Reviews

38 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Short Review
14 May 2009
I remember I saw this film when I was right about age six in elementary school. It was on an old-school film projector that were very common at the time (16mm) in public schools in Southern California (at least then if not still in use or replaced entirely by VCR/DVD). It was a screening to get the opinion of kids on what they thought of the film. Although most kids in my particular class didn't like it because in urban areas in Southern California, "country" music was probably not popular at all (and probably still is this way), I remember I liked it because of its curiosity and focus on trains and their history, even though at the time I didn't know who the narrator and occasional folk singer in the film was (Johnny Cash). Of course, since then I have become a large fan, as many people throughout time and cultures who have been exposed to the music, both young and old, people in all sorts of walks of life and locations. Interestingly enough, I was one of the few kids who said I liked the film at the time, and I know that I have been the minority opinion on lots of things before that time and also since. Anyway, I just want to say that if you like Johnny Cash, trains, or folk/roots/country music you may also like this, whether as just a curiosity, or whether as a mainstay in your personal collection. Personally I think it is a good choice but remember I may be a minority opinion. Thanks for reading. 7/10
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (2005)
Monstrosities
29 November 2006
**Possible spoilers ahead** I still think Peter Jackson shouldn't have wasted his time with this, and instead have made more Middle Earth films like The Hobbit and The Silmarillion and such. There is the good, the bad, and just the plain fake parts of this film. The best examples of two different instances of irritable fakeness in this film is when all the extras are in the stage theatre with the big, worse-than-muppet Kong and Jack Black is talking. When you look at the long shots of King Kong that get all the extras, you see this big fake monkey that doesn't move. When they try to do a little better with the close-ups, it still just looks like a bad animatronics monstrosity (in a bad way, if that wasn't clear). Also, the thing about the lead chick falling in love with a big monkey to the extreme they went was just preposterous. I mean I have known some dumb girls (and some really smart ones, usually called "women"), but I don't think *anyone* is that dumb, retarded or sick to fall in love with a huge monkey in the regard they go to. It would be sick enough to do so with a human sized one. :O Anyway, there are some interesting and well done parts of this film, but it is entirely lopsided and way, way, way too long. The biggest question still remains: why did they have to redo King Kong (again), other that to just make grips of money for those involved to line their pockets with? Enough said. 6/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Version vs. Version
16 July 2006
I have to admit, the first and only six times I saw the original version of this film (not "Redux"), I fell asleep during the film. I was convinced that the original film was made catastrophically unwatchable by the muddled and misguided editing. Several of my friends were angry to the respect that I could actually fall asleep to the "best film ever", in their opinion. As a result, I was relieved when I found out that there was going to be a release of a new version to theatres, a "director's cut", if you will. I purposely waited until it was released on DVD to watch it, and turned the English subtitles on, and I was glad, because I remember lots of the dialog being lost in the original mix (as I think it is also in this as well), but I feel the subtitles help you get through it. You see, I am the kind of person who likes director's cuts, uncensored versions, restored with new footage films, and even letterbox versions, basically the best way a film is intended. There are some exceptions to the rules, like when different editing processes are used, such as "Star Wars: A New Hope", which I still think was a mistake that George Lucas didn't correct some of the very noticeable errors in digital vs. analog editing and prints (i.e. he really should have either re-filmed the original Jabba-the-Hut & Han Solo conversation, instead of a digital re-creation and insertion/replacement of an analog filming of someone different {Jabba}, or just kept the scene cut indefinitely), or when studios take control of films and try to make their own edit and commercial cuts, which is almost always monstrous, just as I've heard with Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". To summarize, it is possible for someone who has issues with this original film to like the "Redux" version, if it is for the reasons as I stated, because I feel that "Apocalypse Now Redux" actually is a better film than the original "Apocalypse Now". Yes, I am bold enough to say it. I am positive that this will offend people who think the original cut is the "best film ever", and I know it is even probable they won't like -this- version, but I don't care about that, just like I didn't rate this version 5-stars, or even think of it as the "best film ever". This film clearly travels the waters between pure evil and insane genius. This is the only version worth watching. 8/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amazing to me
14 April 2006
It is amazing to me that Netflix has this 2005 documentary film for rent but still won't get the original DEEP THROAT film from 1972 it is based upon! If even Amazon and Amazon Canada carry it sporadically, and it is a film that has made over $600 million so far like it says, you'd figure that enough people would want to see the original film from 1972 without having to buy it. That alone shows how relevant a film is, and the dissection of which that is done in this documentary, in which we as Americans, are STILL strangled with the idea/s that sex is bad, as a community. We want sex private and in our own homes and only to ourselves, but are very often afraid of what liberating ideas and movements can bring to ourselves and others and the community and nation as a whole (i.e. The "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) phenomenon). Of course there is always differences of opinion and movements and ideas, but does America really believe in the Freedom of Speech as much as it believes in the Freedom of Privacy? Or do we believe in either? I'm not necessarily saying that all ideas and movements are good all the time of course to their extreme, which is explored some in the film, if you check out the extras. These and many other ideas are brought forth and not necessarily answered in a consumerist nation that is not always happy with itself. Anyway, I figure the documentary is probably better than the original film, but at the time of the writing of this review, the original 1972 DEEP THROAT is still not a widely distributed film for RENTAL. Oh and by the way, I am neither Republican nor Democrat if that matters to the reader, even though it shouldn't, but that is another whole different/same story. :P 8/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Modern Tribalism (2002 Video)
Doc
15 January 2006
A decent documentary, one of the many to feature the Burning Man Festival in Black Rock City, Nevada. Every time I see one of these I want to go back to that event. It is also pretty cool when they burn the huge piñata in New Mexico (a different event). Also covered is the first "Re:search" book, and "advanced piercing", which can be a little hard to watch for some viewers. The only gripes I have are that I wish it were longer and more in depth. Also contains some shorts, which I couldn't really watch because the DVD was scratched up so much: "Technopagan", "Burning Man: In Pursuit of the Mystery", and "Matt's Hafada". 7/10 '
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Speaking Spanish"
15 December 2005
"Speaking Spanish". Apparently the producers of this film feel no one wants to know in English what it says in this film in Spanish. This is the extent of what you see when you get English Subtitles. That means you miss about 20% of the dialog if you do not speak fluent Spanish. This is obnoxious considering that included is full subtitling for both Spanish and French! So this makes a halfway decent film turn into an annoyance because of bigotry on the account of the producers. Shameful, especially considering that one of the themes of this film is supposedly overcoming racial bigotry, which makes the message cheapen, when it is shown that the studio really doesn't care about it in real life, just the money. Too bad. 4/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Atlantis (I) (1991)
Hydrolicious
9 January 2005
I just would like to say that this film is quite unique. It is really not a Documentary, per se; it is more like a Special Interest Music Video. To try and explain it to someone who has never seen it, I would say it is like a cross between Jacques Cousteau, Fantasia, & an Enigma CD. Keep in mind there is no dialog other than the introduction at the beginning of the film, so it doesn't matter what language you speak to enjoy this. Frankly, the footage speaks for itself. If you want someone telling you what you see with your own eyes, look elsewhere. But if you want something so lulling it could very easily put you in a state of comatose, this is it. Truly, I fell asleep for at least the first 5 times I saw it. This is not a bad thing, I realized, because it helps you unwind if you had an extremely harsh day. More art than movie, this is a film you might see playing at an exhibit in an art museum. But give it a chance. It has some of the most utterly fascinating underwater wildlife footage and cinematography, with an ambient soundtrack throughout that I think fits it perfectly. It is very possible that you will see things here that you will not see elsewhere. The clarity defies underwater footage, at least that I have seen. I really don't know how they got some of the shots they did. And there are underwater animals that you may have never seen before, as well as tons of fish. If aquatic nature were to produce a music video, it would look like this. So in short, this is a keeper, and one I'm sure to have in my collection. Hopefully you will give it a chance and not write it off because it isn't the Disney film of the same name. 10/10
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anatomy (2000)
Weak
13 December 2004
Though a German film, this film ranks up there with so many of the bad big-budget Hollywood films being produced these days. Plain and simple: there are no real payoffs you would expect if you are a serious film lover. If you like this kind of film, why bother with a site like this, being that film analysis is too high brow for you. Most crappy nickel and dime video rental stores (ie. Blockbuster or Hollywood Video) or your local 50 cineplex usually has most of their fare showing uneventful gurgitation like this to kids looking for a way to kill their evening full of uneventful boredom. If you've got to see Franka Potente in something worthwhile, stick with: Run Lola Run. 4/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watch the Original and Skip This Crap.
4 December 2004
How they could f*ck up such a classic movie like Dawn of the Dead (1978) is beyond me. Stick with the 1978 ORIGINAL, which is actually worth watching and an excellent movie. All of the cast is unsympathetic in this one except for the last guy to die. The chick that looks like Britney Spears should have died in the house, her acting is about enough to turn ANYONE into a zombie. The worst parts of this film is that they lost the funny element of the original, in fact, the only elements of the original in this one is zombies and a mall, everything else is changed and RUINED. The other worst thing they did was try to make this, what was an underground film, into an MTV video. So do yourself a favor and skip this crap and go with the George A. Romero ORIGINAL 1978 Version. You can't lose with that one. 4/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
May (2002)
Truly Sick, May-be Too Much!
1 December 2004
"If you can't find a friend, make one." If this movie isn't too creepy for you and doesn't totally sick you out, you should probably be locked up for the good of yourself and the community. Liking this film too much and identifying with the main character too freely may not be good at all for your mental and social health. That all being said, this film accomplishes what it sets out to do. I have to admit that I disliked it so much that it started going into the realm of liking it again. That alone is cause for alarm for me. Highly disturbing, and guaranteed to make you squirm and feel very uncomfortable (at least). Because mental breakdowns like this are more common than you think and have happened before (think Jeffrey Dahmer, for example). If you don't like gruesome things that are very disturbing, (and even more if you actually do), you may want to steer away from this film. Definitely underground. And hard to like, just like real-life horrors are. 7/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
About This Film
19 November 2004
This film is the story of a guy who works at a mortuary. He finds comfort in talking to the dead "customers" of his trade. Conversely, he has an unusually crippling fear of the living, and stays locked inside his house when not at work at the mortuary. Then, one day, a quirky beauty comes to work at the mortuary. Unusually, they strike it off and eventually become boyfriend and girlfriend. But the mortician soon falls back into his psychosis of the fear of the living and starts to drift connectively further away from his girlfriend until she gives up and quits the relationship and quits the job. What happens next is what makes the movie and makes this strange little film, much like a parable or a fable, work. I liked it. Hopefully it will someday soon be released on DVD by the director, Ron Berrett, who is also known for his musical talents, as he was one of the founding members of the band from Orange County that started as MJ12, then Majestic 12, and is now called Majestic. Interestingly, he is also cousin to the lead singer of the popular Huntington Beach (CA, USA) ska band, The Aquabats. 7/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Häxan (1922)
The Witches.. The Witches..
15 November 2004
What a strange and wonderful film. I didn't know whether to laugh or to be perplexed... is this an early mockumentary? It goes between sheer comedy and what would appear to be a serious documentary. Considering it was made in 1922 (archaic by today's standards), it is amazing how well they pull off the cinematography, special effects (!), scenery, props, costumes, makeup, etc. This was a landmark achievement for that time. Also, although I love William S. Burroughs, the original silent version is more pleasing to watch for me, mostly because of the classical music being more fitting to the film than the hipster's jazz as background music (which I'm sure was popular in the time of 1968). There is not enough time for William S. Burroughs to enunciate the written word in the recent dub because they took out the portions that have the text, which originally went by too fast to start with (my one major qualm with the original film: it is very hard to read some text displayed fast enough). Look for THE DEVIL making a cameo appearance throughout the film (heh), and it is always hilarious when he does so. 7/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loved vs. Hated It
2 November 2004
It seems people either love or hate this movie. Usually the reasons why they love vs. hate it are based on two things, and how they feel about those two things. The first is if they can appreciate a satire. The second is if they like or despise celebrities and their attitude of whether celebrities (or anyone) should tell us what to do and how to vote. A small other minor reason is usually if they are uptight or not and like foul language, crude humor, etc. A good example of this is whether they like films like "Dumb or Dumber" or not. But the main reasons for loving or hating this film usually resides in the first two reasons. I for one, like this movie, because its satire of all the cheesy stupid action/war films that are coming out these days from guys like Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay. Chances are, if you are a person that likes these crappy/sappy kinds of movies, you will not like this film, because you will not understand what is being satirized, because you actually consider those good movies. Lastly, people who think celebrities should tell us what to do, how to vote, and how to think, are just plain imbeciles, exactly what most celebrities think of all of us (for example, see anything that Barbra Streisand says to people when she is on TV... I've actually seen her patronizing TV viewers and telling them they always need to vote Democrat.. what a crock). I fear that most celebrities/politicians see fame/popularity as meaning they actually have wisdom, and that these are two interchangeable ideas. This is laughable at best, and I'm glad Trey Parker and Matt Stone had the balls to chin-check these delusional figures in our society. The decision to use puppets is even more of a statement, because it is like saying, "These guys are a joke, so the best way to represent them is to use puppets in such a conspicuous way" (i.e. showing their strings and dysfunction, as real puppets). Also to represent warmongers as "Team America: World Police" is hilarious, because it is something that the U.S. has always been accused of. So anyone who says this only makes fun of lefties is mistaken, because it is a satire poking fun at both sides. It basically perpetuates the U.S. Military in Iraq as nothing more than The A-Team, blowing everything up with no regard to whether or not what they are doing is helpful or harmful, which is what "Team America" is also notorious for. So actually this is very smart film-making. And the puppet sex scene is the funniest part of the film, but way too short in the theatrical release. I hope they release it in full on the DVD version. America takes itself too seriously; watch this film and laugh at yourself. 8/10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underground Review of this Film
26 October 2004
This film is absolutely no different than the film "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003)". I find that funny because that film claims in the title to be "The Whole Truth", which implies that it is complete. If it wasn't complete, why call it that? If it was complete, why make another film that not only rehashes the same stomping ground, but literally is the same film with the same cuts and dialog (with the addition only of 27 minutes)? At the very most, this should be called a director's cut of the original film, not an entirely different one. The other things that are laughable about this film is it is missing so much about the war in/on Iraq. Anyone who watches the History Channel on a regular basis knows that. There are so many OTHER documentaries made by them which are very good (this is not), and they could actually make the claim that they are "The Whole Truth" or even call themselves a film about the war in/on Iraq, as these make the spurious claim to do so. But, this is just another in a long line of "crockumentaries" made and distributed by the special interest group moveon.org, which is a group who's only intent is to remove George W. Bush from power, a puppet of the Democratic Party. Now that shines serious doubt on the quest for accuracy by the filmmakers. It would be the same if George W. Bush or The Republican party commissioned and distributed a film to be made about Iraq with a group of "experts" they hand picked that they knew would spout off whatever they deemed appropriate for the advancement of their cause, and sold and promoted it under the guise that it is a documentary with the final word on Iraq. This would be especially fishy if it was produced and distributed right before election time so as to try to have a direct effect on the upcoming 2004 election, which these two films are trying to have. If that were to happen, people would call it propaganda, which it would be. This film also clearly is, and anyone trying to dodge that issue is blinding themselves. Like I said, if you want to see a real film about Iraq, watch the History Channel, not propaganda. As for me, I equally despise the Republican and Democrat Parties, so don't go pointing your finger at me--I am probably the least politically biased of all the reviewers of this film as a result. 5/10
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underground Review of this Film
22 October 2004
Every ill and sin this "documentary" attacks the Fox network about it is also guilty of, on the left side of the spectrum, while attacking the right.

The credibility of this film is even more jeopardized by being made by moveon.org which is the largest group right now trying to out Bush and replace him with Kerry. The funny thing is that every attack they make on Fox, and conservatism as a whole, they pretend they are not guilty of, yet every issue they bring up they also break the so-called rules they are making. These include but are not limited to: blatant attacks, no accuracy in reporting, no balance of opinion, propaganda, political sloganeering, no fairness in reporting, slanted point of view, slick production over facts, backing of political party, etc. etc. etc. I am sick of hypocrites on both the left and the right acting like their point of view is the only one that matters and that everyone else is stupid if they don't agree with them or "get it". This so-called documentary is a joke because it totally ignores the faults of so-called liberal media, which use the same tactics as Fox does, but propagate a liberal or Democrat agenda. All media is suspect here, not just Fox. I mean give me a break, I am sick of being pandered to by both extremist sides of the political spectrum (right = left = crazy). I don't know if the day will ever come that people will be fed up enough to do anything about it, but I for one am sick of having both left and right propaganda shoved down my throat by media outlets and special interest groups. So, I think I'll just keep voting 3rd parties until the end of time. 4/10
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underground Review of this Film
21 October 2004
I just want to say a couple of things and then I will shut up. Watching this film convinced me specifically of only a few things. And one of those things is that the Political Institutions of the Republican and Democratic Parties are totally corrupt and insane. Furthermore, it is my belief, especially after watching this film, you would have to literally be crazy to vote either Democratic or Republican, because this film made it clear that either party was only concerned about doing what they needed to win the 2000 election, or any election for that matter--NOT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE COUNTRY. I could go into detail about this, but feel it would be beating a dead horse. This is why I feel all Americans should always vote for 3rd parties and go out of their way NOT to vote Democrat OR Republican. Finally, I have been convinced that Democrats or Republicans have no business counting any votes because it is a conflict of interest on both sides for any election. Members of 3rd parties should be the only ones running election boards, & etc. because it has become obvious they are the only ones that could be trusted to be impartial if anyone at all. Lastly, completely automated (computer) voting machines are not to be trusted, as they come down to the persons who program and/or work on them. As someone who is highly knowledgeable of computers and their flaws, I have to tell you that there is no computer that cannot be hacked, no network that cannot be compromised. If you think that there is any chance an election can be fixed, computer voting centers should scare the pants off you, and automated (computer) voting should be visciously avoided and voted against by everyone who values the value of their vote. RATING: 8/10. By the way, I think having Danny Glover at the bookends of this film discredits it for anyone who has followed his political activism/extremism. I think that people on both sides of the fence, and those sitting on it, should watch films like these and Danny Glover alienates many potential watchers of this film. That's all from me for now.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Films that make you go hmmmmmm.....
6 August 2004
This is probably one of the most bizarre films I have seen in recent years. It is very hard to describe in small words and is probably one of the most horrific, disturbing, surreal, unique, dark, vivid, and for some, enjoyable, films out there. Truly, this film is not for all. It is WAY too dark too be considered a children's film, yet it is the kind of lucid ideas that would flow from the brains of children who have night terrors at night. Kind of like what you would get if you did a direct brain-feed out of someone's mind who was both comatose and psychotic. The only comparisons I can even think that have a shred of likeness would be a mix between the films Dark City, and Time Bandits. This film is definitely warped genius, and definitely not for most people out there, as it could be and I'm sure is, too disturbing for any semblance of mainstream audiences. With the two main characters being a strongman who is a cross between Lyle Lovett and Arnold Schwarzenegger and a little girl who looks like a midget Donna Reed, as well as a veritable cast of kids and freakshows, it is sure to appease the appetite and wet dreams of every fan of musicians like Marilyn Manson, Oingo Boingo, Jack Off Jill, Twiztid, Ministry, Skinny Puppy, etc., as well as anyone who likes the dark dark arts and has a very very twisted sense of humor and taste. To put it shortly, I liked it. Will you? Hmmmmmm......
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Exposure
9 July 2004
I hope to add some enlightenment and humor to my review for you that other reviewers have not, to make your decision-making more informed or your after-movie votes fair. I would like to say that a dead donkey di-ock may be shocking, intriguing, and interesting for some people to look at for an hour and a half, but most people do not find this entertainment. In defense of the great cult film directors John Waters, Oliver Stone, Quentin Tarantino, Tim Burton, and David Lynch that other reviewers has mentioned or alluded to, this is not fair to the aforementioned directors. They could crap out a better film while on a cocktail of illicit drugs and junkfood than this "flim" could wish to be on a good day. So please, resist your urge, and do not profane these film-makers with comparison to this dog-vomit on celluloid.

Whoever funded this film, I want to talk to them about funding the film for the camera in the bottom of my toilet (heh). I bet I'd get a higher rating. Next, I'd like to say that if you are into the worst films on the planet, this one comes nowhere close to The Underground Comedy Movie, Mac & Me, or Jack Frost (the one with Michael Keaton). Also, I consider Faces of Death to be on that list, but if you like shock for shock's sake and want to feel like you want to puke from real-life horror, then this film is not hardcore enough for you, try that one. This film is a travesty not for the many aforementioned reasons, but for the fact that it once again defaces "Generation X" as a monster it isn't (I should know, I'm part of that so-called generation). It reminds me of all the "afraid of the youth" films that were made in the 60's. Too many great bands are wasted in promotion of this film, and that is travesty number 2 (Nine Inch Nails, Medicine, Ministry, Skinny Puppy, This Mortal Coil, The Smiths, Curve, Love & Rockets, Cocteau Twins, Wolfgang Press, Meat Beat Manifesto, Jesus & Mary Chain, MC 900 Ft. Jesus, Lush, Babyland . . . and many more).

The third travesty is that it is bound to be compared against the visionaries in the field of film actually making great film, as mentioned earlier. This includes people admitting they "get" it, whether they call it "camp", "farce", "dark", "underground", "alternative", "shock", "experimental", "exploitation", "avante-garde", "film-noir", "anti-hero", "gothic", et. al. That is the real joke being played on those who try to convince everyone else it is redeemable by using these film styles to say the film doesn't suck. But suck nonetheless it does. You can't avoid that fact unless you are without personality. I like all of the above mentioned styles of film and more, but this film is SERIOUSLY lacking in the direction, script, storyline, acting, dialogue, and other major factors, all which would make a good film. You cannot be at a loss of so many important film characteristics and have a good film. Thus, although it has been said before, this is truly an exercise of style over substance, apparently in the desperation to do the above mentioned con of the public into thinking it is great, or just selling soundtrack albums.

If you want style AND substance in the vein this movie tries to be in, may I recommend the following films: The Crow, Natural Born Killers, Lost Highway, The Addams Family, Beetlejuice. This film is sadly, like none of these and is most like the film Baise-Moi in its substance. So if you nonetheless like this film you will probably like that one. So all in all, if you have to watch this movie I would conclude it is best with the sound turned off (no kidding) and your favorite period music from any of the above bands or soundtrack movies that I mentioned as good. And as mentioned before, it is nice to see Rose McGowan naked again and again, and not mentioned before, the other scene that is worth watching is the brief yo-yo scene. If you watch it, you'll know what I mean. The only thing really shocking about the film is how bad (read:awful) it is and such a waste of talent and resources involved.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prejudice
25 June 2004
The girls in this film have so much contempt for other cultures and peoples of other countries that it doesn't seem like such a bad thing when they get arrested for an unrelated reason. Sure, the cops are crooked that framed them, but what is more damaging, the idea that cops are crooked, or the idea that every one who is not an American is second rate and second class citizens of this world? It was hard to find sympathy for any of the main characters, as they all seemed to have this type of prejudice inbred into them. The fact that this movie was made in the first place shows that there is still a ton of prejudice in this country towards peoples of other nations and that the general populace holds true to. It is sort of the "afraid of the youth" movies they were making in the 50's and 60's, except this is xenophobia. And what's with the cheesy Adult-Alternative New Age chick songs every five minutes thrown in to swell the scenes? Talk about style over substance. It's like watching a really LONG episode of Dawson's Creek or something. I think they were more concerned with selling a ton of the soundtrack albums than anything else. This film would have had more redeeming qualities if it were based on a true story. But, as it stands, it is more like watching a TV show than anything really compelling or of immediate substance.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An experiment in cinema
2 April 2004
This was the first and last of a major motion picture that was interactive with the audience. A kind of Choose-Your-Own-Adventure film if you will. It took lots of bad rap and because of that killed the potential market for these types of films that are interactive with the audience. Too bad. Half of the fun was everyone shouting at the screen how to vote when it came up, and using joystick fingers to machine-gun press the buttons to vote for your choice. It only gave you a couple of seconds to vote for your favorites, and it would tally the votes in real time on the screen. The theatres playing it (I saw it Burbank, California at a pretty swanky cinema) were outfitted with special laserdisc projectors, thus the picture and sound quality were very high. The voting buttons were built into the armrest. About the film: it was a pretty decent light comedy about a guy who would get payback for misdeeds of others in unique ways. Being able to control the movie kept the audience interested, and they even let us see it again after it was done because there are two initial scenarios to choose from. I wonder if it is still possible to get the original laserdiscs these were on and use them on your laserdisc player? Because laserdiscs were built interactive like that. They could also release it on CD-I which is the equivalent (originally introduced by Phillips) and that format would play on your DVD player. I don't know. But they did the same sort of thing back in the day with the arcade game Dragon's Lair.. it was also on a laserdisc and it was also interactive, yet it was considered a video game and was a cartoon. Nevertheless, this was interesting stuff and I hope they resurrect the format one of these days...
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sex and Drugs and Baseball
30 March 2004
Contemplatively, this film is about three things: (Drug) Addiction, Baseball, and Religion.... the interesting thing about the film though is showing the similarity of all three of these, being an extension of the human brain for our passions, whether good, or in many cases, "bad". I am surprised that this film has not been compared to Taxi Driver, because it has many similarities. Truly, I think this could be Harvey Keitel's best performance; it definitely shows him at his most tough and and the same time, most vulnerable. And don't let the NC-17 rating scare you away... I've seen many rated R films with more of anything or everything "bad" in this film. I think the reason why this film got that rating is because it doesn't apologize for its content and lets the viewer decide for themselves. Really a great film. 9/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why Does Everyone Hate This Movie?
5 November 2003
It was surprising to me to see that 1/3 of the people who had voted for this movie gave it a 1! I thought this was one of the best Westerns to come out of Hollywood for a LONG time. The story and acting is superb, and so is the cinematography. These three things are what make a great movie. You could argue the forth being controversy/making you think, but it is not absolutely necessary. This is a great film. So don't listen to the others because they have no sense of taste. If you like Westerns and Independent films, check this one out. It is obviously an overlooked gem.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great but Too Short
5 November 2003
This is a Great Film, but its pacing is wrong. I know the main reason for that is they never released the director's cut. I know that would add a couple of extra hours on the film, but this film deserves the extra footage, and with it cut out, the film suffers from pacing mismatch. Believe it or not, it feels way too rushed for the experience it is meant to invoke. To anyone who can read this that can do something about it, please release the director's cut and ditch the original final cut. The difference can be compared to that of Bladerunner or other great films after the director's cut was released that was much better than the original final cut.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Johnny Lingo (1969)
Worth a Watch
16 June 2003
This movie was made and distributed by the Mormon Church. But, unlike most films that fall into the above category, this movie is not about religion, missionary work, joining any church, etc. and so forth. This short film could have quite possibly been made by anyone. That is what makes it so good. It is a story about a trader coming to one of the small islands of the world to get himself a wife. The island is so small, there is only room enough for one village. There are none of the modern conveniences of the rest of the world, and everything is either built by the villagers or acquired by traders who visit the island by boat and trade for their handmade goods. In this village, it is custom to bargain and pay the father of the bride in dairy cows. This may sound like a serious film, but it really is rather quite funny and has some real classic lines to it that I'm sure will endear you to the film. The story is simple yet original and the flow and pacing for the film is perfect. If you can pick it up, it would be worth the effort.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny, but Lop-sided
11 June 2003
The thing that makes this movie funny is the dead-on portrayal of the "Molly" Mormons of the world, especially in Singles Wards across the country. There are many laughs here if you have any family who are Mormon, or know anything about the social quirks of this religion. What is not very accurately portrayed, though, is the "Jack" Mormons, which are much more light on the subject than accurately witnessed by anyone living in Utah or a town that is predominately Mormon anywhere else. This is the films major flaw: the idea that "Jack" Mormons will eventually come around to the fold and fit into the round hole when they were once a square peg. This is the naive viewpoint of most Mormons: the whole of being right, even if it desperately feels and squawks of wrongness. I am sure that this movie would be different if made by a real "Jack" Mormon or ex-Mormon, with similarity to films such as SLC Punk and Orgazmo. I just would like to see something a little more objective, and a lot less preachy. Is that too much to ask from an obviously Mormon director and cast?
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed