Reviews written by registered user
|27 reviews in total|
What do these people all have in common? Donald Sutherland ... Brooke Adams Jeff Goldblum Veronica Cartwright Leonard Nimoy Kevin McCarthy They all had roles in one of the most underrated sci-fi/horror films of all time. It's a pleasure to revisit it every time---and that has been often. 7.4/10.0 on IMDb and I concur. Notably, this 1978 remake of this 1956 classic, unfolds with almost ~zero~ soundtrack music to garnish the scenes or the dialogue. Occasionally some orchestral trumpets blare to accompany forthcoming shocks. I won't bore you with a plot synopsis. Who hasn't seen one of the versions of it? It's an iconic grandparent to many sci-fi offspring over the past 3 decades. BTW; just an aside...a young Jeff Goldblum has already begun to carve out his specialty niche in 'Snatchers-2'; e.g; the fast-talking eccentric whose free associating dialogue keeps the film moving at a brisk pace... (yet with no particular goal in mind.) Goldblum has this particular 'shtick' patented...reacting to scenes like they were Rorschach inkblots is a colorful additive. Alba's Real Science Ratings give it an acceptable RSR...i.e; it's realistic except for stretches the "MacGuffin" (the body snatching pods.)
When a deliciously mad Australian country lawyer, with all the appearance of being "normal", captures and attempts to "civilize" a feral member of a violent clan that has roamed the northeast coast for years, much latent, longstanding family dysfunction erupts. Incredulously outrageous mayhem soon ensues. Only Australia could have produced this dark, multi-layered film with so much targeted irony. The title carries a well-deserved 6.1/10.0 on I.M.Db...but the brief synopsis fails to fully describe its twisted content. I found it thoroughly diverting & sometimes grizzly through its 100 minutes. Warning! It's tough at times for those with weaker constitutions.
I agree this was hard to watch but based upon its description, I was expecting a different movie altogether. I read most of the other reviews and was surprised to find that no one mentioned the important secondary story of the young 13 y/o girl, Lili, who was struggling with trust & intimacy issues. It was the same struggle that Nagen, the dog, was enduring. Both felt distrusting; both needed love and intimacy. I was fascinated by their parallel journeys and how Lili was so passionately committed to finding Hagen. It was as if she and Hagen were connected at the soul. The father had issues but I could see he was wounded and struggling too--- against his own sense of rejection. I'm sure he didn't know how to love. The scenes with the dog fighting were unbearable. I cringe inside just to imagine how disfigured a man's spirit must be to participate in these spectacles of gore and sadism. I agree, Hagen was the star but I thought Lili did a grand job too. She had an obvious talent for music. I wonder what the connection between the trumpet in the bathroom that quieted Hagen down was all about. I'll have to watch this again...it has all kinds of interesting thematic sidebars. It's clear the filmmaker had more than just a movie about the horrors of dog fight abuse in mind. That was just the leitmotif for all the varied themes within an excellent film. I strongly recommend for all these reasons. Hope this contributed some added POVs on this title. BTW: I too must ask...why "White God"?
Frustratingly incomprehensible. Meh. I don't know why young directors like long, pretentious pauses between phrases in the dialogue. Even more puzzling is why actors of the cell phone & video generation mumble & slur their lines inaudibly with affected Brando- like breathiness. Why is it de rigueur these days to shoot quick unexpected of camera cut sequences of puzzling esoteric views that resemble a Georgia O'Keeffe landscape? After 30 minutes of this kind of desultory visual rambling, one grows catatonic relative to what trickiness will come next...the eyes widen and pinwheel...the mind numbs & wanders off... But it's all damn irritating for those of us who actually expected a good tale, well-told. (All these sophomoric devices seemingly serve to cover up the lack of a good script and the absence of a worthwhile story.) This soporific "western" resembles a film school project more than a work meant for human consumption. Presumptuously pretentious, "The Timber" fails at almost every level that I've come to expect of film, except the yawn quotient.
I settled in for something akin to 'The Tudors' (SHO). Within 15 mins I found myself immersed in a fraudulent historical world. A bevy of teen beauty queens with flawless skin and strangely modish dress surround a brunette Mary (brunette?). Contempo rockish music pipes & drums out loudly (reminiscent of the canceled Starz series 'Camelot') as mangled 17th century British history begins to unfurl. Then it hits me! Check the production company! This can't be BBC. It wasn't... CBS Television Studios. Truly horrid. Before it was 33% done, I switched off episode 1,(which was trimmed to a 42 minute hour to accommodate American commercial breaks). Don't waste your time if you actually expect historical drama, which unbelievably, is how it's misidentified.
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.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |