Reviews written by registered user
|32 reviews in total|
This is yet another choppy "found footage" mess shot on video, and it's bad. It's a direct steal of the story of Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre in 2001, nothing more, nothing less. The most disappointing aspect of the film was learning that Eli Roth actually produced this wreck. I don't know what he was thinking, but this is a very far cry from "Cabin Fever" or "Hostel." I will say that I was very impressed by Gene Jones' performance, and his interpretation of "Father" rose way above the rest of this material. The guy can act. There's not much left to say about "The Sacrament," as once you've seen it you'll forget it. If you want a better watch, check out the PBS documentary "Jonestown." You might as well sit through the real thing rather than watch a ripoff with the exact same plot. It's also a lot more disturbing because it was real.
I love independent horror and I own a number of Rob Zombie's films, but this audaciously inept piece of crap was an incredible waste of two hours of my life. Whoever wrote the script to this rambling, confused mess should have ended up as one of the movie's victims. Now that video has become affordable for anyone, there are so many incredibly bad straight-to-DVD films to have to wade through to find anything worth watching; this is yet another one of those to skip. The most frustrating thing I encountered while viewing this - along with the rambling, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink plots - was the atrocious audio. This is another film that was mixed to continually drown out the dialog in favor of the film's music and sound effects. Half of the feature was unintelligible. Eliza Swenson, who plays Penny Dreadful, the "hostess" of the film's banal two features, is a good actress. She's way too good to be wasting her time on drivel like this. Horrible. The massive amount of straight-to-video productions are churned out as quickly as possible, show very little talent, and will do anything they can to pull in another buck. IMDb user's reviews on these films are full of "outstanding" reviews that were written by the directors' friends and family.
As a gay man living in San Francisco, I've watched three episodes of "Looking" and for the life of me couldn't find one interesting or attractive character or see anything particularly original in any of them. "Looking" is, I suppose, "The L Word" for gay men, and it's exactly what you would expect it to be and no more. It's no surprise that there are a large number of gay men living in San Francisco, but we certainly don't all subscribe to the trendy, sexually obsessed Castro district and many of us find it dull and kind of embarrassing. We're everywhere in the city, just like straight people, living regular lives (wow!). Once again we're presented with the tragedy of a gay character hitting forty (oh my God!), as well as the usual gay stereotypes - being hit on in the steam room at the gym, cruising bars, and bitching with each other about who they want to screw next. It's old hat, guys. The most realized character I could find was the quick cameo by Scott Bakula in the third episode, and I'd like to see more of life through his eyes in other shows. It would have been a lot more interesting if this were set in SOMA, where most of the gay men are pretty much just Joe Schmoes who don't have all this petty drama. But then, I guess that wouldn't have been titillating enough for the public. I'll be interested to see if this show survives more than one or two seasons; I found it mostly boring and very predictable.
"Bad" was one of the most offensive, hilarious and brilliantly written films I saw in the 70's. Carroll Baker puts forth an incredibly bland, sarcastic performance as a housewife with a clan of hit women on the side (hey, a woman's gotta pay the bills). My only misgiving about the film was Perry King never made a very good Joe Dallesandro, and I got the feeling while I was watching it Warhol and Johnson were doing everything they could to replicate him. The saddest thing about this film is that after waiting for years for it to show up on DVD, it's finally been presented in such poor, dismal quality that it's almost not worth watching. Why would a company called CheezyFlicks release this, and release it in such poor shape? This needs a better release, as well as a remaster, so it can really be appreciated. What they've done to this classic film is a real shame.
I've been waiting to see this film for some time, and was finally just able to see it on VOD. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment, especially considering Paul Schrader directed it. The combination of he and Bret Easton Ellis is not a good one. The film is yet another saga of bored Hollywood individuals looking for meaning in life - pretty much the common theme of BEE's novels - and indulging in sex, mind games and jealousy while attempting to hold on to their flailing, angst-filled existences. Mr. Schrader drives the point home further by occasionally interspersing shots of dilapidated, closed movie theaters to show us how the "old Hollywood" has decayed. "The Canyons" attempts very hard to shock, but unfortunately, we've seen it all before, as Hollywood has been making these caricatures of itself since the 70's and 80's. Lindsay Lohan is surprisingly effective in her role most of the time, and carries a lot of the film. James Deen, who I was not familiar with as I'm not that into porn, also does a believable job (and illustrates WHY he's had a career in porn during his full frontal shot). There's also a refreshing twist during a four-way sex scene. But I was left wondering at the end of the film - and it ends very awkwardly - what was the point, and how could anyone invest much empathy in these characters? I understand "The Canyons" opens today in Los Angeles and New York, as well as being simultaneously offered on television and Itunes via pay-per-view. I would be very surprised if this gets any further than those two major cities; it's just not engrossing or original enough to draw in much of an audience.
Hard to believe Brian dePalma has sunk this low. The film is boring, dreadfully scripted, and looks like a long perfume commercial. Real people just don't dress and look like this; DePalma seemed to be heading toward this stylized, air-brushed look when he made "Dressed to Kill," and it's gotten progressively worse with each film, except "The Untouchables." "Passion's" script starts out to be about two female executives vying for the same account, and then goes off in five different directions. He toys with gratuitous lesbianism in some segments, which might have been bold and sexy in the 70's and 80's, but now just comes off looking dated and embarrassing. The film's 100 minutes could easily have been pared down to 20 and it would have been more interesting and less ponderous. A real disappointment.
I've never been a fan of Alan Cumming, but this film has turned me around. He gives a great performance in this, and it's confounding to me why this never got a broader release. Yes, there are some flaws in the way the 70's are portrayed, and some of the characterizations are a little trite; but I thought overall the film was poignant and made its statement very effectively. Like other reviewers have mentioned, the ending was not at all what I thought it would be and took me by surprise. What stays with me after seeing the film are the brief clips of Cummings singing, in particular, "Love Don't Live Here Anymore," in which he almost sounded like someone wounded. I will be buying this DVD, as I really feel like the film wasn't given much of a chance at the box office to gain the wider audience it deserved.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Like another reviewer here, I'm also perplexed why people have given
this such negative reviews. As a kid my parents took me with them to
see "Funny Girl" and even at that young age I was impressed by Barbra
Streisand; however, as her career progressed I became less enamored of
her and found most of her performances to be mechanical and pretty
narcissistic. When she directed herself, camera angles always seemed to
be engineered to show only one side of her face, and she really didn't
seem to be able to concentrate fully enough to be able to do any
serious acting (as an example, her crying scene in "The Way We Were"
always embarrassed me, it seemed so forced and artificial).
"The Guilt Trip" is a small, enjoyable comedy that wasn't meant to be side-splittingly funny. The refreshing thing, though, is that Sreisand carries the film, and she's relaxed, confident, totally unself-conscious, and a very good actress. There's a quick shot at the end of the film where she looks as though she's about to become tearful, and it seemed totally authentic and I actually found myself choking up for a second. Somehow the last few years seem to have made her into a very different person, and her the character she created came across to me as a very likable individual. Sure, parts of the script reminded me of a t.v. sitcom, but they weren't excruciatingly bad (I'd like to have seen more of an explanation as to why the mother became so disappointed upon learning why her son had arranged the final trip to San Francisco; it didn't make total sense to me.) I'm disappointed this film didn't last longer than it did when it was released; it deserved a better run.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As a middle-aged man, I found this to be one of the most ridiculous films I've seen in some time. It's basically two hours of one dimensional portrayals of men by women complaining of being seen as one-dimensional by men. One fairly long scene in one of the characters' living room in which they all state their opinions of men flabbergasted me; why would any self-respecting man WANT any of these whining, narcissistic victims in the first place? Performances aside (except for Angela Bassett, who was totally wasted by never changing her angry expression throughout the whole film), the effort is pretty badly written, and the constant message of "those bad, bad males" starts to become tiring after awhile. I didn't find these women "strong..." I found them very entitled and, as another reviewer put it, self-absorbed. I don't think there was one male character in the film who was portrayed sympathetically or in a three-dimensional manner. It's interesting to me that when films like this come out portraying women in the same way, there's quite a brouhaha; when the tables get turned, it's "groundbreaking."
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As a gay man who's been in a relationship in the past with a drug user, I found this to be one of the most compelling and original films I've seen in a long time. The reviewer who stated he's "never even met anyone who's done crack" and accuses it of being "stereotypical" is either living in a small town somewhere or doesn't get out very much; meth and coke use are rampant in the gay community in San Francisco and other big cities, and this film very accurately portrays the disappointments and the gradual loss of self-esteem someone involved with a user goes through in hoping they'll recover. I don't watch a lot of "gay" films because I feel a lot of them are trivial, but this delved into territory I've not seen anyone brave enough to explore before, similar to "Shame." It's not always an easy film to watch, but it's raw and it's real. It will be interesting to see what kind of box office it gets or if it ends up falling between the cracks because it'll be marketed as just another "gay film." This is a universal story, it just happens to be portrayed here as happening between two men... I hope the film gets a fair release and people get a chance to see it.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |