Reviews

36 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
not bad...okay at times, but unsatisfying in total (SPOILERS)
3 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, we have to clear up a big misclarification here. Yes, it is very admirable that this movie was made for 18 grand, but to compare that achievement to films like CLERKS and EL MARIACHI undercuts one thing: those movies were shot on FILM as opposed to VIDEO which was what BACK TO MANHATTAN was shot on. Why is that important? Because shooting on video is A LOT cheaper than on film. If this movie was shot on film, I can guarantee you the budget would NOT have been 18 grand (at least we'd be talking 30 grand.) SO such a campaign hurts the movie's chances of being taken seriously as a "film," which is unfair because it does at least serve to entertain the audience with its various cutaways to different situations.

It does provide certain laughs here or there but in the end it was an unsatisfying experience. What am I supposed to take of that guy's Manhattan phobia? Where was the payoff in that? And exactly how the hell hard is it to explain to a horny cameraman you mistook the sexy reporter for her twin sister? What a time to get tongue tied. The mob characters are what you expect, stereotypical comic foil that is neither funny nor offensive (if it was either, this movie would be daring.) The girls in the movie were hot but VERY underutilized which is a shame. The editing is at times pretty well done and helps keep the pace moving along, never boring the viewer, and the cameo by a certain NY baseball icon was a very nice touch, but in the end there was nothing I took from it. Impressive debut for Rob Reilly? I give him his props seeing as how I could tell how difficult it was to make the movie, but with a better script and production values, he probably can still deliver.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
NOT the best zombie movie ever (SPOILERS)
7 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
One thing needs to be clarified here:

This was NOT the first film to feature fast, running zombies who act savage and quick (Demons, Day of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead, Braindead, etc.)

That is the general consensus with alot of reviewers here. The novelty of running zombies happened almost 20 years ago. The look of the zombies themselves are impressive, but there isn't enough screen time devoted to them to appreciate the look (the best view of them comes in the second act when one of the captured zombies held by the military struggles to free itself.)

Speaking of the military scenes, this is where the film fails. Instead of an interesting study of the already established characters, one of them is killed off and the rest are captured by an extremist military branch who see the female character as a chance to breed, and the film essentailly becomes a battle for breeding rights, and the lead male for no reason explained turns into Rambo and offs much of the military personnel by himself. An interesting idea to add to the film would have been the regression mentally of the lead character which forces him to turn savage in order to rescue his friends. It would have added made a supposedly "intelligent" film actually look intelligent.

The much heralded "deserted London" scenes deserve all the praise it gets, and Danny Boyle does indeed deserve credit for the way he achieved it. However, if this scene was done with CGI (like the insepid RESIDENT EVIL,) I doubt anyone would care about this scene, which I guess goes to show how jaded have become with CGI that if an effect is acheived without CGI it almost makes the film seem superior.

In summary, 28 DAYS LATER would have been a great film and SHOULD have been a great film if some more character development was added to an already dull group of characters who could have been memorable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Resident Evil (2002)
4/10
Gore nor horror need not apply *SPOILERS*
8 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This was one the most mediocre Zombie films ever made and one of the more mediocre and predictable so called horror films since the "Scream" era started. None of the heroes in the film had any connection or humanity whatsoever and I didn;t care that they died. Michelle Rodriguez' character for example is utterly hateful and her death was welcome. None of the characters showed any fear and thus disrespected the theme of horror. Milla Jovavich's character is a kung fu expert? Why? Did the movie tell us? No, and because it filmmakers are to politically correct and gutless to show a woman in peril for the sake of not offending sensitive women today, this film fails and so does Milla's character.

The zombie makeup was suprisingly well done, but what is a zombie movie without gore? Even George Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD had some gore that was extreme for its era. Speaking of which, Romero was originally slated to direct RE, but I guess producers felt he would have ended up making a better zombie film and thus canned him. Most of the gore was implied, but it fails. People would point out the TEXAS CHAINSAW technique where the gore was implied, but it works in TEXAS. For example, the girl hanging on the hook. We don't see the hook go into her back, but we do see her hanging painfully and struggling from the hook. A poor example of implied gore in RE is when the girl in the elevator in the begining has her head chopped off, we only see her point of view and then BAM- screen turns to black. Huh? Were the filmmakers too scared to do a zombie movie? It seems like it.

The ending is a perfect example of how failed the writers were in their attempt to present something interesting and epic and instead give us a bland conclusion, where Milla walks out into the world to see desolation, burning streets, and no humans. It would have been an excellent opportunity to show a horde of zombies surrounding Milla, from all angles, throughout the city, and end the movie right there, but these are filmmakers who know absolutely nothing about horror, just popcorn moments and ALIENS ripoff techniques. A truly overrated film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The REAL Game of DEATH!!
15 July 2002
This Japanese film is part docudrama and part Bruce Lee film. Bruce and a couple of other people work together to create the Game of Death story, and its philosophical messages along with it. The first 40 minutes of the flick is just that, plus his interactions with young brandon and wife Linda. Much of it is spoken in English (broken English I might add,) while the rest is in Cantonese (odd for a Japanese flick but not considering what the film is about.) There are interviews with men who worked with Bruce, but the most insightful is Dan Inosanto's, mainly because his interview is the only one done in English! He even goes into the meaning behind the "shave and a haircut- two bits" routine he and Bruce get into in the GOD nunchuku scene.

Finally, we get into the REAL GOD footage--in its entirety. I am a fan of the Robert Clouse GOD film (mainly because it is fun despite what it is) but seeing the real footage made me regret what could have been if Clouse was faithful to Lee's script. The fights are outstanding and due to the storyline of the Clouse version, they had to be edited to hide certain other characters who were either "killed off" quickly in the Clouse version or just didn't exist. The James Tien character was described as a friend of Billy Lo in the 1978 version, but he is actually a man working for the kidnapper of Bruce' family in the real version. ANother man working for the kidnapper is completely omitted in the 1978 film, thus the choppiness of the fights. Here, you see the fights in their entirety and how smooth it looks. The biggest change is the fight between Bruce and the Japanese karate expert. The karate expert looks completely more threatening and skillful then he did in 78 (no thanks to a chop edit job.) Bruce even has dialogue with all three of his fighters, and we get to see Bruce instill some humor into them, showing that he was starting to lighten up and get comfortable with the art of kung fu filmmaking.

His fight with Kareem Abdul Jabar gave us perhaps the most bizarre deleted shot in the entire footage: Abdul Jabar's eyes turning into cat's eyes as the sun rays hit his face. Unfortunately the footage does not explain why (but we know now why he wears sunglasses and he is distracted by the light in the pagoda fight scene.)

The footage looks crisp, and the music used to score it is outstanding. I'm a big fan of John Barry's score for GOD (I even have the soundtrack on CD) but the new score used here is utterly enjoyable and used alot of different themes (as opposed to the variations of Barry's theme.) As a matter of fact, one of the themes used here is a variation of Barry's GOD theme. Bruce's screams and cries are dubbed with his own voice (his speaking parts most likely a new dub) and the fighting sound effects were taken from Clouse' GOD.

THe DVD contains trailers for this film, and is available online. Unfortuantely, it is not available in the domestic market but I advise you if you are a Lee fan to get it. The image and sound are superb, and makes a great companion piece with Clouse' GOD. I will watch both back to back- Clouse' film to enjoy the camp and cheese, some excellent fights and a great score--and Bruce Lee in G.O.D, to enjoy what could have been, but at least watch the man as he was meant to be watch, in his own way.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Overrated and boring. Okay, but not great.
7 July 2002
People have overpraised this flick. This is NOT the best kaiju flick ever. It certainly isn't better than GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS or GODZILLA vs THE THING. Nor is it better than RODAN, WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS or FRANKENSTIEN CONQUERS THE WORLD. As a matter of fact, it isn't even better than GAMERA: GUARDIAN OF THE UNIVERSE. This film lacks any chaarcerization, no characters to care about and yet it gives us 70 percent screen time devoted to these lack luster humans. Legion itself is given a blah origin, and the scenes showing usa how they discover the origin have been done before. There is nothing original about the film, save for perhaps some of the best special effects shots I've seen in a kaiju flick. It puts even the latest CGI hollywood fests to shame, yet this film mirrors a Hollywood special effects fest in its celebratiopn of effects but no depth or soul. To me, the overrating of this movie is the result of the backlash many Godzilla fans are giving the heisei Godzilla series (rightfully so) for being lackluster in execution and full of many plotholes. The plot of LEGION is consistent but boring and the action scenes are too far and few. GAMERA 3 is better than 2.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A piece of garbage
30 June 2002
Dogma 95? More like Crap 99. Plot? Find it elsewhere. Message? That a dope with a camera can film like he has a seizure and hire anybody from the street to mutter inane unscripted dialogue, and be considered a genius by the uninformed art house insects of today. Oh, but wait! This film has one thing other dogma 95 films doesn't have: Werner Herzog. Herzog gives this film more credibility than it deserves and I was shocked to see him in this. Herzog is pretty entertaining (I enjoyed a couple of his films with Klaus Kinski) and pretty funny, but of course that has nothing to do with one of the worst and most overrated directors in the history of celluloid: Harmony korine. His films are utter trash, an excuse to film whatever, and hides behind the "it's art" tag to gain a fanbase of sheep. If I seem harsh, it's because there are worthwhile filmmakers who are struggling to even get their films made to entertain people without the confusion or pretentiosness Korine induces, while Korine's films get high praise for all the wrong reasons. Korine will be a trend, meaning here today, forgotten tomorrow. But many more worthwhile directors will be here to stay, long after there deaths.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gummo (1997)
1/10
GUMMO= LAME-O
30 June 2002
Art House geeks don't know why the defend certain films anymore. Their hatred for big budget Hollywood blockbusters seems to cloud their thinking of "art house" flicks. Any film with the "art house" tag attached to it is safe from any real hard critiquing. Regardless, a film should have something intriguing, entertaining, or relevant to it. GUMMO has none of it. The characters are there, not engaging or endearing. Some of it is entertaining but not enough of it to commend. It's more hateful than anything. The style of filming is invisible. It just shoots whatever. No techniques of filmmaking whatsoever. Korine's JULIEN DONKEY BOY seems like CITIZEN KANE in style compared to this, but GUMMO is utterly useless as a film. People calling it beautiful or compelling don't know why they are calling it. Ask them and they will cop out. GUMMO is what it is- a piece of filth disguising itself as an art house flick to escape any real critiques. A director has alot of responsibilites. He has a plan to fulfill, a blueprint to realize, actors to motivate, stories to create and a quality of relevance to add. Harmony Korine is one of the worst directors of all time, and on the top 5 of the decade of the 90s. And that is a fact.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Exit Wounds (2001)
Comedic Sci-Fi click fails
19 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
****SPOILERS*****

DMX is a horrible rapper, one of the worst in the industry (then again, the corrupt hip hop industry is built on deciept, murder, money and connections, not talent, which explains the rise of a DMX, Ja-Rule, or Angie Martinez while better talents like Common, DJ KRush, or DJ SHadow remain in the underground or barely heard in mainstream.) Anyway, along with being a horrible rapper, DMX is also a horrible actor. Wouldn't it have been wise to pair this horrible actor up with a good actor to at least justify his film time? What does Joel "My kung fu films are better than REAL kung fu films" Silver do? He pairs him up with Steven Segal, a guy who only acts stiff in all his films. This ci-fi comedy has Segal who all of a sudden has Matrix-inspired kung fu and can punch fat dudes yards away, fly in the air, and break glass like if it was toast. DMX can now walk on walls, fire guns with his belt, and sommersualt like he was actually given the talent to do so by an ancient Egyptian god. The fight scenes are aweful, the film itself is pretty gay (alot of Michael Jai White topless and barely no women in the film, with the lone female lead who dies later with no emotion from any of the characters involved.) DMX is very hateable in this film (he should have stayed the bad guy but it would have offended black folks so the bad guys are a white and black man instead--Segal takes on the bad black and DMX takes on the bad white. It balances out, see? If you want Kung fu, there are better films. If you want Segal, believe it or not he's done better films. If you want a rap star in a film, there are better films. This movie is garbage, but it's a laugh riot regardless.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Matrix (1999)
6/10
Over-rated, unoriginal Hollywood style fest
19 May 2002
I loved the Matrix--when it was a film released in 1998 called Dark City, a far superior, character driven entry in the sci-fi genre. The Matrix, with its dazzling special effects, is nothing more than a silly tale of perseption vs reality. Everyone's view of the film seems to be manipulated by the effects. If we were dealing with Blade Runner style effects instead of Doritos inspired "bullet time" effects, would the film still be considered as memorable? I highly doubt it. Laurence Fishburne is good as Morpheus, Moss is ok but her character elicits no sympathy or emotion from me, and Keanu Reeves is just ok, but none of these characters are as intriguing as those of Dark City. The kung fu was obviously inspired by the late Hong Kong style of fighting (IE wire fu and CGI instead of actual skills and choreography.) This was designed to make the simpletons of today go "ooh" and "ahh" while real kung fu afficionados ache over the obvious fakeness and frustration of chop editing, thus inspiring furhter kung fu crap like CROUCHING TIGER, EXIT WOUNDS, and ROMEO MUST DIE. Matrix does boast some wonderful cinematography, but so does Dark City and it boasts a better story along with it, too. I'll give this film a 5 out of because in originality it's not in the top, in style it's not original, in acting it's saved by one, and story, pretty basic but not complex. Dark City is better.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
potential failed
11 May 2002
Good cinematography and good special effects cannot save a failed horror flick. Why is it failed? Well, number one, the makeup of the ghosts, including my favorite The Hammer, was extremely impressive and even frightening (think Cenobites.) But the over excessive use of the quick flash editing and poor characterization did not help bring the ghosts to independence from flashy editing and a restrictive script. It became an excersize for the director and editor to show the weak MTV generation they are hip and cool like the Matrix (none of which is true by the way.) That is not to say that I think the Matrix is a cool film because it is not, but read my Matrix review to see. If the filmmakers relied solely on the ghosts themselves to elevate the pic instead of flashy editing, the picture may have succeeded in at least giving us new cult monsters for this new generation, but alas egos must have gotten in the way because I was surely deprived. I recommend renting the film just to take a gander, but after one viewing, I will never see it again. A shame, too.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you thought Gamera was juvenile...
8 March 2002
Here is the heartwarming story of a giant bipedic hippopatomus who has two conflicts he must resolve. First, the arrival of a renegade giant lizard from outer space who threatens the hero's territory. And second, there is the struggle to use the proper - and I'm not making this up- the proper TOILET for Daigaro. The movie plays like a pre-K Gamera film, with the thrown in Japanese boys to suit the needs of Nippon's pedophiles. However, the special effects and miniatures are surprisingly well done. And the suitmation styles for Daigaro and Goliath are very unique for them (at least they weren't recycled suits from the Ultraman series of that period.) This joint effort between Toho and Tsuburaya productions actually has more integrity, believe it or not, than the 70's Godzilla flicks (and Gamera flicks.) Unfortunately, there is no English version of this film available as it was never released in the US in any format. However, it is available via underground video dealers who have the "connections." Without any translation, the story is relatively easy to follow, a tribute to disciplined filmmaking I guess.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Only good for the catfight
18 February 2002
The catfight was the best, but more on that later. The movie as a whole is an inferior version of all those "in the hood" films made. There is no character development in the movie, no likeable person with the exception of the token white guy in the movie (and what does that say about a film concerning Puerto Ricans?) and virtually no plot. Some Rican's father gets shot by his brother and he goes on bitching about how he has no father. For guys like myself who have had their fathers abandon them, we elicit no pity for this character who cries for pity because his father was killed, yet the movie tells us we must pity him because of this and understand why he does crummy things because of this. The film also portrays Puerto Ricans in a bad light. I am a hispanic but not a Rican so this doesn't necessarily upset me, but having experienced what I have experienced, I can never feel any sympathy at all for these characters the film tries to heroize. They are dispicable, lude, and comfortable in their mediocrity. Not all Ricans are the way the film portrays them to be but all we see are the poor excerisizes of latinos the film says we must relate to. The film tries to be objective but there are moments that bog the story down. There are much better films about inner city hispanics that try to make a point and use objective storytelling. What is the point of this film? That lack of education is the root of all violence? BOYZ n THE HOOD, STAND AND DELIVER, and LEAN ON ME dealt with this better. This film was an excuse for one fat Puerto Rican to show his rear end and his full frontal alot in the film. I guess the director was trying to reach out to an potential homosexual audience.

As for the catfight, yes, there is a catfight at the end of the movie, one of the better catfights in American films. This is no chopsocky poor excuse for martial arts by women pretending to be civil rights fighters. These are just two women who hate each other, and throughout the film they have been teasing a fight between them. Well, the film doesn't disappoint on that and these two go at it, pulling hair, rolling on the concrete streets in hatred of each other. Women fighting the way they do in real life, not that Charlie's Angel's bull. I wanted to give this film a chance but it ended up leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Honeymooners (1955–1956)
A Wonderful New Year's tradition
3 January 2002
I got so used to watching the marathon every New Years that if a December 31st/January 1st went without the marathon, I would cry myself into the new year as it is already a depressing two days anyway. The Honeymooners is probably the only 50's show I watch and will watch. The 50's seemed to be a depressing time with all the bebop and teeny bopper shenanigans. The Honeymooners gave us the Kramdens and the Nortons, two neighbors I wish I could live near. Ralph and Alice were the epitome of what a married couple is- determined, hard working, and willing to work through their problems without even so much as a sniff of a threat of divorce. Ralph was the stubborn nincompoop but we love him that way, his loud screaming and everytime he throws Norton out of his home. Alice was and IS the model of what women SHOULD be- strong minded, classy, loyal to her husband, determined to make her marriage work at all costs, without being snobby or arrogant. Alice would humble Ralph without having to grab his privates, which is what the women of today seem to only know. Alice knew Ralph loved her and would test his love for her by telling the truth, by testing Ralph's conscience. Despite Ralph's bungling, he still loved Alice and she knew, which is why she stuck by him, because no matter what, he wanted to be with her. Norton was the loyal friend of the Kramdens, the sidekick we all wished we had--clumsy but loyal and honest. Trixie, the lesser of the 4, was, well--lesser- but she does have a fan base, and we all love Trixie no matter what. I get a joy out of watching the HoneyMooners. It is what I hope my marriage life to be- an adventure but a worthwhile journey as long as my wife is by my side. It is extremely hilarious, silly, classy comedy. It still stands by today's standards of schlock humor and sex jokes. It is a tradition that I hope never ends. To Jackie Gleason, Art Carney, the lovely Audrey Meadows and the lovely Joyce Randolph- good show, and great job.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dark City (1998)
Much Better Film than the matrix
28 December 2001
Okay, let's get something straight- The Matrix was a film about special effects. Sure, it had dazzle, the now famous spin around the freeze frame object first introduced to us in a Dorito's commercial, and it presented us with an interesting philosophy, but the characterization was not so good (aside from Morpheous, I did not care for ANYONE in that movie.) The Matrix had bland characters, chop socky martial arts with the use of CGI and wires, and a trendiness that had it not been for CGI or wires, would be seen as mediocre sci-fi. The idea of reality and imagination is an interesting premise used in the Matrix, but it was done FAR better in Dark City. Dark City had an interesting script, interesting characters, twists and turns that made for delightful viewing. The special effects weren't of the dazzling variety but it was good enough to tell the story, not advertise gimmicks the way the Matrix did. Dark City didn't try to go for cheap thrills the way the Matrix did- it just told the story. The style, the look of the film, the cinematography all combined superbly. Rufus Sewell was good as the hero with no memory of a past, trying to find out why the sun never rises, why water is scarce- and more importantly who he really is. For anyone to say Dark City is a predictable film but not the Matrix is clearly lacking in the field of storytelling in films, and also has fallen for the Matrix campaign. The Matrix had some intriguing things about it, but Dark City was an overall superior film, bringing to the surface the idea of fantasy and reality before the Matrix did.

Performances by Keifer Sutherland and the lovely Jennifer Connelly all help make this film a top notch experience. It is not just an excellent sci-fi flick-- it is just an excellent flick.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Costello (1998– )
I Have the Catfight on Tape!!
24 October 2001
The first episode is the only one I REMEMBER. However, the reason is simple. We are introduced to her rival (it's safe to say no one watching gave a damn) and after much teasing by her, Costello jumps out from behind her bar and goes after her as the two pull hair and pull each other's hair out of the bar as all the drinkers in the bar go out to watch the fight. That pretty much was the highlight of this insipid show. A shame too. But that catfight was awesome. Well, there were better catfights in better shows, but this one was good. Anyway, the humor wasn't good and Sue Costello wasn't very charismatic, thus the reason why it lasted only 3 episodes (I only saw one episode and thought it was one episode long.)
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Brothers Grunt (1994–1995)
1/10
AWEFUL GARBAGE!
24 October 2001
I'm amazed the IMDB even has this schlock listed here, though I am not surprised NO ONE has commented on it as it has been deservedly forgotten in the annals of animation. Produced by MTV, it came on during the rise of the popularity of BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD. The cartoon concerned these deformed, grunting brothers (hmm, perhaps that's where the title came from) from another dimension. One of them wanders off into our world and his brothers spend the season searching for him. Like BEAVIS and BUTTHEAD, the show was interrupted with clips of music videos, but instead of witty entendres ala B&B, we see clips of the episode and the grunting brothers appearing over the video itself- grunting. The characters appeared first in a series of spots for MTV until they got their own show, and the show itself was so bad that it was canned before the season was completed. (I assume it was never completed as I remember only 3 episodes and the wandering grunt was never reunited with his brothers. It was purely aweful and another sad example of how misguided MTV is with its animation when it capitalizes on a show (BEavis and Butthead or Ren and Stimpy) it had nothing to do with creatively. Thank goodness it is forgotten.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Anatomy of a Hate Crime (2001 TV Movie)
Manipulation not appreciated
22 May 2001
I knew i was in trouble when:

A) MTV was making a hate crime movie & B) It was about the new posterchild for hate crime, Matthew Shephard.

Okay, I didn't expect Oscar caliber material (nor did I expect daytime emmy caliber material) but this was bad. Never mind the inaccuracies pointed out by other IMDB users. To annoint Matty as a saint is downright insulting to the audience, telling us what WE should feel. Just because this is based on a true story doesn't mean the director should forget the fundamentals of filmmaking and not concentrate on storytelling or characterization. Why should we feel sorry for Matt? This movie didn't tell me why I should feel bad for him. What, cuz he's gay? I'm not gay so I don't relate, thus it is the director's job to make the character seem human and give him a pitiable side, make him likable. To make him angelic is just insulting to the viewer. Oh, and make the killers out to be stereotypical bad guys? Poor writing. Of course the murderers were slime, but to make them outright cartoony is laughable and brings the production down. How about showing us insight on the criminals? Who they are, what they do for a living, and then show us why the night of the murder had such a HUGE impact. To hide behind the "he was murdered because he was gay" is a cop out. And what is a hate crime? Aren't all crimes hate? Isn't a murder of any caliber hate? Why should ones life not be more important just because he isn't gay? Just my two cents, not meant to be overtly political. BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD DO AMERICA still remains MTV's best movie (and that's more atributed to Mike "I had it, now I don't" Judge than it is to the corporate bigwigs at MTV)
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Undressed (1999–2002)
Porn without sex!
22 May 2001
How is it possible for MTV to show porn on TV without actually showing sex? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? It's bad enough the show delves on science fiction, with all the males looking built and no average looking males in sight, while most of the females are white chicks with no body whatsoever (and the white girls that do have a body are not even main characters in these stupid plots.) And the plain-looking, zero-dimension white female leads are always robbing the spotlights from the more attractive girls, especially the black chicks on the show. Two in mind, Reagan Gomez-Preston who plays Jackie on the show, and another black chick who plays Sylvia ( I would know her name but the IMDB doesn't have her credited, but has everyone else credited) are easily the two most attractive girls on the show. Gomez-Preston doesn't show as much flesh as the other females which is a shame because she has a better body than 90% of the females on the show, but it also maintains her class as she is so sexy without being naked. The other black chick who plays Sylvia is also gorgeous, and in one scene can be seen in her blue panties. Awesome body. There are some other girls on the show who are cute and attractive and pretty but they take a back seat to waif-looking white girls with no booty or anything defined. Oh, the plot of the show you ask? There is none. This is a science fiction story where adults have been long extinct, leaving a world of sex-starved MTV stereotyped teens to run their own college campus and the only way to maintain survival of their species is to have foreplay: do everything they can to get the girl, or guy to have sex with them. And by the time they are about to do the deed, we cut away to another scenario. Oh, and god forbid you are a heterosexual man and you see the next scene being about a stereotypical gay couple who are involved in situations that make you say "come on, now!" I guess MTV feels we should use our minds and be hip cuz they say so. Let's be honest, this show is about sex, and the problem with it is that it is about something it doesn't show. The writing isn't good enough to demand to be anything other than porn, so therefore it should show sex. And I know MTV is a pro-censorship network, so for them to do this is insane. This show is only good for scenes of Reagan Gomez-Prestn and the black chick who plays Sylvia. Otherwise, this show is a waste.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Only Brandy and Love save this
22 May 2001
Brandy is one of the most gorgeous looking girls on the scene. Her exotic eyes, those luscious lips forming a beautiful smile, that booty that is now better than J-Ho's booty. Jenny Hewitt and her wonderful breasts. What is wrong with a movie that features these wonderful assets?



That's the problem. The horror in this film is pitiful. No way is a guy with a fish hook scary (a fish hook is not an ax, nor is it even an attempt at a substitute for dream powers.) All the attempts at fright are forced. The gore is a matter of fact (this is not fun gore, it's boring gore.) The plot is too ridiculous to discuss. The violence is not as violent as it should be, and where it is violent it is unnecassary (I mean what was the reason the fish hook guy had to kill the black female patron? Oh, wait, answered my own question. horror cliche.) Too contrived and characterization is unavailable for comment. The producers will tell you that films like Friday the 13th had no characterization either, and endured cult appeal over the year. The difference is Friday the 13th offered something entertaining, whether it be gore or sex. I STILL KNOW has no sex, in fact blowing it with two scenes that feature Brandy and Jenny in bikinis, but are not featured in full body shots. Aweful directon. And just because it is a horror film doesn't mean it should not have characterization. Films like RE-ANIMATOR and DEAD ALIVE have characterization that elevate it from schlock pop garbage like this movie.



Bottom line: It's good for Brandy and Jenny Love, but not for anything else.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gui yao gui (1989)
Okay Sequel
22 May 2001
Not as good as Spooky Kind 1, it is nevertheless entertaining. The special effects were better from the first film but the choreography isn't. Sammo Hung does a good job with the fight scenes but the problem is there isn't enough of them. Scenes that would have looked better using humorous kung fu instead are wasted with drawn out sequences, such as the rotting corpses with the roaches. It's still a better film than most Hong Kong Fu films of the 90's, and worth a peek if you're a horror film fan.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the ten best kung fu flick!!!
22 May 2001
This influential film introduced the hopping vampires in kung fu films, called gyonsies. This was the first film to accurately depict chinese vampires (Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires was the first kung fu film to show vampires, but with European vamp influence.) Sammo Hung is funny in this film, but for a fat man, he is no joke. He can do stunts that would shame any fit athletic man. The kung fu choreography is spectacular and humorus. And the ending is one of the most satisfying ending any man can hope for when your wife not only cheats on you, but plots your murder. EOTSK helped pave the way for chinese horror films as we know them today, but this is easily the best as far as entertainment all over. 9 out of 10.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Starts with a bang...and ends with a thud.
16 May 2001
This series starts out promisingly. New adventures featuring Jazz, Optimus Prime, Ultra Magnus, Hot Rod, Galvatron and new transformers like Chromedome, Sixshot, and Fortress Maximus. Transformers live or die, some go away for good. Action packed and filled with funny dubbed dialogue by the infamous Hong Kong people who did the 70's Godzilla films and the early kung fu films of Shaw Brothers. Especially funny is Galvatron's voice, sounding like one of the more infamous kung fu villains in cinema history. Unfortunately, the Japanese show contempt for the old school American Transformers, killing them off or sending them away or keeping them in cameo or supporting roles, thus making space for the Head masters. The one old school transformer they chose to keep is Wheelie along with his human partner Daniel, thus emphasizing the Japanese' love of little boys. Fortress Maximus, who becomes the new Autobot leader is easily the worst Autobot leader ever, almost not even fighting when the Decepticons attack, and his final fight scene with Scorponok in the series is the worst contrived fight ever in a Japanese cartoon. The first 25 episodes are good. After that, it's all a failure from there.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Future War (1997 Video)
An Insult to Robert Z'Dar's talents
16 May 2001
Robert Z'Dar's hair was unavailable for comment due to its lack of participation in the film, but his cheeks and chin combine to form a tour de force performance as a cyborg master. The dinosaur puppets are insulting even to low budget dinosaurs like those of Roger Corman i CARNOSAUR. This movie is in the vain of the FINAL SACRIFICE and SOULTAKER as movies that make modern Mexican cinema look poignantly significant. Where are you, Z'Dar?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lily C.A.T. (1987 Video)
Exciting and enjoyable
16 May 2001
Okay, not an original film (plot easily taken from ALIEN.) But for anime, it's much better than most of the 90's garbage, without being too silly. Animation is good (think TRANSFORMERS THE MOVIE.) And the dubbed version would probably better to see than the Japanese version as the dubbed version uses different ethnic type voices to represent the different characters. Not perfect, but I would give it a 7 out of 10.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Funny Kung fu film
15 May 2001
This is an unintentionally funny martial arts flick, with Bruce Li as the incoming sheriff recruiting some of the town's vicious criminals and offering them a chance to spend most of their lives in prison or risk them fighting a band of thieves and being rewarded with their freedom after the job is done. The choreography is certainly not the best, though Bruce Li has some nice moments. Some of the scenes have to be seen to be believed (IE. the snake temple, the two thugs by the mountains.) Check out the main villain and don't tell me he doesn't look like Orson Welles' Charles Foster Kane (I think this may have been an official follow up to CITIZEN KANE, showing us Kane's times in Hong Kong when he was looking for enlightment.) Anyway, the dubbing job here, by Hong Kong voice actors, is so awful that is funny and can make a miserable rainy day fun. This movie is worth a look.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.