Reviews written by registered user
|22 reviews in total|
This movie was incredibly bad. It was literally an insufferably amateurish attempt at lurid, psycho-sexploitation cinema. For 1976, it was so anachronistic that it had the feel of a 50s B-movie. It featured Ben Johnson in a wooden role and the character of a local bumbling deputy, who was supposed to be comic relief, but his buffoonery was inserted so awkwardly that it simply added more pitiful misery to the town's overall effort. A truly horrible film...yet somehow, like a train wreck, I couldn't seem to stop watching as I prepared for the next ridiculous encounter with an inept, helpless screaming prom queen. Afterthought: where were all the guns? Texarkana...and no one had a gun until 4/5ths of the film was done?
Only a sense of duty compels me to waste more time on this review. A
few others have written comments so well expressed and so on-the- money
that I must include some quotable lines:
~Viktor Vedmak (realvedmak) from Canada~ "Whoever made this should either stop making movies or stop doing drugs." "This entire movie is basically extended torture scene." "It really would not surprise me if somebody prone to seizures got one from attempt to watch this crap."
~Robo E from Australia~ "The Acting - OMG, Really what were they thinking. My speak n tell could do a better job."
~mike-ryan455 from United States~ "Amazingly boring mixed with nerve jangling audio!" "You think I am making this up? I wish I were. This one hurt my eyes and my brain. It even hurt my ears with amazingly clanging, jangling noise they called music."
Thanks guys. Your comments not only gave me insight but validation of my own post-viewing impression---(as well as a good laugh-out- loud.) Here's what can add:
1. The screenplay had language, which was meant to support a plot involving hi-tech climate warfare, ominous networks & computer chips, was so awful & sleep-inducing, it sounded like it was transcribed from technical conference meetings at a plumbers' convention---but with substitutions of computer hardware lingo to give it some authenticity.
2. The audio was was an experience worse than the American surge in Iraq--- from the Iraqi side. Also, as the climate attack got underway, loud noises like static discharges, but pumped up in volume, would unrelentingly pop & hiss. Re: Video effects=> Every 2-3 minutes, I'm guessing because of the electromagnetic nature of the attack, the video would be disrupted with electrical interference across the screen like a loud static smear... (this silly audio/video effect was obviously added in post-production editing) It hurt both my eyes, my ears and my sci-fi quality standards.
#3. To sum it up, like the others said, the acting was non-existent. The screenplay was wooden like a used parts manual. But, the female lead Catalina Soto-Aguilar, a newcomer to me, was lovely eye candy... (now you know why I watched it to the end.) So thanks for all the humorous LMAO comments. It seems we agree.
In the style of Walking With Dinosaurs, et al, Dinotasia presents a
credible CGI depicted speculation of how dinosaur habitation on earth
might have played out. Having some experience in the subject, I
delighted in the sound paleontology and the accurate prehistory
depicted. Some license was taken to infuse a little anthropomorphic
appeal into the tale and, consequently, it was like I had a front row
seat on a beautifully animated diorama of the age. Starting from the
late Permian, it spans the Triassic and Jurassic and on through the
early & late Cretaceous periods. Vignettes though they were, I was
transfixed by the mini-stories of various dinosaur characters, followed
as they struggled to hunt, reproduce, adapt and survive. I found myself
even cheering-on several protagonist Tyrannosaurus Rexes, heroes until
the end of the late Cretaceous at 65 Ma.
Was it entertainment? Sure. I always have liked Werner Herzog, who narrated the film, though sparsely. Most of it required no narrative but his thick German accent was not distracting to my accustomed ear when it emerged from the soundtrack music...which was terrific too. I recommend it wholeheartedly for pretty much any age group.
This got better on the second viewing. Gotta feeling it may keep
improving. Although on its surface a sci-fi film, it has warm,
satisfying character development reminiscent of "Stand By Me". Elle
Fanning turns in a performance with remarkable depth. It has a clever
role-within-role device in the movie when, acting in an amateur video
shot by her peers, she delivers in an amateur acting role within her
role of "Alice" that surprises everyone with its unexpected skill. I
was equally encouraged by her talent.
The story is plausible and full... the characters are fleshed out nicely...it has just enough quirky balance between sci-fi creature feature and coming-of- age story to deliver the goods. Spielberg is involved somehow...not sure how...but it shows.
I am solidly in the minority here. This film was tediously self-indulgent. I fought sleep. I wondered through most of it why the principle actors signed on to do it. Perhaps it's just one of those films that had wonderful potential on paper. Maybe after the final cut from the editors and director, the story and dialogue just got in the way of some private pretentious vision of the filmmaker. It had all the potential to be a great film. IMHO the director's art house cinema muse got in the way. Is this enough lines of text to pan this turkey? No? OK. How about now? Still not enough? Unbelievable! IMDb is guilty of the same sin this movie is---compulsory long-windedness.
Texas Killing Fields grabbed me by the cojones and held on, in spite of its flaws and frequently frustrating failure, as another reviewer said, "to connect the dots" of the story line. As a consequence, I was busy trying to make sense of all the dangling plot-ganglia. I even was wondering if it was valid to critique Worthington's incomprehensible generic southern accent---maybe it was just me. I couldn't understand half of what Worthington was saying. He elided his lines so horribly. (My daughter and I call it "marlonizing" after Brando.) As a movie lover and proactive cinema consumer, one of my pet peeves is actors who mumble through their lines, thinking they're method acting ...and yet the net result is a mangling of intelligibility for the audience. To offer you a summary... I found this gritty film both exciting and repelling...noir-ish... stylized... and having set the film values bar high, well worth the effort. Kudos to Magic City's Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Chloë Grace Moretz on terrific performances.
Higher Ground is a story about an honest search for faith in a fearful, posturing world. It is an unpretentious film. It is also Vera Farmiga's directorial debut and it showcases her signature style. She displays astonishing depths, carrying roles with integrity and intelligence. I've always noted that she has an atypical screen glamor that grows in its unfurling. In fact, it's a special beauty but it fits a needed niche. If you have ever walked the path of faith, honestly questing, be prepared for a cathartic, ambiguous denouement that may take you to higher ground. I enthusiastically recommend this soft, sad but lovely journey by cinema.
To call this quirky, brooding film a western is a failure of imagination since it is nothing less than a classical tragedy, a sort of Hamlet set in the American west circa 1875. "Silent Tongue" is a Sam Sheppard film with a stout cast and ambitious themes. It is helped toward that end by the venerable talents of Alan Bates as a drunken Irish thespian and snake oil salesman (what a great archetype) along with Richard Harris as the desperate father of a young man lost in madness from grieving the death of his Indian wife. It does not hurt that the screenplay's characters sometimes speak with the cadence and tone of formal 17th Century English mixed with a touch of cowboy colloquy. It helps even more that there are murderous ghosts and allusions to suicide. After about 30 minutes of trying to get a peg to hang my movie genre hat on, I was left with a question. "WTF is going on here?" That is why eventually I gave up and accepted it for what it was--a Shakespearian western. Aside from that, its a slow stroll with lots of dramatic flourishes and an unexpected touch of Grand Guignol. Dermott Mulroney and River Phoenix are evident in support. Native American actress Sheila Tousey is absolutely terrific. Watch it but in the right mood.
This gorgeous Ridley Scott original is a science fiction tone poem with
an introductory taste of the visual mastery soon to come out of this
fine arts trained filmmaker's POV. I don't think that I have ever seen
a more authentic work of art on film. He ushered in a new genre of
science fiction film noir with this film as well as with 'Alien', both
characterized by a new formulation of visual atmospherics that was
dubbed "psychoytronic". Blade Runner: Theatrical Cut; 1982.
Xtra: Ridley On History I have liked Ridley Scott since Blade Runner and I remember him saying that he liked to "reimagine" history wherever there were gaps in the historic record or in the story myth (as in the case with Robin Hood). He did it admirably in 'Kingdom of Heaven', in '1492: Conquest of Paradise' and most notably in 'Gladiator'. Ridley likes history but he's not timid about filling in gaps on the storyboard with his own imagination. I don't mind and I especially liked Robin Hood because of it.
I have seen too many "Scooby-Doo" episodes on TV, (although under coercion from a sadistic pre-schooler who routinely threatens to whine at me with extreme prejudice if I don't recant and pass the remote), and I confess that I just don't get it. I don't even get the "Scooby Goes Hollywood" where old 60s & 70s celebrities appear as cartoon caricatures of themselves; just plain-famous folks caught in another impossibly dull Scooby-Shaggy episode against assorted pseudo-monsters. But, my 6-year-old loves it! He doesn't care an iota if Kurosawa didn't direct it! Now, a few asides are needed here I have been to Universal Studios, Florida and applauded Doug Funny and `The Rugrats!' on stage. I actually went to a `Barney the Dinosaur' live concert and howled like a teenage "In Sync" fan when Old Barn came rolling out with his purple pot belly in gleeful kinesis! I have even enthusiastically interacted with Steve & Blue for clues but this `Scooby-Doo' thing lacks anything remotely redeemable. I loathe the show's time slot I become perceptibly stressed with hives before `Scooby-Doo' marathons on the Cartoon Channel, usually a Sunday event, which inevitably conflicts with Yankee-Red Sox games. The social relations among the Scooby' Five, not to be confused with the Scottsboro 5, are void of any allegory or depth. The dog and his cohorts are rendered in a flat, two-dimensional graphic style reminiscent of `Steamboat Willie.' The animation is without depth or perspective, and the characters move around on perfectly still budget-friendly backgrounds yech! The characters (Shaggy, Daphne, Velma and Fred) bring matching personas to their screen presence. And, Scooby has apparently evaded the evolutionary lottery of natural selection, which mandates that a palette, tongue and convoluted cerebral cortex are required for language acquisition! Scooby speaks, inexplicably, in limited English but with an annoying & incomprehensible `r-r-r-r-u-f-f' sound prefixing every utterance. Of course, only Shaggy and my son can understand this coded canine verbal-slaw. OK so I get the Scooby-thing it's pure silly nonsense played for yucks! I get the Scooby Snack-thing the dog is always hungry! I even accept that Scooby must never hump the guest star's leg, although my son occasionally springs a pre-school woody for Daphne Blake certainly a fertile topic for father-son dialogues about the male 'willy' and its various purposes. Regardless of this concealed erotic bonus feature, it still is an all time low achievement from the predictably banal imaginations of Hanna & Barbera. You will recall that they were also the creators of 'The Flintstones', another one-trick-pony', flat animation series with the effect of a `pie-in-the-face' to any National Hope in growing a generation prepared to catch the Japanese in math & science! (Certainly, paleontology has a slight chance here from the splash benefits of the current cultural swell of 'dinophilia'. Also, a note here of apology to `Jay', my sushi-guru who won't even whisper his true Sino-nymn' for fear that I will lingually disfigure it Jay, buddy, I know you guys have limited access to archeological digs around Osaka, et.al. Nothing personal. I don't even hold Hondas & `Dragonball Z' against you guys! OK? Keep that great California Roll' coming...it's pure art.) But, Lord! Deliver us from the purveyors of the bland, vacuous cartoon series that repeats and repeats and repeats then mercifully dies and resurrects 10 years later on 24-hour cable TV! (I'm praying that a round the clock `Scooby-Doo Network' does not rise up from the ashes!) But, wait! There's more! This fetid, animated pabulum is miraculously resuscitated at the brink of expiration as a full-length feature film intended to collect the box office proceeds that should've been paid originally to a hired assassin to put the whole dreary project team asleep' humanely. Oh well. I could be wrong. Maybe `Scooby-Doo' is really the charming, diverting visual poem that my son assures me that it is twice daily... and twice that again on Sunday. After all, he is Daphne-obsessed and worse things could happen at 6.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |