tale that wants to provide us with a sappy destination. The filmmakers might as well stop everything, appear on screen and say: "now audience, the moral of the story is
" We understand the theme, but it's too instantaneous. The personal discovery for Chris' must be gradual.<br /><br />Fortunately, all of this happens in the last twenty-five minutes of the film, hardly enough to completely destroy an entire eighty-five minutes of a reasonably good feature. "Rock Star" is not a great movie-see "Almost Famous" if you want a remarkable film about rock and roll-but for Marky Mark, it's a turning point in his career. <br /><br /> | 1 |
14,517 | [
900,
1000
] | 764 | 958 | Loosely based on actual events, "River's Edge" is a film, much in the style of David Lynch, about a group of teenagers who are aware of a murder committed by one of their friends, but no one does anything about it for a long time. With top notch acting by Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper, we are able to forgive the average acting by everyone else in the film.<br /><br />The film begins with a young boy, Tim (Joshua John Miller), dropping a doll off of a bridge (murder #1). Tim then hears someone yelling, when he looks up he sees Samson (Daniel Roebuck) standing on the bank of the river with the dead naked body of his girlfriend behind him (murder #2). Samson eventually shows the body to his friends. All of which are horrified, not only because of the murder, but also because the victim, Jamie (Danyi Deats), was a friend of theirs. Despite all of this, no one goes to the police. You may think this is unrealistic, but this is what happened in the real story. If you are familiar with the story of "Alpha Dog" (2006) you will know that the same thing happened there as well. Through all of this, Layne (Crispin Glover) is working to keep Samson safe, although no one (including Samson) seems to care about keeping him out of harms way. As time goes on we learn that Feck (Dennis Hopper), a middle aged shut in who deals drugs to the local teenagers, has also killed a woman before (murder #3). From here things begin to close in on Samson and his friends and eventually everything is revealed, but not in the way you may be expecting.<br /><br />In the film we learn of three murders, each one with a different reason, a different reaction, and a different effect on those involved. When Tim drops his younger sister's doll off of the bridge, we are never made aware of his motive. However, we do see the reaction of the younger sister. She cries and screams while her mother consoles her. Later, her older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), helps her put a cross in the yard in remembrance of her doll. The murder of Jamie horrifies everyone (except Samson who is apathetic to the whole situation, and when asked by Layne why he did it, Samson replies with, "She was talking sh*t."), but they do not sob or scream, the run away and go on with their lives trying to forget what had happened. In Feck's situation, he did not kill his girlfriend out of hate. We never really know why he killed her, but we see that Feck is not proud of what he had done. He even mentions that he is sorry, and that her loved her. From this we see the different ways we can be affected by death. In the film, it is easy for us to identify with the teenagers, because they do not know what they feel, or how they should feel about the death of their friend. In much the same way, we, the audience, do not know how to feel, because we do not know Jamie. We are obviously saddened by the death and realize that Samson should be arrested, but we don't feel strongly for Jamie as an individual.<br /><br />There are several similarities between "River's Edge" and "Twin Peaks" (1990-1991), especially in the overall feel of the film. I wonder if Mark Frost and David Lynch were thinking of "River's Edge" when they were creating their series. After all, Tim Hunter did go on to direct three episodes of "Twin Peaks".<br /><br />Crispin Glover's performance as the hyperactive, frantic Layne is an Oscar worthy performance. Always in a rush and always worried about keeping Samson from getting caught, Layne is an intense character that seems to be on speed. If you have seen Crispin Glover in any film, you know that he can deliver a line like no one else. It is always a treat to see him perform. The other great performance in "River's Edge" is by Dennis Hopper. His portrayal of Feck, the shut in drug dealer who has one leg and an inflatable sex doll he talks to named Elly, reminded me of a more toned down and more humorous version of Frank Booth, Hopper's character in David Lynch's film, "Blue Velvet" (1986).<br /><br />River's Edge is great film and I believe it shows us how easy it is to be apathetic, when in reality we need to step up and speak out against the evils in the world. | 1 |
14,576 | [
900,
1000
] | 784 | 944 | I saw Heaven's Gate on its opening week nearly twenty years ago. Tickets were sold in advance based on the great anticipation of seeing Cimino's long in the making follow up to his 1978 masterpiece "The Deerhunter." The reviews came in and critics trashed the film with vehemence. An influential New York film critic led the way and most critics followed suit, and the 3hr. 40-min. film was pulled from distribution. United Artists had Cimino shorten the film by about an hour and it was re-released many months later to equally horrible reviews and to dismal business. The film at that time cost about 40 million dollars (now considered low budget) making it one of the most expensive in history and Cimino had free rein on the project with endless retakes despite it being only his third film. "The Deerhunter" had also received a negative backlash based on a perceived political ideology, which was not popular. I mention all this to present a possible bias building up against Cimino. At the time I thought the film was very good and when I saw the shorter version it was still very good only less so. The film showed up again in a museum in the early 1990's. They were supposed to show the long version but they could not find an existing print. Nevertheless, seeing the film years later I now thought Heaven's Gate was a masterpiece. Finally, the long version started to appear in a few select cities, I got to see it recently and it was well worth the wait. Heaven's Gate begins with the graduation ceremony at Harvard University. Two of the graduates are Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt and we some of the flaws in their characters early on. Despite the mandate Joseph Cotton gives in his speech to the graduating class to use their education to enlighten and improve their country, many of the graduates behave as if they are part of an elite country club. The film flashes ahead 20 years to Johnson County in Wyoming. A cattle company called "the Stockholders Association" has hired poor people to shoot 125 poor immigrants claiming they are cattle thieves. Kristofferson sides with the immigrants while John Hurt is part of the Association. Although Hurt is totally against this insane action he is too ineffectual a character to do anything about it. A massacre takes place but the immigrants do well in defending themselves. A United States Cavalry comes to the rescue of the Association to allegedly arrest them after most of the damage has been done when in fact they sanctioned the mass killing. Kristofferson also suffers a great personal loss and the film ends with him years later as part of the elite class of his Harvard days married, bored, on a yacht, living but dead on the inside.<br /><br />This is a very complex film which is brilliant in every department such as it's themes, structure, direction, cinematography, writing, music, editing, set designs, and acting. Kristofferson, Walken, Hurt, Huppert, Dourif, Bridges, Waterston, and Cotton are all excellent portraying very complex characters. Some of the major complaints I read about this film state that is ugly to look at, incoherent, too long, that the characters make no sense and that the words are often unintelligible. In its defense, Heaven's Gate has the look of photographs of that period just as "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" did. Some of the scenes are smoky looking to suggest the industrial revolution or sometimes horses, wagons, people are passing by from all sides creating a sense of reality.(The critic who called it one of the ugliest movies ever made likes to use his thumbs a lot.) But in spite of all that, the composition of each frame and the cinematography are impeccable. The film makes a great deal of sense if you pay attention to it. Everything is not spelled out for the viewer and one has to observe closely to understand the motivations of the characters or its themes. As to its length, it is a beautifully structured piece, at times moving, poetic, exhilarating, or devastating with virtually one great scene following another. At times some of the words are unintelligible especially in some of the scenes bustling with activity. But one could understand such a cinematic film as this through its use of film language, the glances between characters or their actions. One day soon this film should be re-released in its full length so that people and critics could give it a second chance. Do not let Michael Cimino become another Orson Welles- under appreciated in his lifetime and not able to make the kinds of great films he is capable of making. | 1 |
14,939 | [
900,
1000
] | 829 | 984 | Ramin Bahrani sets up a scene early on in Chop Shop that immediately had me identifying with where the character of Ale (Alejandro Polanco) and his friend were coming from. The two of them get on a subway, and as soon as the doors close they ask if they could have everyone's attention for a moment, and that they are selling candy bars or M&M's or something, and then they proceed to sell some bars. If you (as I) have ever been on a subway in New York city, at any time, this is the kind of situation that happens so often you almost don't notice it. Often the people on a subway will see kids like these or minorities selling something or announcing and talking about something on a subway and not pay them any mind. Bahrani's focus isn't necessarily just on kids who hock things for sale on subway rides, but on survival and the state of being one is in when in the lower class in America. It is, subsequently in his hands, thoughtful and heartbreaking, usually at once.<br /><br />To compare it to Pixote or the Bicycle Thief isn't too far of a leap (actually in the latter at least the father and son have each other), though Bahrani is specific in his intentions in his documentary style. We care about this character Ali, no older than eleven and working in a car shop cleaning some cars and helping take apart others, and his sister who comes from out of town to stay with him. But it's not simply because we're force-fed any clichés, aside from, you know, a brother and sister (more-so the brother) trying to take care of one another. Bahrani makes the story accessible through the simple aspiration Ali has, the kind of goal that is possible attainable in his situation: saving up enough to buy a used food truck that Ali and Isamar can operate themselves.<br /><br />It's all Ali is working for, but what Bahrani shows us in brutal detail is this work, what Ali has to do to make it happen even if its distasteful things like ripping hubcaps off of tires from cars in Shea Stadium or, at one point, stealing a purse in a desperate moment. This makes it all the more serious an issue when Ale sees what his sister does for money on the side at night, doing sexual favors for men in an abandoned truck on the side of the road. He doesn't mention it and pushes it aside, but its always something that adds to the tension, something Ale wants to protect his sister from. It adds to the tragedy when Ale finds out the real cost of what it will take to make the food truck into a profit-maker, a cost that just further adds to the anguish that he just internalizes.<br /><br />One could look immediately at the fact that Ale is an orphan in such a neighborhood as the one in the area of Queens the film was shot in- naturally, as with a work of neo-neo realism (lets just call it realism), featuring practically all non-professional actors in the parts of the mechanics and workers and people on the streets- but Bahrani is focused more-so on the here and the now, and that is what makes Chop Shop so immediate and heartfelt. Not a trace of melodrama is in the film, barely even music accompaniment aside from the live Latino music coming from the cars and radios. Sometimes Bahrani will focus on a very subtle moment that makes it pronounced in further scenes, like the way Ale is awake but acts like he's asleep the first night after he witnesses Isamar's late-night tryst, and we see as she slinks into bed she probably knows he's awake but neither can say a word. Or, in a lot of other scenes, poetic touches that seem seamless, like when the man shows Ale how feeding the pigeons work.<br /><br />It's rough and gritty, as you can expect, and it doesn't give much hope for its main characters despite the few moments of happiness sprinkled about. It's also a superbly shot hand-held film, where the technique, as with a lot of movies made in its urban-set tone and approach, informs and compliment the subjects on screen and what they're doing, but it also is never recklessly shot or too flashy. The filmmaker has a superb 'real-life' cast (Ale was plucked from a NYC public school without any experience) and knows how to not waste a shot, while at the same time achieve a brutal artistry with just showing what he shows. It's not City of God or Pixote; it's its own little masterpiece on a character or characters we usually would just not give a second look to (or a first one barely) on our way in a city such as New York. If you're not moved by Ale and his daily struggles, I don't know what to do for you. | 1 |
15,001 | [
900,
1000
] | 757 | 906 | It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.<br /><br />The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an american flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.<br /><br />The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by european film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a european film crew allowed to film those things.<br /><br />There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophists, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.<br /><br />These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of "watching their language" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intendend they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.<br /><br />The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand this free days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since they is no real difference.<br /><br />The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. These is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even is this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.<br /><br />To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional goverment nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And such a film is banned. Think about it when you see the american flag the next time. | 1 |
15,164 | [
900,
1000
] | 762 | 923 | If you've been looking for a film where a out of control nympho gets chained to a radiator by an extremely religious southern man then look no further than Paramount Vantage's latest release 'Black Snake Moan'. Not exactly looking for what I just described you say? Well then, you best get ya wits 'bout yaself and mosey on down to your local theater and still see it as Samuel L. Jackson's character Lazarus would say. As long as you're open minded and don't take everything seriously, there's no reason you won't leave the theater glad you saw it.<br /><br />In the third offering from director Craig Brewer, we are taken into the deep south where as the tagline to the film claims, everything is hotter. While there we're introduced to the Godfearing bluesman, Lazarus as previously said played by Jackson, and the almost always half naked Rae; a role bravely taken on by Christina Ricci. In the film this unlikely pair cross paths long enough for their characters to each learn a lesson from one another. Both lessons ultimately convey the message to us the audience that no matter what, we are all human. No one is perfect and if everyone would realize that, then we'd be a lot better off. The question of if this will be understood, or be accepted by all who see the film is another story.<br /><br />One thing not up for debate is how great Jackson and Ricci both are here. You'd think with the role of a sex-crazed woman, overacting would be a given, but no, not here. Ricci breaks through and demonstrates true talent with a raw performance that also doubles as her best to date. Then we have Jackson who completely disappears and for the first time in a long time makes us forget who he even is. Sadly, the third star of the film, Justin Timberlake who plays Rae's military-bound boyfriend isn't all that great. At the start, he fails miserably as he appears to be trying too hard. Later on he steps it up some, still he's far from the level he reached in January's 'Alpha Dog'.<br /><br />The other thing 'Black Snake Moan' boasts is a splendid soundtrack. Containing tracks from The Black Keys, John Doe, pieces from the score done by Scott Bomar, & of course four, count 'em, four tracks from Jackson himself. It's actually one of his songs, the main performance of the film, 'Stackolee' that is the fuel to the fire of this great collection. It alone is worth the ticket price. Other notable musical delights from the soundtrack are Bomar's 'The Chain', 'When the Lights Go Out' from the Black Keys, & the title track which is also among the most memorable scenes in the film where Lazarus sings to Rae on a stormy night.<br /><br />The efforts of Craig Brewer can't go without mention though. His last film 'Hustle & Flow' which ended up surpassing low expectations and gaining critical acclaim put him on the map. What he has done with 'Black Snake Moan' will be what sets him apart from other newbies to the industry. He not only directed 'Moan', but also wrote its screenplay. The end result is a story that is surprising and clever. As you watch you feel like you know exactly where it's headed despite its valiant composure. Just as you think you've predicted the next move Brewer shifts gears and takes an entirely different route. There are however some blotches within the screenplay. The background characters are drab and flat while the ending is somewhat disappointing. It left me craving for something more exciting. After so many highs I guess the final scenes were a tad weak compared to the rest of the film.<br /><br />I imagine the majority of people who see 'Black Snake Moan' won't enjoy it due to the fact they won't be able to stop themselves from thinking how unlikely the situations are. The depressing part about that is there are many other films with just as unlikely, even more outrageous scenarios that are widely well received. It's the issues of race, religious motives, & sexuality the film exhibits that will have more effect on opinion than anything. The idea of a black man chaining a white woman up in his house is enough to make most people not even consider seeing it. Simply put, it's not for everyone. Like I said, to fully enjoy it you have to go in with an open mind, or else you're just wasting your money. For those of you who can do that, I highly recommend it. | 1 |
15,166 | [
900,
1000
] | 820 | 968 | Craig Brewer is now officially a writer/director for whom I will see any film by, no matter how bad it may look. His debut, Hustle and Flow, was one of my favorites from that year, with its emotionally charged storyline and realistic, fallible characters. I wasn't quite sure what I would end up thinking after seeing this sophomore effort. The cast seemed great, the trailer used music effectively, however, it seemed like there was a good chance it would cross into absurdity, and fast. Fortunately, Black Snake Moan hits all its marks dead-on. The acting is astonishing, the writing superb, and the editing style, as well as juxtaposed music, riveting the whole way. Brewer seems to be a master at getting his characters to have the right mix of both compassion and malice as they set forward on their paths toward redemption.<br /><br />The first moment I knew I was in for a treat was during the abbreviated credit sequence at the beginning. Like he did with Hustle and Flow, Brewer lays the music over the widescreen shots perfectly with simply titled fonts coming up statically. The 70's aesthetic was welcome and helped show that this would be another great character piece in the vain of those from that decade of some of cinema's best. From here we continued on with the short snippets into the lives of both Lazarus and Rae, each vignette mirroring the other while they journey to the fateful moment their paths finally cross. The editing between them was fluid and relevant rather than abruptly cutting before the scene felt finished with its purpose. Rae's boyfriend leaves for duty in the service and Laz's wife leaves him for his brother. Each feels the loneliness and reverts to what they know in that situationRae to sex and Laz to the bottle. Only when Rae is left for dead at the side of the road and her savior comes from his farm to take her in does the reasoning for their actions finally start to become clear.<br /><br />Samuel L. Jackson is fantastic as the older bluesman farmer trying to reconcile his life with God and that of the flesh and the pain it has brought him. There are the moments of stoic sternness as well as those of kindheartedness with his captive/patient. You never really look at the setup as comical or unrealistic because he sells what he is doing so well. Also, the character of Rae is not chained up for very long, despite what the trailers would have you believe. The situation starts a bit awkward until we see that the chaining was for her own good and is actually used for only a day or two. As for that chained girl, Christina Ricci really shines. I never really saw her as anything special, but this role is a true breakthrough for her. This girl is so troubled that her past sexual abuse has scarred her very deep down. Any time she is away from her love she starts seeing flashes of the man who took her childhood innocence away and itches to be touched by any man available to let the image go away. Her nymphomania is not for pleasure, but rather for survival from the haunting nightmares always hiding behind her eyelids. Ricci fully inhabits the role and shows all the emotional trauma to great effect and realism. Mention must also be made of Justin Timberlake, again showing some real acting talent. Where this guy came from I have no clue, but hopefully he will continue taking more films and steer away from the mostly crap music he churns out.<br /><br />While not as solid and consistent as Hustle and Flow, Moan still ranks equally to it, in my mind, because when it is on, it is spectacular. Towards the end we have a truly enthralling sequence with "This Little Light of Mine" singing out, and earlier, the interaction between captive and captor, when the chain is first introduced, shows some top-notch work. The truly magical moment, though, is when Jackson sings (yes that is him throughout, like it was Terrence Howard in Hustle) the titular song while a thunderstorm roars and the lights flicker. If I don't see a more beautifully shot sequence all year, I won't be surprised. What these two people do for each other is wonderful and shows what humanity is capable of. One thing I think I really enjoy with Brewer's work is the fact that he doesn't show sinners becoming redeemed heroes. Instead he shows us that no matter how bad you have been, or how bad life has been, everyone can strive for redemption and to be better people. We don't have saints here, but fallible people looking to right their ship. If the course stays true or if it falls back into darkness, no one really knows, but at least they can say that they tried as hard as they could. | 1 |
15,179 | [
900,
1000
] | 723 | 927 | I'm astounded and dismayed by the number of reviewers on this site who did not get the point of Black Snake Moan. It's not about black/white relationships or old/young relationships, though I think director Craig Brewer deliberately threw in both elements to tweak imagined taboos. It's not about sexual abuse or sex addiction, though Christina Ricci's character, Rae, typifies those. It's not about folk religion in the black community, though religion plays a large role. It's not a love story, though there are not one, but two happy couples at the end. And it's certainly not about the south, where "everything is hotter," though it's set in the south and it's undeniably hot; holy smokes, even the tag-line writers didn't get the point.<br /><br />Black Snake Moan is a parable about Mississippi Delta Blues; who feels them, who writes them, who plays them, what they're playing about, how it heals them.<br /><br />It's as though the film producers sat down with a blank slate and asked, "Ok, if we were going to help people understand what the Blues are really about, what would it look like?" So they set it in the rural south. Then they dream up two characters, one whose wife left him to live with his best friend, the other who goes off to war and his badly abused girl sleeps with everybody in town. Then, we throw in grizzled worldliness touched just a little by folk religion (they know Jesus wants their lives, and though they respect Him, they know they can't give Him that), some violence between men and women, and lots and lots of steamy sexual images, including -- ready to go over the top? -- a black man in a sleeveless undershirt holding a half-naked white girl captive on the end of a 40 lb chain. Fill it with authentic delta blues sounds, make it about a genuine blues picker, use music as the main healing element in the plot, slap clips of blues-man Son House on both ends, and Voila -- you have a modern parable about what the Blues are all about. Even the film's climax is not character conflict, but the whole town dancing steamy dances to hot, raunchy blues.<br /><br />Of course, there's a bit of a dilemma here. Rae (Ricci) is being destroyed by uncontrollable lust, and is being healed by Lazarus' (Jackson's) homey religion and steadfastness (and don't forget the chain.) But then, we're shown the restored Rae dancing raunchily to blues at the end. Is this an expression of a restored, healthy life force, or just more of the same trashy behavior that ruined her in the first place? Brewer wants it both ways, but blues really is about sex and violence, not to mention depression. I suppose he would say blues gives healthy expression to both (sex and violence) without unleashing either. I have my doubts.<br /><br />Not for the first time, Samuel L Jackson plays so well that we forget we're watching Samuel L Jackson; the man is unbelievably good. He even picks some of his own tunes in the film, and his playing is authentic, dirty, and hot. Christina Ricci isn't usually this good, either. Granted, half her job is done by the Costume That Wasn't There and her slinky figure, but she's a marvelous combination of cynical lust, rebellion, and vulnerability; bravo to her, she's arrived. I was impressed by the country preacher, John Cothran, Jr. I had to check the database to assure myself that he's a professional actor and not a genuine country minister.<br /><br />Parents need to be aware of what they're getting if their kids bring this one home. The language is pretty far off the charts, the first half-hour is full of graphic sex, and women are violated in a dozen ways during the course of the film (Lazarus means well and is decent, but honestly, chaining a woman to the radiator?) Plus, Ricci spends half the movie dressed for sex; if you've got teenage boys, they'll be licking the screen halfway into the film. I don't recommend this for kids of any age. Adults only, please.<br /><br />That being said, Black Snake Moan is informative and accurate about blues, folk religion, and sexual abuse, and tells a tale that's redemptive in lots of ways. It's unorthodox, but well worth the time. And, my goodness, is the sound track hot. | 1 |
15,183 | [
900,
1000
] | 785 | 992 | Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.<br /><br />As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with "once upon a time"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.<br /><br />But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.<br /><br />The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the "ultimate bad-ass". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.<br /><br />But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his "Black Snake Moan" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.<br /><br />And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.<br /><br />In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.<br /><br />It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet. | 1 |
15,275 | [
900,
1000
] | 758 | 927 | As everyone knows by now, 15 Park Avenue is the story of a schizophrenic girl and her half-sister.<br /><br />The manifestation of Schizophrenia is still viewed as being an illness which people often feel might disappear if ignored. There are also those, who, however far fetched it may seem when it's shown in the film, think that the illness manifests itself as a result of some sort of supernatural influence. I think Ms. Sen deserves a lot of praise for "15 Park Avenue". She has done a good turn, not only to the general public, but also to those who deal with schizophrenics ... relatives, social workers, psycho-analysts. The film actually helps in dispelling a lot of myths and misconceptions about the exact nature of this psychological disorder. I'm told that the film is largely based on her own personal experiences with a person very close to her, who suffers from this mental affliction. To that effect, I'm sure that none of what has been shown, is blown out of proportion ... on the contrary, it is a true representation of facts.<br /><br />The performances are good, on the whole, as can be expected. Konkona Sen Sharma, Shabana Azmi and of course Rahul Bose, are very good indeed. They emerge as very "real" characters ... credible enough for one to be able to identify with them at times. People may think me terribly queer, but I think there are moments when one can identify with Meethi as well! I suppose all of us have a streak of "insanity" inside us .... perhaps some more than others. These are the people who are singled out. After all, don't we all have our secret fantasies and dreams? Impossible ones, at times? Would we be dubbed as being "off our rockers" if people could glimpse into these areas of our minds? Would a person with low self-esteem, be considered a schizophrenic because he/she shuns company ... preferring instead to live in a world of his/her own because that's the only space where there is a sense of security?<br /><br />Konkona, as Meethi, is outstanding!! Her performance is so effortless ... she lives her part. She has shown the ability to lull the audience into forgetting the divide between reality and acting! A case in point is the part where she's distressed at the scene, shown on TV, of Saddam Hussein's arrest. Her reaction seems so uninhibited and intense ...as if she's really heart-broken at this tragedy! Her brand of Indian English too, is so spontaneous and natural. <br /><br />However, the same cannot be said for at least a couple of the other actors. Kanwaljeet and Waheeda Rehman, splendid actors both, seem ill at ease when delivering their dialogue in English. Their diction is less than perfect ... stilted and affected, the fact that they are making a supreme effort, becomes more than apparent. Their dialogue delivery is jarring and tends to break the smooth flow of the unfolding of the tale.<br /><br />The brutal rape of Meethi (Konkona), seems somewhat unnecessary. Any other incident would have sufficed just as well, I feel. The point here is that something triggers off the extreme manifestation of the illness. As the psychiatrist explains, one cannot, with any modicum of conviction or certainty, say that the incident of the rape was instrumental in bringing the hitherto latent propensity towards schizophrenia, to the fore. Then why are we subjected to the scene where Meethi lies bleeding and unconscious. Was Ms. Sen trying to make a social statement about the state of politics in our country, where the voice of the masses is silenced by a handful of people who resort to violence in order to stay in power?? If so, then the scene of the rape is warranted but not strictly in the context of the main body of the film.<br /><br />The ending seems somewhat abrupt. Is the audience expected to find a solution? Where does Meethi disappear to? Does Ms. Sen want us to feel that perhaps what the psychiatrist says about whose reality is more real and hence credible, holds true? In other words, is she trying to say that we are not without bias when judging who is on this side of the fine line between sanity and insanity? I'm not very sure.<br /><br />A thought-provoking film on the whole and well worth watching. However, IF you are the sort of person who likes things to be neat and tidy ... everything cut and dried, with a water-tight solution to each issue that comes up ... this film is clearly not meant for you! | 1 |
15,321 | [
900,
1000
] | 776 | 962 | As if reality shows like "American Idol" weren't enough, in which judges like Simon Cowell shoot razor-sharp barbs to contestants trying to make their mark on the music world -- barbs that many a time has reduced even outstanding singers to tears after what was deemed a "bad performance", now "America's Next Top Model" has for the past three years invaded the boob tube with its own version of "looking for the next big thing" in a business that values superficiality, concepts of beauty, and body dysmorphia.<br /><br />A concept created by Tyra Banks, who is also a judge in the show, it gathers some fifteen contestants from all walks of life and has them submit themselves to innumerable "tasks" in which they must prove their "talent" in front of the camera and subject themselves not only to the now departed Janice Dickinson (self-dubbed "American's First Supermodel") but the equally catty Jay Manuel and Nore Marin who may at one point focus on one girl not performing well and blithely rip her to shreds like it was bad morning coffee. Like in many other reality-based shows, each week one contestant is voted off and must pack her bags and immediately leave (a thing that they are reminded by Tyra at every turn). Of course, there is the bitchy tension between several of the more type-A females, female bonding, tears, dramatic swells of music in key moments, and some truly breathtaking pictures that transform erstwhile ordinary, pretty girls into unattainable goddesses.<br /><br />I'll have to admit, the show is a guilty pleasure. Maybe it's the state of mind I'm in, but I kept wondering where the vomitorium was in cases when the already thin girls would need to hurl to make the cut and look the way the judges and photographers and many fickle designers would feel was correct for the moment. Even so, it's drawn me in despite my previous paragraph, possibly because I've always had an interest in the fashion world and have always loved watching stunning women being made even more unworldly with make up and perfect lighting. But I wonder where are they going with these increasingly difficult photo shoots. It's as if they were competing with "Fear Factor". Shoots that look like re-enactments of fight scenes in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, shoots where the models have to pose underwater or in almost impossible situations, What's next: posing while tied to train tracks as an oncoming Amtrak roars upon them at 70 miles an hour? Or a shoot where they are underwater, chained, trying to set themselves free in record time while at the same time looking smashing in chiffon, and never, ever forgetting to smile their pearly whites at that camera? How about a "Pit and the Pendulum" version of a photo shoot?<br /><br />In one thing the show has to be given some kudos, and it's in a way akin to "American Idol". With this I'm probably going to justify the harshness of both shows, and its abrasive judges -- and essentially go against my initial paragraph. "America's Next Top Model" is a show that is an extended audition, like "American Idol", and in it the girls will get the sort of test treatment they will receive in the real world, where prospective designers and photographers, as monstrously fickle as they can be, will crush them to bits at the drop of a hat if they can't sell themselves the way they're expected to, and where one is asked to leave, another will supplant her with the necessary requirements. Which makes it a wonder that any girl would want to get into such a difficult media, but that's what dreams are made of.<br /><br />Going into its Fifth season it's been a major disappointment with the departure of Janice Dickinson; during her run she was a pretty tough barometer as to how the girls should walk, talk, emote, express themselves, and ultimately present themselves as a walking, living product that sells. With the cold addition of Twiggy I wonder where it will go from here -- Twiggy just can't replace the over-the-top temperament of Dickinson. So with Janice's absence the show has lost some of its edge and may even have signaled its slow demise, but in the meantime, it's still a catchy pleasure to watch, mindless entertainment on weeknights, if at all for the gorgeous visuals. If at all, it's the show that launched Adrienne Curry into the spotlight. Curry has made a name for herself due to facts that have less to do with modeling as much as her theatric love-affair with one time child actor Christopher Knight in their very own reality soap opera. | 1 |
15,334 | [
900,
1000
] | 730 | 999 | One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.<br /><br />Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.<br /><br />Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.<br /><br />No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?<br /><br />Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.<br /><br />Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.<br /><br />Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.<br /><br />To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.<br /><br />And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.