Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Critters 3 (1991)
Well, at least little Leonardo DiCaprio were cute ...
Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.
He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.
The White Buffalo (1977)
A strange, mythical and murky film.
In september 1874, Wild Bill Hickcok (Charles Bronson) returns to the old West under the alias James Otis. He is haunted by the image of a buffalo that symbolizes his fear of death. He awakens every time he tries to sleep from the same nightmare. He knows he must face his nightmare, or go insane.
Oldtimer (and Indian hater) Charlie Zane (Jack Warden), also known as "Oneye" - the great white warrior of Sand Creek - himself an famous Indian hunter in his younger days, go with Wild Bill Hickok to hunt down the White Buffalo.
The old Indian warrior, Chief Crazy Horse (Will Sampson), is looking for the White Buffalo for different reasons. For him, the hunt is sacred, and if he doesn't succeed, he cannot live with himself. His dead little daughter (killed by the White Buffalo) will be "forever tortured in the other world," until he has avenged his child's death. This he must do in the old way.
The realistic locations makes the film chilling indeed. It was filmed on scenic locations in Canon City, Colorado, with interiors at the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lot. The scenes showing mountains of bleached white buffalo bones are harrowing, as are the cruelty by both whites and Indians.
Great supporting roles by Slim Pickens as a vocal stage driver, Stuart Whitman as a slimy gambler, Cara Williams as the gambler's loumouthed girlfriend, John Carradine as a undertaker, the monstrously big Clint Walker as the murderous trapper "Whistling Jack Kileen," Bert Williams as a barkeeper who helps Wild Bill Hickcok from being killed and finally, Kim Novak made an outstanding return to the screen as Wild Bill Hickcok's old love, and one-time hooker Poker Jenny, now turned respectable.
This is a strange, mythical and murky film. Forget the bad special buffalo effects, and the bad monster. The screenplay in this movie is the thing. The language in this movie is very realistic. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the way the tough, hard people up in the Black Hills really talked back in the 1870s.
I'm proud to call this my favorite western of the 1970s. Not because it was the best, but simply because of it's dark, mythical tone. I've had this on video for a very long time, and have seen it numerous times.
When you see a film over and over again, you notice all the little details, missed by the ones who saw it only once.
In the 1970s, only Sam Peckinpah's westerns were as, or more, interesting. Not to forget Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone. A matter of taste, of course.
Terror House (1972)
For those of us that loved the low-budget cult movie horror circus of the early 1970s...
The Folks at Red Wolf Inn mixes cannibalism and comedy together surprisingly effectively. Regina (Linda Gillin) is the young student who win an holiday at the Red Wolf Inn, run by a nice old couple (Arthur Space and Mary Jackson). They have a somewhat retarded young grandson, about 18 years old, known as Baby John (John Neilson). It starts out wonderful for Regina, who really enjoys her stay and the wonderful food she is served. When the other young guests starts to disappear, Regina discovers that the nice old couple and Baby John is in fact carnivorous cannibals. She try to escape, but is caught and brought back. Baby John falls in love with the doomed girl and tries to help her escape, but they are caught.
"Baby John Smith," Grandma Evelyn angrily scolds him, "you've been a bad boy, get the belt !!" Baby John gets the belt and hands it over to Grandma Evelyn. Here we quickly understands that Baby John has been through this before... Without being told, as Grandma Evelyn stands with the belt in her hand, watching, Baby John pull down his trousers and pants. He bends over the front of the car they tried to escape in and put his hands at the far edge of the front of the car.
Grandma Evelyn stands beside him, lifts up the tail of his shirt that has been concealing his bare bottom. She raises her arm in the air, then : "SMACK", as she slap the belt down across his bare bottom. She gives him nine slaps. During the spanking scene, the camera shifts from Baby John's embarrassed face as he's looks at the startled Regina, standing in front of him.
After she has spanked him, she orders him to get in the house. He refuses, grabs Regina and runs away. The old couple run after them with their big mean dog, not intent on letting their dinner run away...! I have not given away the ending !! There are more, but this I can't tell...
For those of us that loved the low-budget cult movie horror circus of the early 1970s....this is black comedy in a manner that quite simply doesn't excist anymore...Thanks mainly to excellent playing by the entire cast and a fair amount of genuine wit, as opposed to gross humour, the film actually works as that most difficult of generic hybrids, the horror comedy. Young John Neilson as Baby John makes a disturbing mix of horror and comic relief, including his hilarious spanking scene. Notice that the final credits are presented in the form of a menu. It`s another forgotten low budget horror classic from the glorious days of the early 70s, the decade when they really knew how to make low budget horror classics.
Ridley Scott should respect the written word to a greater extent!
Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" doubtless ranks as the greatest serial killer horror masterpiece ever conceived on film. In my opinion, anyway! Of it's genre, it was unsurpassed. After "Hannibal," it still is.
If you allow me to quote from critic Roger Ebert, he described it brilliantly and I quote :
"It has been a good long while since I have felt the presence of Evil so manifestly demonstrated as in the first appearance of Anthony Hopkins in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. He stands perfectly still in the middle of his cell floor, arms at his sides, and we sense instantly that he is not standing at attention; he is standing at rest -- like a savage animal -- confident of the brutality coiled up inside him. His speaking voice has the precision of a man so arrogant he can barely be bothered to address the sloppy intelligence of the ordinary person. The effect of this scene is so powerful that it underlies all the rest of the movie." - unquote. I do hope you allow me this quote with the above words from Mr. Ebert. They cut the very essence of what I wished to explain. The remaining words are my own.
I also like to warn readers who still haven't seen this film - especially those who have read the book - to please don't read my review before they have watched the film!
The cunning evilness of "Silence of the Lambs" was the very key factor to it's incredible success. The mere sight of Sir Anthony Hopkins, in his portrayal of the evil monster Dr. Hannibal Lecter, were enough to disturb our sleep. We were frightened every time he appeared on screen. I still am. We were aware of the fact that his brilliant mind could harm Clarice M. Starling, even from his asylum cell. We were concerned for her.
This is what's missing from HANNIBAL. In this movie, Mr. Hopkins has to make an effort to frighten us, and that alone is an essential difference between the two movies.
Normally, I respect Ridley Scott as an important director. He's very skilled in filling the screen with tight pictures, and even in this movie he has included an harmonic musical color. And he made "Alien...."
I'm not about to write anything bad about neither Sir Anthony Hopkins (I respect him too much) or Julianne Moore. But Ridley Scott should respect the written word to a greater extent. I've read the entire trilogy of author Thomas Harris. He spent eleven perfectionistic years to write his brilliant book "Hannibal." What upset me in this new movie, was director Ridley Scott's and his writers' omission of several key scenes and key characters.
They totally changed several scenes, so haunting and disturbing in the book, to their own story. The ending of the movie, compared to the book's ending, was so different that is was close to being criminal. Why director Ridley Scott and his crew did so, I have no idea, so I can only speculate, but to me it was very disappointing.