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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20,871 | [
1100,
1200
] | 982 | 1,191 | My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.<br /><br />Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.<br /><br />Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.<br /><br />She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.<br /><br />The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.<br /><br />Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.<br /><br />In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.<br /><br />Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, "It's time I became acquainted with my daughter." The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.<br /><br />After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.<br /><br />If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after "tomorrow". | 1 |
20,909 | [
1100,
1200
] | 939 | 1,114 | Aslan Adam, or Lionman as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with an epic battle as King Solomon & his army defeats a load of guys although I'm not sure who they were & the film itself isn't too helpful in establishing the fact. Anyway, after King Solomon has slaughtered all these guys Princess Maria, Bishop Osorio & Commander Antoine are forced to sign a treaty which lets King Solomon rule just about everything in sight. Soon after Princess Maria seduces Solomon & they have sex, meanwhile in the shortest wedding ceremony ever (just two sentences long) Antoine weds Princess Maria & is planning to rebel against Solomon & gain some sweet revenge in the process. Antoine & his guards attack & kill Solomon even though his pregnant wife Princess Almunia escapes with her protector Rostin with Antoine's guards in hot pursuit, after the shortest labour ever (less than 5 minutes or the time it takes to run around a bush) Princess Almunia gives birth to a young baby boy who is hidden in some bushes away from Antoine's guards. Unfortunately when Rostin tries to retrieve the little fella he finds that the baby has been adopted by a pride of Lion's as one of their own! Year's later & the evil Antoine now rules treating his subjects with no mercy, Princess Maria has given birth & he has a son but Rostin is also still kicking around trying to put together a gang of rebels to overthrow Antoine, the task seems hopeless unless they can enlist the help of the legendary Lionman who is more beast than man...<br /><br />This Turkish Greek co-production was directed by Natuk Baytan as Natuch Baitan & is a one of a kind type of film, I found it hilariously bad but at the same time immensely entertaining. The script never seems to take itself seriously, it is a pretty funny film at times, it moves along like a rocket & is never dull or boring & some of the English dubbed dialogue is just hilarious in context with what's happening on screen. None of it makes any sense, we get a boy raised by Lion's, an evil king, betrayal, dark family secrets, birthmarks that form the shape of Lion's in an element of the story that was present before the kid was raised by Lion's, crazy fight scenes, torture scenes where the posts people are supposed to be tied to wobble, ancient castle interiors that randomly contain zip wires & gymnastic rings, idiotic bad guys who all seem to have extensive facial hair & a central character who has a jaw line resembling a house-brick, can be stabbed twice, have his hands covered in acid (this acid can eat it's way through steel trapdoors but is kept in a ceramic jug!) & fall over 20 feet onto a concrete floor & yet maintain no serious injury! Aslan Adam is a terrifically entertaining film, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it that I can compare it too, if your looking for something serious then forget this but if you like 'so-bad-they're-good' type films & want to have fun, laugh & be entertained then Aslan Adam should be at the VERY top of your list. Total 100% gold for bad film fans & those with a taste for the different & bizarre. On the disappointing side Lionman only gets his steel claws 10 minutes before the end which is a shame.<br /><br />Director Bayten certainly keeps things moving along at a brisk pace although it's far from well made, during the opening battle one moment guys are fighting on a sand dune the next their on a grassy hill with trees in the background! There is one point where Lionman uses a 'branch' to pole vault but it's obviously just a long tube with a vine wrapped around it! Then there's the scene when a bloodthirsty pack of bloodhounds are supposed the chasing Lionman down but the dogs used are obviously different breeds including some of the most harmless looking dogs ever! There are just so many individual scenes in Aslan Adam that are just hilarious, stupid, bizarre or all three that I could go on forever. Just check the ending out when Lionman is jumping & flying about everywhere like he can fly. There's lots of blood in Aslan Adam although not much actual graphic gore or violence, a few stabbings & someone has their hands cut off is as graphic as it gets.<br /><br />Technically Aslan Adam is pretty ropey, the period costumes are bright & garish featuring purples, yellows, reds & various other bright colours. The fight scenes are cheap but at least the filmmakers tried to put as much action in as they could. The music seemed like it was more suited to a classical ballet rather than an action film & is yet another bizarre aspect to Aslan Adam. The acting was bad, even dubbed you could tell the acting was bad.<br /><br />Aslan Adam is pure gold from start to finish, there are so many things to like, laugh at & enjoy in this film that I just ended up really liking it. In no way whatsoever can Aslan Adam be considered a good film in any sense of the word but it's one hell of an entertaining one. I may have have to watch this one again sometime soon just to prove to myself that I didn't dream it all! The best Turkish action film about a man raised by Lion's you will ever see, period. Proved popular enough to spawn a sequel, Lionman II: The Witchqueen (1979). | 1 |
21,005 | [
1100,
1200
] | 981 | 1,190 | 1983 was "the battle of the Bonds". That year both Roger Moore and Sean Connery starred in two separate James Bond film, the former (Octopussy) was produced by the "official" makers of the Bond films while the later (Never Say Never Again) was produced "unofficially" by a group led by Kevin McClory who held the film rights to Thunderball. Surprisingly enough is the "unofficial" film that is better despite the obvious flaw of and the fact that Never Say Never Again is a remake of Thunderball.<br /><br />Never Say Never Again has the distinction of sporting one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film. It all starts with Sean Connery, returning to the play Bond for the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever. Connery might be older then he was then but he looks better here then he did in Diamonds Are Forever. The Bond of Never Say Never Again is the sleek and dangerous shark of Dr. No or From Russia With Love, just a few years older. Connery's delivery of one liners and dialogue is as dead on as it ever was. The one downside to Connery's age is his believability, especially when it comes to the ladies of the film. Let's face it even Connery, despite being in top physical shape, looks as odd as Moore when he is bedding women half his age. Yet despite this believability issue, Never Say Never Again shows Connery in one of his better Bond performances and a definite improvement on his two earlier Bond performances.<br /><br />Kim Bassinger plays Domino in one of her early film roles. Bassinger plays the role with considerable confidence for a relative newcomer and she makes the character believable. Bassinger holds her own against her co-stars and has considerable chemistry with them as well. In fact she may well outshine her Thunderball counter-part played by Claudine Auger.<br /><br />Then there's the villain, Maximilian Largo played by Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's Largo is everything a James Bond film villain should be: suave, charming, evil and above all believable none the less. Brandauer makes the role realistic and chooses not to fall into the trap many other Bond villains have fallen into by going over the top. Brandauer plays Largo with a silent menace and charisma unseen in many adversaries of 007.<br /><br />The excellent cast extends into the supporting cast as well. Barbara Carrera makes a fine henchwoman in Fatima Blush and the screen lights up when she appears. Max Von Sydow a nice appearance as Blofeld, though his appearance is more akin to a cameo. Rowan Atkinson makes an appearance as Bond's bumbling contact that makes for some of the best scenes in the film. With all that the highlight of the supporting cast comes from the MI6 staff from Edward Fox's M who makes for a great contrast to Bernard Lee, Pamela Salem who make s affine Moneypenny and the icing on the cake with Alec McCowen's wonderful Q. The supporting cast has a couple of misfires though in the form of Bernie Casey as Felix Leiter and Gavin O'Herlihy as Jack Petachi who both seem to lack credibility in their respective roles. Otherwise this film sports one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film.<br /><br />On top of an excellent cast the film has several other essential ingredients. From the opening Central America sequence to the fight at Shrublands to the underwater sequences and motorbike chase, this is a film where the action sequences are not only great but service the plot as well for the most part. The film also sports good special effects in terms of cruise missile models, explosions, and all the things we expect from a Bond film. Irvin Kershner, then fresh off doing The Empire Strikes Back, brings a tight sense of direction to the film especially in sequences like the substation of nuclear warheads and the subsequent theft of the cruise missiles.<br /><br />Yet this film is far from perfect. Never Say Never Again is easily one of the most dated of the Bond films with its heavy use of 1980's computer sand video games. While technology dates any film after a time, this film's heavy reliance on it, especially in the hijacking of the cruise missiles and the Domination sequence makes the film look incredibly dated some quarter of a century after its release. The script also tends to suffer from predictability due to the very fact it's a remake of Thunderball.<br /><br />Yet for its predictability the script for Never Say Never Again is pretty good. The script sports good dialogue scenes, not a single cringe worthy one liner (how many of the Roger Moore era scripts can you say that about?), some humorous situations, and yet is watchable and tense for the most part. Once you look past he fact that it's a remake, there's quite a lot of good things in the script for the film.<br /><br />Music is in fact the biggest weakness of the film. Due to the "unofficial" status of the film, the James Bond Theme could not be used. That said this could have shown with the right composer that a Bond score without it could work. Unfortunately Michael Legrand's score is far from adequate. Legrand's score is totally out of place in a Bond film and there is only of or two places where it actually works. To make matters worse the film is also lumbered with one of the worst title sequences ever to grace a James Bond film.<br /><br />Despite being heavily dated, somewhat predicable, and having a bad score Never Say Never Again is still a good Bond film. With one of the best casts of any Bond film, good action sequences, good special effects, good direction, and some terrific dialogue, this film proves that "unofficial" isn't a bad thing. In fact it is is better then Octopussy and the winner of "the battle of the Bonds". | 1 |
21,113 | [
1100,
1200
] | 917 | 1,196 | Where the heck is Andreas(Trond Fausa Aurvaag), exactly? Heaven? Hell? A parallel universe? When the bothersome man steps off the subway platform and meets an onrushing train, his next conscious moment occurs on a bus; riding solo, the newest arrival, in a dead netherworld where all the suicides go. Dressed as he was at the time of his sudden departure from the corporeal biosphere, Andreas is greeted by an official man, who processes and transports the bothersome man from the barren flatlands to a city, if the eyeballs work, is a dead ringer for the sort of urban landscapes that he once inhabited, if memory serves him right. Andreas retains the look of a sleepwalker in a trance, a man estranged from people and objects, struggling to find his bearings; at home, or rather, his assigned apartment; or at work, where the bothersome man is randomly designated as an accountant for an independent contractor. Havard(Johannes Joner), his boss, tells him, "You'll get used to it," which covers more than just crunching numbers, we suspect, in this world, same as the old world.<br /><br />If life is meaningless, like French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre said, the same can be said for death, as well. The subculture of office life might be heaven for one man, but it looks like hell to us, under the context that "Den Brysomme Mannen" operates on. To work in the afterlife, in essence, is to work for the rest of your life. The social intercourse among Andreas' office mates may pass as normal in the physical world, but death is a variable that creates estrangement in the viewer, as he/she now recognizes the drudgery of white-collar labor performed by white-collar laborers, who kill the hours with their inconsequential small-talk and designated jobs they perform during the course of a day like automotons, each and every day, seem irrational in its self-evident absurdity. To see daily life replicated in a speculative light, "Den Brysomme mannen" makes normal human interaction look like deadpan comedy, as quotidian life becomes a performance, which transforms Karl Marx's meaning of the word "alienation", because here, the men and women in the office, "do" identify with their labor, like actors in a play who conspire to make their fictionalized selves appear real. But the bothersome man never fully participates in the facade. He's always aware of the cracks.<br /><br />From a wooden bench, Andreas witnesses the aftermath of a jumper, who impales himself on an iron fence while people on their lunch breaks walk on by, indifferent to his escaping intestines that create red splatters on the clean sidewalk. Andreas faces the same impassivity from his own co-workers after he purposely cuts off his own finger, with the hope that he'll feel the pain, on a paper slicer. He doesn't. It's just another sensation, in addition to being able to taste and smell that's lost to the bothersome man. This inability of being able to take solace in the simple pleasures, amplifies the bothersome man's need for love,where simple pleasures compensated for his loneliness in the physical world. At a dinner party, hosted by his boss, Andreas meets Anne Britt(Petonella Barker). They hit it off. He walks her home. She invites him in. They become a couple. He moves in. When they have sex, however, it's good for neither Andreas, nor Anne, who seems to get more pleasure out of interior design. Love is an abstract concept, another sensation that's unattainable in this world, but love matters to the bothersome man, so he tries again with Ingeborg(Birgette Lagen), a girl from work. "Den Brysomme mannen" deconstructs love by presenting its foundation as a series of gestures that require performances from both the man and woman. When Ingeborg doesn't elicit the same tender feelings for Andreas after his hyper-romantic gesture of leaving Anne Britt for her, this Norwegian film reveals its secrets about the prosaic, but odd city, with an open-endedness that's solvable, and offer up multiple interpretations.<br /><br />Wounded by Ingeborg's apathy towards his avowal of love for her, the bothersome man wanders into the same subway station, stands at the same platform, leers at the same couple aggressively making out, and jumps. This time, he can't die. How can you die when you're already dead? Hit repeatedly by train after train, Andreas' face turns into ground beef; his body contorts in angles previously seen only seen in art. When the bothersome man realizes that love and death are out of his grasp, he seeks out the man from the club, who was willing to say what goes unsaid in this city of the walking dead. Which is: death, not life, has no meaning.<br /><br />Getting to the bottom of the mystery behind Andreas' whereabouts drives the narrative, and to the filmmaker's credit, this enigma is satisfactorily addressed, in a scene that recalls Spike Jonze's "Being John Malkovich", when Andreas crawls through a tunnel in order to cross over into another world, like a newborn baby, which resembles the portal to Malkovich's brain that Craig Schwartz charges people to crawl through. Andreas' attempt to traverse the great divide presents a beguiling paradox. Since heaven and earth are literally separated by a wall, this vulnerable boundary acts as a perfect encapsulation of the atheistic belief that "heaven is a place on Earth". But at the same time, heaven is proved by the reality of a hell; the place that Andreas is sent to after being banished from the city of his destination. | 1 |
21,122 | [
1100,
1200
] | 984 | 1,117 | The Bothersome Man is a smart, surreal movie that makes you reevaluate what you're doing with your life and what makes you tick. When you see these people in zombie like trances doing everyday events and realize that's what we do and what we want in real life it really hits close to home. This is a surprisingly effective movie that at the end leaves you asking questions about your direction and not so much the movie. <br /><br />Andreas is the main character whose life we get a 3rd person view of as he tries to adapt to a new life after being relocated. In the beginning he seems to be the most popular guy in town as everyone at work caters to him and he's invited to dinners etc. A good example of this is in the scene with his new boss who offers him an envelope of an unspecified amount of cash saying "here's a little something to get you started". Andreas even gets a girlfriend 20 minutes into the movie, which he eventually moves in with. This seems like an ideal living situation as his girlfriend is an established interior designer, attractive, and doesn't ever nag about anything he does. But Andreas is unfulfilled with their relationship as with everything else in this world. He then begins an affair with a coworker named Ingeborg who he eventually leaves Anne for and claims he is in love with. After telling Ingeborg how he feels she tells him that she is also seeing other coworkers and says all of the relationships are "nice". Soon after we see Andreas at a train station where he tries to end his misery and to the audience's disappointment doesn't come about. Still looking for salvation Andreas meets Hugo who has found a hole which music can be heard coming out of. So they embark on a mission to get to the other side, will it be better or will it be worse? <br /><br />"The Bothersome Man" shows us society's obsession with appearances and its materialistic mindset. It does a great job making fun of us by filling homes with IKEA products that the characters spend each lunch picking out. I think he is mostly poking fun at the dull Scandinavian society and its high suicide rates. For example there is a scene in the movie where Andreas comes across a man who jumped out of a building and onto a spiked fence. Also, Andreas fed up with this world cuts his finger off and then later jumps in front of a train; this is one of the most weirdest/outrageous scenes I've seen. This world created by Lien is equivalent to purgatory where there is no punishment or reward. In this world drink after drink Andreas never got drunk, sex was unfulfilling, and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't kill himself. This movie reminded me of "Fight Club" and how both main characters were kind of out of sync with the world around them. In "Fight Club" Tyler Durden creates a second persona that does everything he wouldn't and in this movie the awakened Andreas is the equivalent to Tyler Durden. After a while he wakes up and tries to escape the bland life he is now apart of by escaping through a hole in a wall. <br /><br />Lien does a great job with continuity in this movie meaning when a character has a half full cup in his hand and they cut away then come back they have the glass in the same hand and its not full or empty showing that the shot was done another day. Nowadays directors are more worried about the sound effects and overlook the little things like is that character wearing the bracelet on the same hand as yesterdays filming? Since I took TV Production for three years in high school it's hard for me not to look for continuity or voice overs which drive me nuts. Lien does the little things well he's got great lighting in each shot, never leaves you wondering why something is in a shot and brings about an interesting topic. This film really worked for me because it not only mocks Scandinavians' but the western society and what's wrong with it. The only real issue I had was with the man who commits suicide by jumping on a spiked fence. Because you eventually find out this world has no death but he laid motionless forcing you to assume he was dead and this never gets answered in my opinion. <br /><br />Andreas is the only main character as others come and go and never do more than support his him. His first girlfriend Anne Britt is an interior designer who at the surface seems perfect for him but eventually turns out to be dull. This leads him to Ingeborg who he starts an affair with and falls in love with. He soon finds out that she was with a handful of other men and that what he felt was not real. Andreas eventually meets Hugo in the bathroom of a bar complaining about how nothing tastes good anymore and how he can't even get drunk anymore. He follows Hugo home to find the hole in the wall with that is filled with children's laughter and birds chirping. <br /><br />Lien doesn't have a lot on the resume but "The Bothersome Man" is more than a jump start to a great career but a preview of an up and coming director. If this is any indication of his talent and potential as a story teller, Lien has a bright future and we can only hope that his future movies don't take so long to make it overseas for our viewing pleasure. So take a seat and enjoy the ride as Director Jens Lien takes you from the comfort of your home to the dreamlike world that is "The Bothersome Man". | 1 |
21,131 | [
1100,
1200
] | 922 | 1,111 | 10/10<br /><br />PLOT DISCUSSION<br /><br />This is one of the best movies ever made and I am not saying that because I am being fooled by the seemingly nonsensical presentation. Those who dislike the film because they don't understand the story often criticize those who are praising the film by saying that they are assuming its genius because they don't understand it. I don't view this movie as very allegorical. To me, it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. People become confused by the film because they expect it to have a deep, philosophical meaning that they are to interpret from the allegedly meaningless scenes. I feel they fail to realize that the crypticness comes from a chopped-up and rearranged plot combined with a very long and rather explanatory fantasy sequence and not from a chaos of visual allegory. Because of the limitation of length, I will try to keep this short and to the point and touch on the major concepts.<br /><br />The general plot: Diane moves to L.A. after jitterbug contest to get into acting. At an audition, she meets Camilla with whom she falls in love. Diane becomes enraged with jealousy since Camilla sleeps with other men and women. Diane discovers the other man (the director) at a film shoot and discovers the other woman (a random blond) at the engagement party for Camilla and the director. Motivated by her rage and possessiveness, Diane hires a hit man to kill Camilla. After that is done, she is overcome by loneliness and slips into an unconscious fantasy world where she lives the life she wants to. Diane is then awakened. In her conscious state she is haunted by what she has done.<br /><br />The significance of the fantasy: The film starts out, after the credits, with a 1st person p.o.v. shot depicting somebody collapsing onto a bed and slipping into unconsciousness. This is where Diane's fantasy starts. The accident is there as an excuse for her to "bring back" her dead girlfriend and justify the fantasy life. She depicts her girlfriend as meek and innocent because that is what she wished she was. In the meantime, she acts like everything is "like in the movies" because she has an escapist personality. She also, in a sense, kills herself off and assumes the identity of a waitress named Betty at a diner. The story revolving around the director is a direct result of her feeling that he was in someway victimized in reality just as she was and "convinces" herself that he was forced to choose Camilla. It was also an unconscious expression of the lack of control she felt during the party. Camilla Rhoades in the fantasy is actually the random blond from the engagement party. She hated her so much that she turned her into Camilla and made the ultimate antagonist. She then took the real Camilla and turned her into a perfect, submissive out-of-the-movies girlfriend and used Rita Hayworth as an inspiration. She also paints the hit man as a very clumsy and incapable person to further justify the survival of Camilla. Her fantasy world, unfortunately for her, was a search for Diane which ended up being herself and made the dreamworld die by taking her through a series of reminders of reality. The first reminder was Club Silencio which chanted that "there is no band" and the "instruments" you hear are not really there; this is a metaphor for the fantasy. She begins to shake violently because it shakes her perception of her surroundings. The other reminder is the blue box... Actually, the blue box is not the reminder itself (more of a Pandora's Box, really), but the blue key that opens the box. The blue key reminds her of the actual death of Camilla because it is what the hit man said would show up when it was done. Along with having love, this entire creation of hers is an escape from reality by living in the idealized Hollywood that she expected to be part of when she arrived. <br /><br />This is a story showing the psychology of a very troubled woman who lost a dream. It is not series of random things specifically designed to disturb and it is not a cryptic philosophical message. It is an unfortunate chunk of the human condition that is presented beautifully.<br /><br />However, ultimately this is all my opinion. I may be way off. Or it may not be intended to mean any one thing. There are many who disagree with me. Great! Afterall, why does it have to mean anything? Why can't it just be a statement in itself? What if coherent, sensible narratives are shackles for artistic expression? Peter Greenaway, for example, has spent many words eloquently supporting that idea by such statements as "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative." And where is the written rule that everything must be immediately understandable with only one possible interpretation? There is no such rule because the clarity of the movie is unrelated to the art of it. "I didn't understand it!" So...? "Mulholland Dr.," story or not, affects the viewers, harasses them, drags them, awes them, lulls them. The way it lends itself to interpretation is amazing. It never gets old. It never loses its luster. Its visuals are always effective and beautiful. It is cinematic perfection no matter what. Enjoy. | 1 |
21,179 | [
1100,
1200
] | 851 | 1,182 | In the light of the recent typhoon that hit the country hard (that is, typhoon Ondoy), I thought it upon myself to re-watch "Black Rain" (1988, Japan), Shohei Imamura's haunting black-and-white masterpiece on the destruction and after-effects of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in the closing period of the Second World War. The destruction and impact of both catastrophes (war and typhoon) may differ in degree and quality, but the trauma and scar (physically and psychologically) nevertheless are still there. <br /><br />It is a testament to a film's power that its images remain as potent and as indelible as when they were first seen. It is only that the difference now, in my case, is that watching those images has assumed a greater sense of poignancy and potency due to a first-hand experience of a near-monumental weather calamity. There is a sense of kinship, so to speak. <br /><br />Imamura has always been one of my favorite Japanese filmmakers. His films are always a pleasure to watch because of their anarchy, sensuality and earthiness:"The Pornographers:Introduction to Anthropology" (1966), "Eijanaika" (1981), "Warm Water Under a Red Bridge" (2001), his two Palme d'Or-winners "Ballad of Narayama" (1983) and "The Eel" (1997), to name some. Given the mood of his films, who would have thought that he once served as an assistant director to Yasujiro Ozu, Japanese cinema's most austere and minimalist filmmaker? But then, it is Ozu's rigorous formality and domesticity that Imamura was rebelling against. <br /><br />But then again, with "Black Rain" one can unmistakably sense Ozu's imprints. The father (or the father-figure) being intent on seeing his daughter get married before time runs out on both of them, and the stillness and calmness of the scenes showing all members of the family together (notably, the dinner scenes or in Ozu's film lexicon, the tatami) are something that the revered master filmmaker would perennially explore in his works ("Tokyo Story", "Late Spring"). Essentially, the over-all subdued and deliberate quality of "Black Rain" is a remarkable contrast to the bacchanalian chaos and instinctual drive of Imamura's entire filmography.<br /><br />Still, this is not to say that watching the film would not be an altogether unsettling experience. "Black Rain", as aptly described by American film reviewer Leonard Maltin, is "filled with haunting black-and-white images." In the film's first 15 minutes, Imamura pulls no punches in showing the immediate and graphic horrors of the nuclear bombing, one after another (stiffly-burnt bodies, hanging flesh, walking dead, fires and debris everywhere, madness all over). An assault to the viewers' senses, definitely it is, coupled with Takashi Kawamata's somber b/w photography (he did the lensing in Yoshitaru Nomura's crime drama "The Incident") and Toru Takemitsu's chilling score (he did the music in such classics as Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" and Masahiro Shinoda's "Double Suicide"). <br /><br />Even during the film's supposed "tranquil" phase (that is, five years after the atomic bombing), one can still never have a sense of contentment and order, with the uneasiness and pain still being strongly felt by the survivors, not only in terms of failing physical health, but more so in terms of psychological trauma and social stigma. The human race, it now indisputably appears, has been destined to bear the legacy of the Bomb, for as long as it lives. <br /><br />I already wrote a piece about "Black Rain" some years earlier (posted in IMDb.com), but only in comparison to Volker Schlondorff's magnificent "Tin Drum", another film dealing with monumental human folly and global catastrophe. Moreover, it has never been my practice to write twice about a film that I already wrote something about before. It is in the light of the recent weather calamity that devastated our country that I was prompted to re-visit and write something again about this remarkable Imamura film, as there is a wealth of lessons to be learned from both the film and the recent event in regards the imperfections and dangers of scientific knowledge and action, and the long-term scars and wounds inflicted by a wide- scale destruction (whether human- or nature-induced).<br /><br />There have been a number of films dealing with nuclear holocaust and destruction ("Testament", "Threads", "The War Game", each situated within their own respective countries);and "Black Rain" stands among them, if not more so, for both its unapologetic and somber portrayal of individual and communal disintegration brought about by atomic devastation and the fact that it has a historical event as its basis.<br /><br />Few weeks from now, another disaster film from Hollywood, Roland Emmerich's "2012", will finally hit (no pun intended) the big screen. As we all know, this American director's bunch of "disaster/apocalypse" films--"Independence Day", "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow"-- serves no other purpose than to be of mere entertainment value, with no real insight into the nature and wisdom of apocalyptic disaster and the human condition being affected. I wonder how this "gigantic" movie would exploit the trauma, disorientation and apprehensions still being experienced by our people because of the recent weather calamity. To say that this flick is a precautionary tale would probably be no more than an overstatement. <br /><br />But yes, I will still watch "2012". | 1 |
21,309 | [
1100,
1200
] | 935 | 1,197 | Goldie Hawn, in 1969, was best known for playing in television comedy shows - in particular ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN, where she was the giggly cookie young blond. She did make movies before CACTUS FLOWER, the most notable being a Walt Disney feature, THE ONE AND ONLY GENUINE, ORIGINAL FAMILY BAND. But CACTUS FLOWER picked up on her character from LAUGH-IN, and (due to a good script by I.A.L. Diamond - Billy Wilder's second partner - based on an Abe Burrows play) she was able to develop the television character so that a real performance was fleshed out. As a result Ms Hawn won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 1969, and her career took off to such future hits as PRIVATE BENJAMIN and THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. Although other stars of LAUGH-IN did well on television (Henry Gibson has a recurring role as a judge on BOSTON LEGAL) only Goldie was able to have a career as a bonifide movie star.<br /><br />On LAUGH-IN Goldie's personality would show a naiveté that would be embarrassing. Occasionally she realized it, and would laugh loud to cover, but sometimes she just did not see her error (example: Goldie is introduced to the 1950s variety show host Gary Moore, and is told, "Goldie, this is Mr. Gary Moore." She shakes his hand and says (much to his confusion), "I've always wanted to meet Mr. John Gary Moore!"). But as Toni Simmons it is quite different. She is desperately in love with Dr. Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), a successful dentist, who can never marry her. Julian has told her that his wife (with whom he has had two sons and a daughter) will never give him a divorce. So at the start of the film Toni tries to commit suicide by the gas of her stove. But she is rescued by her neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz), a struggling dramatist, who breaks into her apartment and turns off the gas. <br /><br />Toni is resigned to live, but she has sent a suicide note to Julian. Igor tries to deliver a message to ignore the note but Julian's receptionist/nurse/assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (Ingrid Bergman) won't stop Julian's work schedule to pass him the phone when Igor calls. Instead Julian finds the letter and races to Toni's apartment, only to find her alive. When Igor supports her story that she tried to kill herself, Julian realizes the depth of her love, and decides he must marry such a woman. Unfortunately Toni has swallowed Julian's lies, and believes in his wife and children. You see, Julian has no wife and children. Since Toni is a firm believer that she can't marry a man who would lie to her Julian is stuck on a weakening tree branch.<br /><br />Julian comes to solve it by getting Stephanie to pretend she is Mrs. Winston. Stephanie is opposed to it at first, but on her own, on her first free Saturday, she confronts Toni at the record shop Toni is at. They talk, and Toni notices all the fine strengths of character and personality of Stephanie (and since Stephanie has her two nephews with her, Toni thinks they are Julian's kids). Toni tells Julian they have to see who is the man that Stephanie is supposedly going to marry. So the lie starts spiraling for Julian, Stephanie, and Toni. Soon a lover is given to Stephanie in the form of Julian's friend and freeloading patient Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston). Greenfield is so sleazy (Stephanie loathes him) that Toni feels that he is unworthy of Stephanie.<br /><br />And so it goes, with one complication (most caused by the well-intentioned, misinformed Toni) following another until the conclusion. The script is full of first rate situations and one-liners (example: Julian to reward Stephanie for lying about their marriage, buys two record albums from Toni's store. He has given a mink stole to Toni, but she decides to send it to Stephanie with Julian's card. Stephanie is quite happy at getting the mink, but she does not say a word about the nature of the gift she got - when she profusely thanks Matthau, he says the thought she'd like Horowitz - meaning Vladomir Horowitz. But Stephanie thinks Horowitz is the name of the furrier!). <br /><br />Bergman must have enjoyed the filming, as several scenes shows that earthy radiance that was a trademark for her in the later 1940s films. But there was also the resemblance to her 1958 film comedy smash hit, INDISCREET. There Cary Grant lied to make sure the pair would concentrate on the romance of their affair without having to think about marriage. When Grant's lie is revealed to Bergman she decides on a lie of her own to convince Grant that she was making him a cuckold. Here, instead of being the passive lover believing Matthau is telling the truth, Bergman gingerly tries to get Matthau out of his mess by little white lies, only to find one leads to another to complicate everyone's lives. Bergman is seen as a nice woman who becomes part of the problem, despite trying to be part of the solution.<br /><br />All the leads perform well, in particular Bergman, all business thoroughness at first but gradually reclaiming her sexuality. Matthau is delightful as a man who finds a useful lie is an impediment that just can't be kicked aside. The supporting cast, especially Weston as the mooching and sexually slimy Harvey, and Vito Scotti as the U.N. ambassador who actually has the hots for Bergman. It was a clever comedy, and a really good way for Goldie Hawn's movie career to push forward. | 1 |
21,436 | [
1100,
1200
] | 899 | 1,119 | In 1982, two films were released within weeks of each other that were both about aliens. Steven Spielberg's ET, and John Carpenter's The Thing. Of the two of them, ET was the one that won the hearts of people the world over, even though The Thing debuted first. Because people were so entranced with Spielberg's warm, fuzzy feelgood alien fable, they stayed away from The Thing in droves.<br /><br />Its not hard to see why. The two are diametrically opposed. One is an optimistic tale designed to warm the cockles of the still-beating heart. The other is a harsh, uncompromising film that paints alien life as something purely determined to destroy us. I guess audiences felt ET was a much cuter prospect than The Thing's tentacles and slime coated saliva!<br /><br />It's taken some time, but The Thing has gone on to win over a substantial cult audience. As it should. Because The Thing is that rare example of a superior remake. It takes all the best qualities of the 1951 classic, and reinvents them in startling and imaginative ways. Indeed Carpenter does his job so well he actually succeeds in making a film that is in every inch the equal of the genre's showrunner, Alien. And that's even rarer!<br /><br />Carpenter's film follows its source material more faithfully than The Thing From Another World did. It keeps the frigid wastes of Antarctica as a setting, because its the perfect backdrop when you're trying to establish a heightened sense of isolation. But although a bit thin on characterisation, the remake gets right inside the mindset of the actors, and amplifies the uncertainty and fear that slowly surrounds them.<br /><br />Frequent Carpenter collaborator Kurt Russell returns, hot off the success of Escape From New York, cast once again as one of Carpenter's perpetual anti-heroes. He plays MacReady, the helicopter pilot at an Antarctic research station (what they're researching is anyone's guess). The trouble begins when a Norwegian chopper from a nearby station flies over MacReady's, trying to gun down a Siberian Husky from the air.<br /><br />They end up dying for their troubles, and while the camp tries to solve the mystery of what happened, they take in the Husky and add it to their own. Except that this Husky, is not a Husky at all. But a shape-changing alien. The Norwegians discovered it frozen in the ice, and when they thawed it out, it massacred their crew. Capable of absorbing its victims at will, it can duplicate a living being right down to the smallest detail. Soon paranoia and suspicion works its way through the 12-man crew, until no-one is certain who is human and who is not.<br /><br />The Thing is one of John Carpenter's finest films. In fact I'm tempted to say its the best film he's ever made. Even surpassing classics like Halloween and Dark Star. The reason why I place The Thing at the top of Carpenter's list is that it feels like the last film of his that could truly be called a classic. All the others thereafter have felt like Carpenter was slumming it. Films that didn't flow with the cool sophistication and ragged intensity so prevalent in his earlier works.<br /><br />But The Thing had John Carpenter at the peak of his powers. Never has he generated suspense to such an unbearable degree. Not even in the ferocious Assault on Precinct 13. From the second the alien makes its presence known, Carpenter ratchets up the tension level relentlessly. And when he delivers his punches, they come with an agonising jolt.<br /><br />The film is a blend of pure atmospherics and visceral horror. An approach that can often seem at odds with one another, but in Carpenter's hands melds together beautifully. Bringing in Rob Bottin of The Howling fame, he lays to bear some of the most astonishing transformation effects you'll ever see in a horror film. Amorphous shapes. Half-formed human features starkly contrasted with gaping jaws, spider legs and fully flexible tentacles. Indeed the film's effects are so amazing and squirm-inducing, The Thing came under fire for being too realistic!<br /><br />That type of thinking misses the point entirely. It only shortchanges the film's values. And there are many. Carpenter only stages an effects setpiece when he needs to. Its in the film's quieter moments where he seems especially attuned to the story. The Thing is an often bewildering tale of shadows, whispers and implications. Characterisation has never been one of John Carpenter's strong suits, but it works to his advantage in The Thing. Because we hardly know anything about the cast, it only makes the present situation that much more confusing. We're never certain, from one moment to the next who is who. And because of this, The Thing holds up very well and maintains its mystery on subsequent viewings.<br /><br />A special mention should go to the excellent film score from Ennio Morricone. A pulsing thud thud every two seconds. It creates an eerie, spooky feeling that is very hard to shake. The whole film is a wonderful exercise in paranoid manipulation. The scene where they blood-test each other to see who's human is wound up with such dexterity by Carpenter, you may find yourself biting your nails without even realising.<br /><br />The Thing is a pure unadulterated classic. Even the ending leaves you with the vague suspicion that not everything is resolved. An underrated film, well worth the reappraisal it received. And so much better than ET! | 1 |
21,542 | [
1100,
1200
] | 959 | 1,122 | As a former Highland Rugby(HR) player, I feel like I can possibly answer some of the questions and confusion that has been put forward. I think that I am also in a position to offer some insight into the club and back stories. Oh, and this is gonna be a long post, I can tell already.<br /><br />First off, the people who said that the movie doesn't show real rugby, have a valid point. The movie is full of bad tackles, people in the wrong places, and much much more. If you want to know what a real rugby game feels like, you won't get the best idea from this movie. But the thing is, anything short of actually sitting down and watching a highlight reel or jumping into a game yourself, is not going to be satisfactory. It's Hollywood, not ESPN! Really, how many sports movies really make you feel like you are in the game? Not many that I have seen. I think it's important to keep in mind that the movie is about rugby players, much more than it is about rugby.<br /><br />Next, the Haka is VERY much a part of Highland Rugby. It is not something that they just threw into the movie. To be honest, I don't know how the tradition got started, but Highland emulates the All Blacks in many ways. The uniform is based off of the All Blacks as well. The movie did not do a good job of explaining the origins of the Haka, and to be honest, I don't think that that is right. But I can tell you that every member of the team knows exactly where it comes from and what it means. As for the person from China(?) who said that only a Maori can perform a Haka, I would suggest that they take a look at the All Blacks and tell me if they think that they are all Maori. Believe it or not, Utah has a very large Polynesian community, and a good portion of them like and play rugby for the local teams. I, myself am part Hawaiian. Whenever possible, the Haka is led by a Maori. The team does not do it because they think that they are Maori, they do it because of some of the issues shown in the movie. The concept of unity and "those who have gone before" is a huge part of the HR culture, and the message behind the Haka, for any of those that are familiar with it, support those values. It's a chant by a chief who thought he would die (Ka Mate), and those around him supporting him telling him he will live (Ka Ora) and boosting him up. How appropriate it is for a bunch of white boys to do it is not for me to say, but that is the ideology behind it and why it is done. "Kia Kaha" is also a well used team motto, even if the actors had a hard time saying it.<br /><br />Also, for the people who questioned Highland's Rugby playing ability, I would just remind you that you were not really watching Highland play in this movie. Many of the extras were former players from Highland and other teams, but the main characters were all actors. Believe it or not, Highland really is pretty good at what they do and pretty well respected in the international community. Granted, some years produce better teams than others (it's what you would expect with any sports team), but you don't accumulate HR's win record by just being okay. The year after I graduated, (1998) Highland was one of 12 teams to be invited to the World Schools Rugby Championship in Zimbabwe. The teams were hand picked from around the world and represented the best of High school rugby talent at the time. Highland obviously didn't win first place, (New Zealand did that), but they did manage to take third place in the tournament, beating the Tongan national champions in their last match. And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about. Highland also has a tradition of touring New Zealand every few years, and usually comes back with more wins than losses.<br /><br />The majority of characters portrayed in this movie are based off of real people and real stories. I watched this movie with my brothers, who also played for Highland, and between the four of us, we were fairly certain that we were able to identify ALMOST every main character. Nobody knew a white Rasta. Of course as this wasn't a documentary, Hollywood did take some liberties, but to tell you the truth, not as many as you might think. The film was actually pretty accurate in showing the 2 and a half hour daily practices, as well as the mandatory personal running and weight training. Sometimes it really was running until you threw up. It also showed the service and other team activities (like the chuck-a-rama buffet) that were very much a part of team bonding.<br /><br />And finally the movie, in my (obviously very biased) opinion, it was a pretty good movie. And I think that the reason for it is that I watched it as an inspirational sports movie. I didn't think that it would be a pure rugby movie or an academy award winning drama. It was just an uplifting movie about a rugby team, complete with morals, encouragement, and a good dose of jokes thrown in for entertainment. I hope that I addressed some of the problems that people have had with the movie, and hope that you can now enjoy it for what it was.<br /><br />Kia Kaha | 1 |
21,755 | [
1100,
1200
] | 942 | 1,187 | There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the "Gee Whiz" technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.<br /><br />With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a "superior being" by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of "Philosopher/King", a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) "wisely" prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment. <br /><br />Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of "The Super", the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.<br /><br />I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose. <br /><br />While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.<br /><br />Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.<br /><br />Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.<br /><br />Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course! <br /><br />Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.<br /><br />Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.<br /><br />In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!<br /><br />Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.<br /><br />Kusak's "Michael Merriman" is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research. <br /><br />Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.<br /><br />The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or "excessive" bureaucratic oversight. <br /><br />It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb. <br /><br />There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project. | 1 |
21,886 | [
1100,
1200
] | 873 | 1,151 | In the Universal series of modern Sherlock Holmes stories with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEOPON is not one of the top films - although it is entertaining. I think the problem with it is that much of the film's "dueling" between Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty (here played by Lionel Atwill) seems to delay the actual point of the Professor's work.<br /><br />Moriarty appears in three of the Holmes films with Rathbone. In THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he was played by George Zucco, who gave real relish to the love of villainy for its own sake to the role. For my money Zucco's performance as the Professor was the best of the three (there is even a brief moment of comedy in his performance, when he's disguised as the "Sergeant of Police" towards the end - like he's preparing to sing "A Policeman's Lot" from Gilbert & Sullivan). Next comes Mr. Atwill's performance here - more of that later. Finally there is Henry Daniell's intellectual Moriarty in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LADY IN GREEN. It's a typically cool, classy performance by Mr. Daniell, but his confrontations with Holmes seem to be a tedious bore to him. They keep him from completing the main plan. In the stories that the Professor pops up in, he really senses Holmes is a nemesis who will remain a danger as long as he is alive. Yet, because of the intellectual tennis match between him and Rathbone, Rathbone (in his autobiography) actually felt Daniell was the best of the film Moriartys.<br /><br />If Zucco captured the love of evil in the Professor, and Daniell seemed to demonstrate the tired Oxford Don (in the stories the Professor is a well regarded mathematician, whose volume on the binomial theorem had a "European vogue", and who wrote an intriguing book, THE DYNAMICS OF THE ASTEROID), Atwill demonstrates the Professor as pragmatic businessman. First of all, he's sold his services (apparently) to Nazi Germany. This is never gone into, but one presumes (as this is before the Nazis began to really collapse) he figures they will win the war. Secondly, he is not a fool. When Dr. Tobel (William Post Jr.) has shown he is a state of near physical collapse due to the torturing of Moriarty's gang, the Professor decides to kidnap one of the other scientists who are assisting Tobel, because he's as good a scientist as Tobel and would be able to put together the bomb site. I somehow can't quite see Zucco making such a sensible decision on the spot, and if Daniell had to make it, he would seem annoyed that there is yet another delay to his plans.<br /><br />By the way, one trick used in all the Holmes series regarding the Professor is how to rid the film of him. If you read the Holmes stories, Moriarty appears as the villain three times: in THE MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' last story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM"), in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' first story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE") and the last of the four novels/novellas (THE VALLEY OF FEAR). It's amazing how much mileage the Professor got out of so few appearances (he is mentioned in two or three other stories as well - in passing). But because of his fate at the Reichenbach Falls in "THE FINAL PROBLEM" and "THE EMPTY HOUSE", we always see him fall to his death. Zucco falls off the White Tower on Tower Hill. Daniell (with more imagination) tries to flee Gregson and the police, but is shot as he jumps, and wounded fails to hold on to the wall of an adjacent building. Atwill (here it is not seen, but heard) seems to fall down a trap door he's planted in an escape tunnel). It is really tedious after awhile to see the Professor always fall in these films. One turns to the Gene Wilder comedy (admittedly a comedy) SHERLOCK HOLMES' SMARTER BROTHER, wherein Leo McKern is a wonderfully wacky and villainous Moriarty (complete, finally, with an Irish accent), who is not killed at the end, but just left mulling - in a rowboat - over how his careful schemes did not work out. I rather liked that better.<br /><br />The use of the "Dancing Men" code here, like the use of the "Devil's Foot Root" in DRESSED TO KILL, snags a part of a mystery from a short story. "THE ADVENTURE OF THE DANCING MEN" appeared in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and deals with a client of Holmes whose wife has been getting weird, blood-curdling messages in this code. Charles Higham, in his biography THE ADVENTURES OF CONAN DOYLE suggests Sir Arthur may have picked up the code from a magazine game in the 1870s, but we really don't know. The code is basically one of letter substitutions for the figures of the dancing men. The story in the short story is dramatic, but deals with a triangle. The only innovation in the film is that Tobel makes a slight change that confuses both Holmes and Moriarty. <br /><br />The film will entertain, but I still think THE HOUSE OF FEAR, THE SCARLET CLAW, and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH are better films. | 1 |
21,938 | [
1100,
1200
] | 884 | 1,186 | As a rule, there are few things more dispiriting than Hollywood's attempts to be courageous. Mixing caution with heavy-handedness, "message movies" pat themselves loudly on the back for daring to tackle major problems. CROSSFIRE is not entirely free from this taint; it includes a sermon on the nature of senseless hatred that is embarrassingly obvious, assuming a level of naivity in its audience that's depressing to contemplate. As late as 1947, it was a big deal for a movie to announce that anti-Semitism existed, and that it was bad. (It was unthinkable, of course, for Hollywood to address the real subject of the book on which the movie was basedits victim was a homosexual.) Nevertheless, thanks to good writing and excellent acting, CROSSFIRE remains a persuasive examination of what we would now call a hate crime.<br /><br />Postwar malaise was one of the major components of film noir, and CROSSFIRE addresses it directly. The film is set in Washington, D.C. among soldiers still in uniform but idle, spending their days playing poker and bar-crawling. Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), an intelligent and kindly Jew, explains that the end of the war has created a void: all the energy that went into hating and fighting the enemy is now unfocused and bottled up. Samuels meets three soldiers in a bar: the sensitive Mitchell, who is close to a nervous breakdown, the weak-willed Floyd Bowers, and Montgomery, a tall, overbearing bully who nastily belittles a young soldier from Tennessee as a stupid hillbilly. The three soldiers wind up at Samuels' apartment, where the drunken Monty becomes increasingly abusive, calling his host "Jew-boy." Samuels is beaten to death, and Mitchell disappears, making himself the prime suspect for the killing.<br /><br />Unraveling the crime are Detective Finlay (Robert Young), dry and by-the-book, and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum), a thoughtful and experienced friend who knows Mitchell is incapable of murder. Among the pieces of the puzzle are Ginny (Gloria Grahame), a nightclub hostess who met Mitchell and gave him her apartment key, and Floyd (Steve Brodie), who as a witness to the crime holes up terrified in a seedy rooming house. While there is no real "whodunit" suspense, the story remains gripping, and the trap laid for the killer is extremely clever.<br /><br />The strong noir atmosphere saves the movie from feeling didactic or sanctimonious. The cinematography is a striking shadow-play, with inky darks and harsh lights, rooms often lit by a single lamp filtered by cigarette smoke. World-weariness is as pervasive as noir lighting. "Nothing interests me," Finlay says quietly; "To nothing," is Ginny's toast in the nightclub. Gloria Grahame, the paragon of noir femininity, nearly steals the movie with her two scenes. Platinum-blonde, jaded and caustic, she's the quintessential B-girl, poisoned by the "stinking gin mill" where she works ("for laughs," she says bitterly), her sweet face curdling when Mitchell tells her that she reminds him of his wife. Now and then a wistful kindness peeks through her defensive shell, as when she dances with Mitchell in a deserted courtyard, then offers to cook him spaghetti at her apartment. When he goes there, he meets a weasely, crumple-faced man (Paul Kelly) who seems to sponge off Ginny, and whose conversation is a dense layering of lies and false confessions. Gloria blows Mitchell's good-girl wife off the screen in a scene where she's asked to give Mitchell an alibi. Slim and frail in her bathrobe, with her girlish lisp, she lets us see just how often Ginny has been insulted and dismissed as a tramp.<br /><br />Robert Young is a nondescript actor, and he stands no chance against Mitchum's charisma, but he does a good job of keeping his pipe-smoking character, saddled with delivering the movie's earnest message, this side of pompousness. Mitchum, meanwhile, gets some cool dialogue, but not nearly enough to do; still, even when he's doing nothing but lounging in a corner you can't take your eyes off him. The third Robert, Ryan, creates a fully shaded and frighteningly convincing portrait of an ignorant, unstable bigot; we see his phony geniality, his bullying, his resentment of anyone with advantages, his "Am I right or am I right?" smugness; how easily he slaps labels on people and what satisfaction he gets from despising them.<br /><br />CROSSFIRE's message seems cautious and dated now, though not nearly so much as the same year's A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Finlay's speech about bigotry cops out by reaching back a hundred years for an instance of white victimhood, reminding us that Irish Catholics were once persecuted; next it could be people from Tennessee, he says, or men who wear striped neckties. Or maybe blacks, or Japanese, or homosexuals, or communists? The script seems afraid to mention any real contemporary problems. It sweetens its message by making the Jewish victim saintly, as though his innocence were not sufficient; and it takes care to exonerate the military, having a superior officer declare that the army is ashamed of men like Montgomery, and stressing that Samuels served honorably in the war. Still, it did take some guts to depict, immediately after World War II, an American who might have been happier in the Nazi army, and the movie's basic premise is still valid. If Monty were alive today, he would have gone out on September 12, 2001, and beat up a Sikh. | 1 |
22,380 | [
1100,
1200
] | 982 | 1,198 | William Shakespeare's plays are classified as comedy, tragedy, or history. Some of his most memorable --and most often read -- creations provide us with wistful humor, gentle poetry and hilarious slapstick. Some of them survive as unforgettable dramas of compelling depth and gravity. Regardless, he was able to write with unparalleled skill and inventiveness, contributing greatly to our young language. So in what category lies The Merchant of Venice ? I was very surprised to find it is one of Shakespeare's comedies. I had never before read it nor seen it, but after watching this most recent film version I have decided it is neither and it is both. This is one of many questions the viewer must try to answer when coming to terms with what is clearly a perplexing and deeply troubling moral tragedy.<br /><br />The players are introduced quickly, and simply. One of them, firstly, is Venice itself; director Michael Radford filmed the Venetian scenes in the actual city, creating an impressively vibrant, bustling backdrop to the play's proceedings. To this scenery enters the youthful Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), returning to Venice to see a dear old friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons). It seems the poor Bassanio has heard of a princess whose father has died and has left to any potential suitors a lottery of sorts. Waiting at the fair lady's island estate are three small trunks, <br /><br />only one of which contains "images of the princess". He who can guess the right one, using only blind intuition and the cryptic teasers written upon them, will be bestowed the father's huge fortune for life. Oh, and his daughter and her eternal love in marriage, I forgot to mention. Here the light comedy of Shakespeare takes over the movie. This farcical plot element drives the story and also fills up much of the film's screen time, as a number of painfully eager opportunists arrive at the island, humorously vying for and failing to earn this very wealthy hand in marriage. But before any of this occurs Bassanio, very much lacking in finances, entreats Antonio to loan him three thousand ducats to pay for the lengthy journey he must take to have his shot at the prize. <br /><br />Antonio, himself nearly penniless, must reluctantly embrace humility by seeking the financial aid of Shylock (Al Pacino), one of countless Jewish usurers who keep the sagging economy afloat yet are scorned and persecuted to no end by the city's zealously Christian majority. Thus they dwell in society's underbelly, and it is here the two borrowers must go. Shylock does not hesitate to remind the two men of a certain incident where Antonio insulted and spat on him in the city market, and he proudly rebukes this man who frankly has a lot of nerve now coming to ask for help. But help him Shylock does. He even erases any kind of interest on the loan, most likely feeling he has no reason to be concerned if Antonio will be able to repay him within three months. Still, Shylock's one contractual demand is a pound of Antonio's flesh, should he renege on their agreement. This is an unsettling request, to be sure, for Antonio and Bassanio as well as for us. But it appears that despite his justifiable pride Shylock does not really anticipate seeing such a gruesome act occurring. <br /><br />So here the dramatic groundwork has been laid. And while the film goes off to explore its gentler side with its love lottery and mistaken identities, there still looms the gloomy prospect of the loan itself. In the end, what will become of this ominous agreement? Meanwhile we are left at turns to explore the true central character of Shylock. Al Pacino has ample dramatic weight to carry here, and he does so with convincing grit and passion. There are times when he is given room for the theatrics we have come to expect from such a colorful actor. But his most impressive scenes are the ones where he internalizes this energy, showing a conflicted personality: honest, sincere, and proud, yet brooding, vengeful and entirely remorseless. This is one of Pacino's most heartfelt performances to date. And while the rest of the cast play their roles creditably and convincingly, it is Pacino who really owns the film -- especially toward the end, when Shakespeare upends this seeming romantic comedy with a wallop of a third act.<br /><br />I shall not reveal much here; all I can say is that it involves the initial loan -- a mighty shoe one expected would drop sooner or later. And does it ever. By the end Shakespeare has raised a host of dilemmas for his audience: seemingly unresolvable questions of faith, morality, law, and mercy are thrown before us through the final scenes, and while by curtain's close the playwright's position may seem clear to some, we are left completely at odds. There are winners and losers in this one, but have the winners earned their spoils with good reason, or have they in a larger sense ended out losing as well? Has virtue been rewarded, or simply flouted? Has justice in fact this time been just? By the play's finish some fates are painfully clear, and unequivocally sealed. But the audience are to be the ones who really decide the verdict for all of those involved. And for some the verdict is still out for the play as well. Comedy or tragedy? The author has cunningly veiled the intense courtroom finale with an ending of light mirth and pat romantic resolutions. Is he saying that all is well that ends well, or is this his final, ironic condemnation? The play's humor serves to set us up nicely for such a heavy crash. And while it is also what unfortunately keeps The Merchant of Venice from achieving the greatness of so many of Shakespeare's other works, it is still engaging, amusing, and thought-provoking beyond measure. | 1 |
22,489 | [
1100,
1200
] | 934 | 1,114 | This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." <br /><br />The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.<br /><br />The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed for example the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.<br /><br />Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that when completed bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.<br /><br />I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said! | 1 |
22,546 | [
1100,
1200
] | 874 | 1,111 | This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.<br /><br />What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War). <br /><br />Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.<br /><br />So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern "Point" man they could find.<br /><br />Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).<br /><br />Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.<br /><br />That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.<br /><br />Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be. | 1 |
22,566 | [
1100,
1200
] | 959 | 1,139 | I first viewed "They Died With There Boots On",about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident"His squadron would follow him to hell,"Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,"young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise."Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the "Little Big Horn" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it. | 1 |
22,684 | [
1100,
1200
] | 980 | 1,189 | A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.<br /><br />This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.<br /><br />After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.<br /><br />The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.<br /><br />Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.<br /><br />The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.<br /><br />The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.<br /><br />Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.<br /><br />Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters. | 1 |
22,844 | [
1100,
1200
] | 950 | 1,187 | Dr. Sayer(Philippe Leroy), a wealthy physician with psychological issues regarding the opposite sex, kidnaps an employee, Maria(Dagmar Lassander), a free-thinking liberal woman who believes men must be the ones "fixed" instead of females. Sayer retreats to his palatial estate, running Maria through a humiliating series of mind games, threatening to molest and kill her. Sayer's desire, it seems, is to dominate her body, mind and soul, making her his sexual slave, obeying his commands, adhering to his every wish and whim. After resistance, at first, Maria slowly teeters towards his objective, but has plans of her own..she says she wishes to help Sayer relinquish his sadistic behavior towards women, so that he could love and not feel such yearning desires to harm. It seems that Sayer has her under his grip, agreeing to certain rather embarrassing scenarios(..such as lotioning his toes, "making love" to a blow-up doll which is a recreation of himself, often spending time topless, and even getting hosed down when she slaps him hard across the face bringing blood from his nose)which almost break her, but something happens as the troubled doctor slowly falls in love with Maria..and through what appears to be a desperate attempt to end the madness, Maria gains an upper hand, toying with Sayer's lust for her body.<br /><br />More of a battle of wills, a kind of sexual warfare where it seems one is in charge when in fact the other truly has the upper hand. Through a great deal of the film, Sayer mistreats Maria, forcing her(..it seems)to submit to his series of psychological games of a sexual nature. Her attempts to escape fail because his home is such a well designed fortress..it's a typical European art deco kind of palace, fashioned and orchestrated by a man who has kept to this weekend retreat of his for quite a spell(..it features walls and doors opening at his command, with an area quarantined off for his "victims"). But, once Maria seemingly downs a bottle of pills as a result of her anguish at his hands, the tables are turned and she has him where she wants him. He finds that he actually craves her and Maria uses this to her advantage, playing hard to get when Sayer wishes to embrace and ravage her(..and, I could understand his frustration because she has this allure that can drive a man crazy)<br /><br />I felt the film works, ultimately, as a war cry for women, their empowerment and uprising against men who have the notion that they should always have control, sexually and mentally. The "twist" finalizes this ideal. I couldn't swallow Sayer's fate because of his rigorous cardiovascular activity and exercise regimen..we see how he develops his toned athletic figure, and how this regimen is part of the normal routine every weekend before the true mind games with his victim begin. If he is so well fit, and spends such time developing himself for the extracurricular activities which follow his regimen, how could he suffer the fate which follows his finalizing the deal with Maria at the end when she stops resisting his advances? <br /><br />Maria, he would later admit, is the first he's actually kidnapped; others from the past, call-girls, were paid for their services so that Sayer could feel the power of dominating a woman, even if it's all a fictitious charade brought about by a deeply troubled individual with an inability to connect with the opposite sex. The spontaneous decision to do so, to take a leap from the norm, costs him more than he could ever know.<br /><br />All this psycho-sexual sub-text is rather fascinating to see unravel, but Dagmar Lassander, such a yummy sex kitten, was my reason for enjoying it so..without her, I couldn't have liked it as much because she's vital as a victim worth striving to obtain. Perhaps the film's highlight, the delicious dance as Lassander, clothed in gauze(!), unravels the wardrobe exposing her breasts to a jazzy score..it's the kind of sexually seductive moment that makes your mouth water and forehead sweat. Dagmar Lassander must've been a joy for fashion designers because she wears those clothes so well..she has this kind of cool, a sophistication and screen presence along with her beauty and seductive powers, Dagmar transcends the part to create an iconic character which would define her career..even if the film isn't well known(..I found about through word of mouth). The provocative nature of the script and risqué subject matter might not appeal to certain crowds as it deals with sex(..and pain) in many different forms, the dialogue quite illustrative and elaborative. At times, I couldn't help but chuckle at Sayer's comments towards an imprisoned Maria, regarding how he enjoys making women suffer, and the thrill he gets at forcing them into a type of slavery(..in an attempt to make the words poetic, it all feels rather hokey). But, Dagmar is the real reason to see it, and the film, to me, works at it's best as a fetish film, a possible male fantasy with this seemingly prim and proper idealist, captured and held against her will, forced into a precarious situation, her fate possibly at the mercy of a complex and possibly dangerous masochist. Her submission, and how she reacts towards his aggressive behavior with her(..there are times where she unfolds to a wavering desire to embrace him, unveiling a possible attraction towards him which, in itself, might startle some who watch it)are among the most fascinating highlights of this exploitation feature. My other favorite scene, besides the dance, is the piano concerto with Sayer fondling Maria as she plays a soothing melody. | 1 |
22,884 | [
1100,
1200
] | 990 | 1,178 | "Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two lines that come before and after it:<br /><br />"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best." <br /><br />I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871). <br /><br />To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist. <br /><br />That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it. <br /><br />To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.<br /><br />One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever. | 1 |
23,130 | [
1100,
1200
] | 927 | 1,102 | Sequels are a capricious lot with most nowhere near the stature of the original. Sometimes you find a sequel that is considered better than the original, some critics (such as John Charles) have stated that Project A2 is better than the original, I disagree somewhat but this movie is still a worthwhile follow-up and fits well in the output of brilliant Hong Kong action cinema in the 1980s as well as Jackie's own oeuvre. I do wonder how with such an awesome release of great films that his later films were not as good. He only has directed two films in the 1990s and none past that, but he has had much clout in many of the films where he is not officially the director.<br /><br />Earlier in 1987 Jackie had brain surgery following a disastrous fall in the filming of Armour of God. This encouraged him to work on his next film close to home. This did not encourage him to stop risking his life and his stunt team for our amusement. What resulted is a smash hit at home that eclipsed the original in box office tallies (31 million HK dollars compared to 19 million for the original).<br /><br />Jackie Chan is once again police officer extraordinaire Dragon Ma and he is ordered to work with "Three Wan" Superintendent Chun (Lam Wai, Royal Warriors) who is the only Chinese police officer allowed to have a gun yet is thought to be staging arrests to make himself look better and ignoring the crimes of a triad lord named Tiger Au (Michael Chan Wai-Man, Dragon Lord). Apparently Chun has too much power to be taken down directly, but he is relieved of the Sai Wan district (now he is "Two Wan") which Dragon Ma takes over. This inefficient and corrupt office will soon get a makeover and there is a great scene where three officers, who do not know who they are dealing with, attempt to assault Ma to teach him a lesson about complaining about police officers. He soon has that district ship-shape and Tiger Au taken care of. The fight choreography and stunts with Tiger and his men are quite awesome. My favorite stunt was a beautifully brutal fall from the second floor into a large vase and that vase did not appear to be soft.<br /><br />Meanwhile a couple of subplots are happening. There are pirates who have survived from the first film who are looking for revenge and food. Then there are revolutionaries including Maggie (Maggie Cheung, In The Mood For Love) and (Rosamund Kwan, Casino Raiders) who are trying to raise funds for Dr. Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing Government as well as government operatives who are trying to find these rebels. Throw in a mixture of corrupt Hong Kong and British Cops as well as legitimate ones and you have a stew that is getting a bit too many ingredients, but yet still seems to coalesce. This works well when there is a Marx Brothers influenced scene (the Marx Brothers have done this type of scene a few times with The Cocoanuts (1929) being the first) at Maggie's place where everyone is looking for someone while hiding from someone else. Many weeks were spent on this scene alone and the effort certainly shows.<br /><br />There are several faults with the film. There is a certain didactic nature that creeps in the film that seems a bit out-of-place especially one small speech towards the end that Jackie gives when dealing with the Mainland revolutionaries and the extremely easy conversion of the pirates that survived from the first film. Female characters are once again underused and under-appreciated, especially Maggie Cheung. I was not as satisfied with the continuance of the plot as much as the first film either. The individual scenes dominate my feelings for the film instead of thinking of this movie as a cohesive whole. I do not fault the film for not being able to have Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao like the first though (I have heard the main reason behind this was that those two were filming Eastern Condors, but I do wonder if Jackie could have waited a small while to get them to perform in this they would work together for the last time the following year in Dragons Forever), but they are missed.<br /><br />I found this to be quite an enjoyable and well-made film and it is rightfully regarded as one of the better comedic action films of the 1980s. This film is also quite good in a few unexpected places. The art direction is superb (Eddie Ma Poon-chiu), the costumes are exquisite, the cinematography is good and the movie looks quite authentic. But the stunts, comedy and the action is what I remember this film for. There is a chase involving a handcuffed Dragon and Chun that is superb (part of the axe throwing scene would be used in Shanghai Noon). The last twenty minutes is full of awe-inspiring hits, falls, chili-peppers as a mouth-mace (Jackie writes in his autobiography about how he used real peppers in this scene; you can see him in a lot of mouth pain during the outtakes at the end) and is a worthy conclusion to this movie. The most famous stunt from this sequence is his homage to Buster Keaton from Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) with the exception that there is no hole and only a weak section where his head pops through.<br /><br />Fans of Jackie and/or Hong Kong action cinema should consider this a must own and watch. I certainly do. | 1 |
23,167 | [
1100,
1200
] | 944 | 1,121 | I'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves. Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that. It's not "enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences" about the Brazilian favelas' issue? Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way.<br /><br />The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life. This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go unfulfilled.<br /><br />As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their intentions.<br /><br />Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like "a chosen one" as much as they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source of inspiration.<br /><br />In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is much more, an inspirational story.<br /><br />Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will, but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night.<br /><br />If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this great. | 1 |
23,351 | [
1100,
1200
] | 991 | 1,159 | Talk Radio sees a man somewhat accidentally stumble through life, indeed the American Dream, from whatever bog-standard and everyday job he has in a store; to presenter of a local radio show before going right the way through to the same job only later syndicated nationwide. It's a role he adopts out of his own aggression and natural mannerisms, a frothing mad approach to freedom of speech as he attacks just about everyone and everything, even those that often call up to agree with him or compliment him. His role as a man that rants on all things good, evil, right, wrong, political, religious, moral and immoral is something that people seem to take to in one form; that of 'it's entertaining and worth tuning in for', but additionally on a plane of rejection and antagonism two things born out of the very things seemingly encouraged in professional working life in the Western World. This, towards a man as he gets to the very top of his game by way of the American Dream and dealing in freedom of speech as people take to a man but do anything but take to what it is he says.<br /><br />Talk Radio begins with a montage of tall, towering buildings in a business based area of Dallas, Texas. The skyscrapers are shot from a ,ow angle and tower over the viewer plus everything else in the general vicinity as this voice of one man tears through the images, belting out statements and information on items as these monolithic buildings dominate out screen. They are the very physical representation of capitalism, while the voice of what we learn to be a radio DJ is the oral representation of the free west; personal speech and opinions on anything and everything. Stone will finish his film in the exact same manner in which he started it, although the film is anything but a circular journey of any sort as the characters undergo monumental changes in both what they witness and their general livelihood. Rather, the shots of the buildings act as an anchor around which the study is observed. The ideologies and ideas of a way of life exist; people subscribe to them, but it does them more harm than good; before the re-establishment that this proud way of life still exists and will continue to exist in churning out the sorts of people on display in the film until someone or something drastically changes things.<br /><br />The DJ is Barry Champlain, a man with a radio show on a local Texan station dealing with just about anything. Champlain's somewhat carefree attitude to some pretty explosive content is established when he flies from one call with a bigoted man whom recently visited a Holocaust museum to a young drug addict whose girlfriend has supposedly overdosed and onto both the berating and mocking of a pizza shop. To us, the content comes across as quite shocking; to these people, everything seems to be business as usual which plants some serious seeds of both doubt and horror within the minds of us, the newcomers to all of this.<br /><br />What Barry's show is about, nobody ever seems to really establish: everything and nothing. Indeed, time is taken in the form of either jingles or dialogue that the shows immediately pre and post Champlain's show are on specific subjects; gardening, for instance, and are hosted by calm speaking and methodical people whom, I'm sure, do not flit from one random or extreme to another all the time raising the stakes. One wonders what Barry's jingle is, the kind that plays around about lunch time during someone else's' show: "Coming up later, the Barry Champlain show! Featuring the village idiot and psychotic drug abusers!" Indeed, his show's introductory piece carries a matter-of-fact tone, a shouting at the audience, as a loud rock track accompanies it.<br /><br />Barry's success arrives in the national syndication proposal. It's born out of confrontation and a relationship built on the contempt he has for his listeners and that they have for him. The furthering of the material and the upping of the stakes ought to call into question just how far they think they can take this, and whether this progressing down a track for sake of entertainment is really worth it. It is when the show reaches this level of broadcast that Barry seems to come unstuck for the first time in his broadcasting life, when a supposed serial rapist calls in and leaves mostly everyone slightly stunned. It's at this point the camera pauses on Barry, and by way of depth of focus, encompasses those same looming, towering buildings the film began with which stand outside of the window, directly behind Barry. They remain tall and proud. Specifically, of the ideologies they've been built on and this furtherance of freedom of speech in broadening Barry's show nationwide as one man climbs his profession's ladder suddenly clashes with the sort of content that's being offered. Everything reaches a point too far, and that with freedom, ought to at least come a sense of clarity rather than a mere revelling.<br /><br />Oliver Stone made Talk Radio right in the middle of both a fascinating and explosive period of film-making he had in the late 1980s. In this time, he produced a series of really well received films in a pretty short space of time; beginning with one of my favourite war films in Platoon before continuing with the quite brilliant Wall Street and eventually finishing with 1991's JFK. One might even say that this run continued on into the mid-nineties with Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio is like its lead character in the sense it's loud, booming, stark and confrontational. It isn't anti-capitalism, as much as it is focused on drawing a line between what is perceived as entertainment and what is just going too far for sake of popularity and riches. Talk Radio is certainly a film that sticks in the memory. | 1 |
23,536 | [
1100,
1200
] | 950 | 1,140 | When it comes to those eerie and uncanny little crime films, the sorts that revolve around characters that are bordering on scum and inhabit equally scummy surroundings, and additionally carry that wavering and bleak feel thanks to some pretty grotty cinematography and some very black comedy; Dead Bodies is the sort of film Paul McGuigan wishes he could make. Alas, the maddening and sporadic Gangster No. 1 as well as the equally all over the shop, but interesting exercise in surrealism mixed with realism, effort entitled The Acid House are the only ones of his we've got to go on so far. Dead Bodies is Robert Quinn's piece based on a Derek Landy script, a film that straddles the line between psychological horror and neo-noir; intermingling elements of crime and terror with themes linked to morality and unnatural, obsessive disorders.<br /><br />McGuigan's British based crime efforts carry that wavy and distorted feel, like witnessing somebody's nightmare and having front row seats in the process. His films are able to disgust is some areas and amuse in others what with their outlandish and all-over-the-place approach. They carry a very dream-like sensibility despite being grounded in a very realistic, down-trodden, grimy looking world the real world with as much-an emphasis on the horror and the terror of the situations his characters spawn than anything else. Dead Bodies is a film that tackles both some pretty harrowing character driven situations as well as a brief inclusion of a study of a delicate psychological mindset, only here, the film balances both the eccentricity of its characters; the terror of the scenarios they find themselves in and the questions of morality that arise much better.<br /><br />Dead Bodies is effective and rather simplistic without ever feeling like manipulative. Its suggestive and knowing tendency to want to hammer home exactly what people are thinking and feeling does not detract from the experience. Early on, we meet Tommy McGann (Scott), a young lad whose girlfriend Jean (Davis) dominates him, his life and the screen whenever she's on for the brief time that she is. The point as to the fact his situation of living in a less-than desirable house; with a job stacking shelves and a partner he doesn't get on with at all well is put across in a distinct manner. As is the manner in which the audience are given distinct permission to dislike Jean what with the bratty, spoilt and expectant attitudes she so clearly possesses. Later on the film will linger, rather obviously, on a police officer's face as suspicions and tensions rise in what is clearly a cheap and easy way to tell the watching audience that our hero is not quite out of trouble just yet.<br /><br />But compare this to Gangster No. 1, in which such is the episodic and misguided approach McGuigan applies to the material; that a vital, vital plot point arises when a character is spotted leaving a building by someone else out on a 'random drive' in a scene set several months after the previous one. The feeling isn't as grounded nor fulfilling. Dead Bodies' set up is dominated by Kay Davis' Jean; a would-be femme fatale just itching to pick a fight of some sort but just not really being able to find one. She has lead Tommy jumping through rings; going there, doing this and that without Tommy ever really reacting in the manner he could, principally because he is controlled by her promises of sex. The beginning builds a certain amount of tension because of Tommy's underplayed reaction to what's going on and it culminates in a distinct release when the initial incident happens, and Jean dies.<br /><br />If the set up is simple enough then that's one thing, but the pinch of the project is the manner in which Tommy decides to rid Jean of his hands by burying her without informing anyone of her death bar a best friend. Things tighten when it transpires there was a second dead body in the exact same place Tommy buried Jean, with suspicions, denials and general trouble the all round ingredients of the day. It is at this point the film blurs the lines between noir and horror; indeed Tommy inhabits rather-a large, ominous, spooky and even Gothic house which he shares with an elder relative whom inhabits the upper areas of said house. This evokes memories of Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho and Bates' set up that he has with his mother, and where she's positioned. It is additionally no coincidence this would-be place of horror is the setting for Jean's unfortunate demise.<br /><br />The placing of a dead body right in the hands of the hapless, male lead in order for it to act as the initial incident is a classic set up for any noir; from Ulmer's 1945 film Detour right up to a more recent, and more contemporary compared to Dead Bodies, 2006 film entitled Big Nothing. What this film unfolds into, is a twisted; rather unpredictable and quite frightening tale of genre hybridity and mind games told under a palette of distinctly drained visuals. The voice-overs and the treading on the fine line that the lead does for most of the film between right and wrong aid in pushing it into a realm of the neo-noir; if we consider the fact that the lead is, essentially, innocent and his murder charges are unfair then that's one thing, but his attitudes towards Jean initially saw him act without thought and his covering up of her death is the anti-thesis for dropping the murder charges. Dead Bodies is taught; entertaining to watch without ever feeling exploitative and provides a consistent tone for the rather nasty physical and psychological content being explored. | 1 |
23,591 | [
1100,
1200
] | 916 | 1,134 | 78 years ago...the premiere of "Anna Christie" advertised by the slogan "Garbo Talks!" The film runs for 16 minutes and the viewers reach the climax of curiosity: Greta enters the bar and gets through a long awaited transfer from silence into sound: a few seconds closing her silent era and, at last, Greta Garbo says a historic line: "Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side and don't be stingy, baby!" <br /><br />"Anna Christie" (1930) is the movie by Clarence Brown that introduced a great silent star Greta Garbo to talkies. Nowadays, we can only imagine what serious transfer it was for actors and actresses. The careers of many were bound to end - something we hardly or not at all see at present. And it was no coincidence that it was Clarence Brown who directed the first talkie with the Swedish beauty. Garbo trusted the director after two of his great silent productions, FLESH AND THE DEVIL (1926) and A WOMAN OF AFFAIRS (1928): movies that achieved a smashing success at the box office, both with Garbo in the lead. <br /><br />But we are in 2008 and that fact about the movie, now purely historical, appears to be of minor importance. The question for today's viewer is not what Garbo's voice sounds like but if the movie is still watchable after these 78 years. In other words, we all strive to answer the question if the movie has stood a test of time. Has it?<br /><br />When I recently watched it, I came into conclusion that, except for some minor technical aspects, including static camera, "Anna Christie" is still very entertaining. It's, on the one hand, a wonderful story of a life, of a reality that the young woman faces (being based on Eugene O"Neill's play), and, on the other hand, an artistic manifestation of true magnificence in the field of direction and acting. Let me analyze these two aspects in separate paragraphs.<br /><br />CONTENT: Chris Christopherson (George F Marion), a heavy drinker, lives a life of a sailor, on a barge. Although his days are filled with sorrows, he is consoled by a letter from his daughter Anna (Garbo) whom he hasn't seen for 15 years. She says that she will come back to him. He starts to change everything for better; however forgets that his daughter is no longer a child lacking experience but a 23 year-old woman who has got through various sorts of things on a farm in Minnessota where she lived and worked. Moreover, he forgets that she has a right to accept another kind of male love in her life... This brief presentation of the content not from the perspective of the main character but the one which is introduced to us sooner than Anna (her father Chris) makes you realize how universal it is. Simply no letter from the whole text that life appears to be has been erased after all these years. Cases discussed here in 1930 are still meaningful and valid...<br /><br />PERFORMANCES. There are not many characters in the movie, but there are two that really shine in the roles. It is of course Greta Garbo herself who did something extraordinary in her 15 year-long phenomenon, the presence that strongly marked the history of early cinema (something I have already discussed in many of my earlier comments on her films). But here, Garbo is slightly different. I admit that there are moments in this movie when she does not feel very comfortable with her role. That seems to be caused by her new experience with sound in English; however, her performance is, as always, genuine and unique. But that is what everyone has expected from Garbo. The true surprise of the movie for the 1930 viewers and also for us is Marie Dressler as Marthy. She is excellent in her facial expressions, in her accent, in the entire portrayal of a drinking woman who looks at life from the perspective of "hitting the bottle." Her best moments include the conversation with Anna Christie in the bar preceded by her hilarious talk with Chris. The rest of the supporting cast are fine yet not great whatsoever (here the German version makes up for it). Particularly Dressler, except for Garbo herself, constitutes an absolutely flawless choice.<br /><br />If you asked me what I like about "Anna Christie" nowadays, that's what I would tell you: it's a classic movie. However, there is one more thing that I must mention at the end. It is humor, wonderful wit that is noticeable throughout. Although the content is quite serious and "Anna Christie" in no way carries a comedian spirit (the only Garbo's comedy was NINOTCHKA), there are such moments when you will split your sides. Don't skip, for instance, Anna and Matt's visit in the fun park, particularly at the restaurant where he orders milk for her thinking how virtuous and innocent she is, beer for himself and where suddenly Marthy joins them by chance...<br /><br />"Anna Christie" is a perfect movie for classic buffs and a must see for all at least a bit interested in the true magnificence of performance. If you are fed up with many of those modern starlets, seek such movies out and you shall be satisfied. Very worth your search! <br /><br />Skaal Greta Garbo! Skaal Marie Dressler! Let us drink a toast to the great jobs you did in the movie! Skaal after all these years when wine tastes much better and your spirits are with us in a different sense... | 1 |
23,737 | [
1100,
1200
] | 823 | 1,131 | Hey, this Ralf Westhoff seems to knows a lot about people! We have nine women and nine men taking part in a speed dating event, each person has five minutes to talk to each opposite. A good idea to make a movie out of these conversations. And even better: it works very, very well! The dialog is witty, original and authentic, each person is subtly characterized, without falling into the cliché trap, something that is unusual for German movies, remember: All these years, we Germans were tormented with silly zeitgeist comedies such as "Workaholic" or "Stadtgespräch".<br /><br />But now the time has come for young German directors to do their own thing and take the risk of producing movies which are entertaining and funny AND intelligent and sensitive at the same time. The timing of "Shoppen" is good, too: Although it presents mainly dialog, it keeps the tension and interest. After a while, you actually become curious to see how this man and that woman would do. Some of the participants meet later on for a two-some, it's fun to see them interacting together in "real life". Of course, the film has a few drawbacks: it's not very cinematic (but can such a movie be?), the musical soundtrack could have been better, but all this is only marginal.<br /><br />The most important thing about this movie: We have some damn good actors here. Imagine this: All of them are still pretty unknown even here in Germany (most were derived from the Munich or Bavarian theater scene). But I predict that out of the 18 main actors, at least 11 will quickly become very well-known in the movie and TV scene over here. It's great to see so many fresh and at the same time talented faces. Well-done!<br /><br />For those who want to read more, here's a rundown of all 18 actors:(spoilers!)<br /><br />Sebastian Weber: Silent waters are deep! Memorize his "Flower garden" monologue, you can win any woman's heart with this one.<br /><br />Anna Böger: A hell of a woman! Every time she opens her mouth, you can't help but laugh and feel good. Listen how she pronounces "asshole" and calls the pink shirt guy a "Bürscherl"!<br /><br />Felix Hellmann: The "Bürscherl" from above is fun to watch. The inconvenient truth is that there are too many of those guys around. His looks somewhat reminded me of Flo Weber of "Sportfreunde Stiller".<br /><br />Katharina Schubert: This woman has everything: love, hope, despair, beauty. Her "do you want children" scene is a classic. A great actress of whom we will hear again, no doubt.<br /><br />David Baalcke: Now is this guy a loser or not? Almost as authentic as Paul Giamatti in "Sideways". I hope this is NOT method acting.<br /><br />Julia Koschitz: The "good looking" woman in the circle. Julia used to play theater in my hometown, kudos! I think she will appear in many TV series to come.<br /><br />Martin Butzke: The revolutionary guy catches the cutest and most conventional woman in the end. Would you like to share a taxi with this guy?<br /><br />Kathrin von Steinburg: She gave a stunning performance in "Tatort" last year. Her trance-like performance in this movie is no less. SEE her beautiful face and HEAR her dirty laugh. The best scene in the movie belongs to her. <br /><br />Matthias Bundschuh: I know these "write down everything"-guys back from school. I'm not sure whether the hot blond got her allergic reaction because of him or his cat. Matthias' portrayal of such a chicken is outstanding. <br /><br />Mediha Cetin: The sister-in-law of my ex-girl-friend was the same talker like her. The day I met her was the only day in my life I needed tranquilizers, so bad remembrances here.<br /><br />Thomas Limpinsel: The "nice and desperate guy" in the circle. Limpinsel has a comical talent that is way better than most so-called "comedians" on TV.<br /><br />Lisa Wagner: The victim of Sebastian's "flower garden" metaphor. Lisa's face is funny and full of melancholy, her story made me feel good and sad at the same time, wow!<br /><br />Oliver Bürgin: The "good looking" man in the circle. No wonder he catches Julia in the end. These two really fit together. I think he will appear in many TV series to come.<br /><br />Julia Heinze: The "cute, conventional" woman. I hope she won't be underrated: Julia's face changes from naive to hurt to furious are great! <br /><br />Stephan Zinner: The "nature boy" from Partenkirchen likes cooking, eating and good sex. Watch the body language between him and the hot blond! Zinner usually plays CSU politician Söder on stage!<br /><br />Anja Klawun: The "bargain girl" has some good moments, but, beg your pardon, fails (like most actors) in playing a drunk on screen.<br /><br />Christian Pfeil: Plays the arrogant and narcissistic guy. Couldn't believe that this very actor owns two art-house cinemas in Munich. <br /><br />Tanja Schleiff: Plays the girl who sleeps with every man around. I'm sure many male visitors will go for her. I have heard she can do dramatic roles as well, so I'm curious. | 1 |
24,019 | [
1100,
1200
] | 874 | 1,103 | 'Boogie Nights' uses its protagonist, Dirk Diggler, as a metaphor for accumulated celebrities from a decade in America's shameful past, which was comprised of an unexpected rise in pornography, therefore resulting in an abundance of corrupted youth. Its lead character borrows traits from a various assortment of genuine actors, involving himself in many illegal affairs that have been dabbled in by celebrities in Hollywood, and all-too-often exploited by the press. It seems like the sort of tall tale that might appear on an E! True Hollywood Story special. Drugs, sex and violence -- the American Dream. But what goes up must come down, and the bigger it is, the harder it falls.<br /><br />Dirk Diggler's dreams are huge, as is another valuable asset on his body. Dirk's real name is Eddie Adams, a Californian who dreams of becoming a star. He believes that God gives one great talent to every individual on the planet, and his gift is a rather unusual one. After falling out with his mother, Eddie leaves home and meets the sleazy Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), an adult film director who offers him work. Eddie eventually becomes a major porn star, representing the leading "actor" in most of Horner's films. With newfound success, Eddie is told that he needs to invent a new alias for himself, and so Dirk Diggler is born.<br /><br />Eddie/Dirk himself is primarily based on infamous porn star John Holmes, whose life story was adapted in 2003 with 'Wonderland', which starred Val Kilmer. 'Boogie Nights' is unarguably the better of the two, proving that movies about pornography can be made without disgusting its target audience: regular cinema-goers.<br /><br />The film takes place in 1977, an era of artistic pornography -- filmmakers truly believed that they could compensate for the low points of X-rated features by adding deep stories and mesmerizing atmosphere. In a way, the film's director -- Paul Thomas Anderson -- implements a very artistic approach to the project, resulting in a gratuitous and artistic movie about a period in American history when smut was indeed both gratuitous and artistic. Anderson's style is so deep, and so distinct, that we soon feel as if we are reliving the era first-hand. Not a moment goes by where we are unconvinced of the time range dealt with in the film.<br /><br />All was not happy on the set of 'Boogie Nights'. Prior to filming, Anderson approached Reynolds repeatedly, asking him many separate times to play the role of Horner. Eventually, Reynolds agreed, but claimed that the film was horrible and the worst role of his career, publicly disowning it, before being nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award and suddenly shutting up. A year before, Anderson had suffered title disputes over Sydney/Hard Eight. He preferred the latter title for his film, and New Line Cinema thought the former was more marketable. He essentially lost the battle, and Anderson wisely avoided title disputes this time around by inserting the words "boogie nights" into his movie through the mouth of a character.<br /><br />The casting of the film is one of its finest aspects. The Paul Thomas Anderson regulars are here, as well as a whole top-notch cast of first-timers. To name some of the more well-known stars: John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Heather Graham and Julianne Moore. But the entire movie essentially borders down to Mark Wahlberg, as Eddie, who is surprisingly convincing in his role. Wahlberg, previously known for his singing career and disappointing Hollywood pursuits, has all the necessary traits to portray such a character. This is his best role to date.<br /><br />Anderson knows how to captivate his audience and take complete control of every scene. When Jack Horner first meets Eddie, Anderson slyly uses stars in the backdrop, a sign of things to come, and hidden symbolism as finely acute as it can be. The opening scene is three minutes, a long tracking shot that follows Jack and Amber into a night club, where most of the characters are first introduced. It reminds me of the discussions regarding tracking shots in Robert Altman's 'The Player' -- it works so brilliantly in Boogie Nights, and is the first indication that Anderson knows what he is doing behind the camera. His style is fast-paced in the vein of Martin Scorsese, where shots zip around quite quickly but never seem rushed. Incidentally, Anderson references two classic Scorsese shots -- the closing De Niro mirror speech from 'Raging Bull' and the tracking nightclub scene from 'GoodFellas'. Anderson is a young, growing director who is remarkably mature in story and direction, despite his age. Whereas his first feature film, 'Hard Eight', was noticeably wise and poignant, 'Boogie Nights' is even more so.<br /><br />'Boogie Nights' began as an effort of love on Paul Thomas Anderson's account. Having filmed the extraordinary Hard Eight in 1996, Anderson's film is pragmatic to such an extreme that it almost seems genuine. Boogie Nights invigorates us with its gratuitous content, occasionally bordering on the verge of pornography, only it is far more sophisticated than such trash. It is a blazing, wonderful modern-day masterpiece that is as mind-numbingly explicit as it is wild and stylish. Arguably Anderson's best film and among the greatest -- and most important -- projects of the last decade. | 1 |
24,750 | [
1100,
1200
] | 902 | 1,152 | If vampire tales are your cup of blood, then this Goth-fest based on the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles should prove to be a satisfying experience. A veritable consortium of the undead in a contemporary setting, `Queen of the Damned,' directed by Michael Rymer, is a story of shadows and darkness, and of the unfortunate souls who dwell therein for eternity.<br /><br /> The vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend), bored with a world that no longer excites him, has been `asleep' for many years; but suddenly, the sounds of that world he hears from his extended slumber change, and liking what he hears, he ventures forth to investigate. What he finds is a world filled with new sounds, a new kind of music-- driving and penetrating-- sounds that assault the senses and make him feel alive and welcome. And he knows that at long last his time has come, that it is time for him and those like him to come out into the open and face the world on their terms. Toward that end he becomes the front man for a band-- a singer and performer unlike any the world has ever known. He presents himself as a vampire, and very quickly amasses a following that extends far beyond London (where it all begins), and will ultimately take him to Death Valley, California, where he plans to give a concert that promises to be beyond anything anyone has ever seen or experienced.<br /><br /> Lestat is powerful, without question, but there are those of his kind who do not take favorably to the fact that he has revealed them, one of whom is Marius (Vincent Perez), a vampire powerful in his own right-- the vampire, in fact, who `made' Lestat so many years before-- and they are gathering, coming together and making their plans to meet Lestat at the concert. And they are not going for the music. But there is something else, as well: At one point Lestat has inadvertently awakened the `Mother' of them all, the most powerful of all the vampires, Akasha (Aaliyah), who is about to make her presence known to all, and especially to the one she has chosen to rule by her side as her King: Lestat. And at the concert, rest assured, Akasha will be in attendance, without fail.<br /><br /> Make no mistake, this is Lestat's story, and Rymer presents it amid a setting rich with atmosphere and with some exquisite moments, though his film has less bite to it than say, `Interview With the Vampire,' or `Bram Stoker's Dracula.' He sets a good pace, and there are some scenes that provide some real thrills, but overall the film isn't as soaked in menace as it could be, or as much as one might expect. In the final tally, in fact, the amount of flesh that is incinerated wins out over actual blood-letting, though there is more than a taste of gore, and more than a fair share of lips and mouths dripping with the red stuff. There's some good F/X on hand, too, especially in the sequences that accentuate the speed of the vampires, as they move and hurtle through the air faster than the naked eye can discern. It's a decent job by Rymer, but he could have put more teeth into it had he played up the alienation hinted at by Lestat; as it is, you get a sense of his detachment, but not enough to get you totally involved.<br /><br /> In `Interview With the Vampire,' Tom Cruise brought some charismatic star power to the role of Lestat, but Townsend is even more effective, with a look and an attitude that captures Lestat perfectly. He plays him with a sense of acceptance, and under closer scrutiny you may even find a hint of remorse and longing. It's a good performance, and one that sells his character convincingly.<br /><br /> As Marius, Vincent Perez does a nice job, too-- he is, in fact, one of the strengths of the film-- though his character is a bit ambiguous; that, however, has more to do with the way he was written than with Perez's performance, which is quite good. <br /><br /> Turning in noteworthy performances, as well, are Marguerite Moreau, as Jesse, a young woman too curious for her own good; and the gorgeous Lena Olin as Maharet, Jesse's Aunt, who ultimately plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the drama involving Lestat and Akasha.<br /><br /> And as Akasha, Aaliyah is an absolutely riveting presence. What more can one say about her other than she is a gifted performer, with tremendous talent and beauty. And, tragically, she has left us much too soon.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Paul McGann (David), Christian Manon (Mael), Claudia Black (Pandora), Bruce Spence (Khayman), Matthew Newton (Armand), Tiriel Mora (Roger) and Megan Dorman (Maudy). With a much stronger story than the usual offerings of this particular genre, Anne Rice fans, especially, will be pleased with `Queen of the Damned,' a film nicely crafted and delivered by director Rymer and his engaging cast. By focusing attention on the drama of the story-- and the way it's presented-- rather than concentrating on merely providing some cheap thrills, Rymer has succeeded in turning out a true horror film that is definitely a cut above, and one that just may whet your appetite for more of the same. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 1 |
24,930 | [
1100,
1200
] | 850 | 1,125 | Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. "In a murder mystery," he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you might as well film a documentary.'" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's no documentary. <br /><br />Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier). Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich and dirty old man, who often has Dora take "art" photographs of his young female proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing. Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, "You're jealous of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!" "You're dad was a laborer," Maurice shouts back. "So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!" <br /><br />And after Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull, there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore feet. He has seen it all. He served in "the colonies" with the Foreign Legion and returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it? Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement. <br /><br />Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room. And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in this milieu. With Jenny singing about "Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la," we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not much else. <br /><br />Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy, watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, "I've taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier." "Me?" she asks. "Yes. Because you and I are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance." Jouvet brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement. | 1 |
396 | [
1000,
1100
] | 859 | 1,054 | You have to acknowledge Cimino's contribution to cinema. He gave us both the most over-rated film in history (The Deer Hunter) and the worst film in history (Heaven's Gate). And before you start with the 'It's bad but not the worst ever' let me explain. <br /><br />For 20+ years I listened to the critics and avoided "Heaven's Gate"-actually this was not hard because you are hardly bombarded with opportunities to view this film. Then a few days after seeing the 'Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate' documentary I stumbled on a used $9.99 DVD of the long version. My advice after 229 minutes is to seek out the most negative review ever written about this film (you will find a wide selection), and imagine that the reviewer is Cimino's devoted mother and that she is doing everything she can to put a positive slant on her dear son's movie. Then you will have an idea of just how big a mess Cimino made.<br /><br />While pretty much everything is wrong with this film, what ultimately tips the scale to make it the worse ever (and a classic 'less than zero' example) is its shameless distortion of history. Although the cattlemen's association did send a group of regulators/gunmen to Johnson County and did have a list of targeted names, the actual facts of an interesting historical event are hopelessly exaggerated. On the morning of April 9, 1892, Nick Ray and Nate Champion were besieged and eventually killed by an army of about 50 cattlemen and Texas hired guns who had come to Johnson County to clean out "rustlers." The citizens of the county then besieged the regulators who finally were arrested (or rescued) by the Army. Women did not actively participate in the fighting and aside from Ray and Champion there were minimal casualties. After all, these were sieges not assaults-and there were not wagons of immigrants riding in circles around the encampment of regulations (early westerns to the contrary this was a film making device and not an actual tactic of the Indians). And weeks prior to the arrival of the regulators a number of Johnson County residents were hanged without trial including Jim Averell, the keeper of a modest road ranch, and his wife Ella Watson (who Cimino resurrects as his two leads and he even shows Averell living to a ripe old age). <br /><br />There is no movie-making sin greater than fictionalizing history, if you are going to play fast and loose with historical facts, then change the names and locations to protect the unsuspecting audience members who might go away from a film believing what they saw actually happened. Fortunately so few people saw this film that the damage was minimal. Perhaps it is harsh to blame Cimino for his distortion of history. He could probably escape blame anyway with an insanity defense-the film provides plenty of support. If Cimino was insane during the production of Heaven's Gate it would explain a lot of things. But my vote goes to 'lack of directing talent' instead of insanity.<br /><br />There are some good things about Heaven's Gate. You can actually see on the screen where some of the huge budget went; expensive sets-beautiful epic camera shots-artful dance sequences. Isabelle Huppert (a strange casting choice that actually worked) gives an agreeable and likable performance although most of her scenes are extremely boring (that tends to happen when the director forgets to give the viewer any reason to care about the characters). The dialogue is generally solid if rather ordinary.<br /><br />But don't fall for the crap that this film experiments with storytelling by intermixing carefully crafted moments of character interaction with textured pageant-like explosions of communal action. This implies that there was a method to Cimino madness. 'Experiments' is another word for when a filmmaker gets so lost in his project that a coherent story is no longer possible. The simple fact is that there is no evidence Cimino storyboarded a single scene or made any attempt at control or organization. What it looks like is that he just turned his DP loose to stage action and to get an endless selection of colorful shots-1.5 million feet of loosely staged scenes. Then he tried (without success) to pare this down and fit everything together in post-production. <br /><br />The final battle scene is genuinely hilarious as babushka wearing townswomen (perhaps borrowed from a 'Fiddler On The Roof' touring company) throw countless sticks of dynamite at the regulators. Unfortunately each explosive falls just short of the target and explodes harmlessly. After you see this happen 50-60 times you can relate to the woman (the one who looks like something out of 'The Grapes of Wrath') who puts a huge gun in her mouth and pulls the trigger. This is probably what Cimino's mother did after writing that review.<br /><br />So believe what you have been hearing about this film since 1980. It is a sloppy, disconnected, poorly paced, and historically distorted mess. Of value only as a 'how not to make a film' example for film historians and as a source of amusement to those knowledgeable about the actual history of the American west. | 0 |
534 | [
1000,
1100
] | 899 | 1,077 | 'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases. | 0 |
560 | [
1000,
1100
] | 875 | 1,077 | I did and I lost two and a half hours of my life that I can never regain again.<br /><br />I honestly have no idea what the critics and fans see in this movie. And that's not because I can't appreciate "art". I love a good film with profound messages, brilliant cinematography, and great directing.<br /><br />This film just isn't one of them.<br /><br />My main complaint about this film is that it's so horribly slow-paced, to the point of boring its audience to death. On the other hand, sequences of dialog go by too quickly and there's not enough exposition to let people who haven't read the book know what's going on (My mother had mercy on me and explained everything before I watched it). Would it have killed them to hire a narrator? At least for the beginning and the end? <br /><br />Let me break it down for you: (Spoilers throughout) <br /><br />For the first two minutes you are treated to a black screen with no music, waiting for the actual movie to begin.<br /><br />For the following minute and a half, you see several pictures of sunrises and savanna landscapes. Like the audience couldn't figure out how to set the scene unless they saw the establishing shot three or four times.<br /><br />The next eleven minutes are occupied with the grunting monkeys. They fight, see the monolith, fight some more, pommel things with a bone. Supposedly they are prehistoric men whose evolution is being influenced by the monolith's singing. Not that you could tell if you hadn't read the book.<br /><br />*Finally* we get into space. Only to be subjected to twelve minutes of ships slowly spinning to the Blue Danube Waltz (A pretty quick-tempo-ed waltz as I understand, yet here it feels absolutely agonizing). At last we get some innocuous dialog and rather cryptic exposition about the government not letting people land on the moon. We are left to wonder about this for fourteen more minutes of Blue Danube and spinning ships and neat camera tricks with anti-gravity.<br /><br />Next comes four minutes of watching a ship travel over the surface of the moon and dock at a space station. We get a little more exposition in a board room scene that follows. Then we're back outside traveling at a snail's pace over the moon. A second monolith is revealed, again filling our ears with that horrible ringing (I had no idea that was an actual piece of music!). The monolith does its little light show and then the plot jumps forward.<br /><br />*Seven* minutes of watching the ship to Jupiter travel. By this point in time my brains had turned into mush. Could it be moving any slower? Maybe it's "realistic" to portray it as such, but we still don't need to see five or six different shots of the same thing to grasp the concept of its "realism". Let me tell you about this "realism" thing; I cheered when the secondary astronaut character died. Not because I'm a sadist and like watching people die, but because after five minutes I was just so annoyed at the sound of his darn breathing! I'm supposed to care about this character, feel when he dies! Instead I found myself waiting for blissful silence whatever way it came.<br /><br />Anyway, now we get to the most interesting part of the film-the part with HAL. Forget Dave the stick-of-wood protagonist. The real star of the show is that coldly impersonal, chillingly villainous, ruthlessly merciless bad guy of a computer. He's great. And the "Open the pod bay doors" sequence is wonderful. But it's too short. And it's not long before the director once again lapses into too-long goings on.<br /><br />Four minutes for HAL to die. And die he does. Slowly, painfully, losing intelligence with every minute, voice getting lower and slower, singing "Daisy, Daisy", all with a low and constant hissing that becomes just as annoying as the heavy breathing.<br /><br />Seven minutes of flying colors as Dave enters the monolith. Seven. I could FEEL my brains melting and dripping out of my ears! Seven full minutes of absolutely nothing but some guy's whacked out psychedelic version of space travel, again with that thrice-cursed chorus! We got the idea at the beginning of the sequence! Why drag it out so long? Unless he wanted to make LSD users go psychotic and have flashbacks.<br /><br />I'm not even going to try to explain the ending, mostly because I don't quite get it myself. Supposedly he's in an alien research laboratory and they're teaching him deep and profound things while he watches himself getting older and older and then they send him back to earth as some kind of cosmic celestial space baby. None of this comes across in the film. For all you know, it's just a sequence of images with no purpose or plot whatsoever. A lot of the movie felt that way.<br /><br />The first time I tried watching this movie I gave up halfway through. The second time I suffered through this sore excuse for a film, it was to help my sister time the sequences to see how long they lasted. It's that boring.<br /><br />Call this crummy film "art" if you wish. I wouldn't. I've seen more interesting "art" in the local museum. And I am never subjecting myself to this kind of suffering ever again. | 0 |
625 | [
1000,
1100
] | 861 | 1,045 | I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.<br /><br />To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...<br /><br />Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.<br /><br />Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.<br /><br />Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production. | 0 |
796 | [
1000,
1100
] | 914 | 1,088 | Mom begins at night in the middle of nowhere, at what looks like a wooden building in the desert. A pick-up truck pulls up & an angry Father chucks his slutty daughter Virginia Monroe (Claudia Christian) out & leaves her there, but she isn't alone as the shadowy figure of Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) watches her from a short distance. Virginia tries to make conversation but as she grinds a cigarette out under her Leopard print, thigh high, high heeled boots Nestor grabs her by her throat & drags her off into the darkness. Nestor then rips her top open, turns into a monster & starts to eat her innards. Virginia is the latest victim of a serial killer that have Lieutenant Carlo Hendrix (Art Evans) & the LAPD baffled, or at least that's the message a local TV news reporter named Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas MIller) is telling his viewers. Clay is happily living with his pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough) & therefore his Mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) has a spare room going which she decides to rent out to the 'blind' dark sunglass wearing Nestor. Unfortunately for Emily she accidentally knocks Nestor's sunglasses off which reveal he has strange coloured eyes, Nestor then turns into a monster again & bites Emily turning her into a flesh-eating monster just like himself. Nestor takes Emily out to train her, they find a suitable homeless bum (Rory VanSaint), murder him & eat his guts but Emily's son Clay has witnessed the whole thing & he must choose between doing what is right & his love for his Mother who now just happens to be a grotesque bloodsucking & flesh-eating monster!<br /><br />Edited, written & directed by Patrick Rand I thought Mom was a pretty awful film. Looking at some of the other comments on the IMDb & the genre listing it has been given it appears many seem to think that Mom is a comedy horror. Well I can tell you now that I didn't see any comedic elements in Mom at all because there aren't any, unless they are very subtle. The only thing that I can assume is that people see comedy in the actual situation which Mom presents, that being an old lady turning into a flesh-eating monster & the predictable problems & emotional angst that it causes to her son who finds out. There are no jokes (apart from naming a prostitute Beverly Hills (Stella Stevens)), slapstick humour or anything even remotely funny in the film itself & as far as I could see it is played totally straight throughout it's 90 minute run time. So with there being no comedy in Mom that must mean there's lots of horror right? Wrong, Mom sucks & is painfully slow to watch especially after the first thirty odd minutes which consist of Nestor turning into a monster a couple of times, biting Emily, showing her how to hunt for food & Clay finding out. Until this point Mom was moving at a fairly decent pace, had some OK special make-up effects & had me interested, unfortunately Mom runs for another hour which is basically the emotional crap suffered by Emily's Son, the eventual breakdown of his marriage & him being torn between love for his Mother & the fact that she's a flesh-eating monster. This part of the film is incredibly slow, boring & as dull as dishwater even having the nerve to resort to a clichéd role-reversal scenario where Clay tells his Mom to go to her room & stay there locking the door behind her, telling her off & putting bars over her window so she can't escape her room. Mom's script totally ignores the monsters origins & ask's us to just accept that this thing exists without giving a single reason why we should, no matter how silly an explanation might have been I think some background to the monster would have helped. Technically Mom is bland & cheap looking, although I can't say it's badly made it's very average stuff all the way with nothing that particularly impresses or anything with which I could make fun of to pass the time. The special make-up effect's on the monster are OK but their used in very quick flashes, blink & you'll miss them. Don't be fooled by any fancy video box artwork like I was, the monster is only in it three times maximum & all of those are within the pacey first thirty minutes. There isn't much gore either, a severed arm, some brief intestine eating, a burnt body & a drill in someone's arm is all we get. The acting is OK but please Mr. Brion James what is that dodgy accent all about!? At least James had the good sense to know he was in crap & sensibly opted to be killed off early on in the proceedings, everyone else are nobodies expect the black Lieutenant who was also a black police officer in Fright Night (1985) but you may recognise him from Die Hard 2 (1990), he made Mom & Die Hard 2 in the same year?! Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum! Overall there is nothing by which I can really recommend Mom as a horror film & it certainly isn't a comedy as far as I'm concerned. Very poor, very disappointing & yet again I've been conned by fancy video-box artwork with lots of stills of cool looking monsters. Definitely one to avoid. | 0 |
951 | [
1000,
1100
] | 851 | 1,037 | I don't understand jokes. I do believe this is my problem with modern cinema, or those films that are made with millions of dollars in hopes that it will become the next greatest sensation. Isn't it odd people just don't laugh as much anymore, and I do believe one of the diseases to that problem is the film "Showtime". There was absolutely nothing, from the beginning to the end of the credits, with all of the bantering between Murphy and De Niro, with Russo as eye candy, with even standard clichés which make the general population swoon with pre-programmed laughter, there was nothing in this film that made me laugh. There weren't the overbearing physical jokes or the calculated mental vocal jokes at all throughout this debacle of a film. From the beginning, I didn't buy the match-up of De Niro and Murphy as anything more than Hollywood excitement, throughout the commentary the director vividly talks about the hijinks and laughter going on during the shoot where was it in the film? This falls to either two problems the director really doesn't have a sense of comedy or the editor didn't understand the value of the film. Either way, they both doomed the entire hour and a half spent on the Hollywood nightmare "Showtime".<br /><br />Outside of finding no reason to laugh, there was no reason to follow these characters through any moment of the film. There was a glimpse of humor with De Niro's desire to pick up pottery as a hobby (but the director had to write KILN on the machine so audiences would understand WHO DOES THAT?), but that was dropped and never developed. There was the idea that Murphy was an actor, but outside of that one opening monologue, nobody would have understood that. He rents a room in a producer's house in which he can afford on a police officer's salary? This just didn't compute even for Hollywood standards. There was a bad guy who wanted a big gun, but the gun was never developed, nor was there any true test of the weapons capability
even at the end. It became a bigger joke to laugh at an accent than remember the guns. Where was the television show in this? Russo had to get permission from this random guy at the beginning, but there were no consequences. There was nothing in the middle of this film outside of further questions and meaningless dribble. Random characters were introduced, forgotten, re-introduced, and forgotten all over again. The director and producer laughed at this, while we, the meager viewer, must suffer through inside jokes and cliché stereotypes.<br /><br />Was there a love interest in this film? Was there a truly sinister bad guy that went apart from the comic duo to bring true evil to the screen? Were there any pop culture references that didn't come back to Robert De Niro? Was there random chaos throughout this film? If you need the answers to these, obviously, you won't find them in "Showtime". The fact that I am riddling this review with question upon question, only means that this sub-par (actually, well below sub-sub-sub par) filled no quota or resembled anything of value to the cinematic world. Sure, it had big names and one really neat explosion, but there was nothing of substance to this at all. It was almost as if the director said prior to the shoot that he wanted clichés, but not regular clichés go with the bad ones. The plot had no linear structure. The jokes were boring. The characters were drab and underdeveloped. This ranks below even the best of "buddy-cop" films. I like to give films the benefit of the doubt, but nothing worked in this film. Not even Shatner could save this film, and he even tried hard.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot, nor will I, suggest this film to anyone with a pulse. The commentary only confirms the pathetic nature of the film with obvious flaws, horrid jokes, and creators questioning the validity of their work. If creators can't stand behind "Showtime", why should we? I didn't want a "Lethal Weapon" when I watched this, but I did want something like that. I understand there was some form of criticism of "reality television" and the corrupt nature of the media, but that message didn't make it off the page. In fact, I believe I saw "media" leave the theater first when I watched this. Shame carries its heavy hand with this film and I cannot blame it. Murphy used to be a big star, comedy was his middle name (see "Coming to America"), but lately he seems to have lost his edge. De Niro obviously wants to get away from an image that haunts him, but making these sort of films is only going to set him back further. One of these films is equal to one Scorsese picture.<br /><br />Skip this one. I promise, it will make your final cinematic days worthwhile. Oh, and if you laughed at any of the jokes in this film I am truly sorry! <br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 0 |
993 | [
1000,
1100
] | 881 | 1,055 | Ignore the extreme votes about "House of Wax", in no way is it either a "1" or a "10". I will try to be of help to anyone thinking about seeing "House of Wax" or for those who saw it based on the trailer and feel cheated. The trailer makes this movie look very promising, which is what trailers are supposed to do. There is only one thing for sure with trailers, if the producers can't cobble together a minute of interesting elements to make a trailer, it is a pretty much a sure thing that the movie is a major suck-fest. But a good trailer only tells you that a few things about the movie are good, it does not give you much idea about the total package. Here a little research can be valuable. <br /><br />"House of Wax" stars Elisha Cuthbert (whose acting skills are closer to Kathy Ireland than to either her fellow Canadian Sarah Polley or her lookalike Rose McGowen), and was directed by a music video artist formerly known as Jaume, in his feature debut. These are not good signs but if you are like me you ignore them and go to see the work of Production Designer Grace Walken, who was responsible for the look of "Ghost Ship". Once again Walken's work is worth seeing, so much so that it looks like 90% of the movie's $30 million budget went to production design. The rest went to Cuthbert to compensate her for the abuse she has to take throughout the film (finger cut off, lips glued shut, tied up, and lots of wading around in assorted gooey stuff). By-the-bye, Cuthbert looks considerably heavier than she did in "The Girl Next Door", about one big pig-out away from having a major weight problem.<br /><br />Which means they had little left over to pay the rest of the cast and crew. And judging from the what was on the screen, this might actually be true. It looks like everyone else donated their time to get their first acting or crew credit. Unfortunately, whether it was inexperience or jealousy over the pay disparity, the contributions of all these inexperienced/incompetent volunteers amount to less than zero.<br /><br />Inexperienced Steven Window's DP work was about as awful as you are likely to see and working in league with an incompetent editor like Joel Negran (insert "Pearl Harbor" here) they manage to take away most of the value added by the production design group. Rather than linger over and showcase the sets, Window filmed this stuff with bad lighting and jerky-zooming-bobbing camera work. Negran compounded the problem with an insane number of disorienting cuts. Poor lighting, an ADD-like camera, and flurry cutting are what you use to hide cheap and crappy production design; not what is needed when the movie's only strength is its expensive and detailed sets.<br /><br />Chan Hayes did the screenplay and Charles Belden (who wrote the original story) is credited as the writer although except for the title and the use of wax figures there is absolutely no similarity. One saving grace is that the movie does not take itself seriously as a horror film and is mostly parody (insert "Van Helsing" here). The murders are played for laughs, too extreme to be scary or even creepy to anyone over age six. The audience particularly cracked up when a certain high profile hotel heiress got her homely face run through by an steel bar, although her earlier half-baked striptease was the only genuinely creepy thing in the film. Another comedy highlight was when Cuthbert sticks her finger through a grate and has it clipped off by the bad guy.<br /><br />The good scenes take place in Trudy's House of Wax, a waxworks that has something to do with a closed sugar mill, conjoined twins, and a lot of roadkill (which Cuthbert gets to bathe in). All this is supposed to be happening somewhere in rural Florida although from the many hills it sure looks like Paul Hogan's country (attention location scouts-the gulf coast is not noted for it's rolling terrain). The screenplay apparently intended to play up the connection (bad pun) between the two sets of twins, but somewhere during production or post-production most of the dialogue concerning this was trimmed. Since what is left about the twin connection makes no sense and goes nowhere, you wonder why it wasn't also cut to reduce the boredom factor.<br /><br />What is particularly sad is that the producers did not have the brains to recognize in mid-production that they had the ingredients for a first rate horror classic-even with the existing cast. What was staring them in the face was a chance to go somewhere with the illusion of a town of wax. Because it is a photographic medium, modern film is intrinsically naturalistic, almost without exception prone to creating an illusion of reality. Here they had a ready-made opportunity to give the photographic medium a theatrical element of extreme stylization. Like an impressionist painting, the town creates the illusion of reality from a distance but reveals itself as a highly stylized wax fabrication up close. Of course they would have had to find a visionary Director and DP to bring the thing off successfully, but everything else was already in place for this to happen. | 0 |
1,328 | [
1000,
1100
] | 823 | 1,017 | For those of you who have never heard of the movie until now (of which, I presume there are many lucky people who haven't), I'll summarise it for you. Ryan Gosling plays the titular character of Leland, who also serves as the film's narrator (a la Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but without the intelligent observations on life). Leland goes to jail for stabbing a retarded kid to death, and the movie attempts to figure out why he did it. He seems to be a nice boy (if not mentally absent), and is portrayed by Gosling with a complete lack of violence, anger, or agenda (and if you're waiting for him to reveal his sinister side later in the movie, don't waste your time-- it's not that kind of movie). Once in juvenile prison, Leland goes to classes taught by Pearl Madison, ably portrayed by Don Cheadle (who is incapable of anything but quality, even when in bad movies). Pearl attempts to unlock the mystery of Leland in an attempt to figure out how such a kid could do such a thing, and so he could write a book about it later (along with being a juvenile prison teacher, Pearl is also an aspiring author).<br /><br />The relationship between Leland and Pearl is the driving narrative behind the film, as their talks unveil Leland's past to the audience. However, to call it the central focus would imply that this meandering film had one. It does not. The United States of Leland boasts an impressive cast, which seems to be to the detriment of the film. It seems as though writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge (don't worry that you haven't heard of him, he's never done anything) had to give EVERY character a personal story arc and personality flaw in order to get the actors to play them. Most of these traits and stories are clichéd, and most go underdeveloped and unresolved.<br /><br />I'll try and break them down here: Martin Donovan and Ann Magnuson are the parents of the slain retarded boy (I love how the movie kept calling the kid "retarded", never "mentally disabled". That part made me laugh inside), they apparently have a cold relationship, because all suburban marriages in contemporary cinema must be cold. Their other two kids are Michelle Williams, who is apparently an aspiring actress about to attend college, and Jena Malone, who plays the same troubled teen-archetype she always plays, this time with a heroine addiction. Malone was also the girlfriend of Leland, which gives him his link to his victim. Williams' boyfriend, who was orphaned and came to live with the family, and is a baseball player looking to go to the same college as his girlfriend, is played by Chris Klein. He ends up doing more with his character than any of the other bit players, managing to steal the movie at times. Lena Olin is Leland's mother, who seems to be perpetually sad for some reason. Kevin Spacey (also the executive producer) is Leland's cold and absentee father, who is a famed novelist. Eventually, Sherilyn Fenn will show up to put a wrinkle in Leland's story-- if you even care at that point. Oh yeah, and there's a drug-dealing ex-boyfriend, a couple of fellow juvees, and a co-worker of Pearl's with whom he has an affair on his long distance girlfriend with (played by Kerry Washington).<br /><br />Sorry if all that synopsis and character breakdown took so long. If it seemed meaningless and boring, then you've just experienced a bit of what I did during the 108 minutes I spent watching the movie. But the unruly supporting cast of over-wrought clichés is the least of this film's crimes. The biggest one is that the whole exercise is entirely pointless. We aren't given a fascinating look into a troubled mind, we aren't given an effective explanation, we aren't given much of anything. Given that it sucked so much, I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you so that you never have to see it: Leland stabbed the retard because all Leland could see in the world was sadness, and wanted to spare Corky (or whatever the victim's name was) the sadness in his eyes. It's like the worst emo band in the world made an album, and titled it "The World Is Sad, So I Killed A Retard". Oh, and Leland dies in the end, in a sequence so reliant of unbelievable coincidences that it would have ruined the movie, if the movie didn't already suck. Of course he dies in the end, because that made the movie so deep.<br /><br />I'm giving the movie 2 stars, because the actors themselves all did a pretty good job with the junk they were given. The scenes with Cheadle and Gosling together were even interesting on some levels. But, to paraphrase the film itself, you have to believe that movies are more than the sum of their parts, kiddo. | 0 |
1,465 | [
1000,
1100
] | 805 | 1,021 | Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.<br /><br />After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.<br /><br />Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like oh I don't know giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.<br /><br />Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices get ready, cause here it comes that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.<br /><br />There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.<br /><br />The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side. | 0 |
1,504 | [
1000,
1100
] | 786 | 1,028 | Oh, where the hell should I begin? Give a brief summary of the story? No. either you've already heard it, or don't want to. Either way, it sucks. Much like the movie. I happen to be a semi-large horror movie aficionado, and I must say this is one of the dumbest and most clumsily-executed movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. <br /><br />The script is horrendously stupid. The story starts too fast with absolutely no suspense or build-up in the slightest. All of those torture scenes would have been A LOT more effective if we gave even the tiniest bit of crap for the characters. Since the first scene in the film is when the teenage girls meet Capt. Howdy, how the hell are we supposed to sympathize with them? First off, they seem stupid for going to a party with a guy they don't even know, and second, we don't even know their damn names! Why the hell should I care if they live or die? Not to mention the fact that they actually have the guts to try and make us feel sympathetic towards Capt. Howdy after he's been "reformed"? PLEASE! I was cheering when he got his just deserts! He deserved them! Hell, he deserved worse! Also, we're forced to sit through a pointless misdirect sequence lifted directly from "The Silence of the Lambs" (and here it's done HORRIBLY! Of course he's gonna give them a false address! And even if he had given them the real one, don't you think he'd be waiting and not piercing some guy's Johnson upstairs? RETARDED!)<br /><br />Then there's the dialogue. Everything Captain Howdy says is either laughable or just plain stupid. "The dead are so dreadfully dead, when they're dead"?? What the hell kind of crap is that?! Dee Snider at one point says "knowledge is power". Well, if that's true, this film has absolutely no power whatsoever. <br /><br />Then, there's the plot holes. Yes, I know this is a horror film (well, wannabe horror film), but damn! You could drive a semi truck into these holes! First off, these have got to be the DUMBEST cops I have EVER SEEN! EVER!! I mean, DEAR GOD, these guys are morons! Call for backup, idiots! Second, how the hell did that humungous septum ring fall out of Captain Howdy's nose?! Evidentially this piercing expert guy says "that's the biggest one I've ever seen", but if it's so damn big, how the hell could it have fallen out so easily? Did Capt. Howdy just LEAVE it at the crime scene because he WANTED to get caught? They sure didn't make it seem like he did. Also, they would NEVER release Capt. Howdy, and I know that for a damn fact. He would be in jail for the rest of his life, and there's no getting around this. Much less let him return to his old house where he killed/tortured everybody. IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPLAUSIBLE. <br /><br />And now the acting. Dear God did these people suck. Linda Cardellini is the only thing good in this film. She's poised and amazing. Too bad she hardly gets a good chance to act in this piece of crap. Amy Smart shows up for about 10 minutes and then drops out of existence. Even the usually entertaining Robert Englund is underused and ineffective here. Dee Snider plays the crazy guy with no talent whatsoever. I never felt threatened, scared or intimidated. I'd rather have seen Dee Snider in Alexis Arquette's role in "Bride of Chucky". It would have been so much more fun to see this talent-less hack get it by that lovable psycho doll. <br /><br />Dee Snider just plain sucks. He can't act (one of the least scary villains I have ever seen), he can't write (did he write this damn movie in his sleep?), and he's obviously dumber than freaking Jessica Simpson! This film is just a way for Dee Snider to show off all the weird crap he knows about self-mutilation and modern primitives and blah-blah-blah. Either it's been done before or it just didn't need to be done. I was bored throughout the whole damn thing. <br /><br />The acting sucks, the music sucks, the script sucks, the pacing sucks, the special FX suck, the directing sucks... basically, this movie sucks. This film tries to be a serious and sophisticated thriller/horror flick and it fails miserably. It doesn't manage to scare, shock, or disturb in any shape, way or form. This is probably one of the least effective and utterly unoriginal films I have ever seen in my entire life. A piece of cinematic garbage captured on celluloid. <br /><br />"Strangeland" gets a 0 out of 10. Avoid at any and all costs. Not enjoyable in the slightest. | 0 |
1,615 | [
1000,
1100
] | 806 | 1,098 | I am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense, such as that this film "[proves] that when it is predestined, love will find a way." I begin in this way, not to criticize a specific reviewer, but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic, uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film, even before it hit the theaters. Even the best of films do not "prove" anything, nor are they intended to. The best films entertain and move the viewer, and "The English Patient" fails on both criteria.<br /><br />I remember the studio's promotion of "The English Patient" very clearly: "From the producers of 'Amadeus' and 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,'" it grandly announced. An ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word, "producers," in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of "The English Patient," so very inappropriately, with the truly great director, Milos Forman. Such a comparison is offensive to the memory of Mr. Forman.<br /><br />While the novel by Michael Ondaatje upon which the film was based, is a good one, it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. Aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar, the film bears little resemblance to the novel.<br /><br />Despite misgivings which began when I heard that shamelessly misleading promotion, I went to see this film in the theater. As it began to unfold, I realized that the rendering of the novel's peculiar magic had failed, that the actors knew their words but not their characters, and that their characters were flat, dull, and unengaging. The film was a complete travesty of Ondaatje's novel and a completely still-born cinematic artifact of the worst description.<br /><br />Those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like, "sweeping," and "grand," and "hypnotic." Well, it is none of those. In fact, not even Ondaatje's fine novel could be described as "sweeping" or "grand." It could be described as "magical" and "hypnotic" -- yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. It is almost as if Minghella had, as a reader, entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale, skeletal version, a version that not only missed the spirit of the story, but that focused on the wrong characters. He produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story's metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them, as well.<br /><br />Minghella took the central focus away from Hana and Kip and put it on the Patient and Katherine Clifton, thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the "essence" of it.<br /><br />Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas put in unengaging, uninspiring, uninvolving, unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great, driving, passionate love-affair to the viewer, but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable, perfunctory liaison between two flat, shallow, uninteresting adulterers. Both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting, and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by Minghella's grandiose and overblown presentation.<br /><br />The "grand, sweeping, David-Lean-like" qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. The comparison to David Lean ("Dr. Zhivago") is positively insulting to yet another great director. Take, for example, the "Patient's" sandstorm scene, which is no doubt one wherein these "grand, sweeping" qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided): the sandstorm is not grand -- it is not even convincing. The subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm, which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally, completely lacked either drama or emotion --in fact, because it was so patently weak, it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place.<br /><br />This film failed. It failed as a rendering of the novel, and it failed as a film. It seems to have been the "anointed Oscar vehicle" of the year (joining such over-trumpeted filmic slosh as "Kramer vs. Kramer" or "Terms of Endearment"). One can only thank God that even the hype-driven Acadamy<br /><br />had the good sense to present the Best Actress award to Frances McDormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film, "Fargo." There was not a single performance in the execrable "English Patient" that was not either embarrassingly horrid over-acting (Willem Dafoe) or truly forgettable, mediocre acting (Fiennes and Scott Thomas).<br /><br />Why this non-entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. Fortunately, the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently, and it will not, thankfully, have the strength ever to dig itself out. | 0 |
1,724 | [
1000,
1100
] | 855 | 1,089 | My summary refers to the fact that this film has 1479 votes--just 21 short of making it eligible to be on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. With a paltry score of only 1.8, this would place the film at approximately between #38 and 46 on the list--talk about a very dubious achievement!! My score of 3 isn't that bad--but it does bring the film that much closer to the dreaded list.<br /><br />As for the film, it stars the once-cute Aaron Carter--yet another prepackaged and forgettable pop star of the 1990s. When he first broke onto the scene, he was a cute kid with some songs that appealed to pre-teens and tweeners on Radio Disney. His songs, look and image were all scrupulously groomed and created by marketing folks and did the trick--leading to some huge album sales. Unfortunately, by 2005, sales were in decline and Carter had hit his awkward stage of life--something ALL kids his age have to deal with eventually. To put it bluntly, he isn't cute any more in this film and is at a very tough stage of life. I assume now he's a gorgeous young man...but in "Popstar" he's no longer the heart-throb he once was. Here, he is just very normal...a death sentence for a kid in his position as a "pop sensation".<br /><br />Interestingly, the film has some appearances by some other ex-teen heart-throbs from the last few decades--including a roles for David Cassidy and Leif Garrett--two guys who also know what it's like to disappear from the limelight. Cassidy managed to pick up the pieces and make a niche for himself, while Garrett is a great example of a pop star whose life after stardom has been a bit of a joke. Hopefully Carter will take after Cassidy in the future and so far, thankfully, he's managed to avoid the negative publicity and court appearances of many ex-pop idols. I was far from thrilled with the film but seriously wish him best in this department. It's not his fault he was plastered across the radio and television throughout the early to mid-1990s.<br /><br />In this film, Carter doesn't exactly need to stretch himself--he plays a pop star. However, despite making millions and being adored by girls, he doesn't "have it all". He's quite dense--mostly because he has little interest in learning. The problem is so bad that his mother decides to no longer home school him--forcing him to go to public school. The problem, though, is that he is rather phobic about taking tests...and making the grade in school is difficult. So, he gets the idea of finding a smart girl to date--one who would naturally be obliged to help him out in school. He picks the cute but bookish Jane (Alana Austin) and pretends to really like her in a sad attempt to make this scheme work.<br /><br />This plot, by the way, isn't bad and could work even though it seems a lot like an episode of a show like "The Brady Bunch" or a Nickelodeon sit-com. Sure, it's predictable and you KNOW that the formula will mean that she will eventually learn his plot and be hurt AND he will eventually realize that he actually does care for her AND by the end of the film, all will be forgiven and they'll be a real couple. But, given good acting and competent direction, this could be worth seeing for his teen fans, as predictable isn't always bad. And, as it turned out, this ISN'T exactly where the plot went...but it was awfully close.<br /><br />There are a few good things I liked about the film. Seeing Tom Bosley and Stella Stevens playing Jane's grandparents was very nice--their role was quite sweet and it was good seeing them again. Also, 1970s made for TV movie star Andrew Stevens appeared in the film--it was nice to see him again--though part of me hated him, as he looks so great after all these years and I look ever bit of my 45 years! He did a fine job and it was nice seeing him in the same film as his mother (Stella).<br /><br />As for Carter, with his many prior experiences on TV, he was, not surprisingly, pretty good. While his relationship with Jane didn't seem very believable, he and Ms. Austin gave it their best. The film wasn't great, but they did try and I think most of the problems with the film were in the writing--with a better and less formulaic plot, it could have worked much better. Plus the whole "testophobia" angle seemed pretty contrived...and rather insignificant. Who cares if a mega-millionaire star gets anxious taking tests in school?! Overall, not a rotten film as the current rating would imply, though there isn't much here to attract a wide audience. People who grew up loving Carter probably will enjoy the film. Older folks will probably care less as well as really young people who probably haven't heard of him. For them, there is no nostalgia value in the film.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film...Leif Garrett giving Aaron advice. I felt like screaming "don't listen!!" but didn't! | 0 |
2,224 | [
1000,
1100
] | 724 | 1,050 | This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'<br /><br />Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?<br /><br />Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)<br /><br />Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)<br /><br />More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.<br /><br />My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)<br /><br />The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do better...do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't? | 0 |
2,490 | [
1000,
1100
] | 804 | 1,010 | As a serious horror fan, I get that certain marketing ploys are used to sell movies, especially the really bad ones. So I wouldn't call it naiveté that I assumed this was softcore horror ripping off Cannibal / Zombi / Jungle Holocaust. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong as this is very hardcore. I should have realized that when I saw the odd "No actual or identifiable minor was used" warning. Notice the identifiable part as though he is daring us to catch him? A group of scientists, half of whom are pretty women in bikinis, are led by a sea captain with a penchant for 69ing on the beach, in search for a mutated native killing villagers. Due to a nuclear bomb detonated on a supposedly evacuated island, the radiation turned this last man into a rapist/ killer.<br /><br />Writer/ actor George Eastman is the only one trying here and succeeds in keeping his clothes on. The sex scenes are whacked out. Women walk around nude exuding a strange overconfidence and one even asks for rape when her husband turns her down. Well, two chicks slapping each other naturally turns into a lesbo scene because women are horndogs. I saw the chick toss another chicks salad and finger herself.<br /><br />If there is anything you should know about this film, it is that. Because the rest of this insane movie is just the same. Oh, who am I kidding? There is a ton more to tell here. Like the white "Duchess" that pays for 2 black guys to tag team her in a parlor. Or the "Duchess" taking off her top to use as a bandage when the captain cuts himself. When he refuses her advances, she starts crying. So being the good gentleman he is, he reluctantly lets her pleasure him in front of the other crew members. I was honestly waiting for the pizza guy to show up and the "Duchess" to ask if there is any other way to pay him.<br /><br />And all of this happens before they depart for the island to conduct their research. Wait, I thought this was a zombie flick? But the zombie doesn't enter until the 73min mark, but by that time everyone else has been "entered" plenty. I found myself hitting fast forward a few scenes
or several. This is my first splatter porn flick and I don't think it does that subgenre any justice. I guess it is the woman in me talking when I say that I would like more plot and less sweaty, slobbering, hairy sex. Funny thing is this could have worked as a decent horror film as the idea of atomic bombing mutating a bitter man and killing his family, was a good one. Even Eastman's character shakes his head and walks away from a couple copulating. It makes me wonder if it was the character or the writer himself that was disgusted.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into the sound or film quality because you should have already guessed it was bad. This production was shot back to back with 3 other movies including Erotic Nights of the Living Dead, which sports most of the same cast. Eastman has said this was done because everyone wanted a vacation and a paycheck. Nevermind, I feel like talking about the sound suddenly. The sound was weird during the sex scenes because while the cast is speaking Italian, it seems as though they recorded English voiceovers and played that over their dialogue. So while 2 people are boning, I can clearly hear someone in the background say, "No! Yes! Wonderful! Wait!" There was a slightly amusing Italian score that couldn't save this movie. The SFX were minimal at best and consisted of some blood in only a few scenes. And I would like to point out that there were no violent rape scenes as the bright warning label said on the DVD cover (ahem, another marketing ploy), so no fear there. Only fear the bad movie.<br /><br />Presented in Widescreen 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I watched the Region 1 Not Rated version running at 113min released in 2005 by Exploitation Digital. There is apparently a XXX version by Alfa Digital, which is the same running time, so I doubt anything is different. Prices vary, but you shouldn't pay more than $25.00 for a copy. Or as I would recommend, pay nothing and pretend it doesn't exist.<br /><br />Favorite Quote: Shipmate, "Civilians are bad luck. Women are bad luck. They're scientists too? They must really be monsters." DVD Extras: Original trailer with hardcore shots & kills to make it look more interesting than it is, Trailers for SS Hell Camp, Emmanuelle, & ENOTLD, and a very informative interview with Eastman.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Lame porno, but even weaker as a horror film. Either get real porn or watch real horror.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10 by Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com | 0 |
2,626 | [
1000,
1100
] | 871 | 1,046 | Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...<br /><br />As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.<br /><br />If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.<br /><br />The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.<br /><br />Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004). | 0 |
2,651 | [
1000,
1100
] | 817 | 1,040 | It is such a shame that so many people "love" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here. <br /><br />The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.<br /><br />Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.<br /><br />References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.<br /><br />Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.<br /><br />The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their "jokes".<br /><br />Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...<br /><br />Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance. <br /><br />Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, "oh, ha ha, stewie!" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.<br /><br />Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.<br /><br />Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.<br /><br />The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.<br /><br />so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier. | 0 |
2,787 | [
1000,
1100
] | 829 | 1,000 | Tacky, but mildly entertaining early 90's soft core comedy features Xena (Sarah Bellemo), Luna (Tamara Landry), and Sola (Nicole Posey), as three outer-space teenagers. Xena's parents have gone on vacation for a couple of days. Following some persistent persuasion from her friends, Xena agrees to take her father's spaceship for a ride. The end result? They wind up running out of gas in space, and crash-land on planet Beta 45, AKA earth. Meanwhile, teenagers Dave (Michael Todd Davis) and Jerry (Ken Steadman) have come to California to stay the summer with Dave's Uncle Bud (Joe Estevez ) a beach bum who lives right on the beach. The three of them wind up meeting our three space girls who have walked away from the crash without a scratch. Uncle Bud is about to be thrown out from his soon-to-be-condemned beach pad thanks to Sally (Linnea Quigley), who lives right up the hill and used to be in a relationship with Bud. She's also a bikini magnate, and is trying to win a bikini design contest to the tune of, $30,000....exactly what Bud would need to fix up his property, so the girls decide to try to win the prize for him. And that's about it, folks. Knowing that their paper thin plot was barely enough to sustain a feature length movie, the filmmakers subject us to scene after scene of endless beach parties featuring tons of extras gyrating their half naked bodies in the scorching sun. Oh, and lets not forget the sex. There's quite a deal of it. Before I go any further, I need to put this movie in context. It was released in 1993, long before the advent of such soft core labels such as Surrender Cinema and Seduction Cinema. Compared to these newer, edgier, more explicit movies, the soft core movies of the 90's sure seem somewhat mild. When Beach Babes From Beyond first came out in 1993 from the Full Moon offshoot Torchlight Entertainment, it was heralded as the debut release of a label that specialized in "mature audiences" type films. Needless to say, the times have changed. This particular film genre has gone from a few steamy, but brief sex scenes and fleeting glimpses of female full frontal nudity to extended sex scenes that occasionally threaten to venture into the realm of hardcore. Looking at Beach Babes From Beyond again after viewing it upon its 93' release, it's safe to say that if this same film were to be made today, there would be a hell of a lot more emphasis on the sex scenes and less time spent on plot and dialog. As for the sex scenes themselves, they tend to run hot-and-cold. Our three space girls waste no time in getting comfortable with the boys that evening. So each couple gets a soft core scene, complete with annoying slow motion camera work and too dark lighting. They're really not that horrible, and are surprisingly graphic in a few spots, especially the scene between Xena and Jerry that takes place in the back of a trailer. But the one sex scene that REALLY leaves a lasting impression, and causes you to be surprised in its overall intensity, occurs quite early on in the film. Sally is attending a topless photo shot with three of her models posing by a pool. All of the actresses in this scene are beautiful gorgeous, but Nikki Fritz stands out from all the two due to her enormous presence. Remember that this point in her career she had yet to achieve the type of enormous popularity that soon would follow. Her posing nude by a pool leads to an unforgettable fantasy sequence where she shows her soapy body in a tub and then again when walking away from her bath. Walking toward the bed towards a nearly nude pumped up guy in the waiting, we get a full length complete nude scene with her almost heart shaped rear end and perfectly shaped back. It's good that Nikki's back is so muscular as it is about to get a pretty good workout. Nikki spends the next few minutes completely nude with a hunky guy in a variety of positions in a scene that is filmed completely differently than the three other lovemaking scenes. No dark lighting or annoying slow motion here...just two actors in one enormous bed sans sheets and covers who seem at time to be barely acting at all. Nikki's ecstatic body language just goes to prove that few other actresses seem to enjoy filming sex scenes as much as she does. It's really the only time where Beach Babes From Beyond truly delivers the goods. But even without this spectacular scene, I am mildly recommending this film just for the fact alone that it's fairly watchable and never dull no thanks to an incredibly energetic and attractive cast, many of whom would show up in various direct to video features in the remainder of the decade. | 0 |
3,215 | [
1000,
1100
] | 893 | 1,091 | OK. Well, I guess it was worth my time sitting through this *once* but I won't be watching it again. There are several things about this film that irritated me.<br /><br />First, man...I really hated the characters. I had the same problem with Sid and Nancy. I have a hard time rationalizing spending a fair chunk of time following characters who I really don't care about, and can't relate to. It's not that the actors or the writing were technically bad; it was that the characters were written in such a way that I just had contempt for them, and as the movie went on, I almost wanted to see the sky fall on them. And this leads me to the second problem, and a question which I think is at the heart of this movie: Was the intent to simply document this generation and these types of bohemians who were (I guess) wandering around Europe in the 60s? Was the intent to criticize and lambaste them? Or was this film some kind of a warning? My final assessment of the film (that is to say, in determining if there was anything salvageable here at all) hinges on this question.<br /><br />Regardless, these characters are really unlikeable, and as a consequence, it's hard to really give a crap about the plot or what happens to them. If this was some sort of statement on this generation, then the film becomes a little more tolerable. It is clear that Schroeder is not some kind of geriatric establishment square, so the way he proceeds here carries more weight than, say, the countless stupid AIP films set in or concerning the 60s counterculture.<br /><br />At bare minimum, this film has two things going for it - first, the soundtrack (obviously). I like how Cymbaline is used here and others have mentioned it too, as it takes the forefront in the movie. I am guessing that if you are a Pink Floyd fan and want to see it for that reason, nothing you read here is likely to stop you from watching it anyway (it wouldn't stop me either). The curiosity of hearing Pink Floyd in a movie may be enough to just barely get you through this.<br /><br />Secondly, there is some nice scenery. Ibiza looks like a nice place to visit. Maybe I'm just sick of looking at Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago in films, but European films which take the time to actually show us Europe (the beautiful or the ugly - mostly beautiful here) are always welcome.<br /><br />But I really see no particular genius here. No revolutionary camera work, not even a moral, tone, message, sensibility, or plot that has anything new to say. Perhaps what was revolutionary about this was merely that it came from a guy like Schroeder - a film critical of a mindset that at least in part made his movies marketable. To that extent it is an honest film; there's no glorification of the abject excesses of the 60s here, which is perhaps something you might expect. In fact, the portrayal of the characters in this film closely mirrors the (somewhat distorted, in my opinion) modern cultural memory of that generation.<br /><br />Oh yeah, bunch of (yawn) nudity and sex here; nothing new if you watch these kinds of movies from this time period. I guess it was considered novel or provocative or something at the time. I don't find it offensive or titillating (I doubt you will either); rather it just extends the running time of an already tedious film. In its own way, this particular use of sexuality in movies of the time (especially European ones) has become a bit of a cliché. But I guess in hindsight you can't blame them; they were just in that decade able to "get away with it" and I suppose (I'm guessing here) the very presence of this kind of graphic sexuality was a political or social statement in and of itself (That being that sexuality was a part of life that this generation wasn't going to be all weird about like their parents were).<br /><br />Should you watch it? If you're a Pink Floyd fan, sure...I guess it's worth a watch. In any case, The Valley is a better film. I went into this movie expecting largely what I got. If you don't normally watch these kinds of arty, avant garde films and don't know what to expect, this is bound to be annoying as hell. This is a normal, healthy reaction :) <br /><br />If you're not a Pink Floyd fan, I'm not sure why you'd spend your time here. I noticed one fellow who left a comment did enjoy this movie quite a lot, so maybe I'm just missing something. I don't need guys running in slow motion from fireballs, special effects, explosions, or anything like that to enjoy a movie. But I do need some kind of handle - I need to find something to like about a movie, and generally I need to sympathize with some aspect of the characters' plight (barring that some novel film-making will work; camera-work and so forth). Here, there's just nothing to hold on to except for Pink Floyd's magnificence. Which is *just enough* to make this tolerable. At bare minimum, if you're a Pink Floyd fan to begin with, you'll like the bit with Cymbaline, I promise. | 0 |
3,321 | [
1000,
1100
] | 807 | 1,021 | Critters 4 starts, & I quote 'Somewhere in Kansas 1992' & a replay of the last few minutes of Critters 3 (1991) as the recurring character of Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper) is about to shoot the last two remaining Critter eggs in the universe which, we are informed, would mean the extinction of the entire Critter race which is against some sort of intergalactic zoological law or something like that. Charlie's bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann) is now known as Counsellor Tetra & is a top ranking official at the intergalactic council & orders Charlie not to shoot the eggs but instead put them into a pod that will land nearby very soon, the pod does indeed land nearby very quickly & Charlie does indeed put the eggs into it but he is also caught in the pod which I presume cryogenic-ally freezes him as it's never really explained. Critters 4 then informs us that we are 'Somewhere in Saturn Quadrant 2045' where a salvage ship comes across the pod drifting in space (the credits have barely finished & Critters 4 is already stealing entire ideas & scenes from Aliens (1986)). Rick (Anders Hove) decides to claim the unidentified, to them anyway, pod & try & make a bit of cash out of it. With the help of his crew, Ethan (Paul Whitthorne), Fran (Angela Bassett), Al Bert (Brad Dourif) & Bernie (Eric DeRe) the pod is successfully recovered. They get in touch with the intergalactic council & Counsellor Tetra say to go to an abandoned space-station where a trade will be made for the pod & it's contents, Tetra also specifically tells Rick not to open the pod. So in true horror film tradition Rick opens the pod, thaws Charlie out & the Critter eggs which hatch, kill Rick & escape into the space-station...<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Rupert Harvey I thought Critters 4 was a pretty useless film & rounds the Critter series of films off with a whimper rather than a bang. The script by Joseph Lyle & David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd, the space-station with an unstable reactor that will blow up in a few hours, the protagonists only means of escape being neutralised early on so they are stuck, the race against time to save themselves, the constant bickering & arguing amongst the crew, people splitting up & the loser who turns into a hero & saves the day, yawn. A lot of plot devices seem to come straight from Aliens & it rips off Star Wars (1979) with a tacky waste compactor scene. The characters are no better & you probably won't give a damn about any of them. While the other Critter films could be described as comedy horrors part 4 cannot, it appears to be deadly serious throughout. Critters 4 is also incredibly slow, uneventful & dull. It's over 30 minutes before the Critter eggs hatch & after this brief sequence it's nearly the hour mark before their seen again, why make a Critter film & barely feature them? It can't be because of the expensive special effects as they look like glove puppets anyway, oh & how can a mere hours old Critter operate an entire space-station & set a course for Earth? How do they even know what Earth is? Why did Capatin Rick want to open the pod anyway? What is all that stuff about with the female scientist & a rubber alien thing that is mentioned only once? Why do the intergalactic council want the Critters so badly? Why only send four men? Why is this perfectly good looking space-station totally deserted again? Critters 4 looks cheap throughout with bland, dark unimaginative sets & it even steals footage from Android (1983) for it's ships & space scenes, Critters 4 was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects & the ones it takes from Android look seriously dated. For the most part only two Critters are used although some-more start to hatch but it's pretty late in the day when this happens, for most of the film they are barely seen & the effects for them are the worst of the entire series. Forget about any blood or gore as the Critters only kill two people during the 90 plus minute running time which just wasn't enough to maintain my waining interest. The acting is pretty poor as well with Angela Bassett's over-the-top melodramatic reaction to seeing a few Critter eggs particularly cringe worthy. To look at Critters 4 it is as cheap & unspectacular a production as you could hope to (not) see. The ending of Critters 4 has the universe finally being saved form the Critter menace, lets hope it also saves us & our local video-stores from the menace of a part 5... | 0 |
3,543 | [
1000,
1100
] | 858 | 1,066 | Through its 2-hour running length, Crash charts the emotional anguish of its 10-odd ensemble of characters when faced with the sometimes blatant and sometimes latent forms of racism underlying in American society. That and the emotional anguish of one of its audiences sitting near the front and desperately trying to make sense of what movies have become these days.<br /><br />The era we live in has become so complicated. Not only do we reject modernism, even the not very enthusiastic flag-waving of post-modernism ideas is always being shot down by what, post-post-modernism that aims to destroy all these ideas, all in no part thanks to the great destructivist ideas of those great 'thinkers'. But I digress. This has nothing much to do with the what the movie is about, but rather what the movie is.<br /><br />Sure, it seems hard to earn a living in a Hollywood that has to cater to a market that is so post-post-post everything that cynicism has become more than just a motto in life. It has become part of everything we do and part of everything we think of whether we like it or not. And so a new studio product is born! Indie films, which once were energetic and idealistic in its defiant experimentalism now seem to be as equally adamant as Hollywood films to sell to indie film markets. An indie film must sell at Sundance before becoming 'acclaimed'. And so nothing is simple anymore. Even what constitutes a good film becomes so murky. Whereas in the past filmmakers just wanted to entertain people and tell a good story--and in these seemingly simplistic attempts the greatest of films are borne--filmmakers nowadays have to make films that are good first and foremost; films have to make people think, have to be meaningful, has to be provocative, raise questions, yadda yadda yadda. What it all boils down to, is a subversion of the Hollywood movie system, but this subversion seems strangely similar to the formulaic similarity of Hollywood films, the countless ways of differing to essentially be the same product.<br /><br />And I haven't even begun on the film yet. Maybe I've become too picky on films I see these days. Maybe it's because of my primary need to be entertained, rather than, say, be probed when seeing a movie. But hell, this movie is one big load of crap. And I'm repulsed by this movie not just because it follows the How to Make a Good Movie Good 101 guidebook to the T--characters spout eloquent lines and are sooo witty like they're gifted with the speech of God; it raises issues about racism and life confronting racism in America; it has 'touching' moments where everyone discovers more about themselves and more about other people; not to mention the fact that once you hear the ambient/new age soundtrack of women singing in high registers in foreign languages, you know you're in for all of the above traits.<br /><br />And something about the aforementioned point--about it raising questions about immediately-compelling issues like racism--pisses me off big time. Like all post-post-post-post-post everything movies, it doesn't contend with just having a message about this issue. Because oh, our audiences are much to intelligent for that these days in this post-post-post-post world. Our audiences want us to make them think, doesn't want us to put things so simplistically, (and then they will go into existentialist crap and say) that's because life itself isn't simplistic. Ha ha ha. What other common drill do we here then the audience need to think about issues rather than have them fed to them. Okay, okay, and okay. So the film makes it a point to pound the audiences with these non-messages and since they're not exactly a message, it's so decidedly subtle and subtle means good right? So we're being hit again and again with this well-written subtlety with the eloquence of rhetorical prose. And as if the irony is not steep enough, we have Ludicrous' character, the only character who seems to not take all these racism discussion bullshit seriously, being 'converted' into one of those irritatingly meaningful characters where he learns something in the end, giving meaningful looks and pauses where audiences are supposed to 'learn something about themselves too'. Um, yeah. How I wanted to see an incredibly racist film right after this man.<br /><br />To cut the long bullshit short, I guess I wouldn't have taken issue with the film if it wasn't so bloated in its self-importance. The angst that forms the entire movie felt more like white-boy whining than actual Spike Lee-ish anger. It's so Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, the type that wants to wave flags about humanitarianism when the only thing they don't realize is the flag they're waving is their hole-ridden underwear. Plus it's become so trendy in the post-post-post-post world to be completely subtle about it. Nothing is simple any longer. In its best efforts to actually be good, provocative, and ultimately human, it's become neither, imho, just another indie crap from an indie director that wants to make a name out of himself as a credible indie-filmmaker. Now at least Hollywood is more simple and sincere in its manipulativeness. | 0 |
3,561 | [
1000,
1100
] | 920 | 1,098 | Plankton, or Creatures from the Abyss as I'm positive it's more commonly known as & filmed under as the title Creatures from the Abyss appears over a moving image & in the same font type as the rest of the credits, starts with five 20 something kids, Mike (Clay Rogers) his girlfriend Margaret (Sharon Twomey), sisters Julie (Ann Wolf) & Dorothy (Loren DePalm) & an annoying idiot named Bobby (Michael Bon) whom decide to all fit into a small rubber boat & head out to sea, don't ask why as I don't know. Oh & the complete idiot Bobby left the petrol behind & never thought to tell anyone so it comes as no great surprise that they end up stranded out at sea without any petrol for the motor & to make matters worse they become trapped in a thunder storm & discover a dead body floating in the water. Shortly after their luck seems to change when they come across a yacht & potential safety, in a flash everyone boards the yacht & begin to explore. First of all they find a scientific lab with various fish specimens & computer equipment, then down below they find fully furnished & luxurious cabins. They find a chemist (Deran Sarafian) who appears mad & can't talk. They eat fish from the fridge which makes Dorothy puke up green vomit, beetles & slugs. They learn that these fish are living fossil's 1000's of years old & have been contaminated by toxic waste dumped in the sea & that they fly, mutate, bite & are generally unpleasant to be around. I really can't be bothered to go on with this plot outline so I won't, here's what I think...<br /><br />This Italian production was produced & directed by Massimiliano Cerchi under the pseudonym Al Passeri (I'd hide under a different name if I made a film this bad too) & I think Plankton is quite simply one of the worst films ever, there are so many things wrong with this film it's difficult to know where to start. First the script by Richard Baumann is total crap, it makes no sense whatsoever & is so slow & dull it was torture for me to sit through. Why would five people just simply set sail for the middle of the ocean on a rubber dinghy barely big enough to fit them all in? What were they planning on doing exactly? Why do we often get point-of-view shots from these fish creatures but they seem to be totally invisible to the characters as they are never shown on screen even though they are right next to a character, & how do these fish get around the boat as there is no water for them to swim in? People's actions & reactions to things are all wrong, they constantly split up, they make bizarre decisions that simply don't make any sense in the situation they find themselves in & some of the dialogue is as awful as anything I've heard. I could go on all day about all the plot holes & ridiculous goings on but I'll run out of space if I do. The fish creatures themselves look awful, a mixture of rubbish rubber puppets & some really bad stop motion animation at the end, the scenes where they interact with the human cast also look terrible with some bad super imposition. I have heard a lot of comments saying that Plankton is gory, don't make me laugh! Forget it there is virtually no blood or gore in Plankton whatsoever, there are a couple of slimy scenes when Bobby transforms into a fish monster while having sex with Julie but it's pretty brief & he doesn't kill her, he just sort of drips slime on her, grows a couple of tentacles & a fish head comes out of his mouth. Later on Julie's vagina starts to drip some dark slime but that's it, we never get to actually see what happens to her or what the slime is. Dorothy has a fish creature come out of her back, off screen, & control her but again we never get to see what happens to her while Margaret commits suicide, a very brief shot of a plastic harpoon stuck to her forehead. Easily the grossest scene is when Dorothy pukes up that green stuff with what looks like beetles & slugs in it. That's it, only one person actually dies on screen & for the most part Plankton is quite tame & as exciting as watching paint dry & I nearly fell asleep it's so boring. I can't see how anybody can like this total crap, I just can't. The acting is awful, the dubbing is awful, the characters are awful & I hated all of them. Tecnically Plankton is predictably crap as well, with an estimated budget of only $250,000 all I can say is where did the money go? The sets are monotonous & dull with one lab & a few cabins, the special effect's are bottom of the barrel stuff including the most fake looking exploding boat ever, the cinematography is bland, the music sucks there is zero atmosphere or tension & as a whole Plankton, like it's name sake, is as low in the food chain as it could possibly be. I hate Plankton, it's awful in every single aspect of it's overlong 86 minute duration. Do yourself a favour & avoid this one at all costs unless your either a masochist or insomniac. | 0 |
4,366 | [
1000,
1100
] | 872 | 1,082 | Title: Dracula A.D. 1972 <br /><br />Director: Alan Gibson <br /><br />Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham <br /><br />Review: Sometimes movies can be time capsules that transport you back to any given time. In this case...our time capsule is Hammers Dracula A.D. 1972 which transports us back to a time in which Austin Powers would have felt right at home.<br /><br />The story is about these group of kids (were not a gang! were a group!) that love to hang out at a café shop called "The Cavern". One day, Johnny Alucard (hmm strange last name...wait...it spells Dracula backwards!) a new member of the group offers the group a new way to get their kicks. He offers them a night of black mass and black magic. To which they also say "sure why the hell not, it could be fun!". So in no time flat, the find themselves resurrecting Count Dracula from the ashes.<br /><br />This movie opens up with a swinging party at some rich doofuses home. He knows non of the people at his party, yet there they all are partying the night away in his house. Doing drugs, making out and dancing on top of tables. The filmmakers made sure that this sequence was completely engulfed in whatever young people considered cool at that time. Everyone says words like "way out" and "groovy" and they finish many of their sentences saying "all that jazz". So yeah, its pretty evident that this is the 70s. To top it all off, there's a band that sounds something like "Jefferson Airplane"...I mean you'll be drowned in all things 70s. And as I watched this I kept asking myself "how the heck is Dracula with his black cape and get up going to fit into all this?" And thats exactly what happens. Old Dracula feels out of place amidst all the partying and the rock and roll and drugs. Many of the scenes in the film are great....but sadly the music they decided to add to the proceedings doesn't fit at all and completely takes you out of the mood of things. Something horrifying or scary will be happening on screen and suddenly a bunch of loud trumpets and congos start to beat and your just completely taken out of the horror element. That sucked out the atmosphere right out of this movie for me.<br /><br />But all in all, putting all the distracting 70s music aside (an illness that Satanic Rites of Dracula also suffered) the movie was pretty good. But I will mention this. The story was just a re-hash of what we had seen before in Taste the Blood of Dracula. In fact the story is damn near identical. Lets see...a young lad inherits Draculas ring and ashes...check. He then decides to bring Dracula back to life with the help of some people who know nothing about what they are getting into...check. Black Mass to bring Dracula back in a desecrated church...check. The list of similarities goes on and on. So this movie ain't very original if you ask me.<br /><br />There are a few things that make this movie worth while though. For example the fact that the movie is a time capsule to London in the early seventies makes the film entertaining. I kept giggling and laughing every time someone spoke in 70 jargon. I couldn't believe some of the clothes these people wore and the cars they drove! It made the movie fun for me, but we are here to get spooked, were here to see Drac kill a few virgins and take his revenge on the House of Van Helsing. Did we get any of that? Well yeah. There's a few good sequences squeezed in there to satisfy old school hammer fans. First off, there's the Black Mass sequence which was above all things satanic! They mention the name of many a demon and lots blood is spilled. That sequence was awesome but it was messed up by the music in its most crucial moment. Then there's Draculas actual resurrection which Ill admit was great from a visual standpoint. Some mist comes out of Draculas grave and slowly but surely Christopher Lees silhouette and face emerge from the fog. Cool shot! I loved it! We have a Cushing and Lee face off at the end. And I couldn't help to laugh at one point when Dracula hurls a piece of furniture through the air. I laugh because he has done this in every single film since Horror of Dracula. Its this Hammer tradition where the characters start throwing candle sticks and chairs at each other. And I think to myself, aren't their more exciting things to show then a bad guy throwing a candle stick at our hero. Oh well, anyhows, Draculas demise in this one is very similar to all the other Hammer Draculas before it, vampire gets slaked and then we cut to a series of frames until there's only ashes left.<br /><br />All in all, an unintentionally funny Hammer Dracula film. Its trapped in the 70s and though that makes it a fun watch (and its not as horrible as Satanic Rites of Dracula) it still doesn't gel well with the Dracula universe we had come to expect from Hammer.<br /><br />Rating 3 1/2 out of 5 | 0 |
4,470 | [
1000,
1100
] | 797 | 1,034 | ...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:<br /><br />(contains spoilers, so beware readers)<br /><br />Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.<br /><br />As expected, it didn't deliver.<br /><br />The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.<br /><br />Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.<br /><br />Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.<br /><br />Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.<br /><br />Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.<br /><br />Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably "working" for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.<br /><br />For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says "Where is he?" and the main woman replies, "He's gone." Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying "You have a phone call." The girl answers and says "Oh, hi mom!" and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.<br /><br />Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, "I'll show you third grade!" in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. "I'll show you third grade!"<br /><br />This movie doesn't even work on a "so bad, it's good" level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.<br /><br />Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10 | 0 |
4,819 | [
1000,
1100
] | 765 | 1,008 | The scariest thing about freshman director Carter Smith's new horror movie "The Ruins" is the closing credits that list comedian Ben Stiller as one of the executive producers. What was Stiller thinking when he sank his bucks into this chiller about cursed carnivorous undergrowth that creeps up on its victims and devours them. Oscar-nominated scenarist Scott B. Smith of "A Simple Plan," adapting his own bestselling novel, sticks steadfastly to the standard clichés and conventions of all twentysomething scary sagas where reckless youth do everything but tote signs begging the forces of evil to eat them. Were cretinous characters not enough to contend with in this nihilistic nonsense, we're treated to yet another film where American tourists find themselves in jeopardy simply because they are Americans. Furthermore, unlike really good horror movies that explain why the monsters have a need to feed, "The Ruins" provides no explanation for the supernatural shenanigans of its villainous vines. <br /><br />The set-up for "The Ruins" resembles the 2006 horror movie "Turistas" where slimy South Americans trapped brainless American backpackers and harvested them for their internal organs. Indeed, "Turistas" generated some legitimate thrills and chills. "The Ruins" spawns nothing in the way of either thrills or chills. A malicious mastiff that suddenly lurches on-camera to snarl at our heroes is as close as it gets to a thrill. <br /><br />The rest of "The Ruins" borrows from another movie: "The Descent," a superb, 2006 chiller about a bunch of babes plunged into a nightmare experience when they get lost in warren of caves inhabited by albino mutants with a blood lust for murder. A couple of other movies that served either intentionally or unintentionally come to mind, too. They are the straightforward 1968 Hammer horror classic "The Lost Continent" about murderous vegetation that menaces innocent bystanders in a sea of derelict ships and the Roger Corman cult class "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1961)about a New York florist that grows a man-eating plant in his shop.. <br /><br />"The Ruins" unfolds in the scenic, sunny Mexico where four frolicking American college kids, Eric (Shawn Ashmore of the "X-Men" movies), Stacy (Laura Ramsey of "The Covenant"), Jeff (Jonathan Tucker of "Sleepers") and Amy (Jena Malone of "Pride & Prejudice"), are wrapping up their tequila-soaked spring break. Stacy loses a prized earring in a motel swimming pool, but a helpful Teutonic, twentysomething tourist, Mathias (Joe Anderson of "Copying Beethoven") recovers it, and the group embraces him as newest best friend. These people live to party, and they have already made friends with a trio of Greek tourists. Mathias tells them about his wayward brother who has accompanied a cute female archaeologist to a remote Mayan pyramid that isn't listed in any guidebooks. He offers to take them with him and they accept. <br /><br />First rule of horror movies: if nobody knows about the place where you're going, you'd be well advised to avoid it. Since they have only one day left, and they haven't done anything adventurous, our two couples along with their Spanish-speaking Greek friend, Dimtri (newcomer Dimitri Baveas), decide to follow Mathias and check the pyramid out. They catch a bus into the interior of Mexico and look for a taxi to take them on the next leg of their journey. A cabbie glances at their map and warns them to stay away. Second rule of horror movies: when the natives warn you to steer clear, you steer clear. A crisp twenty dollar bill helps him change his mind, and he hauls them off to their destination and then he skedaddles in a heartbeat. <br /><br />No sooner have our heroes found the mysterious Mayan pyramid covered with undergrowth that looks suspiciously like a variation of Mississippi kudzu in the jungle than superstitious natives appear. They know that the pyramid is haunted, and they kill Dimtri without a qualm when he tries to dispel their fears. The remaining protagonists scramble to safety atop the pyramid while the paranoid natives surround them to prevent them from escaping. Eventually, the vines slink out to greet our heroes and eat them. At this point, "The Ruins" turns into "Bug," the recent and ridiculous Ashley Judd schizoid movie about insects that get under your skin. Before long our heroes are carving each other up in a futile effort to extract the vines from under their skin. One particularly gruesome scene shows the Americans lopping off the German guy's legs to save his life. By comparison, it makes the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition look tame. <br /><br />"The Ruins" ranks as just another vine mess with nothing to redeem it. | 0 |
4,845 | [
1000,
1100
] | 907 | 1,063 | The review on the main page admits that the movie is horrible but that you should forgive it because it is nicely violent. No you shouldn't. There are spoilers at the end of this review but how I can "spoil" this rotten movie I have no idea. Even if you are a die hard Alien/Pred fan like I am wait for the DVD. It isn't worth a 3.99 rental either but you'll be much less inclined to truly hate this film if you pay that than 12 bucks or better per person plus concession purchases at a theater.<br /><br />In the theater I watched AVPr there were exactly two laughs, both by a girl sitting next to me. Other than that there was total silence throughout. No ooohs, or "that was bad ass!", nothing. Imagine being a patient on an operating table and just being given the anesthetic. Now you know what you'll feel like in the theater after the opening scene of AVPr.<br /><br />What was the budget on this movie? Like War of the Worlds, MI 3, and other f/x driven movies the director seems far more involved in what the CGI people can come up with than developing characters or a plot. Spielberg has tried and failed at this several times, usually with Tom Cruise. Sure the movies make money but should they? War of the Worlds and Minority Report had the budget to pay for a decent script, Tom Cruise et al, and SS himself but were still awful. I'm sure AVP wasted 90% of their budget on CG and had no choice but to hire any actor that would say yes even though the casting agent would have done better by going to the supermarket and picking actors at random.<br /><br />There is no tension developed in any scene so we are never close to being surprised. Who cares who gets killed? We didn't know any of them, we all know what happens when the lil aliens make their corporeal exit, we all know the blood is acid. In Alien, Aliens, 3, Resurrection, and even AVP the directors make use of the fact that the Aliens can think, can hide and can lay traps. This director decided that the Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and others were idiots for developing characters you actually want to see either live or get killed. In this installment you will never care who lives or dies, not a kid, a parent, a pregnant woman. The characters serve only one purpose in this movie, to die. The opening scenes establish the fact that the movie is going to be a predictable joke. The character development scenes mix clichés, bad humor, and bad acting and numb the viewer to the point where we really don't care if they get killed so long as they die in never before seen ways. But they don't. The director tried to make something different from those who preceded him in the Alien franchise but only succeeded in discarding the good parts of the first films, the human protagonists, and stealing the rest from other recent sci-fi films.<br /><br />There is not one original use of the either the Alien or Pred characters. The Pred actually has little trouble killing Aliens by the dozen even though the last movie led us to believe that Pred revered the Aliens as such a deadly foe that they used the killing of one as Rite of Passage. The AlienPred is never really developed as a fearsome creature. Its ability to inject parasites into a host is ripped from several different movies most recently probably was Hellboy where Samiel's dismembered tongue injected eggs into Hellboy or Doom where the mutated creatures would leave their tongues behind after they speared a victim's throat.<br /><br />Simply put we aren't given reason to care about anything in this movie. There is violence but it doesn't shock or surprise and is nothing that hasn't been seen in any of a hundred slasher flicks. The CG is OK and both species of alien are made to look and move as they have in movies past. But since the characters are never developed and the acting is so bad we kind of hope that they all die. The little girl was probably the best actor of the bunch but sadly we aren't made to care whether or not kids, women, or anyone else lives or dies. We just want the movie to end. Eventually it does but not before another stolen plot line from Resident Evil 2 has a nuke aim Gunnison's way to wipe out the "infection". And not before yet another stupid scene that is supposed to open the door for further sequels but does it? In a movie filled with bad scenes the worst may have been saved for last.<br /><br />Sorry for the repetition but everything bears repeating: bad script, no plot, unoriginal action scenes, uninspired direction, abysmal acting, decent f/x that were wasted because of the many flaws.<br /><br />I don't mind going to an indie film and being disappointed. The actors and directors and crew are probably getting their careers going and working on a shoestring budget. For a movie with this type of budget and hype I feel cheated along with disappointed. This movie is a painfully boring waste of time from the opening scene to closing credits. Sad to say that a preview of Hellboy 2 was the best part of AVPr and HB2 didn't even look that good. | 0 |
4,874 | [
1000,
1100
] | 928 | 1,073 | I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!<br /><br />So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!<br /><br />Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says "Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...", yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.<br /><br />Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this! | 0 |
4,952 | [
1000,
1100
] | 859 | 1,041 | After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage. | 0 |
5,256 | [
1000,
1100
] | 836 | 1,026 | There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful "reality" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.<br /><br />Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go "Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like "Ghost Hunters" and whatnot!" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully "trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.<br /><br />Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take "Ghost Hunters" for example. In "Ghost Hunters" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say "this is possible that its simply nothing". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in "Paranormal State". Strike one.<br /><br />In "Paranormal State", the cast simply says "there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!" And immediately you know and saying to yourself "Okay, convince me otherwise". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called "haunted" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who "claims" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said "pretend you can contact spirits for our show" and went at it. In the "Mothman" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted "reading" of a supposed area of how something is "haunted" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these "paranormal anomalies" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these "paranormal" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.<br /><br />However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.<br /><br />So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show. | 0 |
5,587 | [
1000,
1100
] | 861 | 1,055 | Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.<br /><br />I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.<br /><br />The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.<br /><br />I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than "Company of Men". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- "No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face." This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.<br /><br />Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells "Get outta here before I have you all arrested!" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).<br /><br />Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, "Pink Flamingos" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try "Blood Feast" first instead, you'll have a much better time.<br /><br /> | 0 |
5,808 | [
1000,
1100
] | 758 | 1,018 | I'm no slouch at finding "redeeming social value." Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda? <br /><br />When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of "1" the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.<br /><br />Maybe that word "attack" is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails "cinema," a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.<br /><br />All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.<br /><br />I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.<br /><br />How much does it matter whether the director is or simply "gets" his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.<br /><br />My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs? | 0 |
5,875 | [
1000,
1100
] | 813 | 1,015 | A group of friends receive word from a pal who has found gold in an old mind shaft nearby an ancient abandoned western town of Suttersville. Despite warnings by the local sheriff, Murphy(John Phillip Law), Old Man Prichard(Richard Lynch)a bedraggled hick who swindles tourists with supposed collectible Wanted posters, and kooky superstitious Aunt Nelly(Karen Black)to stay out of the mine due to it's notorious legend(..that an evil coal miner who sold his soul to devil and murdered a priest's(Jeff Conaway)daughter will return from the dead to kill those who remove the gold from his shaft), these people only see the green, not the blood red which could potentially ooze from their slain bodies. Finding the gold of Jeremiah Stone intact, they line their pockets and carrying cases, prepared for the bright futures that supposedly lie ahead. But, when you do not heed the warnings of those you consider backwoods loons, the obvious result will be gruesome death. Jeremiah Stone, as we see, is lying merely a skeleton near an alter containing skulls lined next to each other as the candles on top of them light up, the pickax underneath awaiting it's master, with dust particles returning him to a grotesque corpse with demonic exposition, his eyes aglow with wrath. This hapless group, hoping for some fun around the campfire with gold providing them with warm prospects for life ahead, will fall prey to the vengeful ghoul and his mean pickax. Another victim will meet the nasty end of a shovel thrown through the windshield of her vehicle, directing it's path straight into her neck. Another failed attempt to retreat has Stone causing a frightened victim to drive his car into a tree, his body engulfed in flames as he fails to escape without harm. Another, a local girl searching for her new friends, worried about their well being, receives the pickax buried into her stomach. Aunt Nelly informs those still alive about the Forty-Niner and the curse on those who raids his eternal stash..and pays the price for relating such information. Will anybody survive? Or, is the entire group fated to perish at the hands of the zombie miner?<br /><br />Make-up effects artist and monster creator, John Carl Buechler directs this supernatural slasher without worrying about logic or strong story-telling, opting instead to allow his zombie miner to destroy anyone and everyone who happens to be in his path. He provides just enough back story, and this is feeble at best, for the killer allowing special guest star, Karen Black(..oh how her career has sunken into the abyss)to explain to the viewer about him. The story given to us has the miner holding a priest's daughter hostage, threatening to execute her as the Suttersville authorities warn against such an action. Startling enough, Stone plants that pickax right into her back, with the opposition unloading their guns with little effect because he sold his soul to Satan. Retreating to his domain, the mine shaft, Stone sends out a warning against anyone even attempting to take what's his, the loot. Typical of most slashers in general, this bunch of twenty-somethings are your garden variety victims, with little development other than some banter and exchanging of words provides as filler until the undead maniac pops onto the scene to slaughter them. They are the usual group, from the city, trespassing unto unfamiliar territory, resurrecting an evil that should remain dormant. Like many of the later 80's slashers, a good deal of the violence is off-screen. What is on screen, the minimal gore, is rather mundanely presented and happens rather quickly. The ghoul make-up for the killer is only shown occasionally;he's mostly shrouded in darkness, the victims' horrified faces as he catches or chases after them are given more credence than the method of destruction. One thing's for certain, stunt men were set on fire many times. At least three times, a character is burned alive by either a lantern or flaming vehicle. Martin Cove has a minor cameo as Black's former husband, Caleb, now living with a much younger, and dense, honey. Vernon Wells(..of The Road Warrior and Commando fame)has the back story role of Jeremiah Stone as a human, still capturing the same type of menace he specializes in. John Phillip Law seems to be enjoying himself as the rather polite and hospitable sheriff, welcoming the outsiders to his neck of the woods. Buechler has quite an attractive cast of actresses, all wearing tight pants and smallish shirts, showing off their sleek and athletic figures, especially Elina Madison as easy-lay Roxann, always willing to remove her clothes for greedy jerk, Hayden(Rick Majeske). Stephen Wastell(The Ghosts of Edendale) is Axl, a rather clumsy foil, used as a butt of many jokes including his "dump in the woods" scene and current unemployment status. | 0 |
5,941 | [
1000,
1100
] | 915 | 1,086 | This is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. I was mainly tempted to get this because of the DVD cover, stupid me, but I did anyway and I was blown away, in a bad sense. This movie is essentially about El Chupacabra wreaking havoc around Los Angeles and it's up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day, before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. The main reason why I did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. Along with some bad acting, okay lighting and nothing scary, this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. However, compared to other Chupacabra movies, this one certainly tops the charts, just barely.<br /><br />First off, the continuity in this movie is way off and I mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. There were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot, they aren't doing it or the change never occurred. Case in point: the main character has a gun, the Chupacabra attacks, he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. The girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun, then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. Where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. The time of day gets screwed up. One minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. There were some plot holes as in, why was the Chupacabra there, what were the scientists doing, what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived? These things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered.<br /><br />Next on the list is the acting. Boy was it wooden and bad. The main character Navarro, played by Eric Algeria, seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits, his emotion was just not there. Elina Madison, who played Starlina, did a fairly poor job. She was the author of a bestselling book about the Chupacabra and she just didn't seem into her role or her performance. Her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. Even for an author she knows too much about that thing, and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. Tony Criss was okay, but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. The movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show, where the actors and actresses aren't really that committed to their work.<br /><br />I rarely don't get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing, but for this movie, I could not help but be harsh on the lighting. It took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. There were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more "comic bookish," but it backfired. The worse part is at night when it is pith black outside, but the scene is so oversaturated with light, it seems like its day. They keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes, and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. It shouldn't be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. During the sunset when the lighting was perfect, that's the only time when the light was good, other than that it was terrible.<br /><br />There were not scares in this film. There was only one time where I did jump but other than that, it wasn't scary. There were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out, you could see the Chupacabra approach the man, but if it was dark, it would have been better. Even the creature design for the Chupacabra was poor, it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. They didn't hide his face; they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. There was a fair amount of gore, but it seemed unreal. This movie just wasn't scary, that's all.<br /><br />Overall, they did Americanize a great South American legend into a blood-thirsty human eater, which the Chupacabra isn't. In fact, it was scared of people and it only killed goats, sheep, dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. But, then were would the story be? I did not enjoy this film for any reason, but I will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. I would not recommend this film to any horror fan, but if you like indie or B-movies, you should check this out. Also, if you are easily tempted by cult-classics, you'd enjoy this film. I didn't, I won't see it again, but in some deep sedated way, I enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of Hollywood is making. | 0 |
6,020 | [
1000,
1100
] | 885 | 1,091 | ************* SPOILERS BELOW ************* "'Night, Mother" is the story of Jesse (Sissy Spacek), a divorced epileptic woman who calmly announces to her brash mother (Anne Bancroft) that she's going to commit suicide. This is a fascinating premise that is drained of all vitality and excitement. The brilliant hook turns out to be a cheat- the story that follows is lacking in substance, gravity and revelatory value. Where are the shocks and surprises as mother and daughter have what may be the last conversation of their lives? Where are the secrets revealed, the confessions and fantasies and regrets? They're here, but they've all been painted the same dull color that keeps emotion in the background and celebrates the 'genius' of playwright Marsha Norman at the expense of everything else. The result is not a film but an exhausting endurance test.<br /><br />Let me preface my comments by saying I find Sissy Spacek to be one of the greatest actresses in the history of motion pictures, a woman so magnetic, so natural that she continues to surprise and amaze me after twenty years of stardom. She brings a touch of class and magic to everything she does, and I've seen her rescue more than one film from the recycling bin with her angelic face and vulnerable eyes, her soft voice and sweet smile. It was because of the great Spacek that I watched this film in the first place, and for one of her movies to be terrible it has to fail in a significant way. This film fails in two.<br /><br />First and foremost the film is adapted so faithfully from the Pulitzer-winning stage play that it is claustrophobic and repetitive. The entire movie is a two-woman dialogue between Jesse and her Mother. What worked on stage- a middle-aged mother and daughter argue for two hours in small house- dies on film. A play, no matter how great, needs to be *adapted* for the screen
it is self-indulgent and arrogant to believe that the dialogue is so perfect that not of a word of it can be altered. The screenplay for this film could have been shortened by thirty to forty pages, and a knowing screenwriter would have given the brilliant Spacek and competent Bancroft some *physical* sequences, some facial reactions, something to break up the wall-to-wall yak fest and prison-like single-set. It is no wonder that the screenplay was adapted by the original playwright Marsha Norman, who may know theater but reveals herself here to be clueless in film.<br /><br />I cannot over-emphasize the effect the stage-play script has on the film. Watching Jesse and her Mother argue about Jesse's impending suicide is redundant and dull. The women walk from the living room into the kitchen into the den and back into the living room, where they start all over again. A tiny Midwestern house is not the ideal location for a single-set film, and the director never tries anything clever or original, never tries to break up the monotony with an exterior shot or cutaway or a flashback or *anything*. There's no music, no other characters, no other stories... just two women covering the couch cushions and arguing their opinions. The reverence given to the play is sickening
even Shakespeare's most solemn classics get shaken up for the screen. The commitment to the original play seems almost spiteful
it's as if the film was made only to document the dramatic treasure that was the stage play, with the audience an afterthought.<br /><br />The other reason the film fails is Anne Bancroft. She may be a good stage actress but on film- where presence is 80% of performance- she rarely seems to fit. She certainly doesn't fit here, playing a Midwestern grandmother but looking more like Mrs. Robinson before her morning coffee. She chases Jesse around the house, looking more aggravated than astounded, and seems extraordinarily unsympathetic, even when her lines convey a loving- if flawed- woman.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek is great as she always is, honest and open and so good that you actually understand and agree with her character's choice. Sissy lets us see that Jesse is a flat tire, a wrong turn of a woman who has had every bad break and made too many wrong choices. She's never had control of her life, and her suicide will be her way of finally saying "No more- this is where I get off." That's how she puts it anyway, and when Spacek speaks
you listen. She proves in all her films that a good actress doesn't have to behave like a man, doesn't have to be all bluff and bravado and borrowed testosterone. In this and in films like "Coal Miner's Daughter" she quietly demonstrates a soft strength and quiet depth that is as impressive as it is hypnotic
you can't help but fall in love.<br /><br />That's why it was so hard for me to watch "'Night, Mother." Spacek is wasted in a stilted stunt of a film that never serves to engage or even distract. I would not recommend this movie to anyone except die-hard fans of Sissy like myself and even then you'll be disappointed. I do give the film an entire letter grade bonus for the ending, which is courageous enough to let the lead character do what's right for *her* and not pander to a hackneyed happy ending. GRADE: C | 0 |
6,040 | [
1000,
1100
] | 849 | 1,090 | I liked the whole set up with Ceasar's Palace, the Roman guards, and announcers in togas. This event also marked "the passing of the torch" as far as the voice of the WWF goes. Gorilla Monsoon who had done the play by play for every WWF PPV up to this point opens up and gives the typical introduction making it look like he's there to announce another PPV. But then introduces Jim Ross who is making his WWF debut and JR continues to do the WWF commentary to this day. But outside of that, this event is pure garbage. Good ol scientific wrestling has been thrown out the window and enter the birth of gimmicks. This to me was the event that the WWF started to go down the toilet, and didn't recover until the attitude era of the late 90's. Here's a review of the event.<br /><br />IC title match: Tatanka (Challenger) vs. Shawn Michaels (champ): An okay opener, but given what Shawn is capable of, it was very disappointing. I have no idea why the WWF was hell bent on putting Tatanka over. They should of realized that Shawn was the future and Tatanka was just some hyper wrestler in an Indian Gimick. The ending of the match itself was very lame. Shawn grabs the ref and pulls him out, then gets called for a count out. While it was fun watching Sherri get beat up afterwords, this match just was forgettable. Shawn had to carry this match and had trouble doing it.<br /><br />The Stenier Brothers vs. The Headshrinkers: Steiners get the win via a Franknsteiner. This match had it's moments, but the crowd just didn't seem into it. There was no heat behind it, I think it was a match just to throw two tag teams in.<br /><br />Crush vs. Doink the Clown: TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! This match completely sucked. Two very lame gimmicks. A clown and a Hawaiian dressed in bizarre colors. The ending caught everybody by surprise. In the upcoming months, Crush turned heel and Doink turned face, but none of the fans seem to care. Sadly, this was not the worst match on the card.<br /><br />Razor Ramon vs. Bob Backland: You got a brand new heel that is very over going against a wrestler who was forgotten about 10 years ago. The fans snicker and laugh when Backlund comes out. And like Hogan/Rock in WM18 and HHH/Owen in WM14, the heel wrestler gets louder cheers in the face. Thankfully this match was short. The right guy won, but I wish they had Razor totally beat the crap out of and squash Backlund rather than winning by a small package out of nowhere.<br /><br />Tag Team Champion Match: Ted Dibiase and IRS (Champs) vs. Hulk Hogan & Brutus Beefcake w/Jimmy Hart I still would like to know the full story on what happened to Hogan's eye. Oh well. The crowd was really into this match, but it had no flow to it what so ever. Hogan and Beefcake were clearly suffering ring rust given that both wrestlers had been on the shelf for at least a year. Dibiase, being the great technical wrestler that he was, did help to carry the match from being a complete waste. The ending was a surprise with Dibiase and IRS getting the win via DQ. But to please the crowd, Hogan and Beefcake did their usual playing to the crowd at the end like they had won the match.<br /><br />Lex Luger vs. Mr. Perfect: The best part of this match was the four hot chicks that accompanied Lex Luger to the ring. Other than that, this was completely forgettable. The Mr. Perfect gimmick was born for a heel role and he just lacked the heat as a face. And Luger is just a waste of time no matter what gimmick he's in. Luger wins via a backslide despite that Perfect's feet were in the ropes. Then Perfect spends the post match getting his butt kicked. First Luger knocks him out with the running elbow. Then when Perfect regains consciousness he goes back to the dressing room to find Luger only to get the crap beaten out of him by Shawn Michaels, setting up an HBK/Perfect feud that had the potential to be a classic but the WWF misused.<br /><br />The Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzales: ABSOLUTE CRAP!! What was the WWF thinking bringing in such a horrible wrestler as Giant Gonzales. Sure he had size, but I'd rather watch the Brooklyn Brawler in a match than him. This isn't even worth commenting on.<br /><br />WWF CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH: Bret Hart (champ) vs. Yokozuna (challenger) You have one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time going against a guy who's only advantage is that he's a gigantic lard ass. Bret was able to carry the match, but a rather predictable ending with Mr. Fuji throwing salt in Bret's face.<br /><br />POST MATCH: Yokozuna vs. Hulk Hogan Pure crap right here. Hogan comes down to the ring for no apparent reason and Mr. Fuji challenges him to a match after Yoko just won the title. Even the die-hard Hulkamaniacs find this to be total BS. | 0 |
6,599 | [
1000,
1100
] | 811 | 1,019 | The Polar Express. Director Robert Zemeckis, I love Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Contact, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (NO QUESTION MARK AFTER THAT MOVIE TITLE!!). And Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. The reviews of this movie were almost unanimous saying that this is an instant holiday classic. Ebert & Roeper give it two ENTHUSIASTIC thumbs up! Even Ebert's written review gave it a full four stars! Wow... OK... this I gotta see! But wait... the motion capture used looks really weird. Hmm... maybe I'm NOT so interested in seeing this anymore.<br /><br />"Well, you comin?" says the train conductor to the boy in The Polar Express. The boy is reluctant at first, and the train begins on its course without him. The boy soon changes his mind and jumps aboard just in the nick of time. <br /><br />Now, most of you have probably decided to not jump aboard this train and wait for the TV Train or Rental Express (hee hee, I'm so witty and clever). I, on the other hand was like the boy who was skeptical at first, but jumped on to see what the fuss was all about. <br /><br />I just wasted $10 and two hours of my life. <br /><br />I can't even begin to explain the pain in my stomach. The Polar Express was so painful to sit through it's not even funny. There's no story. There's no pay off. You sit there through these series of events and you wonder "is there any point to all this?" It'd be one thing if the scenes were entertaining... but they're not.<br /><br />This movie is void of any emotion, any soul, any ounce of plausibility, and most of all: any fun. This movie is NOT FUN. <br /><br />And let's talk about the way these characters look for a second. Saying that it's the same technology (motion, I'm sorry, "PERFORMANCE" capture) used to make Gollum is a real shame because Gollum was Believable!!! Photo-realism just does not translate well in this medium. You're using animation, why not design the characters to be more expressive? Or why not just film it all with real actors? They certainly COULD have. We as people know all too well how we walk, talk, interact with things. Seeing it on the screen done unconvincingly is not impressive. Caricatures done convincingly is all the more believable, as The Incredibles has proved. The result of The Polar Express now is as if they took corpses of dead children and turned them into puppets. They're moving and talking, but where's the heart? Where's the soul? That's what we're seeing on the screen. UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH! This movie is so horrible! <br /><br />There's a scene early in the movie where the boy takes a girl's train ticket from her seat because she got up and left it. He wants to give it to her but you sit there going "why??!" Just leave it.. she's coming back! He of course loses the ticket and "adventure" ensues. And then there's a boy who's stuck in the back of the train all the time, and they bring him hot chocolate, but he can't come up and join the rest of the kids? And then there's this annoying "know it all" kid with the voice of a 35 year old. It's all so very disturbing. <br /><br />Oh and there's songs! One girl goes into the back of the train where the lonely kid is. He's singing a song to himself. And then she interrupts and joins in! They end the song as they're holding hands, looking into each others eyes as if they were lovers. Very awkward. I won't even go into details about the song about serving hot chocolate while waiters dance around the train. "keep it hot keep it hot!" The one scene where Tom Hanks slides on his knees with his arms stretched up in the air has to be one of the most memorably BAD scenes in the history of bad scenes. <br /><br />I have to stop now or I'll just kill myself. I need to watch something crappy to cleanse the palette. Yes... crappy is better than The Polar Express. <br /><br />"The one thing about trains, it doesn't matter where you're going, what matters is deciding to get on."<br /><br />Don't get on this one. For the love of God, I have decided for you! This is just another film taken from a children's book stretched incredibly thin into movie form. It happened with the Grinch and The Cat in the Hat and those were horrible also. But who can blame them? I bet if I took the book, The Berenstein Bears' Too Much Junk Food, and turned that into a feature film, it'd probably be pretty dull also. But at least... there'd be a story and a point, which is what The Polar Express is so lacking of. | 0 |
6,609 | [
1000,
1100
] | 809 | 1,082 | I guess that after Leonard Nimoy had been successful in directing "the Search for Spock" and "the Voyage Home," William Shatner thought he could direct too. Although he is a competent actor, he shows here that he's just not a good director.<br /><br />Actually, this movie is hard evidence to support the arguments of Trekkies who say that William Shatner being an arrogant egomaniac. For although his character, Captain James Kirk, was always arguably the most important role in the original "Star Trek," it seems in this movie that he is the heart of the movie, the two other most important characters, Captain Spock and Doctor Leonard McCoy, are just there to support him, and the other characters are just there to add comic relief.<br /><br />The plot is that some emotional Vulcan outcast named Sybok is mindmelding with people and releasing the pain bottled up inside them from that traumatic event early in life that changed them forever. Grateful, they join him in his quest to make the entire world free of pain and thus at peace. Sybok and his followers commandeer the building in which a peace conference between a Human, Klingon, and Romulan diplomat is taking place. This lures the still-being-constructed Enterprise there, since none of Starfleet's other ships have "experienced commanders" (honestly, with how Starfleet is run, the Klingons and Romulans should have conquered them years ago). Sybok adds the Enterprise's crew, save Spock (who is revealed to be secret brothers with Sybok), McCoy, and Kirk. Sybok orders that the Enterprise take off to "the center of the universe" to meet "God," who apparently every race has a word for. However, it turns out that this is only a minor entity when he demands the use of the Enterprise and Kirk asks, "what does God need with a starship." The entity is destroyed, but not before Sybok, realizing he's been lied to for years, sacrifices his life and earns Spock's respect in death after the Enterprises photon torpedos destroy the entity and inexplicably Sybok as well.<br /><br />OK, science fiction movies are not known for realism, but at some point, rationality must be enforced. Why do people follow Sybok just for releasing their pain? Why are all humanoids defined by a single traumatic event? I've certainly led a trauma-free life. Why doesn't Kirk try his crew for mutiny and treason after they join Sybok? What was the point of Sybok sacrificing himself when the torpedos were going to kill the entity anyway?<br /><br />So the plot's weak. Another problem is that Sybok, though played well by Lawrence Luckinbill, is poorly portrayed. Just because he's an emotional Vulcan doesn't mean he should act exactly like a Human religious fanatic. Shatner (who was a co-writer as well as the director) could have at least developed dialog fitting for an emotional Vulcan. I guess he feels that any emotional being talks like us. Gee, I guess that means that Klingons should say "isn't" and "don't" more often than "is not" and "do not." And the Cardassians shouldn't prolong their sentences because they like to talk (yeah, I know it's sad that I know this). Please... every ST race uses unique dialog. Why is Sybok the exception.<br /><br />The only thing to not complain about is the acting. I've always known "Star Trek" to have great actors, and this movie is not exception. Cudos also go to Leonard Nimoy, for it had to be difficult to play the dispassionate Spock in his old age.<br /><br />Some other things I didn't like:<br /><br />Shatner and the late DeForrest Kelly twice show what bad singers they are by singing "Row, Row, Row your Boat" in this movie. I guess Shatner wished to silence his detractors of his singing ability. What he did was prove their point.<br /><br />Uhura does a fan dance while wearing nothing but tree bark to draw some men into a booby trap. After all, the dreams of all us men are filled with images of middle-aged plump women dancing naked.<br /><br />Comedy's all well and good as long as it doesn't affect the nature of "Star Trek" too much, but when Scotty bumps into an object on the Enterprise and KOs himself, it's kinda goin' overboard.<br /><br />Kirk is the only crew member who can reject Sybok's offer of releasing their inner pain and see through the God imposter's deception. Not even Spock can manage either of these? Perhaps this scenes were valantines from Shatner to his character, as many suspect.<br /><br />The concept of an entity posing as God had been used in "Star Trek" before this movie more than once. Be creative, Shatner.<br /><br />Speaking of uncreativeness, I didn't purticularly care for the ripping off of the music of "Star Trek: the Next Generation."<br /><br />All in all, pretty bad "Trek" movie. If you're a Trekkie, watch it once because it's "Star Trek." Otherwise, watch "Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan." It's way better. | 0 |
6,761 | [
1000,
1100
] | 787 | 1,019 | Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like "Human Pork Chop" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as "The Untold Story"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.<br /><br />**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese "Guinea Pig" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous "He Never Dies" without laughing and "The Making of Guinea Pig" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ("Mermaid in a Manhole"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop" has none of the above.<br /><br />It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.<br /><br />Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome "she deserves it!" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.<br /><br />What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike "Guinea Pig" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, "Human Pork Chop" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).<br /><br />The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near "Guinea Pig" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.<br /><br />The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's "Combat Shock" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.<br /><br />In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas "Guinea Pig" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.<br /><br />Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel. | 0 |
7,148 | [
1000,
1100
] | 884 | 1,081 | It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.<br /><br />It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.<br /><br />A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer
?<br /><br />Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.<br /><br />All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either
.. | 0 |
7,216 | [
1000,
1100
] | 777 | 1,007 | Director Lesley Selander's thoroughly routine outdoor yarn "The Yellow Tomahawk" (1954) pits the Cheyenne against the U.S. Cavalry with leathery tough Rory Calhoun in the middle as the seasoned, buckskin-clad Indian scout who has to lead the survivors to safety. This United Artists western was lensed in color but the TV print that Turner Classic Movies aired was inexplicably in black & white.<br /><br />The action opens with Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun of "Black Spurs") eluding several Indians and riding up to palaver with his old friend and Cheyenne chief, Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly"), who has killing on his mind. Fire Knife warns Adam that his Cheyenne braves are poised to wipe out a nearby cavalry fort under construction because it violates a treaty that the Indians made with the government. On his way to inform stuck-up camp commandant, Major Ives (Warner Anderson of "Objective, Burma!"),about the impending Indian attack, Adam discovers a beautiful wood nymph seductively treading water in a lake. Katherine 'Kate' Bolden (Peggy Castle of "I, Jury") is another of those silly women in westerns that bathe nude in the middle of Indian country without a care in the world. Castle appears to be genuinely nude in her bathing scenes, too, perhaps the most memorable scene of all in this otherwise predictable western. Naturally, Major Ives dismisses Adam's warning from Fire Knife until the commander realizes that somebody has raided his ammunition dump far outside the fort. This is one of the many questions that the Richard Alan Simmons' screenplay leaves unanswered in this trim, 82-minute oater. Why would the cavalry bury their ammunition at a secret spot in the desert rather than keep it on the premises in the fort? No sooner have they made this discovery than the Indians attack, knock out of hero, and leave him as the only survivor. Before this attack, a pair of white prospectors rides into the fort. Sawyer (Peter Graves of "Stalag 17") brings in his partner with an arrow in his chest. While Adam is getting hot water to help in removing the arrow, the greedy Sawyer grinds the shaft in deeper and kills his helpless partner. Later, we learn that Sawyer and his partner had struck gold. The question of the dispersal of the gold is also left unanswered after our heroes survive the ordeal. Adam and Fire Knife have one final pow-wow and Fire Knife demands that Adam hand over Major Ives or everybody will die. Naturally, Adam refuses and the Indians begin to whittle down the whites. James Best in a supporting role as a cavalryman gets an arrow in the back for his efforts. Noah Beery, Jr., plays a aimable Mexican scout pursued by a sexy Indian damsel appropriately named Honey Bear (Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno of "West Side Story") and Robert Bray of "Lassie" fame is on hand briefly as the ill-fated cavalry officer that Kate had planned to marry. <br /><br />The biggest surprise in this unremarkable western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, is that the evil cavalry officer Ives, who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children at the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, has been keeping a secret that he is a Native American, too! Ironically, the taut bow that Fire Knife gives out of friendship to Adam at the outset of the hostilities is what our heroic scout uses to kill the stalwart Cheyenne warrior after he has run out of bullets. "The Yellow Tomahawk" concludes on an ambiguous note. The survivors reach another outpost, Fort Ellis, where Adam and Ives furnish their respective reports about the issue to an army general, but we never learn the outcome of this meeting. Is this artistic ambiguity or yet another unanswered question. Producer Howard W. Koch is no relation to "Casablanca" scenarist Howard Koch. Ultimately, "The Yellow Tomahawk" is one of many pro-Indian westerns that appeared in the aftermath of "Broken Arrow" (1950) where the Native American is viewed as a noble savage unjustly treated by some but not all whites. Selander, who made dozens of westerns during the 1950s and the 1960s, makes this minor western tolerable despite its thin characters and familiar predicament. Calhoun stands out of an above-average cast as the always serviceable leading man, and good looking Castle is worth watching for her feminine charms. Peter Graves plays a skunk as was usual in most of his early roles. Actually, Lesley Selander did a more satisfactory dramatic version of this movie the year before called "War Paint" (1953) with Robert Stack. Incidentally, Noah Beery Jr. and Rita Moreno both went on to become regulars on "The Rockford Files". | 0 |
7,410 | [
1000,
1100
] | 803 | 1,043 | The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.<br /><br />September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. "Once women will wear trousers" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of cliché.<br /><br />Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a "femme fa tale" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.<br /><br />A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.<br /><br />In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3/10 | 0 |
8,086 | [
1000,
1100
] | 835 | 1,050 | Watching "Baghban" is the movie equivalent of trying to eat one's way out of a vat of saltwater taffy for nigh unto three hours. This Indian film is a sticky sweet, sentimental soap opera that starts off like "King Lear," moves on to "Romeo and Juliet" in the middle section, then heads back again to "King Lear" for its tear-soaked finale.<br /><br />Raj Malhotra is a bank accountant who seems to have everything a man could possibly want out of life: a wife who adores him, a family who loves him, and a job from which he is about to retire after a lifetime of faithful service. Even though Raj and his wife, Pooja, have been married for 40 years and have four grown sons, they still act like a couple of love struck newlyweds, cooing and sighing, batting their eyes at one another and whispering sweet nothings into each other's ears almost to the point of nausea. In fact, the whole bloody brood is so happy, loving and harmonious that they make the Von Trapps look like a dysfunctional family in comparison. The parents and children joke together, laugh together, even perform elaborately choreographed, "spontaneous" song-and-dance numbers together (like many Bollywood productions, "Baghban" is a drama interspersed with a great number - in this case, far too great a number - of musical sequences).<br /><br />Anyone who knows anything at all about storytelling is aware that such unadulterated bliss can not be allowed to go unpunished for long, and that all that joy is merely the prelude to some awful catastrophe destined to come crashing down on the heads of our unsuspecting revelers. Knowing this, we spend the first hour of the film in fearful expectation, wondering just what form that disaster will take when it does finally arrive. The thunderclap occurs about an hour into the film, when Raj announces to his children that he and their mother have decided to move in with one of their families, leaving the choice of which one it will be up to the kids and their respective spouses. Suddenly, like King Lear discovering the vipers hidden in the familial bosom, Raj finds out that his children are not quite as loving, selfless and eager to share their homes and lives with their parents as he had originally thought. Understandably horrified at the prospect, the kids, in order to foil their parents' plan, come up with a scheme in which Raj will go live with one of their children, while Pooja will live with another; then they will switch off until, eventually, each of the children has had a chance to host both parents and then the cycle will repeat itself ad infinitum. Much to the chagrin of the kids, the parents accede to the plan, even though the two are deeply in love with one another and have never spent any time apart. Thus, the second and most of the third hour are spent with the two aging (albeit married) lovers pining away for one another, while their ungrateful, insensitive little brats do everything in their power to make their parents understand how unwelcome they are in their homes.<br /><br />One of the major problems with "Baghban" is that it lacks subtlety in both its storytelling and direction. The love that Ray and Pooja feel for one another, as well as the almost giddy closeness of the family unit, is laid on so thickly in the first hour that the film almost collapses under the weight of the sentimentality. Then, virtually without any warning, the screenplay turns on a dime and converts the kids into callous, self-centered monsters and the parents into passive, whiny victims of that callousness. Raj and Pooja are a little too long in the tooth and a little too self-reliant to be doing the dreamy-eyed, pouting, unrequited love bit, more appropriate to lovelorn school kids than the parents of four grown children. The purple prose style, in which every emotion is underlined and highlighted, leads to intense overacting and a heavy reliance on corny reaction shots and melodramatic music for punctuation. The musical numbers convey a certain liberating joy in the beginning, but they go on for so long and turn up so frequently that they quickly lose their effectiveness and serve only to pad out the material to unendurable proportions. At least a full hour could be excised from this bloated production with no discernible harm being done - and quite a bit of good. There really is no reason why this film needs to drag on for a punishing three hours. Most egregious of all is the seemingly endless harangue we are subjected to an the end, a speech in which Raj (who has somehow managed to turn his experiences into an award-winning bestseller) lectures us all on the verities of parent/child relationships for ten straight minutes at the very least.<br /><br />"Baghban" is a sappy, corny saga, filled with more sugar and goo than a king-sized box of See's chocolates. Sample at your own risk. | 0 |
8,287 | [
1000,
1100
] | 822 | 1,099 | OK, so I gotta start this review by saying i was really expecting to see this flick for months, i use to watch its trailer and think it looked really cool....little did i know that the only cool thing about this cliché-driven turd was precisely its trailer.<br /><br />At the cinema, i watched the first 3 frames of this movie and though to myself "no way this movie is so bad, don't be an idiot, give it a chance! you've only seen 3 minutes" while i rolled my eyes in shame. All those frames showed....get this....a guy with a poker face (because he feels nothing....that's deep) looking straight at the camera in the middle of the frame. In the second or third one, he stays awake in his perfectly made bed (because he sleeps like a dead guy...cause he feels nothing), and his father calls, and says "John Garden State, is me, your father"....oh come on! I've seen a little more than a couple flicks to hate clichés such as the "is me, your (insert parent)", how the hell am I supposed to react??: "Oh, he has a tough relationship with him"....uh....yeah, thats exactly how I'm supposed to react....<br /><br />Man, this is a crappy movie...<br /><br />Anywho, as the flick goes on, we learn things about his friends, of which everyone is a ALTERNATIVE EMO WALKING INDIE MOVIE CLICHÉ. For example, one of his acquaintances is a guy who works in a medieval themed restaurant who speaks Klingon (Bizarre characters + Pop culture = Your standard American indie flick). Then we know Natalie Portman's character, who is a copy of Alissa Jones (from a movie that kicks GS's butt, Chasing Amy), Amelie and that chick from Eternal Sunshine... you know, smart, original (not really), cultured, beautiful and...in touch with her sexuality (!). She listens some '70s band named The Shins and gives...what? they're from this damn decade?? Then why do they sound like that?? Oh, they have no personality, OK.....so she hands her CD player to John Garden State and he looks at her with a dumb face(you know, love). As the song played on, i heard its lyrics saying "you will love this soundtrack, it is so alternative and cool, you will love this movie, it will define you and your generation even if it is a ideological photocopy of The Breakfast Club, Ghost World and every other smart teen movie from the last 20 years, you will drink coffee and read books you don't understand"...<br /><br />By now, really unoriginal sh!t starts to happen....he doesn't care if he dies in a airplane crash (because he is already dead....and he feels nothing) and he lets us know in a scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called FIGHT CLUB!!!, it is a cool scene but, oh, did I mentioned it appeared in the trailer?.......then in some party, and just when you think this guy is really deep and asexual he makes out with a bimbo....so oh, he's not such a emotional zombie after all....clever character development or just a sh!tty movie?......well, lets analyze that scene, it features him sitting motionless in a couch with everyone else moving in really fast speed......scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called REQUIEM FROM A DREAM!......so just a sh!tty, sh!tty movie...<br /><br />Then they meet more eccentric (cliché, actually) characters, and finally, one that lives next to a big hole in the ground. John Garden State says some crap like "good luck exploring your infinite abyss" and the guy says....and by now i wanted to really choke myself, "You too"..............and then we are gently told that Neo is Jesus....oh no, wait, thats from another dumb, obvious, repetitive, overestimated and cliché piece of crap.<br /><br />Finally (Finally!!!!), some more crap happens and he enters the big warehouse showdown to defuse the bombs: he has to talk to his dad who he hasn't seen in the last zillion years cause he (FINALLY COOL SPOILERS) killed his own mom....(you see, he killed his mom, so he's also dead.......and feels nothing.....that's deep). Now I really expected just clever and moving Magnolia-like dialogue between a father and a son......but this is Garden State, so this is pretty much it: -John Garden State: Father, I forgive you, you didn't know what you were doing when you drugged me for a zillion years, but I know you love me -Crappy director's dad: No!!! No!!!! I'm gonna say some simple stuff cause I'm not really so deep of a character anyway, like this whole movie actually, so no!!!! -John Garden State: No dad, we must get along cause we are equal individuals.....i mean different individuals -Crappy director's dad: No!!!!! No!!!!............OK, you convinced me. <br /><br />And he gets the girl (cause he's no longer dead, you know) and the movie ends and i go and eat a piece of chicken that makes my day....<br /><br />This made-for-trailer movie sucks | 0 |
8,290 | [
1000,
1100
] | 797 | 1,065 | "Garden State" is another of these "indie"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.<br /><br />When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clichés in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of "Beautiful Girls", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to "find himself" and hang with his old friends, with a little "Ordinary People" thrown in on the side. <br /><br />It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their "lives" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the "retarded quarterback" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like "Hey, I remember you from Junior year". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.<br /><br />Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from "feeling" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to "feel" again. The clichés come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) "The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half." Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the "37" joke in "Clerks", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies. <br /><br />Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clichés, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in "Shattered Glass") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend "Garden State" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few "f**ks" and "awesomes" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't. | 0 |
8,422 | [
1000,
1100
] | 865 | 1,000 | Volcano is set in Los Angeles where a minor earthquake has just hit, vacationing boss of the O.E.M. (the Offcie of Emergency Management) Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to cut his holiday short & go in, once there he sees that everything is alright but then drives off to the epicentre of the quake where seven underground workers have been killed by a fire or intense heat of some kind. Mike isn't sure what to think so he brings geologist Dr. Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) in to try & explain things, unfortunately a huge underground river of molten lava has been released after the quake & erupts at the La Brea Tar Pits sending the lava pouring out into the city streets engulfing anything & everything it touches in flames. Mike, his men & the emergency services have their work cut out trying to stop the river of lava & save as many lives as possible...<br /><br />Directed by Mick Jackson this was the second big budget disaster flick revolving around the idea of an erupting Volcano during 1997 with Dante's Peak (1997) being released a mere two months or so before Volcano was & while Dante's peak is hardly any sort of masterpiece at least it's slightly better & more plausible than Volcano is. The script here is total nonsense & is not based in reality at all, underground rivers of lava that seem to appear & then disappear just as quick, various character's standing inches from a river of lava yet not being affected by the heat (when that guy is on the train the metal seats around him start melting but he remains perfectly fine, as far as I am aware human skin is not as heat resistant as metal, is it?) & it constantly happens, helicopters flying is clouds of ash (in reality it would be impossible), one simple blockade at the end of a street will stop the flowing lava (what about down the other streets & other directions?), being able to blow a perfect trench in a street & then blowing a huge building up to make a massive dam & when Kelly sees the lava heading towards her car she gets out just like anyone would but then for some reason just stands there & watches two firemen get burned to death & waits for her dad to save her even though by this stage her leg has caught fire, despite all those concrete blocks being placed together to make a barrier in less than twenty minutes the guy's do such a great job not one bit of molten lava manages to seep through & loads more besides like that massive building falling on Tommy Lee & his daughter yet then both being fine afterwards. The character's are awful too although they were not as clichéd as usual with no romance blossoming between Tommy Lee & Anne Heche & minimal city official's who try to shut Tommy Lee & Anne Heche up before the event labelling them scaremongers. There's a few badly written & at times embarrassing moral moments as Los Angeles pulls together, the black guy & that semi racist cop who warm to each other & by the end are wishing each other well & that little kid at the end when he says 'everyone looks the same' is cringe worthy & is surely a ham-fisted attempt & trying to say whatever colour we are we are still human beings & we can all get along in time of a crisis as it brings people together. Having said that I think Volcano is one of those so bad it's good films, it entertains & it moves along at a decent pace but just don't expect anything grounded in reality or any human drama either.<br /><br />I suppose a film like Volcano could be seen as an updating of a 70's disaster film such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) or Earthquake (1974) but on a huge budget with modern effects work. Speaking of the effects they are alright but none stand out that much & the set-pieces are also surprisingly forgettable, sure there are a few impressive explosions & a few OK river of lava flowing through Los Angeles effects but little else. Generally Volcano just isn't very exciting & while occasionally unintentionally funny & completely ridiculous it doesn't really work in the way the makers intended.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 it opened to a little under $15,000,000 at the box-office, it looks alright & there's lots of fire but nothing stands out & Volcano is a pretty forgettable film overall. Filmed in Los Angeles I think most of the places featured here were shot at their real life locations. The cast go through the motions with some terrible dialogue & ridiculous set-pieces to contend with, Tommy Lee Jones deserves better than this.<br /><br />Volcano is a bit of a disaster in both senses, it is a disaster themed film that ended up a bit of disaster itself. Worth it for a few unintentional laughs & the ridiculousness of it all but it's nothing great & I doubt I would ever want to see it again. | 0 |
8,741 | [
1000,
1100
] | 788 | 1,090 | In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.<br /><br />Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.<br /><br />Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.<br /><br />If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).<br /><br />But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.<br /><br />That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.<br /><br />Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.<br /><br />In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.<br /><br />I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you. | 0 |
8,746 | [
1000,
1100
] | 779 | 1,009 | By the mid 1990s, the career of animator-director Don Bluth had seemed to drop to its all-time low. Before, Bluth had made a series of popular animated films, many which remain beloved today such as "The Land Before Time" (1988), "The Secret of NIMH" (1982), and "An American Tail" (1986). But beginning with "Thumbelina" in 1994, his films seemed to decrease more and more in quality and popularity and one of the many unfortunate entries is 1995's box office bomb "The Pebble and the Penguin", a film that didn't attract audience members beyond parents and children under the age of seven. Frankly, the latter are the only audience members I can comprehend taking enjoyment out of this rather bland animated feature.<br /><br />The story is absurd. The film stars a poorly-drawn, stammering, and chubby penguin named Hubie (voiced by Martin Short) who falls in love with a female penguin with a surprisingly healthy flower on her head (voice by Annie Golden). SORT OF like in real life, penguins present their bride-to-bes with a pebble as a substitute for a ring. But when Hubie is swept away by the current, he teams up with a lone rockhopper (James Belushi) with a dream of flying and they race against time to return to Antarctica before it's too late. The reasons why they could be too late is one of many underdeveloped elements of this weak story that would still be weak even if they were there.<br /><br />It becomes very clear very early on why this animated children's musical does not and will not work for anybody older than say six or seven years of age. It just does not have any of the qualities that are required for a good animated feature. Number one, the film looks bad on account of a very poor drawing style. The animation in this film is very cartoony (even as far as animated films go); it's dark, gloomy, there is no vibrancy in the colors, and on top of that, the design of the film and the elements in it are universally droll and laughable. Take for instance, the penguins who star in the film. With only a few background exceptions, every single penguin looks absolutely nothing at all like a bird. Hubie, for example, looks absurdly ridiculous with wide cheeks, a stubby beak, big eyes, and that preposterous hat that he wears wherever he goes. Combined with his hand-like "flippers" he looks like Chris Farley in a penguin suit. Result: he's an ugly, poorly-drawn cartoon character. But the most absurd-looking and absurdly-designed character is the evil penguin, Drake, who frankly looks nothing at all like a penguin. He's a muscle-man wearing a penguin mask. He's got a chest broader than that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and teeth larger than the teeth of the leopard seals and killer whales that serve as the film's predators. Basically, he's a two-dimensional, recycled villain. He lives in a cave shaped like a skull, he wears a cape, laughs a lot, and gets mad when people laugh with him. Result: who cares? And what's also bad, and maybe worse, is that this is an animated musical and there's not a single noteworthy or memorable song to found anywhere within its running time. The opening hymn was harmlessnot memorable, but harmless. But after that, the songs became duller and duller and there was one in particular that had me grimacing all the way through. It's the moment that viewers press the fast-forward button for whenever it comes up.<br /><br />I felt "The Pebble and the Penguin" was lame all around save for the very few moments when Hubie and the rockhopper penguin Rocko are placed in peril at the jaws of leopard seals and killer whales, who were thankfully, given no dialogue and treated as animals instead of cartoon characters. But in a way, for this reason, I cannot wholeheartedly recommend this movie to children. This is the reason. The film displays killer whales are the natural predator of the penguins. My concern is that children familiar with "Free Willy" (1993) may be offended or downhearted by seeing their favorite denizen of the sea portrayed as a bloodthirsty carnivore. The leopard seal was a better antagonist and was more funny seeing as how his jaws opened wider than a rattlesnake's and how he appeared to smile while growling. But the point really is, these moments with the predatorsand there are only a feware the only interesting moments. And they're not enormously interesting, mind you.<br /><br />Bottom line, I cannot recommend this to anybody below the age of seven. My advice: if you have children around that page, rent it for them. They might enjoy it. | 0 |
8,872 | [
1000,
1100
] | 859 | 1,036 | Today You Die starts as honourable criminal Harlan banks (producer Steven Seagal) is hired by sinister businessman Max Stevens (Kevin Tighe) to drive a security vehicle with $20,000,000 of cash in the back from point 'A' a Las Vegas casino to point 'B' him, sounds simple right? Well what Max forgot to tell Harlan that the money is stolen & that he has just become the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Bummer. Things get even worse for Harlan when the local cops catch him & chuck him in prison for a long time, however Harlan managed to hide the money before he was caught & with a nice $20,000,000 at stake & unaccounted for Harlan has to watch his back as the crooks want it as do Government agents. Harlan teams up with Ice Kool (!)(Anthony 'Teach' Criss) in prison & they both manage to escape at which point Harlan goes looking for some revenge...<br /><br />Photographed & directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy one has to say that the shot in Eastern Europe straight-to-video action films that Steven Seagal specialises in these days aren't getting any better & Today You Die is a good case in point. This is a terrible film, simple as that really. The script by producer Danny Lerner, Kevin Moore & Les Weldon gives Seagal a new sort of character to get his none existent acting skills around, that of a criminal rather than some Government agent/cop/soldier/one man army cliché he usually plays. In fact if you were being charitable you could say Today You Die is a rip-off of Mel Gibson's excellent thriller Payback (1998) where he too played a really nasty piece of work to such good effect. While Payback was a superb uncompromising hard edged film noir type action thriller Today You Die isn't & pales into insignificance by comparison. Unfortunately here Seagal is terrible, he has no on screen presence or menace either & the audience is never quite sure whether he is meant to be a bad guy that we hate or not. For instance initially his character's is set up like a modern day Robin Hood as he steals from the rich drug dealers & scumbags to give to the poor (as well as keeping a tidy profit for himself) which is just ludicrous in itself but then it has Seagal turn around & murder a lot of people which contradicts the likable criminal with morals that the film went to such lengths to set up in the first place. The story is full of holes, for instance Agent Knowles is contacted by the on the run Harlan & is then reprimanded by her bent superior for meeting him & it turns out that he found out by tapped her phone. In that case why didn't her boss use the information he had to catch Harlan? The story is the usual dull predictable bland fight over lots of money with surprise surprise the investigating Government agent is actually a bad guy! Wow, I didn't see that coming I must say...<br /><br />Director FauntLeRoy slows everything down to a snails pace & Today You Die feels like it goes on forever, the action scenes & set-pieces are also severely lacking in entertainment value. The infrequent fight scenes aren't great, most are either shot in shadow, very quickly cut & edited or with the camera played behind Seagal's character to try & disguise the fact that most of the stunt work done here is by a double. Again Seagal looks fat & out of shape & uses long baggy overcoats to try & hide it, it doesn't. There's a pretty cool car chase through the streets of Las Vegas in this at the start & I thought that Today You Die might be alright but it seems the whole sequence was stolen from another action film called Top of the World (1997) which is about a Las Vegas casino robbery, as well as using footage from that film Today You Die also edits scenes from the Charlie Sheen action film No Code of Conduct (1998), the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film The Order (2001) & the Wesley Snipes prison based action film Undisputed (2002) so quite how much of Today You Die is original footage is anyone's guess.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, considering it's edited together from four separate films as well as it's own footage it's just about competent & consistent enough. All the footage of the US locations are obviously lifted from the films already mentioned with all the original footage shot on the cheap in Bulgaria. The rap style music that litter Today You Die is awful by the way. The acting is poor & Seagal just mumbles his way through his lines as usual.<br /><br />Today You Die is a really bad film made up from other bad action films, Seagal looks old & fat, the action scenes are average at best & most of the story is fairly random & it doesn't come together at the end that well at all. One to avoid unless your a die hard Seagal fan, if such an animal even exists... | 0 |
8,993 | [
1000,
1100
] | 815 | 1,007 | One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the "cannibal connoisseur." Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.<br /><br />Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a "training exercise." Lock up your daughters! <br /><br />Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van. <br /><br />The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, "we know nothing about him except that he's dead!" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.<br /><br />Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call "purification." Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, "If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you." He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!<br /><br />As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON. <br /><br />After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW. <br /><br />Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs. | 0 |
9,315 | [
1000,
1100
] | 778 | 1,006 | Korine's established himself, by now, as a talented and impressive image-maker. The promotional posters for Mister Lonely all include the film's most impressive compositions (though there's one in particular I've yet to see in promo material: that of a blue-clad nun teasing a dog with a stick, surrounded by green forest with torrential rain pouring down). The opening images of this film, of Michael Jackson lookalike (Diego Luna) riding a small motorbike round a track, is strangely compelling and beautiful: Roy Orbison's "Mister Lonely" plays on the soundtrack, and the images unfold in slow-motion. There's also a funny and terrific sequence in which the same character mimes a dance, without music (though a radio sits like a silent dog next to him), in the middle of a Paris street; Korine splices in sound effects and jump-cuts that evoke both a feeling of futility and dogged liberation in the character's dance routine.<br /><br />The first instance of the segment dealing with the nuns is also strangely poignant; Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog) is an autocratic priest about to fly with some nuns over, and drop food into, impoverished areas nearby. In a scene that is both light-hearted and affecting, Herzog must deal with a stubbornly enthusiastic local who wishes to make the plane trip with them in order to see his wife in San Francisco. As the exchange develops, Herzog draws out of the man a confession: he has sinned, and his frequent infidelity is the cause of his wife having left him in the first place. This scene, short and sweet, gains particular weight after one learns its improvised origins: the sinner is played by a non-actor who was on set when Korine and co. were filming - and his adulterous ways had given him, in real life, a lasting, overwhelming guilt.<br /><br />Henceforth, the film is hit-and-miss; a succession of intrinsically interesting moments that add to a frivolous, muddled narrative. Whereas Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy maintain their aesthetic and emotional weight via coherent structural frameworks, Mister Lonely feels like a victim of editing room ruthlessness. A few scenes were cut from the film, which would have otherwise painted fuller pictures of certain characters, due to continuity errors in costume - a result, no doubt, due to the absence of a shooting script and Korine's tendency for improvisation. One deleted scene in particular - in which 'Charlie Chaplin' (Denis Lavant) and 'Madonna' (Melita Morgan) have sex - would have added much more emotional conflict to a scene later on in the film (I won't spoil it, but it's there to deflate any feeling of warmth or celebration, and, as it is, only half-succeeds).<br /><br />The two strands of the narrative, unconnected literally, are best approached as two entirely different stories with the same allegorical meaning; one compliments the other and vice versa. (It's something to do with the conflict between one's ambitions and the reality of the current situation.) But there's not enough of the Herzog scenes to merit their place in the film, and so any connection between these two allegorically-connected threads is inevitably strained - and the inclusion is, in retrospect, tedious.<br /><br />This is an ambitious step forward from Julien Donkey-Boy that suffers mostly, at least in the lookalike segments, from having far too many characters for the film's running length, a flaw that would have been even worse had big star names played everyone (as was originally planned).<br /><br />With many of the imagery's self-contained beauty, and moments of real, genuine connection with the soundtrack, this feels like it'd be much more suited to an art installation or photo exhibition. As an exploration of mimesis and the nature of impersonation, it'd lose none of its power - indeed, for me, it would perhaps be more impressive. The loneliness attached to iconic performativity (such as that encountered by both the icons themselves and those who aspire to be like them) is well-captured in images such as that wherein 'Marilyn Monroe' (a gorgeous Samantha Morton) seduces the camera with a Seven Year Itch pose in the middle of a forest, or when 'Sammy Davis, Jr.' (Jason Pennycooke) settles, post-dance rehearsal, with his back to the camera overlooking an incredible, tranquil lake.<br /><br />As it is, moments like these, and all those where the titles of randomly-chosen Michael Jackson songs crawl across the scene, are married to one another in a film narrative far less affecting than it should be.<br /><br />(For those who see it, I lost all faith during the egg-singing scene, late on. You'll know which scene I mean because it sticks out like a sore thumb, as some sort of gimmicky attempt at the new cinematic language for which Korine has previously been hailed.) | 0 |
9,479 | [
1000,
1100
] | 850 | 1,018 | This film holds 7.0 rating on IMDb, so even I sensed something rotten in it's synopsis I decided to try it out. What a waste of 100 minutes. First of all, the 80's were not a good decade for crime and thriller genre. Most of these, in those days were badly done with silly plot (if they had any), so there are very few that can stand out, and even if they were good they are still not very good. The Hit, however suffers from everything that made silly crime pictures silly. It has poor character development, improbable plot and wasn't written or directed in a decent manner, and when you have such shortcomings the acting doesn't help. Stephen Frears often tried to emulate French new wave in English style film making and the two don't match.<br /><br />First of all Terence Stamp is 10 years in hiding because he testified against some of his former partners in crime. He hides in Spain, of all places. He is finally caught up with, and than first kidnapped by a group of silly looking Spanish thugs, just do be driven away some distance to the two hit man that are supposed to deal with him. These two are John Hurt, who is supposed to be hard boiled, stone cold killer, and Tim Roth (in his first role) as the devil's apprentice. They don't kill Stamp right away, they first dispose of the "three Amigos", they shouldn't have hired in the first place, and then, they are driving Stamp to Paris, because one of the buddies he testified against wants to confront him. OK that's possible. But even with Stamp being such a dangerous figure that they had to hire four guys to overpower him, they don't tie him down, don't incapacitate him in any way, and drive around with him, like he's one of the buddies. Stamp doesn't object and is happily going to Paris to be shot, not using any of a half a dozen chances, these "professionals" offer for him to escape. Than it appears that Tim Roth is just a school boy bully, making the idea of big crime boss teaming him up with a hard core hit man like John Hurt, even more improbable, especially on an important job like that. But than John Hurt is not so hard core himself, he spends twenty minutes of the movie, killing or not killing the totally surplus Australian, played by Bill Hunter, whose only purpose in this film is to introduce the lovely Laura Del Sol, his mistress (who he says is 15, but she looks more like 25), and whose role in the story and acting capabilities suggest that she was offered the role, solely on the basis of being the director's or producer's mistress at the time. After much deliberation, Hurt kills the Australian but takes along his mistress for no apparent reason. Than he wants to kill her but Roth with his "subtle ways" convince him not to, so even she kicks him, bites him and scratches him through the entire movie, he stays true to that deeply buried human side of him.<br /><br />Than you have plain idiotic scenes, like when Hurt and Roth lock the car from the outside, trying to prevent the people inside from getting out?!?! Anyway the movie drags on. Tim Roth falls asleep, guarding Terence Stamp with his gun on his chest, and Stamp just waits there watching the waterfall. Than the whole shamble of a plot comes to the point where everything we've seen in the last hour and 20 minutes just goes out through the window. Let's recapitulate, the whole point in not killing Stamp right away (except for having a movie) is to take him to Paris, so his former partner is to have a last word with him. And the whole point in him not running away is that he is prepared to die, saying "It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?" But my friends, here is where the plot twists, Hurt kills the man while still in Spain, and we ask why bother and drive around for days, he could have done it in the first 15 minutes, and than contrary to his philosophy Stamp is very afraid of being killed, so we ask again why didn't he run, and he had plenty chance. Roth gets killed too, but he shouldn't be in the movie at all, and Del Sol, well she's promised a role in this film purely for romantic (read sexual) reasons, so she stays alive again, even she attacked Hurt for the 15th time in the movie. He killed all the others, but not her, she must have maximum screen appearance. The movie was made on a shoe string budget and it shows, but when you have no story and card board characterizations, it shows even more.And yes Fernando Ray appears and goes through the movie as the guest star, having a single audible line of dialog. Awful | 0 |
9,483 | [
1000,
1100
] | 768 | 1,009 | This film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.<br /><br />Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.<br /><br />Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.<br /><br />Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in "The Little Shop of Horrors". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.<br /><br />Like many recent films, "Straight-Jacket" is a "dramedy" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, "Straight-Jacket" fails miserably.<br /><br />Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.<br /><br />The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike "Singin' in the Rain," which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, "Straight-Jacket" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in "Little Shop of Horrors". There is no comparison; "Little Shop" hits the nail on the head, while "Straight-Jacket" doesn't even know there is a nail.<br /><br />Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.<br /><br />Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to "in" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.<br /><br />The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.<br /><br />My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it. | 0 |
9,579 | [
1000,
1100
] | 774 | 1,039 | Douglas Sirk's inaugural "women's-picture" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious "resuscitator machine" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it "a total waste" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!<br /><br />These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these "magnificent exemptions" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: "Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.<br /><br />But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored "women's pictures". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.<br /><br />But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because "I know that Dawn will never come again". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10. | 0 |
9,614 | [
1000,
1100
] | 882 | 1,066 | Pete's Meteor. I seen this referred to as "authentic" and a "gem." I caught this movie on a Saturday afternoon. I kinda wished that I didn't.<br /><br />Apparently this was noted as being Mike Myers' first dramatic role. Unfortunately it had to be this movie. The first thing you'll notice that Pete's Meteor suffers from is a complete lack of plot. Or rather, a bunch of little subplots that aren't really connected and don't go anywhere. Young orphan Mickey lives with his younger brother and sister with their grandmother. A meteorite lands in their garden and is eventually collected by a scientist named Hugh. Despite the title of the movie, Mickey is the one who lays claim to the meteor, and the "storyline" actually has little to do with the meteor in any shape or form. From here on out, several other characters and subplots are introduced. But like I said before, they don't really go anywhere.<br /><br />Things go from cute family movie to dark thriller pretty fast, when Pete (Mike Myers) is introduced and starts to play a role. Micky blames him for the death of his parents, though we're never really told what happened or why. Hugh has romance problems because his girlfriend can't get past his cosmic fascination. And Pete's drug-related past starts to catch up with him and temporarily draws his own girlfriend and the rest of the cast into the mix when shady characters start trying to kill him. This would seem to be the main plot, until you realize it doesn't even have a role until halfway through the film, making everything else feel like pointless filler. Hugh's girl problems, Mickey's bad behavior, the meteor...what on EARTH do they have to do with this? Not much.<br /><br />So the 'plot' is disjointed and half of it is pointless. But a good cast of characters can save it, right? Keyword: good. The majority of characters are terribly unlikable people, most of which you'd like to see die horribly. At least, I know I would. Despite the title, Mickey seems to be the main character, which is a really bad move once you see him in action. He is one of the WORST little kids I've seen in a movie, with an extremely bad attitude problem. He 'borrows' a car, harasses and talks trash to Hugh (an adult) for taking the meteor, actually attempts burn the man's house down when he doesn't get his way, and even tries to stab Pete with a knife. You'd think a kid like this is on his way to the jail house. Unfortunately, one of the worst things about this movie is that Mickey never gets what's coming to him. I'm not sure at what point you're supposed to be sympathizing with his character, because he's always a nasty little brat. He's the ringleader for his brother and sister, so they predictably end up taking and backseat and just following whatever he does. Amazingly, they're pushed back so far that I can't even remember their names. They might as well not even be there.<br /><br />Their grandmother is pretty much a borderline alcoholic. She tends to be just as nasty to Hugh as Mickey, and likes to push people out of her house and give them evil glares when she's not chugging down liquor bottles and drinking herself silly. Pretty ridiculous when you take into account that she's supposed to be taking care of three children. Her issues with alcohol are never really addressed, though she does collapse from time to time in the movie.<br /><br />Hugh is one of the few likable characters in the movie, but that's only because he's the punching bag for the majority of characters and takes their mess without giving it back. The kids treat him nastily but he always comes back and tries to teach them and do nice things with them. He's got a taxi driver girlfriend who seems to take every aspect of his life as a scientist as a personal offense, attempting to leave him several times in the movie when he goes off into his cosmic lingo or does something to prove that he isn't exactly on the same wavelength as the rest of the characters (thankfully).<br /><br />Then there's Mike Myers as Pete. Pete, despite having the only solid purpose and plot in the movie, is extremely underused and doesn't play any kind of role until the second half. It's unfortunate that Myers got stuck in such a position for a dramatic role. Even when Pete is getting screen time, half of it is just Myers running through dark alleys and hiding in small corners. And even though he was the only real point to this movie, when his plot line brings the movie to a close, it's a strange, unfulfilling conclusion that has all the characters laughing on a good note with a quick and strange explanation behind the title of the movie, making you wonder if they were just performing in the movie you were just watching.<br /><br />The only thing worth seeing in Pete's meteor is Mike Myers' role as Pete, and that's if you can wade through this disjointed mess long enough without lashing out at another human being due to the extremely unlikable characters and nonexistent plot line. No sir, I didn't like this one at all. | 0 |
9,624 | [
1000,
1100
] | 833 | 1,047 | From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache. | 0 |
9,626 | [
1000,
1100
] | 856 | 1,071 | Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.<br /><br />Unfortunately, putting the name "Mr. Darcy" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name "Elizabeth Bennett" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making "Mr. Bingley" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story. <br /><br />There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants "a comfortable home." However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, "Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book. <br /><br />Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.<br /><br />The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place. <br /><br />Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous. <br /><br />Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of "love at first sight." Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally "loves her for her mind." <br /><br />This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous! <br /><br />The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other. <br /><br />All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill. <br /><br />Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel. <br /><br />The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces. | 0 |
9,816 | [
1000,
1100
] | 845 | 1,004 | This film wasn't good at all. I was able to catch it at a film festival and didn't appreciate the content I was forced to watch. It's a well shot film about family looking to reconnect after the death of the family's cornerstone (Gabrielle Union) dies. the film stars Billy Dee Williams as Gabrielle's Union's brother. Well, actually, Gabrielle Union portrayed the woman in her early years, which should help explain why the woman was Billy Dee Williams older sister. This had to be Billy Dee William's worst performance in his career, ever. He looked as if he didn't remember his lines in a few scenes. He was an unlikable, hardly ever empathetic character, who fathered a daughter while married to a white woman whom he already had a daughter with as well. The two daughters are older now and while the daughter he had with the white woman (Lucy) was trying to connect with him, his other daughter didn't want anything to do with him. Billy Dee's character was so pathetic that the only way they can get him to fly in from Paris for his sister's funeral was by telling him that the funeral had already passed and his late sister left him with the responsibility of handling her paperwork. Why they had to fool him? Because he didn't like attending funerals. I know. You're asking, "but he didn't want to attend his own sister's funeral too?" Yes! He claims he didn't like being around the forced feelings of emotions that is shared amongst the people paying their respects. He didn't want anything to do with that. Now we're suppose to empathize with that a**hole? The rest of the performances in the film were flat with equally flat characters. The director and editor didn't care to consider the pacing of the film. The flashbacks were painful to watch. It was a bad film. However, it seems to be the favorite at black film festivals; a film that glorifies African-Americans dependence on Caucasians to find a love that they can settle down with, even if it is a healthy relationship. When lame love stories like this win best of festivals at the black film festivals, it makes me question the judgment of black people on film. In these same festivals, the only films that win awards are educational films about African American culture and black films directed by Caucasian directors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a white person directing stories written for people of color. The problems with these films is that they never argue from both point of views, which are usually the films that actually speaks to the masses. These films are often one-sided forms of didacticism. These films fail at executing the powers of both sides of the argument that the film is revolved around. The writers and directors never compose the scenes and sequences that contradict your final statement with as much truth and energy as those that reinforce it. These films always slant the argument. What I am saying is, are the people running these black film festivals judging a film off of pure content, which to me means directing, acting, writing cinematography, editing, etc., or are they judging films off of strictly the message being delivered about African American culture? Are we suppose to expect a film like Constellation to have a shot in the world against films like "Million Dollar Baby" and "Sideways?" What happened to film being entertaining? When I mean entertainment, I mean the ritual of sitting in the dark, staring at the screen, investing tremendous concentration and energy into what one hopes will be satisfying, meaningful emotional experience. Why can't these festivals appreciate films that get their messages across without preaching? Why can't these black film festivals acknowledge films that are well told pieces of work that are brutally honest, telling the truth? "I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth."--Robert McKee. Now that's something I totally agree with. These same black film festivals put down "Hustle and Flo" as if it is that awful film stereotyping blacks. However, it's an honest film about a pimp with a dream. A pimp can't dream? I recall the last time I saw a real pimp he was a human being. And aren't they, pimps and prostitution a harsh reality in our society at large, not just in the black community but all over? The powers that be in "black Hollywood" believe that films like this are making Afro-Americans look bad in the eyes of others, as if others don't know that there are pimps in the hood. The truth is, until African American people in film can accept the truth about themselves and dare to share it with the world, then our films will never have a chance in the world. This film was awful. The best thing was the cinematography and Zoe. | 0 |
9,898 | [
1000,
1100
] | 920 | 1,069 | I have read several reviews that ask the question, "Why was this film made"? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, "Why was this film made"? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, "Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest"? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.<br /><br />Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.<br /><br />By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.<br /><br />Overall, I must ask the question again, "Why was this film made"? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine! <br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | 0 |
9,900 | [
1000,
1100
] | 826 | 1,028 | Creepy facemasks and slasher movies have gone together like cheese and chives throughout the lengthy lifespan of the cycle. People often assume that it was John Carpenter that started the trend, but as is the case with many of the genre's clichés - the Italians did it first. Movies like Eyeball, Torso and Blood and Black Lace were the originators of a hooded maniac in a murder mystery. There were also a couple of American pre-Halloween slashers that warrant a mention. Classroom Massacre, Keep my Grave Open and Savage Weekend clearly pre-date 1978, whilst The Town that Dreaded Sundown is widely regarded as one of the first teen-kill movies. <br /><br />Carpenter's seminal flick may not have been the maiden masked nightmare, but it certainly started the competitive race between directors to unveil the spookiest disguise for their bogeymen. Over the years we've seen some memorable contenders, but my favourites would have to be: My Bloody Valentine's maniacal miner, The Prowler's sadistic soldier and Wicked Games' copper-faced assassin. I'm also keen on many of the killer clowns that have made an appearance throughout the category. The final scene in The House on Sorority Row has to be listed as one of the best and The Clown of Midnight also ranks highly amongst the greatest madmen's costumes.<br /><br />A leather mask was probably the last type to be used in a slasher movie, probably because they are widely linked with sexual perversion, which of course doesn't exactly make for a scary disguise. But in later years both Blackout and this obscurity decided that fear could certainly be incorporated with a gimp suit. Here's how the later of the two fared
<br /><br />The screen lights up with the rush of blue sirens, as cops race to the scene of a hostage situation. It seems that a stressed-out gentleman has possibly had enough of being cast as an extra in cruddy low-brow turkeys, so he's decided to hold his wife and kid at gunpoint. Detective Shine (David Clover) manages to wrestle with the gunman, but unluckily for him he looses the fight to grab a loose pistol and it looks like it's the end of the road for the grey haired officer. Fortunately he is saved in the nick of time by some precision marksmanship from Lisa Ryder (Donna Adams), the California Police Department's hottest female law-enforcer.<br /><br />Her heroic encounter earns the brunette a promotion to Detective first class, and its a feat that is heavily envied by her male counterparts. Meanwhile a leather-clad maniac is jollying around town slaughtering hookers and dumping their bloody corpses on street corners. Ryder and Shine are put on the case of the murderous gimp and their first call of questioning is a sleazy back street photographer called Michael Walker (John Mandell). Lisa is such a top notch inspector that normal Police regulation doesn't seem to apply to her, so before long she's dating the cameraman even though he's suspect numero uno. When the bodies continue to pile up around the city, she decides to go undercover in an attempt to flush out the S & M madman
<br /><br />If anything, Zipperface effortlessly sums up all that went wrong with the slasher genre towards the end of its rein. What started as a great stepping-stone for up and coming filmmakers and thespians had been reduced to a sewer of cinema faeces by movies with flat direction, zero suspense or shocks and talentless mediocre actors. The boom years of early eighties splatter flicks managed to conceal their lack of strong dramatic line-ups with gooey special effects and exciting directorial flourishes. Unfortunately, by this point in the cycle titles like Rush Week, Deadly Dreams and The Majorettes had seemed to be produced in a conspiracy to put the category where many of the aforementioned feature's characters ended up. In an early grave.<br /><br />Donna Adams doesn't even vaguely convince as an officer of the law and her inexplicably idiotic behaviour - which includes doing a striptease for a top suspect in a nationwide murder investigation - is more mind numbingly pathetic than you might ever expect it to be. Mansour Pourmand couldn't direct traffic and the wide majority of the cast members would struggle to get a second reading for a radio commercial. I searched and searched, but found nothing here of merit or note.<br /><br />On the plus side, if you manage to keep the TV turned on until the end then you may be fairly surprised by the killer's identity. To be honest though, I doubt that by that time you'll even care. And another plus point? Well, erm.... the disc is perfectly symmetrical, which means that you could use it as a matt to place your cup of tea upon?? Aside from that there's really no other reason to go out and buy Zipperface. Bad bad bad and not in a good way, this is 90 minutes of my life that I could have spent more constructively by plucking my chest-hair. Abysmal. | 0 |
9,967 | [
1000,
1100
] | 892 | 1,072 | Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this "Fantastic Four" sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it. <br /><br />If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.<br /><br />This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.<br /><br />Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry. <br /><br />Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say "you watched it, too") who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.<br /><br />1 out of 10 | 0 |
10,028 | [
1000,
1100
] | 778 | 1,021 | From the fertile imagination which brought you the irresistible HERCULES (1983), comes its even more preposterous (read goofier) sequel: right off the bat, we get another unwieldy "beginning of time" prologue which even contrives to completely contradict these same events as set up in the first film!; a condensed montage of highlights from same is soon followed by a SUPERMAN-like scrolling credits sequence. Narrative-wise, here we have four rebellious gods who steal Zeus' seven all-important (but poorly animated) thunderbolts a crime which, for one thing, sets the moon careening on a collision course with Planet Earth! Faster than you can say "nepotism", Zeus (once again played as a white-haired bearded man by the relatively young Claudio Cassinelli) sends his champion who has now rightfully taken his place among the elite thanks to, one presumes, the almighty tasks performed in the first film to find his blooming thunderbolts and avert the calamities in store.<br /><br />No sooner has Hercules (Lou Ferrigno as if you didn't know) touched the earthly surface that he comes in contact with two attractive damsels (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) in need of his getting them out of distress!; the former (who would go on to become an Italian TV personality) seemingly has the ability to talk with the Little People(!) which look uncannily like the tiny sisters from GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)!! Just so they can swindle as much unutilzed footage from the first film as is humanly possible, the divine quartet of villains resurrect good ol' King Minos (William Berger again) from his skeletal slumber and pit him once more against his eternal enemy. Typically, Hercules is made to encounter a number of potentially deadly foes including a Gorgon an awfully underproduced sequence which ought to have led to a surefire plagiarism suit had the film-makers behind the much superior CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) bothered to watch this flick (complete with the same "reflection in a shield" come-uppance and preceded by the muscleman letting the audience in on his tactics before executing them as if to show us how clever he is)!! And just to make it crystal clear that he wears his influences on his sleeve, Cozzi has Hercules and Minos turn into a cosmic version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" for one of their battles and later still, King Kong gets to grips with a large snake, an encounter lifted straight out of the classic 1933 original. I swear it: this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth! <br /><br />As had been the case with the first film, the cast is full of old reliables like the afore-mentioned Berger, Cassinelli and Venantino Venantini (as a sorcerer with a truly bad hair day) and up-and-coming starlets not just Carlucci but also Maria Rosaria Omaggio (as a younger Hera!), Serena Grandi, Pamela Prati and, once again, Eva Robbins (whose costume here easily outcamps her appearance in the first film); for what it's worth, Pino Donaggio's score for this one is recycled from musical cues featured in his soundtrack for the previous film. If you have stuck with this review so far, you must have realized by now that this is one of those movies that is so unbelievably bad that a reviewer is forced to choose which course to take: either dismiss it in one unflattering sentence or spend an undeserving amount of time dissecting its flaws. I'm sure I've left out some of its ineptitudes but I wouldn't forgive myself if I failed to mention the single greatest laugh-out loud instance in the whole movie which almost made me fall off my chair (yes, it even surpassed the afore-mentioned animated titanic duel for me), namely the décor of the rebellious gods' lair which is in the shape of a giant marble
kettle!!<br /><br />At this stage, one might well wonder why I gave this film (and its predecessor) a rating instead of a (not entirely unjustified) BOMB; in the past, I've had various protracted online discussions on whether one's star rating of any particular film should reflect the overall artistic quality or its sheer entertainment value
but these are two instances where I deemed it necessary to be consciously influenced by the latter in settling on my final rating. I don't know: maybe it's because I'm in a "sword-and-sandal" state-of-mind at the moment (with some 10 more respectable examples scheduled for the coming days!) but, after all, uncharacteristically for me, I decided to add these two films to my DVD collection simply based on the fun I had with them in this recent revisit and that alone must count for something, no? | 0 |
10,054 | [
1000,
1100
] | 861 | 1,032 | BELL WITCH HAUNTING (aka THE HAUNT) is an American horror movie supposedly based on real events that took place during the period 1817 to 1821.<br /><br />This is not to be confused with BELL WITCH: THE MOVIE, a movie starring Betsy Palmer based on the same events. However, I can say that I wish I had seen this other movie instead of the one I saw! I enjoyed Betsy Palmer's chilling performance in Friday THE 13TH. As such, I believe that even on a bad day, she'd pull off a better performance than anyone involved in the travesty known as THE HAUNT.<br /><br />With regard to my heading, this movie is not painful to watch because the content is disturbing. It is painful to watch because it is just downright boring.<br /><br />Reading the positive reviews for this movie, I could only identify three possibilities. The first possibility - these authors were involved in the production in some way. The second possibility - the authors whilst not directly involved were paid to write positive reviews after production was completed. The final possibility - none of these authors has seen a sufficient number of horror movies and therefore is inexperienced with the concepts that successful attempts utilise.<br /><br />The setting for the plot is Robertson County, Tennessee. James Johnston receives a visit from two journalists eager to hear the story of the Bell Witch. The story is told as a series of flashbacks. A series of supernatural events begin happening at the home of John Bell and his family. It soon transpires that a vengeful spirit is behind it all.<br /><br />On the surface the plot appears to be a standard poltergeist affair, albeit one based on real events.<br /><br />Where execution of the brilliant concept is concerned however, just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong. And then some!<br /><br />First, the acting. The acting is almost uniformly terrible right across the board. This factor does the most damage to the production, undermining any possible credibility of belief or interest on the part of the viewer. The voice of the vengeful spirit sounds more like a teenage girl experiencing teenage angst rather than a powerful demonic force expressing malevolent intent. I almost laughed when I heard some of her lines. Unfortunately, this voice began to become very annoying very quickly! I may not have been alive in the 1800s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any young woman alive at that time would speak in the way that this "ghost" does!<br /><br />Second, the direction. The direction is haphazard and very uneven. Some scenes show promise but potential is squandered by the clearly inexperienced director. Nothing is done with the camera, with sound or with lighting to add intensity to the scenes intended to be scary. The atmosphere is equally flat. A vengeful spirit is supposedly behind supernatural occurrences. Yet the effects are so incredibly inept that no one who has seen a proper horror movie would buy into them. I'll give one example. In one scene, the spirit attacks someone. See the scene for yourself. It's almost funny - almost.<br /><br />Third, the script. Whilst it may be the case that the events shown are faithful to accounts of real occurrences, it cannot be denied that most scenes are incredibly flat and boring. Scenes as short as two minutes feel much longer thanks to the poor dialogue - dialogue that fails to add depth to the characters or story. This movie is far too reliant on conversations to advance the story. Whilst this style was also the case with British movies from the British horror heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, it cannot be denied that the dialogue exchanges were always interesting to watch in these more professional earlier works. Peter Cushing for example could read a telephone directory and still hold attention of the viewers. The same cannot be said of the actors in THE HAUNT.<br /><br />Finally, the humour. The ill-guided attempts at humour in this movie are excruciating. An obese boy is the butt of many jokes. One particularly awful scene sees the said boy going to the outside toilet. This scene should never have been included - but it is and complete with sound effects in case you fail to understand what he is doing!<br /><br />The only positive points about the movie are the location and the costumes. The decision to shoot the picture near the original location helped add some authenticity. The costumes were also well chosen.<br /><br />Overall, THE HAUNT is an appalling movie. It is not even in the "so bad it's good" league. It is instead just boring. I advise everyone to save their money and avoid this movie like the plague. Don't even bother seeing it for free!<br /><br />I have never seen the other movie about the Bell Witch. But it really couldn't be any worse than THE HAUNT. Could it? I'll give this other movie a chance if I can track it down.<br /><br />In the meantime, I would advise everyone on here to check out some proper horror movies about ghosts and haunting. THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE GRUDGE (Japanese original) and ONE MISSED CALL (Japanese original) are good places to start. | 0 |
10,131 | [
1000,
1100
] | 800 | 1,020 | Over the GW is a near failure of a debut feature, and not because it's not without trying...Actually, it is. It's a shamble all the more because it's writer/director/technical everyman Nick Gaglia went through the same rehab cult that he depicts in the film. Sometimes a first time filmmaker, full of the vigor that comes with getting a thumbs up or two from fellow film students, goes headlong into style that is way too disjointed, unsure, and dramatically frustrating that the personal side of the story, the extremely personal side, gets smudged in the purpose of telling a good story. Gaglia, who was 13 when put into a horrid program that basically tortured and brainwashed their "patients" with crazy group scare tactics, psychological mind-f*** sessions that could go on for days, and attitudes from the rehab leaders that would make most Nazis cringe, escaped finally when he was 15. I'm glad he got out, though it might help if he now goes into a real rehab for his film-making skills, if only for a couple of days, to learn things like, say, structure, proper lighting, fluid camera movement, subtlety with actors, and other basics that are perpetually lost here.<br /><br />It's all the more frustrating because Gaglia is dealing with a subject that should be shown more to the public (there was recently a Newsweek article referring to a similar AA cult-rehab). Many times one wonders if certain personal character studies might work better as documentaries as opposed to narrative dramas. This is an ever-nagging sensation throughout Over the GW, where it almost feels like Gaglia wants to tell the truth but doesn't know how to communicate it properly through his characters. The character that one would think is closest to him, Bronx teen Tony Serra (Gallagher), who is taken by his mother to a rehab in New Jersey, would be closest to Gaglia, is actually much more of a one-dimensional being, where there is very little back-story (we see a brief freak-out, in black and white, in his old home) and little connection to his mother (Moriarty), who has more potential that is never tapped aside from a cold stone who passes her kids off to another. But there is a story to go with his two-year crisis, I guess.<br /><br />Right off the bat things get rough (a nude cavity search in the first five minutes), and soon it's clear that instead of medical care it's more like a cross between anger management and some bizarre religious sect, where the head doctor Hiller (Insinnia) is a total over-controlling loon. But soon Tony's sister Sofia (Donohue) gets thrown in to the program, and as opposed to Tony's repeated moments of outrage and supposed non-compliance, she goes head-on through the whacked-out three step program and once released becoming a runaway. At times there are bits in this fractured nightmare, where there's one woman, a 22 year old mother who has been in the program a year and a half finds she's become a prisoner not allowed to leave, and when the father of the main siblings comes and pays an enraged visit to Hiller when Sofia finally returns to them, that do contain some raw power, very brief glimpses of Gaglia being able to at least garner some leverage in pure melodrama.<br /><br />But these are moments few and far between. It's not just the unsuccessful characters, who are mostly reduced to stereotypes that veer into being like hysterical D.A.R.E. rip-offs (maybe some of them, like an angry black youth, the passive-aggressive counselors, or even Serra's older sister who is ratted out by the siblings as having taken a hit off a joint and almost thrown into the program, would resonate more if there was more time given to develop any of them). It's that Gaglia is so unfocused in his multiple roles on his tiny $30,000 budget that not one side of whatever potential talent he has can come through. He over-uses tints, mostly with a shade that looks urine-coated), he jiggles his hand-held DVX camera as if it's supposed to be intense ala City of God, occasionally a character will just shoot into frame randomly, his choices of music are like the worst selections possible from pseudo-indie soft-rockers, and there's even inane fake interview scenes with Nicholas Serra (inspiration ?) and Krakowsky that feel about as false as possible.<br /><br />Could Gaglia just not get any interviews with the real victims he was with and resort to would-be artistically cathartic plan B? Bottom line, no matter how much from-the-heart true life stories may appeal to you, don't bother seeing it in the theater, or even on rental, unless you love a final scene with two kids staring off into the digital-hued Hudson river sunset with the final words reading: Dedicated to the Kids. Oy. | 0 |
10,218 | [
1000,
1100
] | 842 | 1,054 | Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us "The Bloody Vampire," "Invasion of the Vampires," and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled "The Vampire," the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.<br /><br />As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to "The Vampire," which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel "The Brainiac" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).<br /><br />Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. "This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time "healing her mind" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.<br /><br />OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.<br /><br />OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for "a man who is dead but still alive!".<br /><br />You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare ("The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" seems to be an influence).<br /><br />But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, "The Vampire's Coffin" does not have the lunacy factor of "The Bloody Vampire" or "Invasion of the Vampires", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to "Count" for something (haw haw). | 0 |
10,283 | [
1000,
1100
] | 849 | 1,049 | I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: "Panicky kidnapped girlfriend" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells "WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.<br /><br />Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling "CLEAR!" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . . <br /><br />The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding "THROUGH-THE-ACTION!" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.<br /><br />And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming "1980s!!!!" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: "that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got." Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.<br /><br />And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.<br /><br />I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . "GAG" . . . 'Hangmen' . . . | 0 |
10,393 | [
1000,
1100
] | 915 | 1,075 | Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it? | 0 |
10,441 | [
1000,
1100
] | 736 | 1,008 | It's reassuring to see that other IMDb reviewers have had the good sense to pan this disappointing film, at the risk of blaspheming against the great Vadim, Malle and Fellini.<br /><br />These directors may be talented & artistic in their own right; however in attempting to pass off this hodgepodge of attempted eroticism and 60s chic as *in any way* related to Edgar Allen Poe's stories, they exposed themselves as frauds. Either (A) they didn't bother to read the Poe stories, or (B) they read them but were so transfixed by their own egotistical agenda that they didn't pay Poe any mind.<br /><br />Imagine if Metallica plugged in their guitars, cranked the amps up to 11 and moshed out 3 chords claiming it to be Beethoven's 9th Symphony. That's the feeling you'll get after sitting through this film. If you're a Vadim/Malle/Fellini fan (Metallica), you'll dig it. If you're a Beethoven fan (Poe), you'll puke.<br /><br />METZERGENSTEIN...<br /><br />Here we begin with a bizarre porno version of Poe. OK, "porno" may be a bit extreme haha, but at the very least you have to call it a Barbarella version (including, I don't doubt, some of Jane's outfits coming directly from the set of that scifi romp). Vadim falls into old clichés of his own: the girl lying on a bed being pleasured by some man whilst from the pillow-cam we see the apathy in her eyes; the general lassitude and ennui of a woman who finds no satisfaction in hedonism. Cute stuff, but "Metzergenstein" ain't the place for it. And in addition to the Barbarella outfits and irrelevant erotic themes, Jane Fonda's awful American accent and unconvincing performance as a European countess made this the worst casting since Julia Roberts in that lousy version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.<br /><br />WILLIAM Wilson...<br /><br />Here's a great Poe story about the madness that claims a man when he realizes that he is no longer unique in the world. If you really want to see a fantastic visual interpretation of this theme, go watch Star Trek episode #27 "The Alternative Factor". But here, Malle glazes over that central theme and instead focuses on... any guesses...? yup, eroticism, sadism and debauchery. Ho hum. Brigitte Bardot's role is a complete fabrication to accomplish that end, and once again the director distorts a classic Poe story into a masturbatory catharsis of his own unrequited sexual issues. Do it on your own time, Malle. I thought we're here on Poe's dime.<br /><br />TOBY DAMMIT....<br /><br />The absolute worst of the three and possibly the worst film I've seen since "Staying Alive". At least Fellini showed some tact in changing the title, but his departure from the original plot, theme and humour of the story is so vast, I wonder if he just picked this reel out of his private collection of home movies, stamped "Edgar Allen Poe story" on it and submitted it to this collection. I strained very hard to find any thread of familiarity with Poe's works, but there was absolutely none.<br /><br />The original Poe story ("Never Bet the Devil Your Head") is a short and hilarious dark fable about a man who constantly exclaims "I'll bet the devil my head..." On a foggy morning, the devil takes him up on his offer. The result is the sickest and silliest thing you've ever read. This was Poe, the comedian, at his finest (yes, Poe wrote many comedies. Also check out "A Predicament" and "Devil in the Belfry" if you want a taste of his witty, satirical works).<br /><br />This Fellini version? It's bland, soulless, and not funny at all (unless you consider it funny to see a drunk stumbling over himself for 45 minutes). Here Fellini's egotistical rant is about an artist struggling with the hypocrisy, pretense and mediocrity of cinema. Most of it is set at an awards ceremony where Fellini beats us over the head with sarcasm, cynicism and that classic "sour grapes" attitude that we find in all Fellini films dealing with cinema. Note the sarcastic jabs at "the critics", a recurring theme in Fellini's films. For someone who considered himself above the critics, Fellini sure spent a lot of time talking about them. At any rate, I feel like Fellini just took some outtakes from 8 1/2, spliced them together and sold it as a Poe story. Worst "adaptation" ever.<br /><br />I think I put more effort into typing this review than any of the three directors put into making a Poe movie. | 0 |
10,578 | [
1000,
1100
] | 870 | 1,071 | Yeah, a long time ago it turned into a tourist attraction. Now it's a prison again. Kind of. Well, it's more like an airport mixed together with a junior high school but there are lots of guys running around wearing orange jumpsuits, so I guess in that way it's like a prison. Not really though. When Sasha, Steven Seagal's character, is being admitted into prison, he's standing shackled in line and wanders over to a different line so he can talk to his friend, like he's in line for the security check at the airport. Then before too long he and his friend are throwing punches, smacking around a couple of security guards.<br /><br />Let me tell you something. You assault a corrections officer in a federal prison, they'll shoot you on the spot. Ja Rule would have been shot about 30 times before he threw his second punch. Oh, and there are guys wearing beanies and bandanas and whatnot. In prison. Federal prison.<br /><br />You can't dress like that at most high schools in America.<br /><br />Speaking of Ja Rule, I have to say that the person who probably enjoyed his performance more than anyone else on earth, including Ja Rule himself, had to have been 50 Cent. Just before I watched this movie I saw one of those shows on TV about the greatest celebrity feuds ever, and like number 7 or 8 was this rivalry between 50 Cent, who had lived the thug life for real, and Ja Rule. Who had not. Every time I saw Ja Rule on screen the only thing I could picture was 50 Cent laughing his ass off. Ja Rule looks like a rowdy 9-year-old every time he appears on screen.<br /><br />Anyway, getting back to the plot. It's funny. Sasha is an FBI agent working undercover and he agrees to let himself be sentenced to prison so he can get behind the criminal organization. He's sentenced to five years, and that old line between determination and stupidity instantly vanishes. Nothing else in the movie matters after that, it becomes a meaningless string of action sequences, most of which aren't even well choreographed.<br /><br />Oh, how about this, a helicopter crashes through the roof of "New Alcatraz" at one point, accidentally freeing all of the inmates. And what do they do? They all run out of their cells and play basketball in the middle of the cell block. Without so much as a basket. They had a ball, but it doesn't matter. The scene is so stupid they might as well have been playing hopscotch.<br /><br />So some guy is being sentenced to be the first person ever to be executed in Alcatraz's state of the art execution chamber, evidently not for stealing $200 million dollars in gold, but for not telling where it was hidden once he was caught.<br /><br />Hey, good thinking, people. If you can't get information out of someone, kill them. That's a great way to learn the truth! So some gang breaks into the prison planning to stop the execution and get the location of the $200 million for themselves.<br /><br />Oh and the $200 million is in gold bricks. I doubt they thought ahead to how difficult it would be to turn that into exchangeable currency.<br /><br />There's also the issue of the warden at the prison. He's some tough-talking vato who thinks he's a hardcore chollo from the barrio, which reminds me of a joke. I saw this comedian once talking about people in California who talk all tough calling each other ese and homes and all kinds of other such nonsense. These people go to Mexico, the comedian says, and they're like, "Oh my god! People LIVE there? That's like, a total shack!"<br /><br />The best is when the United States Supreme Court Justice arrives and this guy tells her that her men can't carry their guns inside his prison, "I don't care if she IS a United States Supreme Court Justice!"<br /><br />This woman could squish him like a grape and he thinks he's in charge. Ha.<br /><br />And by the way, the Supreme Court Justice that gets taken as a hostage in the movie tells the bad guy that she is 53. That's a year younger than Steven Seagal. I just thought that was funny.<br /><br />The only good scene in the movie is the one in the prison where Ja Rule is getting slapped around the prison like a sack of cotton balls by this little Asian woman. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.<br /><br />You know, I work for the company that produced this film (which I why I watched it), and I still don't have a single positive thing to say about it, except, of course, for that one scene with Ja Rule getting spanked by that Asian woman.<br /><br />So read my review of Malena and you will see how strongly I sometimes disagree with professional film critics like Roger Ebert, but in his review of this movie Ebert wrote something that I agreed with as much as anything else he's ever written:<br /><br />"I imagine the flywheels at the MPAA congratulating each other on a good day's work as they rated 'Half Past Dead' PG-13, after giving the anti-gun movie 'Bowling for Columbine' an R."<br /><br />Way to go, guys. | 0 |
10,682 | [
1000,
1100
] | 768 | 1,064 | Odious Chuck Norris decided to put one final nail in the coffin<br /><br />containing his film career before going to the safe world of CBS<br /><br />Saturday night carnage with this hysterically bad supernatural<br /><br />actioner.<br /><br />For such a dumb movie this thing sure is plotty. Norris is Chicago<br /><br />cop Frank Shatter. First off, what kind of last name is "Shatter"?<br /><br />Have you ever met any Shatters? Genforum.com has no listing for<br /><br />the last name Shatter, which opens up any half clever viewer to<br /><br />replace the "a" in Shatter with an "i." He and his partner, Calvin<br /><br />Jackson, do the same old buddy cop routine you have seen<br /><br />before: make funny with the pimps, and make their captain mad.<br /><br />Jackson, looking like the theoretical love child of Whoopi Goldberg<br /><br />and Rick James, quickly wears on the nerves with his constant<br /><br />complaining and Eddie Murphy-patented facial expressions.<br /><br />Shatter and Calvin become involved with an emissary of Satan,<br /><br />whom we are introduced to in the too long opening scenes.<br /><br />Prosatano is a demon who is locked in a crypt by King Richard the<br /><br />Lionhearted. The demon's scepter, from which he gets his power,<br /><br />is busted into nine pieces and hid in nine different parts of the<br /><br />world by holy men. In 1951, some grave robbers accidentally let<br /><br />Prosatano out and he begins collecting the nine pieces. He<br /><br />disguises himself as an antiquities professor named Lockley and<br /><br />always happens to be giving a lecture where a holy man is killed<br /><br />and a piece of the scepter is taken.<br /><br />Norris brings in his "Walker: Texas Blunder" cohort Sheree Wilson,<br /><br />who plays Lockley's assistant. She helps Norris with his<br /><br />investigation, they make goo goo eyes at each other, and our<br /><br />intrepid investigators travel to Israel after a rabbi is killed in<br /><br />Chicago. While in Israel, Calvin is given even more to complain<br /><br />about: the heat, the lack of restaurant accomodations, the lousy<br /><br />drivers, and the fact that he is missing the Chicago Bulls playoff<br /><br />games. Norris even manages to work a cute Israeli kid into this<br /><br />nightmare. Bezi steals Calvin's wallet, and hangs around the men,<br /><br />leading them around Israel and not arousing any sort of<br /><br />appropriate suspicion.<br /><br />Eventually, Lockley (Prosatano) assembles all of the scepter<br /><br />pieces, but needs the blood of royalty to complete the ceremony<br /><br />and call up the devil. Where to find royal blood? Well, Sheree's<br /><br />father is a duke! She has an American accent but she is the<br /><br />screenwriters' convenient method of forcing this monstrosity<br /><br />toward its inevitable conclusion. Sure, this minion of Satan may<br /><br />have killed countless hundreds over the years, but how is he<br /><br />gonna do against a good old fashioned American butt kickin'?<br /><br />After Prosatano has been vanquished, killed by his own scepter (I<br /><br />envied him, he did not have to watch Bezi steal Calvin's wallet<br /><br />again), we are treated to an awful coda involving a bearded man<br /><br />who has been watching Shutter, I mean Shatter, and Calvin on<br /><br />their quest. You see, it was foretold...somewhere...that two<br /><br />warriors from the west would defeat Prosatano. The silent<br /><br />bearded man who watched over the couple was none other than<br /><br />Jesus...I kid you not. He is listed as "Prophet" in the end credits,<br /><br />but you and even your pets will recognize the subtle Christian<br /><br />reference the film makers are trying to exhibit here.<br /><br />Like in "I Use a Walker: Texas Ranger," Norris is aging and cannot<br /><br />get into his fight scenes too much anymore. He kicks a lot, and<br /><br />people fly over furniture in slow motion, and then Norris gives all of<br /><br />his line readings in that monotone voice of his. Oh, what a real<br /><br />director might be able to fashion out of him! His brother, Aaron,<br /><br />who has directed him in other films as well, has no sense of story<br /><br />or momentum. Scenes are thrown in for ego's sake, not to<br /><br />entertain. The scenes when the dynamic duo first meet Bezi drag<br /><br />on and on, and then Bezi is not all that important to the rest of the<br /><br />film.<br /><br />The film was shot on location in Israel, which means the<br /><br />Americans could insult the Israelis in person. There is not one<br /><br />likeable Israeli character here. The Israeli police captain is a jerk.<br /><br />The cops' driver does not know English, and Calvin convinces him<br /><br />that the word "sh*tty" is a compliment. Nothing funnier than<br /><br />mocking those stupid foreigners on their home turf, especially<br /><br />when all this racist humor is coming from an American minority<br /><br />who would have been more than offended if the tables were turned<br /><br />and the Israeli cop was mocking the African-American cop in<br /><br />Chicago.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly acted, and badly directed. It does<br /><br />not work as action, cop drama, or even horror. It just shows that<br /><br />the now defunct Cannon Studios was willing to throw their money<br /><br />into anything, no matter how badly it was planned. "Hellbound" is<br /><br />surely a most adequate title. I disliked this movie intensely.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong<br /><br />profanity, some sexual references, and some adult situations.<br /><br /> | 0 |
11,004 | [
1000,
1100
] | 769 | 1,006 | Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.<br /><br />I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, "Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!" I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.<br /><br />OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.<br /><br />Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?<br /><br />Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.<br /><br />Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, "You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?" I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, "You have got to be kidding me."<br /><br />Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, "Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people)." But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free! | 0 |
11,165 | [
1000,
1100
] | 719 | 1,025 | "A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values." - Steven Spielberg<br /><br />Some points..<br /><br />1. Though this film is a loose remake of "A Guy Named Joe", it also borrows heavily from "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Wings of Desire".<br /><br />2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra. <br /><br />3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a "Frank Capra movie" in the vein of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mrs Smith Goes To Washington". Judging from his recent attempts to get a "Harvey" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.<br /><br />4. Critics at the time bashed "Always", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that "Always" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.<br /><br />5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.<br /><br />6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.<br /><br />7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.<br /><br />8. "Always" and "Hook" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of "Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in favour for the more desaturated "black and white" worlds of "Schindler's List", "Munich", "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan". From here on, "less light" and "dark cinematography" became equated with "serious topics".<br /><br />9. After the financial success of each "dark film" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. "Amistad" followed "Schindler's List", "AI" followed "Ryan" and "Lincoln" will follow "Munich". These "colour" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these "serious" films would feel the same way.<br /><br />10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an "optimist" and "humanist". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. <br /><br />11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in "Always", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like "Amistad" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.<br /><br />12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit "Top Gun". Of course, when your "enemy" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.<br /><br />13. Failures like "1941", "Hook", "Always" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.<br /><br />5/10 There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | 0 |
11,537 | [
1000,
1100
] | 811 | 1,009 | Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : <br /><br />1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing.<br /><br />2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? <br /><br />3.Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way.<br /><br />4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? <br /><br />5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterward without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid.<br /><br />6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? <br /><br />7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? <br /><br />8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous.<br /><br />9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! <br /><br />10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates' point of view.<br /><br />11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl.<br /><br />12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked.<br /><br />13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.