Reviews written by registered user
|23 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Although this film starts off relatively well, grabbing viewers'
interest and setting up the situation nicely, it does not take long
before the film becomes nothing more than mediocre filler for a
prime-time spot; what could have--should have--been a terrifying and
freaky story soon becomes an eye-roller of the most predictable sort.
However, this should not have been the case. Ron Perlman's acting is
superb, and he does, at first, enable the casual viewer to get slightly
uncomfortable. Tom Skerrit is also excellent, although to see him play
something other than "the bad guy" is something certain viewers may
have difficulty getting used to. Kelly Overton, of course, is
aesthetically pleasing, and the scene where she orgasms because of the
demon statue is sure to give select viewers a little bit of excitement,
making the film somewhat of a reward.
However, along the way something goes wrong. First, it should be said that it is not the story itself because the novel "Desperation" is aptly written by King. Essentially, the flaw in the film "Desperation" is that it was made for television; this is the downfall. "Desperation" should have been on the big screen, complete with gore and carnage and an R rating. As it stands, "Desperation" is a film that is trying to be scary while simultaneously being Conservative and mainstream and trying not to offend at the same time. Stephen King just does not belong on prime-time, not, that is, if the intention is to scare and disturb.
This is a terrific film, not so much for the concert, but the actual
experience; those who saw Young play at the Cow Palace in San
Fransisco, (where Rust Never Sleeps was filmed) would undoubtedly
agree--the disclaimer, of course being those who could actually
remember the event as something more than a drug-haze. Nevertheless,
this film is fantastic because the selection of songs that Young plays
are some of his finest, and these selections are both acoustic and
This film also shows why it is that Crazy Horse is the band Young selects when he chooses to rock out. The band members accompany his guitar solos with triumph, giving the music a melodic and hypnotizing effect; specifically, songs like "Like a Hurricane" and "Cortez the Killer"--which are good in their own original form--get a new life in this film; the songs linger, sometimes they stray, but never in a negative way. Anyone who likes live performances, particularly live performances that take on a sort of ad-lib aspect, will not be disappointed with Rust Never Sleeps.
The acoustic selections are also very fine, highlighting Young's capacity and talent to not only entertain and soothe as an individual, but one who can do it in grand style. "Grand Style" here, of course, does not mean someone coming across as your typical rock star, (because here Young doesn't), but rather, grand style in the sense that the man is a born musician that can strike a chord in any one's soul. Highlights of the acoustic set include "Sugar Mountain" and "After the Gold Rush," as well as such Young classics as "Comes a Time" and "My My, Hey Hey." Of course, the concert would not be complete without a wicked rendition of "Hey Hey, My My" the electric counterpart to the former, and the band here accompanies Young on this track exquisitely.
This concert should not have been released; as a follow up to "Live at
Donington," "No Bull" is of very poor quality and does not compare to
the former at all.
Basic synopsis: AC/DC on stage being filmed (most likely) with a camcorder, (early 80s at that). The reproduced sound is just awful. The saving grace of this film is that the band is playing old songs from earlier times that are never usually performed at concerts; however, sadly, these songs are marred by poor video and sound quality--what could have been great becomes something that is not. By the end of the film, something that should have been exciting and refreshing is anything but; indeed, to watch this film is a true test of patience, when trying not to turn the DVD off and put something else on instead.
Not only do I own this DVD, but I have also seen it playing at a few different pubs as well, and the crowds do not respond well. Something that is supposed to be exciting and uplifting is instead marred by poor quality to the point that even if one strains hard to listen, the songs are almost indistinguishable. Soon the DVD becomes poor quality background noise to the din of the pub-goers because the DVD cannot keep people's attention. Basically, the DVD gives a bad impression of a band that usually can blow any crowd away, live or otherwise.
This movie would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. "Into the Void" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but "Black Sabbath: The Last Supper" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film is long and drawn out and is quite challenging to watch.
It's not that it is bad--it isn't--but it is all about the liberation of a woman grieving, and so, as a viewer, you are invited (no, dragged) into the grieving process whether you want to or not. If you are already feeling blue about something, don't watch this film; although it is supposed to be an anti-tragedy, it will still depress you anyway. 7/10
I've waited three years for a disappointing ending. The scouring of the
Shire wasn't in the film, and that was by far the most important scene in
the story, with Saruman and Wormtongue. Okay, so maybe it's in the second
DVD comes out, after the regular one gets bought up---but this is just a
marketing scheme---the exploitation of a fine story. This proves once and
for all that literary adaptations are a true rip off of the author's intent,
fixed only on making large sums of money. Tolkien is no doubt rolling over
in his grave.
People against this argument no doubt say that, "well yes, but it brings the
story to the masses!" Why not encourage them to read instead? I feel that
the imagination of millions of kids is now ruined because they will never be
able to read the books without having Wood in their minds as Frodo, or Astin
as Sam. And the characters don't act that way in the book.
And how can we justify Jackson's liberal treatment of the story to promote CGI graphics while disregarding the characters in the film. Basically the computer is now a character.
These books should have been left alone. This isn't the best film of all time, it is the best example of exploitation that has thus far been imagined.
More attention should have been paid to the eyes in the blue screen
sequences in the film---it is all too easy to see three distinct light bulbs
reflected in the eyes. If we are to believe the actors are on the mountain,
then they should not be lit as if they are in a studio.
At times I felt like I was watching a weather broadcast--you know, the ones where it is so blatantly obvious that that what is going on behind them is only a projection.
I'm sad to say that there is still a long way for CGI to go in terms of becoming believable.
This movie is very boring and superficial. There isn't anything deep about it, and it gives 21st century women a bad name, essentially portraying there goals and desires as self-centered and base. Rent something else instead.
"A little bit of Duddy Kravitz in everyone," so the poster tells us. Yeah, I guess you could say that, although it is exaggerated in the film to get the message across (either that, or I haven't met anyone like that yet.) Dreyfuss' character is believable, and so is his father. I would have to say the only wooden character in the whole film is that of Lenny, Duddy's brother. There is a good message to get from the film--if you watch it, you won't be disappointed.
The film failed to portray the message of the book, but that does not mean it doesn't have a message--it does. Basically, freedom is valuable, however, it can easily be taken away. Though the futuristic look of the film looks dated, I have to admit that some of the things in the film look all too familiar. The television, for example, hanging from Montag's wall looks eerily like the new plasma screen tvs you see in the stores. And the hanging mono rail is now not too far fetched either. Having Montag speak with a German accent was done on purpose, but I don't know if the meaning of it has been successfully carried through time. Upon seeing the film, I thought it was stereotypical that he should be speaking like that and be associated with burning books. Then I thought of redemption, and the fact that in the film he starts to read, but I still find it stereotypical. Having to go on the other side of the tracks to get to freedom was interesting, where there is a sort of vagabond reader's circle. That too was a nice touch, and having filmed it in the fall with the leaves falling, etc, added much needed "natural" aesthetics to the film.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |