Reviews written by registered user
|9 reviews in total|
I pity Roger Corman. In his entire career, he hasn't made a single decent film. As for "Bloody Mama," well, I have a word for movies like this: CRAP!
It is supposedly based on a true story, but I doubt that more than half of it actually happened. Besides that, it is utterly boring and not interesting at all. A bunch of dumb hillbillies, led by their fat and ugly old mother, rampage around Arkansas robing banks, raping girls, and shooting people.
None of the main characters are even remotely likable. In fact, when I was only five minutes into it and already hating it, my only motivation to keep watching was that I would see all of the deuschbags get killed in the end. I was cringing throughout the whole movie. The gang kills a ferry passenger for no reason. Then, an innocent girl is raped and murdered. The gang doesn't even have mercy on alligators - they shoot a gator with a tommy gun for no reason. The point of all of this? There is none. At the end, though, a smile spread across my face when "Ma" and her boys get shot up by the police. I think Corman wanted this scene to be sad, but I just laughed.
But really, there is no reason to watch "Bloody Mama". It is a truly wretched film with no originality whatsoever. Basically, it's a cheap knockoff of "Bonnie and Clyde" with none of that film's drama or wit. In addition to being dull, depressing, and unoriginal, there is Corman's tasteless use of nudity. The acting is flat, although that can't be blamed on the cast, who were given such a bad script to work with. The cast, as you may be interested to know, includes Robert DeNiro, who fortunately went on to better things. Oh yeah, did I mention the cheesy effects? A car blows up after it is shot a few times with a pistol! Don't tell me "Hey, this was 1970, that was the best they could do back then" because it certainly wasn't.
Overall: 2 out of 10. My advice to you is to go and rent "Dillinger" or "Bonnie and Clyde" and let this piece of crap rot on the shelf.
I wasn't around in the 70's to see this movie when it first came out, so I
am unswayed by any feelings of nostalgia, and I still say that this is a
pretty good movie. Much of it is shamelessly ripped off from "Brave New
World," and it also borrows from "Fahrenheit 451" and "Planet of the Apes".
However, "Logan's Run" has enough originality and charm to make up for
The film is very well cast. My favorite performer is Jenny Agutter, who is extremely cute as Jessica 6. In fact, seeing her half-dressed throughout the entire movie is the best reason for watching "Logan's Run". I hear that there's going to be a remake. This new version will hopefully correct many of the original's problems, such as the bad pacing near the end of the movie. However, they probably won't find a better actress to play Jessica 6. You just don't see women that cute in movies any more.
The scenes in the domed city are interesting. Then there's a scene in an ice-filled room involving a robot named Box. I thought that this scene was lots of fun, even though it didn't make complete sense to me.
Overall, "Logan's Run" deserves about a 7 out of 10. I don't think that the makers of this film realized its full potential, but on the other hand, it's really not bad at all.
In a future where books have been outlawed, firemen are paid to burn books
instead of put fires out. However, one fireman realizes that what he is
doing is wrong and decides to go against the degenerate society he lives
I have read reviews of this movie calling it "boring" and "outdated," and frankly I am amazed by how ignorant some people can be. Calling "Fahrenheit 451" outdated simply because the set designs look old and because there are no flashy computer effects shows that you have completely missed the point. The people who made this were not trying to give you a spectacle, they were trying to give you a message - a message that is even more important today than it was when this movie came out.
"Fahrenheit 451" is a fine adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic novel about censorship. The movie changes many of the book's events, but the spirit of the book is preserved. The cinematography is truly great and the score is quite powerful. The acting is also great. Oskar Werner is right on the money as Montag the fireman. Julie Christie is wonderful playing dual roles as yin and yang: Montag's zombie-like wife, Linda, and Montag's friend, the young and energetic Clarisse. Cyril Cusack is also memorable as the evil Fire Captain Beatty - he isn't a cartoon villain, but a very realistic and human character.
You may think that "Fahrenheit 451" delivers an irrelevant message. You may think that book burning is a thing of the past, a relic of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Look around you - book burning happens every day! How do you feel about people trying to ban "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" because the word "nigger" is used in it? How about whole sections of "Doctor Dolittle" being rewritten so that they are politically correct? Did you know that school textbooks may not make any mention of Mount Rushmore because it is offensive to a certain Indian tribe? Meanwhile, we are watching our giant-screen TVs and listening to our Walkmans (two inventions that were predicted by Bradbury). We are constantly "plugged in" and never take any time to just sit and think. Look around you - Ray Bradbury's story is coming true. I advise you to watch this movie, and to read the book. (Read the book first. You will appreciate the film more.)
I hear that a remake is in the works. No doubt it will be filled with gaudy special effects and silly Hollywood cliches. I guess I should hold off judgment until I actually see it, but I doubt that it will contain any of the genius that can be found in this sadly underrated gem. It will be interesting to see what they do with the mechanical hound, though....
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Watch out for spoilers.
I'm not a big fan of De Palma. "The Untouchables" is a truly great movie, but that is the one and only De Palma film that doesn't suck. "The Fury," I must say, sucks. It sucks a lot.
It starts off good. There is lots of action and suspense. There is also a great deal of humor - it's almost an suspense/comedy. It looks like its going to be an enjoyable movie. Inexplicably, however, it gets more and more serious as the time passes. Eventually, the film becomes downright grim. I cannot understand why "The Fury," which starts as an upbeat thriller, ends as an extremely morbid, depressing, and grotesque exercise in bad film making. Did I mention that it is almost completely predictable?
The very last scene, I will admit, is shocking, and probably the only reason to watch this piece of garbage. I guess what I'm saying is "Keep the fast-forward button handy, folks".
This is without a doubt the most boring movie I have ever seen. Ashley Judd
does a really good acting job, but the script and directing are terrible.
Were they trying to bore us to death? This movie plods on and on
monotonously. There is no buildup, no climax; in fact there is no plot at
By the time it was halfway through, I began to pray that it would end. But it didn't. It just kept going, one pointless scene followed by another equally pointless scene. Why I kept watching it, I do not know. Maybe, deep down, I thought that it would get more interesting towards the end. Maybe I was waiting for some kind of point or moral to be made. If so, I was waiting in vain, for there is no point to this movie.
I don't expect every movie I watch to be filled with action and suspense. However, I do expect to find something interesting or engaging. Is that too much to hope for?
No offense to you if you like this movie, but "Ruby in Paradise" is dull, boring, pointless, and mind-numbing. Anyone who views it in its entirety without going bonkers should get a T-shirt that says "I survived 'Ruby in Paradise'".
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Alvarez Kelly" takes place mostly in Virginia (so it isn't technically a western, is it?) during the Civil War. Kelly, played by William Holden, is some kind of cow expert who is enlisted by the Union army to handle their cattle. He is soon kidnapped by a band of Confederates. The rebels are led by a one-eyed man (Widmark) who is supposed to be a Southern gentleman but sounds a lot like the cartoon version of a Chicago gangster.
This is a forgettable movie, but Widmark's accent is so hilarious that the film is almost worth watching. My favorite part was when the rebels kidnap Kelly. Kelly has some money in his pocket, and Widmark's character wants it. He points his revolver at Kelly and says "HAND OVER DA MONEY!". Sometimes Widmark actually tries to sound Southern. He'll have it right in one scene, but in the next scene he'll be back in Chicago gangster mode.
After kidnapping Kelly, the rebs take him to Richmond where he is enlisted by the Confederates to help steal the same cattle he used to be handling. Kelly refuses at first because he only wants to help the side that will pay him the most. Kelly changes his mind when the eyepatch guy shoots one of his fingers off. By the end of the movie, Kelly has a conscience. He sympathizes with the rebels and is willing to fight for something besides money.
I have to say that I was deeply offended by this movie. I really can't stand Civil War flicks that show the Confederates as noble and heroic while showing the Northerners as dastardly and snobbish in the manner that "Alvarez Kelly" does. Most Civil War movies seem to portray the North and the South as either equally good or equally bad, but there are also many pro-Confederate movies out there. For once, I would like to see a movie that shows the Northerners as the good guys.
Politics aside, this is a dull and dreary western that should be skipped by anyone who values their time. There are a few redeeming values, including some truly lovely actresses (Janice Rule and Victoria Shaw) but they don't have nearly enough screen time - Did the script writer really think that the audience would be more interested in a bunch of cows than these two women? If you like William Holden you should see some of the other movies he's been in, because he has been in some good ones. "Alvarez Kelly" isn't one of them, though. There are so many great westerns, it baffles me that anyone would waste their time watching junk like this.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I've never seen the first "Exterminator". I hear it's actually a really
good movie. If that's true, then it is nothing like it's sequel,
"Exterminator 2". To call "Exterminator 2" an awful movie would be
generous. But, it would be a lie to say that I didn't enjoy watching
I was channel surfing one night, and I felt like I just had to see an 80's action movie. You know the feeling? Anyway, I searched through the channels for anything starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (still can't believe he's the governor of my state!), Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, or Chuck Norris. Instead, I found "Exterminator 2".
So I start watching this. In the movie, a bunch of street punks rob a store, murdering the store owners in the process. The punks make their getaway, but suddenly - a guy pops out of nowhere with a flamethrower and torches them! And I'm thinking "Woa! Awesome to the max, dude!" Even though I hadn't seen the first movie, I caught on to the plot quickly. Why? Because there is no plot. Just this dude with a flamethrower running around setting bad guys on fire, with the help of his garbage man sidekick. The bad guys want to take over the city, by the way (and they also wear hilarious looking costumes - you'll have to go to a screening of the Rocky Horror Picture Show to see people in more ridiculous outfits). Best of all, "Exterminator 2" is set to delightfully corny synth music. You'll have that stupid theme tune stuck in your head for days.
There are a couple of scenes that drag on and on; I wanted to shout "Get on with it!" during these parts. And also
the end of the movie is depressing. Other than that, "Exterminator 2" is a thoroughly enjoyable picture. That is, if you are in the mood for something dreadful.
I've been reading lots of reviews complaining about how "Missing in
lacks good plot and acting, about how braindead and stupid it is. Come
people! It's an ACTION MOVIE. Not even a good action movie - it's a
NORRIS MOVIE for crying out loud! If you wanted an intelligent motion
picture that would stir deep thoughts within you, why in the heck did you
watch a Chuck Norris movie?
This movie tells the story of a Vietnam vet who returns to 'Nam to rescue American M.I.A.s. He turns out to be one-man army, dispatching his numerous Vietnamese enemies with knives and machine guns until he accomplishes his goal. Thought-provoking? No. Entertaining? Yes.
I roll my eyes when I read reviews condemning this movie for being patriotic. God forbid we should have any patriotic movies! Would you be happier if the hero was a Viet Cong and the villains Americans? And please don't call this movie racist, because it isn't. While it certainly is politically incorrect by today's standards, it is absurd to say that it is racist. If you want a politically correct action flick, watch "The Sum of All Fears," in which the villains were changed from Arabs to Neo-Nazis so as not to offend any muslims. You know what you're going to get if you watch a Reagan-era action movie.
All "Missing in Action" is intended to be is a fun action movie. If you are a fan of what I call the "running through the jungle with a machine gun" genre, this is a must-see. If you are an overly sensitive liberal, it's best that you stay away from action movies altogether.
"An American Werewolf in Paris" is an excellent horror-comedy, in the great tradition of "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night". I see that a lot of people dislike this movie. These are obviously hardcore horror fans who wanted to see something dark and gothic; but instead got something blackly humorous and were not amused by it. I admit, "An American Werewolf in Paris" is not really scary, but neither are "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night," and those two movies seem to be highly regarded by horror fans. I don't understand why everyone hates this one so much. If you are a fan of horror-comedies, or if you have a morbid sense of humor, this is definitely for you. I think it's great: nine out of ten stars (On a one star DVD, I should say. It would have been nice to have some extra features besides the trailer.)