The Evil Dead

This movie is as dumb as they come. A group of stupid kids decide to spendthe night in some strange haunted house and experience the frighteningconsequences. Now does that sound like a good movie? Well, I’m not one foridiotic actors, so I’m going to have to not recommend this film. The effectswere cartoonish and comical making the movie lose all credibility. Theacting was horrid, the direction was worse, and the story was just plainstupid.

Wow. that movie was so bad it was almost worth it to watch to see how tonotmake a movie. I strongly suggest just about any other horror movie over it.The acting was terrible, and it was one of the most predictible movies ihave ever seen. Nothing is really scary when you know whats going to happenbefore it does. And the problems havent even begun to start. I am wellawarethat a movie does not need great special effects to be a quality film, butwhen the special effects actually take away from the movie its anotherstory. If you do decide to get it, make sure you look at the scenes when itshows the cabin and the moon in the background….i have never in my lifeseen such a poor editing job. Well i guess the movie is good for a laugh,cause thats all i did while watching it. If you could think of the typicalunoriginal stereotype 70’s B horror movie, this would be it. Watch at yourown risk

I hate to disagree with Stephen King but I really, really, really dislikedthis movie. My Sister, her boyfriend & I saw this movie only a week ago onour vacation & we were so disappointed. In fact half way through we endedup fast forwarding the rest of the movie till the end, & that was onlybecause I insisted (I hate not finishing a movie). I really don’t think wemissed anything. They had to have shown the same background outside thecabin 10 times or more, the special effects were so fake & very over done.On the scale of 1-10 I give this movie a 0. I would never watch it again,&neither would my Sister or her boyfriend.

THE EVIL DEAD

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

Whilst on vacation at an isolated backwoods cabin, five students areterrorized by ancient spirits which possess and kill them, one by one.

Clearly the work of talented filmmakers going places, this OTTgore-fest is alternately loud, excessive, stylish and disgusting, inroughly equal amounts. Debut director Sam Raimi throws everything intothe mix, perhaps to atone for a flimsy plot and stock characters(well-played by an excellent cast, includingcult-performer-in-the-making Bruce Campbell), and while much of it istongue-in-cheek, some scenes leapfrog the taste barrier withunconscionable glee (Raimi has since admitted the 'tree rape' sequencewas a mistake, for example). Sadly, the movie is rendered monotonous byits excessive pace and comic insouciance (the sequels - beginning withEVIL DEAD II - went even further in this direction), and the moviequickly succumbs to the laws of diminishing returns; once you've seenone drooling demon getting its head cut off, you've seen 'em all!Fantastic low budget production values, however, and the makeup effectsare dandy.

NB. Caught up in the UK's 'video nasties' hysteria, the movie was cutand banned and generally unseen in that country until 2002, when it wasfinally passed uncut by the British censor. The complete version firstaired on UK TV in 2005.

Let me begin by saying that I am slightly disappointed with Evil Dead,considering the hype it's gotten over the years, and I did expect muchmore after a promising first half. The beginning has some very creepyatmosphere with the decrepit cabin in the dreary woods, and a sense ofdread in the air as 5 college kids decide to take an ill-fatedvacation. Inside the cabin worked well with me, especially the darkbasement where a book of demons and a cassette recorder is found; therecorder contains an eerie documentary type recording of a man whostudied ancient buriel grounds, and how to deal with demons if theyarise from the ground. The tree rape scene with Cheryl and herpossession scene were done quite well and was very effective, and quitecreepy. Unfortunately, this is where a potentially great horror filmtook a backwards step with this reviewer.

Almost the very next moment after Cheryl becomes a demon, she sticks apencil in her friends foot, and that demonizes her; suffice to say,that was also disappointing. Ash has been bitten, scratched, clawed andhas demon's blood spilled all over him, yet he comes away practicallyunscathed. Maybe if a pencil was stuck in his foot? Anyway, whatstarted out as an atmospheric and suspenseful yarn became nothing butoverdone gore and blood during most of the 2nd half of the Evil Dead.

I give credit to the somewhat surprising conclusion, which was withoutgore and appreciated by this reviewer. Considering this film was madeon a very low budget, it was still well done, save for the excessiveblood and gore, which I didn't feel was needed.

The Evil Dead is regarded as one of the great cult horror films made in thelate 1970s and early 1980s. Made for approximately $300,000 as an expansion(of sorts) to a student film made by Raimi entitled "Within the Woods,"thisfilm relies (after the initial twenty minutes) entirely too much upon shocktactics and stage blood to propel events onward, although since this issortof what Raimi and company intended to do, it’s not really a fault of thefilm itself. In any event, the first twenty minutes or so are brilliantlyshot, well-made, and hint at all sorts of subtle terrors awaiting theaudience amidst the imminent buckets of blood. However, after the visceralevil begins, there is a sharp decline. A few scenes come across asremarkably tasteless, and I won’t go into them here. However, one does notreview solely based upon the negatives, and there are a few great momentswithin. As I have stated earlier, the beginning is brilliant. The camerawork is spectacular (as it is throughout the film), and between that andtheperformances we are drawn into the events of the film. We are the collegestudents, and we are there in this quietly sinister cabin in the woods.After the beginning, things turn a little too splatter with too littlesubstance to sustain or warrant the blood-drenched "horrors." One shot fromthis film will stick with me for a long time, though: the camera looks downfrom the cabin’s roof to see two characters talking between the shiningheadlights of an Oldsmobile. This is a powerful scene, at once shudderingwith latent horror and revealing just how talented Raimi is at thesurrealistic, subtle side of horror. Too bad he didn’t reveal more of thathere.

Pathetic low-budget horror from a very young Sam Raimi is nothing but agross-out cinematic (if you can it that) experience. Bruce Campbell and fourother equally dim-witted people go to a cabin in the middle of nowhere andrelease an unspeakable evil that will not stop until they are all dead.Every horror film ever made before "The Evil Dead" seems to have a littleair time in this enormous yawn. The shoe-string budget was used on visuallyugly special makeup effects that only lessen the value on an already uselessflick. Like the equally worthless "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The EvilDead" is a would-be-shocker that ends up being more stupid than anythingelse. If you want to see a good low-budget horror flick check out "Night ofthe Living Dead" (the 1968 version) or "The Blair Witch Project" instead.Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

At the risk of spoiling this movie for you, I'm going to give away thewhole plot: A group of extremely bad actors decides to go stay in acabin in the middle of nowhere. Guess what's going to happen to them?Well, I'll tell you. They find a tape that conjures up some demonswhose main purpose is to turn all the girls into squealing, cac
klingfreaks that puke and spit all over the place a-la The Exorcist. The twomale characters eventually realize that women only act this way whenpossessed by Evil Incarnate, so they are left with no choice but tobeat the living crap out them.

The first girl gets raped by a tree. Naturally, she is totally freakedout by this, but when she reveals the event to her friends, they findit ignorable ("but trees don't attack people!") and rather than showany concern, they proceed to play a game. Yet in mid-game, they areconfronted by the same girl turned demon, skin turned green and talkingin demon-speak, which barely gets a rise out of them ("do you thinkshe's OK?").

What follows is a non-stop violence fest as more of the girls turn intodemons and get beaten with sticks, axes, etc. by the two male kids, infierce competition for the award for worst actor.

This movie will scare the hell out of you if you are under the age of12.

THE EVIL DEAD IS THE SCARIEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. BUT THE EFFECTS ARETERRIBLE. IT SHOULD BE REMADE SO THAT PEOPLE WILL SCREAM INSTEAD OF LAUGH ATIT. I’M NOT SAYING TO JUST SELL-OUT. I’M SAYING BETTER EFFECTS WOULD MAKEIT A LOT BETTER OR EVEN SCARIER. BY THE WAY, WAS I THE ONLY ONE WHO THOUGHPARTS TWO AND THREE STUNK?

I remember when i first saw The Evil Dead 20 years ago in a bar in Spain andi remember the excitement i felt when i watched the film.It was like nothingi had ever seen before and was talked about by all my fellow teenage mates.In a funny sort of way i wished i looked at films now as i did then but theni wasn’t interested in how bad the acting was or how appalling the directionwas and all i was concerned about was the blood and gore.

Having watched the film again i can really see how dreadfull some aspects ofthe film are.Having said that this film is still creepy and atmospheric buthas dated incredibly badly. Bruce Campbell’s performance as the leading manis so bad it borders on funny and must be one of the worst actingperformances i have ever seen. This film really smacks of a low budget moviebut because of my teenage memories of siting in a bar in Benidorm beingscared out of my wits this film will always hold some goodmemories.5 out of 10.

read comments (0)

The Entity

Ah so, it’s time for a remake. This time the other way around with theJapanese director of THE GRUDGE and RING remaking this 1981 Americangroping ghost story. I wish I got a feeling you’re foo-ling. I read onthe 2006 listing that the synopsis in ‘2005-speak’ for this newsensitive century states: "a woman is repeatedly raped by a ghost".Charming. Last century it would have politely read: "a woman ismolested by an invisible entity". With today’s tabloid bludgeoning ofaudiences and trough-like multiplex destination, and with NCIS teleimagery, I guess it is inevitable that THE ENTITY becomes ’spook rapeschick’. Whilst I know it never was Casper bonking Betty Boop while KoKowas out of the inkwell, the 1981 feature has some very creepy scenesand a rather un nerving (true) storyline. However, it is too long at125 mins and needed the Roger Corman School of 88 minute Editstreatment. The new version? I CAN wait. But somehow, I have more than acreepy feeling under my own pajamas that I have been goosed by morethan a few remakes before.

The Movie the Entity is about a woman who really went through thisstuff and is now in Texas…

She had really obtained bruises, fractured bones, and more…. Thiswoman was really raped buy an Entity of paranormal substance that isstill unstoppable….All you can do is give in and the torture soonwill weaken even though it will not stop. The more you fight and themore you show fear the Entity Grows…

As I said the reason it is scarier than any horror flick in the Worldis because it's real….

But another comes close to this it's called the Exorcist and theExorcism of Emily Rose both are real true stories as well…

The difference is one The Entity can't be stopped…

With Exorcism it is a proved method that works but two things canhappen One if you are not pure and you try to cast a deamon out thedeamon can jump into you….

Two if God is allowing this to continue for a reason then Even Godwon;t answer your authority over Deamons and the deamons will continueuntil point of killing an innocent girl or boy….

Learn the facts before facing anything….If you don't know somethingthen don't face it either entity or exorcism…They are very realthings and these movies were not written to make you against a pastoror priest or doctor…They were written to make you realize What reallyhappens in every day life of one who runs into this situation….

God is real…Satan known as Lucifer is Real…Heaven is a very realplace and so is hell…Deamons are Lucifer's angels…Angles are God'swarriors with wings….

If you don't believe any of this then well pray you aren't forced towittness to the very point of going to hell because you didn't believein Jesus Christ the only real savior that can save you from Hell andthe dark forces within…

God would love nothing more than to save all His creation but He isloving enough to let you chose life or death….

In the end when it really counts what will you have chosen on earththat will decide where your spirit goes when your physical body dies…

By the way if you are into Buddhism and come back as insect..Pray youaren't killed as an insect because at that point there is no comingback or life…

When I saw The Entity a quarter century ago, I was a whole lot youngerand dumber. Barbara Hershey's character shows up again and again invarious stages of undress, but that's just about all I remembered fromthe movie–Hershey naked.

I taped The Entity off the Fox Movie Channel a month ago and sat downto see if there was anything more to this fairly ham-handedpoltergeister than Hershey being pummeled by a supernatural rapist.

One thing.

Hershey shows herself (sorry) for the quality actress she is by turningin a very good, very sympathetic performance. As a 48 year old, I haveenough life experience to see beyond prurience and appreciate thetremendous pressures put on the shoulders of a single mom of three,working and going to school, and experiencing (in real life, not thesupernatural nonsense of the movie) an explosively dangerous mentaldisability. I discounted the poltergeist, even though it was a horrormovie, and paid attention to the terrible fear that Hershey's charactermust be experiencing.

But you're wondering how someone can watch a movie about a ghostlyrapist and simply not pay attention to the spook. I can't. The Entityis a movie about an evil entity that targets an emotionally scarredwoman. It degenerates into a "skin-flick," then a hokey blow-outmonster movie, but there is an emotionally satisfying core that holdson for much of the movie, and that's why The Entity worked for me–andchanged my over-riding memory of it–in 2007.

This is a rather different take on the ghost story. Supposedly based on atrue story, this one though is highly unbelievable. Not only that, butthere isn’t really all that much too it. A woman is stalked by a force thatseemingly assaults her. That is about all there is to it. A guy tries tohelp her out with different approaches, the most unique being trying tofreeze the ghost in a mock room at a university. Could have been better ifthey would have added a bit more scares and such, but other than beating upthe gal, this entity doesn’t do all that much. Which makes me think thereal life woman simply had an abusive boyfriend or husband and this was thestory they came up with to explain the wounds. At least it was an originalidea, eh?

This was a film I caught sight of at a video store in the year 1999.That was when I was 12. Fortunately, I wasn’t allowed to watch it dueit’s age restriction: 2-21. And in the following year, I got away withit, but I didn’t really get it. And this when I watched it, Iunderstood it due to it being a recorded event and a study onparapsychology.

It was the most extraordinary case in the history of Parapsychologywhich took place in Los Angeles, California in October 1976. Late oneevening, a woman named Carla Moran (Barbara Hershey) just returned homefrom work and she was brushing her hair. And then, she got hit, pushedonto her bed and she got raped by a paranormal force. And then, itvanished when Carla’s son, Billy (David Labiosa) and her two daughtersKim (Melanie Gaffin) and Julie (Natasha Ryan) entered the room . Carlatold Billy to check the house, but there was nobody suspicious around.

And when Carla was reading in bed. Her bedside table shook a few times!She then felt cold as she breathed out water vapor. And the room beganto shake! Things began to fall down and break! And Carla took off inher car with her kids. Carla and her kids slept over with some friendsCindy Nash (Margeret Blye) and George Nash (Michael Alldredge).And onthe following day, Carla didn’t want to tell Cindy what happened untilCindy persuaded. And then, Carla told Cindy her story.

Afterwards, the family returned home from a day at the beach. Carlachecked out her home. And suddenly, Cindy came to sleep over . Then,late at night; Carla’s dressing table lamp began to glow brightly asthe wind outside howled and then, it faded away.

Next morning, when Carla was on her way to work. The car accelerated byitself and it drove through the traffic with Carla trying to make hercar stop. And when she crashed, it stopped. After that, Carla went tosee Dr.Phil Sneiderman (Ron Silver) and Carla told him about herworries.

It was the evening, and Carla was relaxing in the bath. Suddenly, sheheard the bathroom door close and it locked by itself. And then, shewas pushed against a mirror and then into her shower curtain. She gotraped again and she fell and she passed out on the floor. And the nextday, Carla showed the bruises she had to Sneiderman. And whenSneiderman dropped Carla back at her house, she told him that there wassomething in her house. And while the family was having desert, Carlaw
as pushed onto her sofa and she was being suffocated in front of herkids!!!! And when Billy tried to help her, visible little lightningbolts went into him, he broke his wrist and he fell onto the livingroom’s floor.

At 3:20 a.m. , Carla slept with her robe open and the entity began tofeel her breasts as she groaned. And when she woke up, she shatteredevery mirror in her bedroom! And at Cindy’s place, when Carla was leftthere all by herself. The glass-windowed doors shattered as they flewopen and this was what happened to the windows too. The lights sparkedand the place was trashed from top to bottom! And this was the timethat Cindy believed Carla that the entity was real whereas Georgethought Carla tore the place apart.

Later, Carla invited these two guys to her house from a book store whowere interested in finding entities. Carla showed them where everythinghappened and the place began to shake and it stank! In the evening inCarla’s bedroom, blue sparks went everywhere. The guys took shots ofthem. And the next day, most of Carla’s belongings were removed fromher home and her kids went to go stay with one of Carla’s friends. Andthat night, Carla was in her room with the psychiatrists from theuniversity waiting for entity to show itself. And then, green sparkswent everywhere and the old woman asked the entity to show itself andit appeared as bright glowing green dust for a moment and it vanished.

And later that evening, when Carla’s boyfriend Jerry Anderson (AlexRocco) come out from the bathroom and he saw Carla being attacked bythe entity and he was pushed away. Jerry then grabbed a chair and hehit the entity with it and then Billy came in and attacked Jerry.

On the following day, she was moved into a setup of her home withcameras and a protected area. The house had no ceilings but tanks ofliquid Helium. The Psychiatrists wanted to isolate and immobilize theentity. And later in the evening, a wind strangely occurred. The entityhad arrived. The alarm went off and liquid Helium was being sprayedeverywhere. And when Carla moved into the protected area, the liquidHelium caused the glass to crack and shatter. The tubes of liquidHelium blew up when Carla told the entity that it could not have her.And finally, the entity was captured in a giant iceberg. It suddenlybegan to fall apart and then it blew to smithereens. The entityescaped!

Coming to the end of the film, Carla visited her previous house. It wasvacant. Ans as she wondered the house, the front door closed and Carlaheard: "Welcome home, Carla!" Carla slowly approached the door and whenshe opened it, she was her family outside. And she and her kids gotinto her car and they drove off.

The real Carla Moran is still living today in Texas with her children.And what freaks me out is, the attacks through decreased in bothfrequency and intensity continue.

Based on a true story(?), Barbara Hershey plays a single mother who isconstantly raped by an invisible being. The thing even terrorizes her inher car. At first psychologists think that it’s nothing but nerves untilthey trap and freeze the unseen rapist. Hershey turns in a goodperformance, but weak plot and second rate special effects weigh it down. "Poltergeist" has more chills and suspense. My evaluation: ** out of****.

"The Entity" is supposedly based on a true story of a woman who wasattackednumerous times by some unseen spirit. After being raped by the unseenspirit, Barbara Hershey seeks help from psychiatrist Ron Silver. He doesnot know what to make of the situation and eventually Hershey seeks helpelsewhere from so-called paranormal experts. A very silly film that isrude, disgusting, and ultimately terrible. The direction is all over theplace and the screenplay lacks conviction and style. Avoid this one ifyouknow what is good for you. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

This is really a bit of a ‘non-event’ movie, adapted from a book that wasalso something of a ‘non event’. There is nothing to distinguish this filmfrom thousands of other low budget ’shockers’. Some people may try to kidyou that this is special because it focuses on the psychological aspect, butdon’t believe a word of it - "The Exorcist" explored similar territory muchmore deftly 8 years earlier. The performances are all earnest but neverinteresting, and some of the characters are downright irritating (thepsychologist)

The film takes an inordinately long time to get where it’s going, andthen when it does finally get there most people will be left unmoved. Anumber of people are under the absurd mis-apprehension that because there islittle gore it somehow makes it a superior film to the "I Know what YouDid’s/"Urban Legends" of today. The actual truth is that it’s just as bad -if not worse - and definitely more pretentious.

Techinically inept film (supposedly based on a true story) about BarbaraHershey falling victim to an invisible demon that rapes and molestes her.Ron Silver is brought in to investigate what is going and to cast out thedemon. Overlong film with a poor music score that is used to horribleeffectin the movie. Not even a good cast and some rather realistic effects can’tstop this from being funny when it is not supposed to be.

Rated R; Nudity, Violence, Rape, and Profanity.

Yes thats right there something i don’t like and that is the dumb doctor whoi find him making it much worse for the woman then the rapist ghost do youpeople think so?????Like i do with Amityville Horror or The Haunted have few drinks have ahorror night but somehow i find this little boring then the others hauntedhouse films just everytime i watch this film seem to lose intrest init.I do feel very sorry for the woman and the family what they been though mustbeen like hell and i just wonder something the woman who is being rape saidto the doctor that billy father died before he was born in a motorcycleaccedent just wonder if thats the ghost who been doing all the raping??? exboyfriend?? makes you wondergive this film 5/5

read comments (0)

Taps

[CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS!!!! CADET-MAJOR THAT IS!]

Another successful year at Bunker Hill Military Academy has come to anend. Bunker Hill is the finest full-fledged military school in thenation. Many fine men have come and many have graduated with all theprinciples and honor a true soldier should have. For they were underthe guidance of one man, General Harlan Bache. The general had beenwith Bunker Hill a good many years and knew all there was to know aboutwar strategy and honor. He would tell his cadets many stories aboutthis. Well, many cadets were looking forward to next year, particularlyCadet Brian Moreland was most excited of all. And why shouldn’t he be?For at dinner that night, General Bache promoted him to Cadet-Major.His friends Cadets Alex Dwyer, David Shawn, J.C. Pierce, Billy Harris,Edward West and others really looked up to him from then on. It lookedlike there was going to be another great year ahead of them, but onefateful day, General Bache informed his troops that after 141 years offaithful service, Bunker Hill Academy was going to be shut down,totally demolished and made way for housing developments. The cadetswere shocked. The general did not want to give up his life’s work formere condominium. He wasn’t going to allow this to happen. Cadet-MajorMoreland decided whatever the general was going to do, he was in on ittoo. That night was the Cadet-Senior prom, which turned out to be areal tragedy. Nobody was stood up or anything, but in the parking lot agroup of hoodlum drunken teens began taunting the cadets. Finally, whenJ.C. and Moreland lost patience and the other cadets joined them, ahuge scuffle began. General Bache came out to break it up when a teenjumped the general and reached for his gun. When General Bache grabbedit back, the gun accidentally went off and killed one of the teens!After that, the general was devastated for he felt that was his fault.Not only that, but he suffered a heart attack and was rushed to thehospital.

With the school under no leadership, plans to evacuate and demolish theschool had moved from a year to the next month or so. The cadets werevery upset about this, but Moreland decided to take charge then andassured everyone that nobody was going to take away their school. Thenext day, Moreland held down the weaponry warehouse with someinter-mediate cadets while Shawn, Dwyer, J.C. and several othercadet-seniors took two army trucks out to pick up provisions andsupplies. Unfortunately, en route back, the piece of junk truck J.C.drove suddenly stalled and wouldn’t start up again. That truck is notjust a piece of junk. It’s a useless, clanking, abomination, stone-agedpile of ruckus, disgrace to the road. Dwyer couldn’t fix it. Even morebad news: the gang they encountered the previous night (friends of theteen General Bache accidentally shot) came over to see what was up.That stupid truck still wouldn’t start, so they began beating up J.C.and Dwyer. Shawn saved them by scaring off the gang with a gun. Thenthey all pile into his truck and head back to school. Once back,Moreland appoints stations and passes out weapons. Before long, a fleetof police cars arrived and parked directly outside the front gate. Thesheriff called to Moreland and told him to surrender, but he would not.Then the parents of the other cadets wished to speak with Moreland.Among them was Moreland’s father, Sgt. Moreland, who really wasn’t thatnice of a guy. They could not convince Moreland to drop his guard andgive up. So Sgt. Moreland cursed out his son and smacked him. Beforelong, the REAL army showed up and dozens of large trucks. The leader ofthis group was Colonel Kerby.

Kerby was unable to get Moreland to change his mind. But it was thenthat Kerby delivered some very bad news: General Bache had died. So thecadets do a 21-gun salute to honor the good general. If things lookedworse now, they were about to go even further down on theWorse-O-Meter, for the army brought a large tank to counter with anyforce the cadets may use. Moreland did not want his soldiers to thinkthey were there by force, so anybody who wanted to leave could.Unfortunately, about 48% of them left. Among them was Moreland’s goodfriend, Edward West. As if that weren’t bad enough, soon the school’spower and water supplies were all cut off. When J.C. tried to get thegenerator to work, it blew up, catching him on fire. J.C. is rushed tothe hospital, but by then he had died from his wounds. Tension wasmounting inside the school, and morale was slipping between the cadets.Alex Dwyer practically lost it and got into a fist fight with Moreland.Later that night, as one young cadet climbed the gate to run away, hisfriend, Charlie, ran after him. The army outside got panicked so theyfire–and killed poor Charlie. He was just a kid! Due to the recentevents and the two casualties, Moreland finally decided to surrender.He called off his men and they all surrendered to Colonel Kerby. Al;except for Shawn who had an arsenal of guns in his room. He beganfiring at Kerby. Moreland raced to Shawn. Kerby’s troops fired back.Soon Dwyer and Kerby make it upstairs to Shawn’s room…But as soon asthey peered inside, a terrible sight met their eyes! To find out whathappened to our heroes, see the movie! I’ve already said too much.

Well, what can I say about Taps? It was acted out very well. The storywas good and strong. A group of cadets at military school wanting tofight for what they believe in, but soon, through a chain of tragic andunfortunate events, learn that society has them greatly outnumbered.Good performances, the late George C. Scott is magnificent as GeneralBache. Timothy Hutton was very good as Moreland. Tom Cruise and AcademyAward Winner Sean Penn are here too. Cruise and Penn were only 19 yearsold when they did this movie. Ronny Cox, the bad guy from RoboCop, wasgood too. This film has a very serious mood and a downbeat ending, yetit is a very good movie. I recommend it. If you like movies about warstrategy and standing up for what you believe in and are willing tofight for it and take no prisoners, then Taps is for you! See it today.That’s an order, soldier!

-

In a matter of fact, the story of this movie makes biblicalvibrations.

But, it’s a matter of the viewers how much compassion would they have aboutsome guys armed to the teeth, that do something that even they do notrealise completely.Everyone with a similar, in some view, life-experience, would find the movieworth seeing, or, maybe, worth NOT seeing, because of itsdreadfulness.

I saw this movie as a youngster and it left an indelible mark on me. I wasput through the wringer. My god. I still think of this one when I think backto Great movies I’ve seen.An absolute classic.

This was a a great movie and had many stars before they were stars. C.Thomas Howell, Sean Penn, and Tom Cruise all did an excellent job in thisfilm. This is definately a guy flick but the ladies might like it just forthe actors!

This was a great little dramatic character study with a few action setpieces. It was fun watching Tom Cruise in an early role as a young armycadet who gets trigger happy, and Sean Penn as the relatively normalone(!).

(Spoiler warning)

This is one of the few films in the 70s where a young kid is allowed toget mortally wounded, and it works for the dramatic impact. Perhaps thefilm is a bit heavy-handed in it’s themes and moralizing, and probablyisn’t as significant as it would hope to be; but this is still quite aneffective military drama.

Only recently did I discover that this film even existed. It is strangethat I never came across it before, because normally these kinds offilms are among my favourites. That is probably part of the reason formy reasonably good review of this film.

This came early on in the directorial career of Harold Becker, but thenhe hasn’t got that many credits to his name. What you can see in TAPSthough is some of the momentum that carries the viewer from one s
etpiece scene to another. This was used later in my favourite Beckerfilm, "City Hall".

The performances from Timothy Hutton, Sean Penn and even Tom Cruise arequite decent. Especially the former two. George C. Scott could have hada bigger role in this film, seeing as how his characters’ influence isso overwhelming to the story being told.

I liked this film. Nothing too fancy. I enjoyed the way Becker broughtus to terms with the characterisation with his ending.

I can only suggest that a film such as this would have benefited from alittle more in the centre. What I mean is that the disbelief of thecentral premise would have been slightly easier to suspend if the plotwere hatched at a military college and not at a military high school.The characters could have been older and wiser. They would also havehad more invested in the outcome of their adventure.

Although, perhaps the screen writers (even the novel - I haven’t readthis), in all their wisdom believed that only young and naive kidscould think they would get away with something like this.

A solid 7/10.

Although George C. Scott only has a small part in this film, it’s thecast of actors that make ‘Taps’ something of a special movie. The moviewas one of the first in both the careers of Tom Cruise as well as SeanPenn, and Timothy Hutton once more (after Ordinary People) proves he’sa fine actor.

But otherwise, there’s a lot lacking in the movie. Although it has aninteresting premise (Group of students take over military school afterit is scheduled to close down), is spun into a way too long story. It’sreally hard to keep focused on this one for over 2 hours, I’m afraid tosay…

But if you’re a fan of one of the young guns in this film, you shoulddefinitely go rent it some day or catch it on TV. 5/10.

The story begins at Bunker Hill Military Academy during commencement.The head of the school is played by George C. Scott as General HarlanBache, veteran of many battles and the inspiration to many cadets.During the ceremonies a list of names is read, former cadets who diedin battle, stating their date of 'taps'. Thus the title of the movie.

Not all the news is good. It turns out the property is worth much moreas a housing development, and the owners will give the Sacha exactlyone more year, then it will be closed and all buildings torn down.General Bache won't take that without a fight, and neither will his newcadet commander Major Brian Moreland (Timothy Hutton). An incidentoutside the school with 'town boys' results in an accidental shooting,and the General is taken away. He is reported to have had a heartattack, and the boys are left alone. Being a well-trained cadet,Moreland decides to step up and resist. He sees that all cadets arearmed, the school gates are locked, and there is a stand-off with localpolice and the national guard.

Other cadets with key roles are Sean Penn as Cadet Captain Alex Dwyerand Tom Cruise as the over zealous Cadet Captain David Shawn. Hutton,Penn, and Cruise all were in the 17 to 20 year old range when the moviewas filmed, and it was nice seeing them in good early roles.

SPOILERS. Cadets die in two unfortunate incidents. In one, a bright,younger cadet finally snaps and runs for the gate, seeking protection.But he drops his gun, it fires, and the guardsman outside shoot him.Nearer the end of the movie, when Moreland finally realizes it is over,the General has died, there is no longer a cause worth standing up for,while all cadets are being called out Cadet Shawn goes 'postal' andbegins shooting from a corner upstairs window. When Dwyer and Morelandget to him, to stop him, both Shawn and Moreland are killed.

TAPS was a movie about a seige at a military academy which is about to beclosed. The film also meshed civilian harsh views towards the military and afreudian look at the psychological angle used to turn young men into hardendkillers only to have the civilians learn they cannot be controlled. TOMCRUISE gives great range in his role as a cadet who turns psychopathic; aman who meshed a little too well with his OCS/ROTC training, into a killingmachine without thought or remorse. The portrayl of cruise as this characteris chilling. This is not a bad film, as it reflects the post vietnam view ofcivilians toward the US MILITARY. The film also focuses on the other cadetswho begin to lose favor with the seige and want to end it, only to bemanipulated by TOM CRUISES character and a elite group of students earmarked for special forces. The film concentrates on a command power strugglebetween Crusie and TIMOTHY HUTTON, who is grieving the loss of their schoolGENERAL played by GEORGE C. SCOTT, who is killed by angry youths; a catalystfor the takeover. As the film progresses the governor sends in RONNY COX as anational guard commander with a m-60 tank platoon to stop the problem. Thefilm continues until the climax and we are left with a question…whowatches the watchers? Ultimately who was responsible for the malfunction atthis school and the LORD OF THE FLIES break up into sects within the seigegroup holding onto the school? Was it the system that trains a man tobecome a hardend killer only to say…."whoops we can’t control him" ordiffuse him. Or is this a commentary on a peace time initiative when there isno war to fight…perhaps a commentary on U.S. military doctrine andphilosophy and ultimately psychology in the post Vietnam years with no warto fight. We train our service men and cadet for battle but do we train themon discernment on how to pick those fights? This is a question leftunanswered by this film, yet undoubtedly raised by it.

The film has a not politically correct focus.The military cadets fight against burocracy, greed and oldprejudices.They do the correct but they have in front: the society,the law,and publicopinion.Could the goal justify the means?His attitude is not very different from other strikes or youthrevolts.But the problem was that they are not politically correct.Not today.THEY PREFER FIGHT THEIR WAR LOOKING FOR JUSTICE AND HONOR, THAN BEDISCIPLINED THEN, AND FIGHT THE WAR THAT POLITICS WILL CREATE FORTHEMTom Cruise, as David Shawn, is really a brilliant performance.His character is probably the best.You can enjoy the film if you can feel these values and understand thecontroversy: military values vs. money & politics.They choose.

read comments (0)

Ragtime

A good film but be warned: Cagney spends the entire second half stark nakedand Forman didn’t even have the decency to place him behind a waist-highchair or cut out the lengthy exercise scene. Follows the novel except forthe part where President Taft eats a kid.

The 82 year old Hollywood gangster of the 1930’s did not escape from thisearth without handing on the baton to the new generation of gangsters andhoodlums. Such is the case in ‘Ragtime’ which, despite its misleading title(does not document the story of ragtime music in New Orleans), does engageSamuel L. Jackson on the wrong side of the law and Cagney on the rightside.Because Cagney didn’t have any hit movies since ‘Mister Roberts’, there wasnothing that he could in the siege situation except call upon the person ofBooker T. Washington to diffuse the scenario.

Everything in Ragtime runs smoothly and flawlessly. A solid scenario withinterwoven plots is complimented with great performances and costumes andfabulous scenery. It will be a pleasure to watch to everyone. I don’t thinkthough it has the power to make it worth numerous viewings, as the moviesweconsider masterpieces do.

"Ragtime" is notable for the breakout performance by Elizabeth McGovern,andher famous nude scene with her lover. And James Cagney, coaxed out ofretirement, gets top billing as the police chief. However Howard Rollins’performance as Colehouse Walker, the smiling and smart piano player is thereal high point of this film. It is set in early 1900s New York and forthemost part gives a glimpse of the social scene around that time. MandyPatinkin plays the immigrant who finds his wife (Fran Drescher) in bedwithanother, throws her clothes into the street, and takes his daughter away,eventually becomes a successful movie director. McGovern is the young,dumbpretty face that gets sucked into movies.

The brunt of the story is the results of a joke gone wrong and, likePlanetof the Apes (2001), illustrates how one seemingly small decision can alterhistory. The fire chief, jealous of Walker’s Ford Model-T, blocks his pathand, after Walker walks away, puts horse crap on the seat. Out ofprincipleWalker insists the firemen clean it up. They also eventually damage thecar.Finding roadblaock at every turn, and his girlfriend (Debby Allen) beatensoshe dies, seeking justice, he resorts to shooting firemen, bombingbuildings, demanding the chief, so that he could inflict his own brand ofjustice.

There is a good speech near the end by Booker T. Washington, explaininghowseeking retribution never solves problems. Walker manages to get hisfriendsto freedom, however as he walks out of the library at night with his handsup, Cagney orders the marksman to "shoot him." He does, he dies. Lifegoeson, Houdini does his escape act.

At first glance this film appears to be about black and white racerelations. But it isn’t. It is about how jealousy can cause conflict, thenhow hard-headedness can cause undue harm. We see it every day in gangviolence, irate dads beating up kids sports referees, freeway road rage,cultures going to war with each other.

The only thing that was totally disingenuous for me was when the motherlefther baby at home, to walk to the political rally to try and get Walker’scase heard. She did not tell anyone she was leaving the baby behind, andherhost "mother" discovered the baby crying. That was way off base for hercharacter. Nonetheless, a good if somewhat overly long film.

I had many fond memories of this movie from when it was releasedtheatrically, and among those fond memories were certain scenesinvolving Elizabeth McGovern. I just bought the DVD, and I am unable tounderstand why anyone thought it was necessary or appropriate to cutthose scenes out of the movie. It is especially inexplicable given thatthe scene was central to one of the major subplots.

It just doesn’t make any sense, and I think that the studios should besent the message that this sort of foolishness will not be rewarded.Perhaps the reason for doing this was to retain the original PG ratingwith the more strict guidelines now days, but that doesn’t seem to bethe likely explanation because if the ratings rules required that theDVD release be evaluated for a new rating, the given what they left in,it would have been rated PG-13 at least, and certainly not PG. Now I’mcurious as to whether or not the VHS release was treated similarly.

RAGTIME is the ultimate period piece. The casting is outstanding. Itseems like Milos Forman went back to the 1920s and made this film andmagically transported it to the 1980s. The plethora of stars to be(Jeff Daniels, Fran Drescher, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Jeter, JohnRatzenberger, Robert Joy)is a bonus. All the actors seen like theybelong in the 1920s( and some of them actually do(ex. Jimmy Cagney,Donald O’Connor). The score by the ubiquitous Randy Newman is perfect.Overall, this is a classic Milos Foreman film and his nomination for athird Best Director Oscar for THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT should makemany people look back on his body of work and rediscover the magic ofRAGTIME.

This movie is one of the few great movies in the world to me. It haseverything including a superb cast. Brad Dourif is a scene stealer as ayoung man crushed by love for a woman who won’t have him. ElizabethMcgovern is great as the sex symbol of the 20s. I’d recommend this film toanyone who wants to step back into the past. Four stars.

I don’t know if too many people know this, but the main

event in this movie is based on an event of the time frame

presented (1930’s), where a wealthy man was shot in the

middle of a party by his girlfriend’s ex-lover. I remember that

her name was Evelyn Nesbitt, which is the name of Elizabeth Perkins’ character. This was the first time I had seen Mandy Patinkin, and I

became an instant fan.The way the stories start separately and wind themselves

together by the end is fascinating. Excellent writing and

acting, a treat for movie fans.

While I was reading E. L. Doctorow’s "Ragtime," it often puzzled me how acomprehensive movie could be made out of a book that is mostly about theAmerican habit of distorting history. Milos Forman, though, took the easyroute, concentrating on the racial politics of the Coalhouse Walker Jrplot,and spending more time on Evelyn Nesbit than the book does.

As a movie, there is little to find fault with. The actors, which includeJames Cagney in his last theatrical role, are great. Elizabeth McGovernlooks much like the real Evelyn Nesbit, although a bit too thin. What ismissed, however, is many of the encounters with historical figures andevents in the book. Gone are Houdini (for the most part), the labor riotsthat precipitate Tateh’s journey to Philadelphia, Nesbit’s encounter withEmma Goldman, the meeting between J. P. Morgan and Henry Ford, and so muchmore.

A truly wonderful version of this book waits to be made by a director whoisup to the challenge. And, hopefully, it won’t be the musicalversion.

Before the famous Broadway musical version ofE.L. Doctorow’s fine literary work, director Foremanmade it into a sprawling epic of a motion picturewith Cagney making his final appearance and goingout in style. He’s left us as we’d always rememberedhim, with a smile on his face. There are many stand outperformances from Patinkin, McGovern and Kenneth McMillian.Rollins and McGovern received Oscar nominations for theirwork. Foreman’s direction is in top form here. This maynotbe his most popular film, but it’s still a pleasure to watch.

read comments (0)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

This is a grade Z movie, just the mindless piece of garbage known under thename of "Spielberg’s classics": one-dimensional cartoonish characters, nomore intelligent than a condom commercial.

Don’t be fooled by their appearance. They are just apes in human suites.Watching the movie gave me the experience of a Discovery Channeldocumentaryinvolving animal behavior. They seem to have no seing of reality abovetheirown immediate needs such as territory and reproduction.

However, they are not 4 millions old remainings of apelike ancestors, butmodern idiotized masses reduced to the lower level of humanity. I woulddoubt Spielberg would be one of them. He clearly knows how to profit out ofother people uneducation and genetic-inherited stupidity.

i really don’t get what people see in this film. it looks cheap. thestory is cheap. the acting is poor. this is by far the worst film bySpielberg. first, i thought "okay, if that film is directed bySpielberg, it should be fun with a little bit of brain at least." butthen i couldn’t believe it. in every long minute of the film i askedmyself "when will the story begin?" and after two hours i wascompletely disenchanted and yearned to the end. in my opinion the filmis just for fans of poor action who give a damn about a good plot.seeing this film rated for one of the best ever makes me cry. reallycry. 1/10

This is it, folks, it doesn't get any better than this. You know theplot, you know the music, but trust me- this is the one to see.Harrison Ford at his peak, Karen Allen is perfect (why in the world didSpielberg not use her again? She was far superior to the whiny KateCapshaw) and every supporting actor is spot on. This is the one thatstarted it all, for better or for worse. I'm of the school that thinksthe sequels were inferior retreads, but that's neither here nor there-this is a great movie and you should see it already!

If adventure has a name…it must be Indiana Jones. That line says itright there. The contrast between this movie and all of the herosbefore it was that Indy was human. He gets hurt, unlike his predecessorJames Bond. With whip and revolver in hand, Indiana was an exotic hero.Indy was sofisticated (a college professor), he was handsome andadventurous. Harrison Ford was liked by all audiences, women found himattractive, men found him daring. Qualities found in Brittish spy,James Bond. Most people know now that Steven Spielberg was denied thedirectors position for a 007 film. He teamed up with George Lucas tomake an American hero- Indiana Jones. There are many parallels betweenthe two characters, but I'm not going to get into that. Another thingthat made Raiders great was the plot itself. An archeologist travelsaround the world to find the Ark of the Covenant- the ark thatcontained the 10 Commandments and was said to have special powers. Indygets entangled with a rival French archeologist who is working with theNazis. An amazing story which keeps you on the edge of your seat forthe entire time. What keeps you there is not just the plot or actionsequences, it is also the score by John Williams. Some of the bestsoundtracks are from John Williams (Jaws, Close Encounters of the ThirdKind, Superman). This adrenaline-pumping score of the Raiders Marchmakes you wish you had a theme song everytime you walked into a room.This is a great movie, it should be seen by anyone who enjoys a goodadventure.

What’s this - 2 Speilberg films in the top 10? Are you people mental, haveyou been out of the house in the last 5 years? Are there subliminalmessages being transmitted in the endless re-runs of ‘Dawson’s Creek’? Thatthis chump should have one film in the top 250 is criminal. I keep runningacross the term ’soul’ in the user comments. The soul of a movie, theamplification of soul, yadda, yadda. What goes on here, did the Germans winthe war? Cripes, the man is a living Xerox machine who couldn’tsuccessfully wrap up a storyline to save his many fold bank accounts. It’souta my hands.

This film is for me a complete mystery.

Is it a "pastiche", a parody of"good ole time" adventure movies?In this case Lucas & Spielberg missed the target.

Or did they simply make fun of us?

In script terms this is just a big budget cliffhanger serial from the 1930sexcept for one important difference - Sadistic violence. Villains are burned, shot , crushed , melted and blown up. Okay so most of them are comic bookNazis so that makes it okay I guess . Even so I do think the violence is wayover the top especially the bit where the blood splashes all the over theplane . And correct me If I`m wrong but isn`t the legendary scene whereIndie shoots the Arab swordsman been ripped off from THE BENNY HILL SHOW ?

It’s good to know I’m not the only person in America who thinks "The Raidersof the Lost Ark" is stupid and offensive. With its villains designed onlyas punching bags (they are human, none the less…), its heroine intended tobe ogled and scream at the right moments, and its pseudo-religious claptrap,all the praise it’s gotten says something very disturbing about largenumbers of people.

Harrison Ford is abhorrent as Indiana in this tripal adventure flick.Thefollowing cast is horrible. The costumes are gorgeous. One of the poorfarces in the genre, Raiders Of The Lost Ark arouses seldom adventures. 3out of 10.

I’ll start the review by saying that this is actually a good movie, butI’m giving it a 1 anyway because I strongly disagree with it’s rank. Ifyou don’t like that, cry about it.

OK, let’s begin. This is not necessarily a bad movie, but there aresome instances in this film that are inexcusable and I find theminsulting. I actually liked the directing, the score was good (more onthat later), the writing is top-notch (Kasdan is the brains behind StarWars, NOT Lucas), but the cinematography is decent (too dark at times,and I NEVER complain about that) and doesn’t stand out at all.

The beginning of the movie is simply classic. It’s awesome, as a matterof fact. But after that, the movie can’t keep up with itself. We areintroduced to the female lead in a bar and really get no informationabout her at all, thus having no reason to give a sh-t if she dies in afire. And the villain…I had to ask myself who it even was at the end.He’s a background figure for the whole film rather than being theantagonistic force of evil that propels the main conflict in the storylike he’s supposed to. He might have 5 minutes screen time, if that. Idon’t even remember his name.

Sorry for the interruption, but this cannot wait. The music. It’s verygood, extremely catchy…but used at all the wrong times! The escapefrom the snake pit almost made me stand up and take the DVD out of theplayer. I’m not 4 years old any more, so I don’t need to be told whento cheer the hero on. That was the most child-like thing I have seen inany movie that I can remember. I was seriously insulted by the decisionto use the music in such a way.

Now that that’s out of the way, we can move on to the other thing aboutthis movie that REALLY bugs me…the ending. If you don’t know what thephrase ‘deus ex machina’ means, just watch this movie. It basicallymeans that the hero’s problem is solved for him rather than having thehero solve the problem himself. In this film, the hero stands aroundand watches the villains kill themselves. Do you know what that means?You can essentially remove the main character from the entire film andit would end the same way: Nazi’s get the ark and they all killthemselves. Indiana could have stayed home and did a word find andsaved himself a whole lot of trouble. The whole entire film is simply abad reason to have 2 hours of gratuitous action scenes that would notseem out of place in a child’s cartoon. The whole "looking for the g
irlin the basket" sequence seemed like it was copied directly from a LoonyTunes episode.

Enough of this, just watch this movie for entertainment purposes only,because it’s a kid’s movie. All kids are looking for in a movie is tobe entertained, and that is all this film can offer. That is notnecessarily a bad thing, but it certainly doesn’t justify why thismovie is so highly regarded. It’s just a kid’s movie.

read comments (0)

My Dinner with Andre

This is the anti-movie. There are no interesting visuals (unless you countWally’s never-ending forehead). There is no plot. This is just someoff-off-off-off-off-off-you-won’t-believe-how-off Broadway play put oncelluloid, brought to you by the people who believe theater is superior tofilm, and thus film should be subdued to just being recorded theater. Or itis just a pretentious director desperately trying to be artistic by filmingthe most absurd thing: two friends just giving us the greatest hitscollection of their conversations, which they think are the most interestingon Earth. The conversation can actually be interesting from time to time,but the two guys are so unfocused and incoherent that they majestically ruinthe potential of making one great monologue. For example, Andre mentionsthat he went to India, but felt horrible when he came back, because he hadonly been a tourist. Instead of dwelling on this point, he goes on to talkabout cults and what not. Apparently, both actors/writers were trying tosee who could beat Woody Allen in neurotic rambling. In other cases, theirstories are rather interesting, but you wish you could actually see thosestories recreated on film, rather than just have the characters talk aboutit. This statement will sound shallow to many of you, but, hey, it’s afreaking film! Remember why cinema was invented! To show us things wewouldn’t otherwise see.

Yes, I know that people find all these little meanings in the movie. That’sbecause the movie invites you to find a meaning, because otherwise youcannot understand why this thing was made. However, I’m of the kind ofpeople that believes that if you really try, you can come up with greatphilosophical meanings in any movie, even "Robot Monster".

I say that instead of watching this movie you just go out with one of yourmore interesting friends, get some coffee or beers, and do your ownpseudo-philosophical story-telling. It’s a lot more fun, and you canprobably come up with at least the same level of material. Unless you haveno interesting friends, in which case you should go find some instead ofsitting around reading film reviews on your computer…

Regardless of what one may say about "My Dinner with Andre’s" dialogue,message, and overarching content, the fact remains that it should not havebeen a film.

I will admit to a personal bias when it comes to philosophy–for the mostpart I find it boring and a waste of time. Similarly, I think this movie isa waste of film stock. It would have played much better in written form, asa radio broadcast, or even as an extended one act play. Unlike children,the film should be heard and not seen. One gains nothing from watching thisfilm. If you do not believe me, turn down the volume and sit through itagain.

As an art form, film carries certain responsibilities and devices that makeit unique. The director employed virtually none of them, which is not toosurprising considering that Andre Gregory asked him to direct it; it was notMalle’s conception. Therefore, it is not a French film. Can you imagineactually working on this film as either its director or editor? I can notthink any task more boring.

If Andre was adamant that his life philosophy be brought to film, I wouldhave expanded the visual landscape beyond the four different shots currentlyemployed. I would have also populated the environment with more"characters," who could have interrupted the conversation from time to time,as well as provided some visual allegory for Andre’s varying views. To makematters even more interesting, I might have even employed (dream-like)flashbacks to help flavor and represent Andre’s background and highbrowdialogue.

As an art form, film should strive to represent its creator’s beliefs,ideas, and message so that they can be interpreted individually by those whoview it. As a commercial medium, varied demographics within a given targetaudience should be able to associate with, understand, and enjoy a film’scontent. Aurally, "My Dinner with Andre" satisfies only the art; visually,it satisfies neither.

My suggestion: Skip the film and buy the screenplay.

An earlier reviewer said, "Those who enjoy ideas, reading The NewYorker, and who have ever spent time wondering about the meaning oflife — will love it." Well, I meet all of the above criteria, and Idon’t love it. Review after review calls this movie "grpping".Personally, if you made the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay watch it, I’dhave to agree that it was torture.

By the end of the movie I was praying that someone would teach Andrethe meaning of life with their fists. This only qualifies as a moviebecause it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

I enjoy movies that are thoughtful, but this is merely elitist.

Only one redeeming feature in this, the slowest moving film I have eversuffered through: Served as comic material for the later "Waiting forGuffman" as the credits rolled, the film memorabilia shop owner showed offhis "My Dinner with Andre action figures."

I always wanted to see this movie because I thought it was the bestidea for one. I expected some great mixture of philosophy and humor. Iwas hoping for some sort of Woody Allen goes to dinner with Jesus flickand battles out the meaning of life or relgion or whatever in a uniquefunny clever way.

What I got was one of the biggest beatings of my life. Andre was justthe sort of dimestore philosopher that I dread hearing at the tablebehind me; laughing at himself; thinking people would be shocked by hisribald experiences eliciting courtesy smiles. For Andre, it was aone-way me-fest conversation of generic find-yourself crap(meditating/India/the "beehive") that made me want to just pull out arevolver and smack a bullet through my brain pan.

I’m sorry, but after the first 45 minutes, it was either suicide orturning the thing off. I’m still alive… thus I did a rare thing anddidn’t finish a flick (I only have done that to "ARMAGEDDON" so far).

Fortunately I had the genius "CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS" as a back upthat night; followed by "Inherit the wind".

I knew a little about this film before actually seeing it, and I was quitecurious about what the conversation would be like, and if I would be boredto death or not.

I believe the conversations are really interesting, the dialog is wellwritten, but… the problem is… it’s Andre, he just doesn’t shut up! After45 minutes of this film, I was standing up, begging for Andre to just shutup and eat his meal for, at least, 5 minutes. In silence. I don’t know, Ibelieve one can watch such a thing for 30 minutes, but for 2 hours?Non-stop?

I think Andre should had been food poisoned at the end, and asked for Wallyto avenge his death, just before he dies, on that same table. Or Wallyshould, somewhere in the middle of this film, just yelled "Damn it Andre,shut up! I’m trying to eat here!"

See Morlock’s comments. He has it right. This movie is just a videorecording of a very long dinner conversation between a self-absorbedsecond-rate philosopher and his "straight man."

Being a non-philosopher myself, I started purposely noticing whether therewas anything "cinematic" going on in this film. I could not find anything.There seems to be no reason this could not have been a tape recording orbook, except that perhaps too many people might have found it too tedious tostay with. My whole family decided to go to bed (early) before theend.

The only acting comes in momentary glimpses of the expressions that thewaiter makes. Shawn makes no pretense of acting when reading his lines.Andre just talks, seemingly endlessly.

I loved looking through the comments, it’s amazing how much reactionthis simple little film can
provoke.

I think of this film as going out to a fancy restaurant and trying someexotic, new dish. It may turn out you don’t like it, so it’s OK to spitit out (the disk, literally). You may need to get up and take a leak,just like in a restaurant; just hit pause, and give the film some timeto steep while you’re gone. It’s a tough slog if you try to get throughthis in one long chunk, take your time (like Andre says the Buddhistsmade him eat lunch).

I doubt if I’ll want to try this particular dish again, but I’m glad Idid. And I’m glad Andre did 90% of the talking, Shawn didn’t have muchworthwhile to say and it’s tough listening to him talk. Sorry Wally.

"My Dinner With Andre" is basically a filmed play (with a few exteriorshots) featuring two arty intellectuals having dinner. Wallace is asemi-struggling actor/playwright, and Andre is a successful director ofplays. Both of them are going through various struggles in their livestrying to find meaning. I enjoyed their conversation, at least parts of it,but I thought the "conclusion" was a cop out - a 90 minute conversation andthat was the best they could do? Also, Wally and Andre came across asinsufferably elitist. It was hard to imagine Andre ever having a job thatdidn’t fall into the category of "nice work if you can get it". There wasan earnestness to the acting that I enjoyed, and I did get caught up intheir conversation. I would recommend this movie to any aspiring directorwho wanted to know how to make an ultra low-budget film. I think there isenough interesting material in their conversation that would make this filmworth revisiting every few years.

My Dinner with André

One of the themes which André pursues with enthusiasm is

alternative conceptions of reality. He exemplifies this with the

Findhorn Foundation - a spiritual/environmental community

founded in northeast Scotland in 1962.

Having lived at that community for eight years and taken

considerable interest in the myths surrounding it and the care with

with which they are sustained, I feel like I can write with some

authority on the subject. Sorry if this spoils your favourite belief

system, but it is all complete nonsense. There *is* a Universal

Hall - I worked in it for several years. However, the roof stays put,

even in the fierce gales which are common in that part of the

world. It does not mystically rise, turn or anything similar. The only

things that are mystical about the Universal Hall are that it was

ever completed at all, given the permanent financial problems of

the Foundation, and the electrics, which are held together by good

intentions.

Equally, there were never any giant cabbages produced by

miraculous devic powers - that is myth started by one of the

founders, Peter Caddy (a nice guy, but possessing the marketing

ethics of Microsoft). Nor are there angels in the dustbins, or

anywhere else except the fond imaginings of the makers of The

Transformation Game (TM).

Finally, Eileen Caddy, another of the founders (who is still there at

the time of writing) may well be everyone’s second favourite

granny (behind HRH The Queen Mother), but she does not talk to

God or even to god. The `still, small voice within’ is Eileen, talking

to herself and others, saying the things she is unable to put her

own name to. I find it hard to believe that God (or god) is quite so

fond of vague, dull platitudes, which change over the years as

Eileen’s views change. I am sorry to say this, because I really like

Eileen, but she is quite batty. And it doesn’t take a PhD in

psychology to know where all that channelled stuff is comingfrom.

The only real miracle of Findhorn is how so many people can be

so gullible for so long. It is a great testament to the power of pretty

fantasies over less attractive but truly miraculous realities. Which

brings us nicely back to André and the film…

read comments (0)

Outland

"Outland" is such a strange name for a movie! I guess a strange name isappropriate for a strange movie. I thought the film was ok, not bad, butnot great either. The story was fairly interesting and had some cool thingsto it, but overall, it was just a mediocre movie. The film was a littleslow, especially near the end.

Sean Connery did a good job in his role, as did Peter Boyle. The whole castwas good.

I will say though that the sets were pretty impressive and what littlespecial effects were in the film were done pretty well.

Overall, I would only recommend this movie to someone that really likesscience fiction movies, or is a huge fan of Sean Connery. Otherwise, youmay want to pass on this one. I hope you enjoy the film. Thanks forreading,

-Chris

" This movie is strange for the singular reason that it isn’t great butyoucan watch it multiple times and never seem to get tired of it. "

I don´t remember if i´m allowed to start my comment by quoting anotherpersons review, but i think the guy who wrote this is absolutely right.

And why no matter how many times we see this movie, 6 months past we can´tclearly remember the details like we can in other movies no more ? I musthave seen Outland about fifteen times since i first saw it on thetheatherswhen it came out, and after a while i want to go back to it, because i canremember the solid sci-fi atmosphere but i can´t visualize the whole movieclearly in my mind no more. Pretty weird feeling…This isn´t even a great movie, but it has this quality, that makes italmostimpossible to turn away from it. For me i guess, it´s that realybelievableatmosphere of a possible future, as i don´t believe much in that carpetedspaceship Star Trek look. I can bet that if we ever get to have somecolonies in our solar system, they will look very similar (and asdepressive), as the ones presented in Outland, wich is a sad factunfortunely, but makes this movie stand out from all the tons of sci-fimovies.

Everyone who sees it once, will remember it for a very long time, and thisis because despite all the westen clichés set in space, this is a veryoriginal story, maybe not in its idea but in the way it´s presented to theaudiences.And it´s a strange movie, because it´s very hard to classify. Despitebeingnow an old movie, it has better visuals and special effects than many newreleases and you can totaly forget that this movie is now about 20 yearsold. And there is not a single computer generated effect onsight.It must be one of those rare movies out there wich can only be classifiedaspure sci-fi and nothing else. It has action, but it always feels thatneverreaches for the full potential in what could have been done, so it can´tbeclassified as an action film also. It has a disturbing and creepyatmospheresometimes, some gore scenes but it isn´t an horror movie. It has thatclassic cops plot made and re-made a million times from westerns to moderncop shows, but it´s not any of those kind of movies. What we have here isanambiguous movie that´ends up being very dificult to classify, and perhapsthat´s what makes it special and weird at the same time.

Because contrary to Blade Runner for example, this movie doesn´t have afanbase, and i don´t think it can even be classified as a cult movie. Outlandbelongs to its own category and that´s what makes it special and neverforgotten, despite nobody ever remembers anything clearly about it.

It´s sci-fi.And a very good sci-fi story despite some minor flaws. Peter Hyams hasstyleand i think he did a great job with this movie. I wish he would go back tothis type of "personal" movies and stop acting like a hired hand forHollywood like it seems nowadays. With all the fast-food crappy so calledsci-fi wich is around nowadays, Peter Hyams is the right man to stillcreatea good science fiction movie. I wish he would made more movies like thisandlike 2010 wich is also excelent.So, if you like pure sci-fi and miss watching a good sci-fi movie, getthisone because you won´t be disapointed. It´s an excelent strange movie. Arealindependent movie inside a major studio, if ever there was one.

A brilliant movie, without actualy being great. I know this sounds weird,but Outland is exactely like this. Don´t miss it.

I'm really surprised by the comments here saying that this film isgreat. This movie is simply a disaster! Comparison with "High Noon",which is a great movie, does not help to make "Outland" a good film.The film is obvious from the beginning to the end. And it is not ascience-fiction movie, since there is no trace of interesting andvisionary science there. Just compare with classics like "2001" or"Blade Runner". Sometimes the actor's performance can save a film, butthis is not the case here. The actors perform very badly. Sean Connerywas not convincing. This movie certainly didn't help his career.

A word about the special/visual effects, which are essential in mostscience-fiction movies: they are extremely bad, even for 1981.Therefore, there is nothing to be saved in this film. It's a completewaste of time.

This is actually a reasonably good drama and quite interesting, but getsruined on DVD by the "nature" of the extras.

A bunch of screenshots of James Bond film covers as additional viewing ispathetic!

Connery as the marshall at the mining station on Io is excellent in the kindof raw and gritty role that he does so well.

The mining station has a major problem with performance enhancing drugs thatthe company is encouraging in order to increase productivity, and Connery isthe man to stop it.

Worth a look, but don’t bother with the extras!

Sean Connery plays Federal District Marshal William T. O’Niel, who laysdown the law at a mining colony on Io, the third moon of Jupiter. Hemakes the discovery that the miners are being given a drug that makesthem work much harder, but which eventually fries their brains. O’Nielis determined to punish the man (Peter Boyle) who is running thisscheme.

Low-key, slick, high-tech science-fiction variation on "High Noon"(written by director Peter Hyams), which is moderately entertaining butpretty forgettable. The finale is reasonably suspenseful, the sets OK(although they’re really no different than the sets in many similarsci-fi movies), and the deaths surprisingly gory. Performances arerather flat; I get the sense that most of these actors are just goingthrough the motions, including Connery, although I did get someentertainment listening to the banter between the gruff O’Niel and thecantankerous Dr. Lazarus (Frances Sternhagen). Sternhagen had alreadyproved to me that she could steal a scene very well in her frequentappearances on ‘Cheers’ as Cliff’s mother, and she’s pretty amusinghere.

Highly reminiscent of "Alien" in terms of its designs and music score(no surprise, since the late, great Jerry Goldsmith did the music forboth), not to mention the mixture of American and British actors inmain and supporting roles. (By the way, there ARE good actors in thisfilm, but they have been better utilized in other film and TVprojects.) "Outland" is mainly average - nothing really makes it standout.

Speaking of ‘Cheers’, John Ratzenberger is in this too - he’s the guywho has the breakdown ("I HATE SPIDERS!") in the beginning portion ofthis film.

Still, I generally enjoy Peter Hyams’s films - I think he’s kind ofunder-rated, to tell the truth - although he has made an occasionalclunker ("Stay Tuned", anyone?). This is just not one of his betterfilms. As one reviewer noted, the film loses a little credibility whenno-one corrects the spelling in the opening information crawl(’marshall’ instead of ‘marshal’ and ‘p
rinciple’ instead of’principal’).

5/10

Director Hyams is also does cinematography on most of his recent movies. DVDreview.

Marshall Connery gets send to Io (a moon of Jupiter) to solve the recentsuicide of its miners.

Everyone could spot the western reference in this movie; it’s High Noon. Thebad guys are coming to town and Connery can’t get help from anyone. Verygood dialogue, looks great on DVD, solid performances (the actors are atleast 10 years older than they’d be if this movie was made today), suspenseand the effects are memorable. Only Berkoff’s silly cameo as a derangedworker seems out of place. The computer technology looks VERY datedthough.

Outland is one of the few good sci-fi movies from the early’80s.

when o’neil is looking-up the suspect criminal’s on the computer, itdisplays the category/title: ‘offences’ –this would lead you toconclude that a prop person was British, Canadian, Aussie, etc. (ormaybe just someone who’s interested in using alternate Englishspellings in multi-million dollar productions); who knows? does anyonecare? you bet –these boards are full of nerdy deconstructions likethis one! if i’m lucky, this goof will make it on the permanent page–it will be my contribution… my legacy. Outland is still a decentmovie; i sure as heck wouldn’t have watched it this closely, and again–almost 25 years after its release –if it were unwatchable. it bringsme back to my early childhood –a time when it seems like a lot moremen had beards –just like in this movie.

It seems very unlikely that titanium could be profitably mined & exported toEarth, or even elsewhere in the Solar system, from a place as deep inJupiter’s gravity well as Io, unless the company’s use of artificial gravityextends to antigravity. Even so, there’s plenty of titanium right here onEarth, ready to be mined.

Additionally, no acknowledgment was made of the very dangerous radiationconditions obtaining at Io’s distance from Jupiter.

Lastly, photoelectric cells, unless they were vastly improved over currentmodels, would do little good for power generation at Jupiter’s distance fromthe Sun. Also, even if they were used, high-voltage conditions (whichendangered O’Neil & co.) would not exist at the receiving surfaces of thecells.

If you want to make a science-fiction movie, Mr. Hyams, remember that word"science." Otherwise, call it fantasy, where anythinggoes.

An atmospheric sci-fi remake of "High Noon", "Outland" sports a convincinglyhigh-tech/grunge setting, albeit one that owes a heavy debt for its similarlook and ethos to that of the original 1979 "Alien" universe.

Blue-collar workers live and work in cramped and uncomfortable conditions,working for a corrupt and almost faceless corporation. Violent crime anddrugs are a continual undercurrent throughout, an expected frontier-town cumoil-rig mentality.

Both actors and story appear swamped by the surroundings to the point thatthey never quite ring true: O’Neil’s relationship with his family irritates,Lazarus is nothing more than a one-dimensional caricature of the standard"alcoholic doctor", and the story — while enjoyable and competently shown– holds no real surprises. But this is made up for by the believable (forthe times) portrayal of an necessarily enclosed and suffocating near-futurespace environment.

A well made, if slightly stolid effort, by the man who went on to do "2010".

My friends and I picked this one up because a.)there was nothing good leftin the new releases, b.)we were bored out of our skulls, and c.)we had toleave shortly anyway.

This is just the kind of movie for that situation.

It’s just another lame-ish sci-fi flick that does good in some areas butdrops the ball in others (e.g. it’s the year twenty-whatever and everyoneinthe whole movie uses a standard pump-action shotgun with the exception ofone knife-wielding maniac…). Connery does a decent job playing the copbutcloser to the end the whole movie basically collapses under it’s ownweight.

read comments (0)

La guerre du feu

Obviously inspired by the "monkey sequence" from "2001, A Space Odyssey",the writer only slightly over expanded on this theme. In the movie we seeagroup of half men, half apes trying to "realistically" portray theirversionof some long lost hominid ancestor. If not for the saving beauty of RayDawn Chong, this movie would have come off as a cross between "Planet oftheApes" and "1,000,000 years B.C.". The rest of the cast comes off as "TheThree Stooges, 1,000,000 years B.C.". It is visually interesting as inthe"2001" sequence,though.

There is a reason the stone age was called "the stone age".

Well, the synopsis of the film said that it was set in the stone age. Isaw this film after taking an introductory paleoanthropology class,which covered, among others, the stone age and evolution of humans.

Those who loved the film would probably want to stop reading here.

The film is historically inaccurate. I could discern, and maybe I’mwrong, that Naoh and his buddies are Neandertals. They have thestereotypical jaw and animal hide thrown over their bodies as clothing.But the setting is in a savannah. At any rate, given how developed theywere physiologically, as well as Ika and her people, they were probablypretty far along the evolutionary line, which makes the plotnonsensical since fire was around since our ancestors still looked likeapes.

The whole concept of the film is ridiculous to begin with. There is nodialogue which the audience can understand. The only good thing is thescenery.

I can’t get the timeline straight in my head?

From you, Elskootero: This is absloutely, without one single doubt, THEWORST movie I have ever seen! If I hadn’t been dating the girl of mydreams, whom I have been married to now for the past 37 years, I wouldhave walked out on it after the first 45 minutes. It’s basically amentally retarded version of the Flinstones, has no dialogue except forgrunting and animal noises, and even the sex scenes were funny! Theonly saving part of the whole film was, at the end, when the words THEEND came on the screen, some kind gentlemen called out loud "Aboutf***king time" and the whole theater erupted in laughter and applause,so apparently everyone else hated it, too. What insane idiot thought upthis one is beyond me, but it was the longest 2 hours of my life. Theride home was more enjoyable.

——————————————————————

The movie was released in 1981. It is currently 2004. That is 33 years.If you were dating the girl of your dreams, whom you have been marriedto for 37 years…well, do the math. You’re either prescient or a timetraveler, both of which I doubt.

Agreed, the movie kind of bit but your comment was kind ofimpenetrable.

Before watching this film, I prepared myself for something very weird, andin deed it was. It tells the story of cavemen, and their struggles tofindfire. Its a very weird film, no language, no subtitles, we have to figureout what they are saying ourselves, and that is often extremely difficulttodo. It seems that critics love this movie, but I cant quite see why. Didthis movie really make $67 million in the U.S., I find that hard tobelieve,due to the fact that no one has ever heard of it. Its an interestingfilm,but most people wont like it. **1/2 out of ****.

Along with Alan Parker’s "Bugsy Malone" (1976) and the late Louis Malle’s"My Dinner with Andre" (1981), "Quest for Fire" is such an extreme odditythat it defies any label or genre. It’s just SO strange, unlike anythingyou’ve ever seen before or since in a feature film. But because it’s sounique, filmphiles should rent and watch it. Especially if your tired ofthe ’same old same old’.

Mr. Annuad is a wonderful director. If you haven’t seen "The Name of theRose" (1986) with Sean Connery and Christian Slater or the most recent"Enemy at the Gates" (2001) with Jude Law, do so at once. He brings visualbeauty, drama and lust to all his films. "Quest for Fire" has that butthere are a slew of problems. The biggest problem with this movie isbecause one cannot possibly know what these characters are saying to oneanother, it’s impossible to know the plot. All we know is that the fire forthese people is out, and this team is out to find it’s secret. The speciallanguage by Anthony Burgess, reminds me of ‘The Ferrel Boy’ in "The RoadWarrior" (1981) and at times, at least to me, sounded like English (ie: ‘Ohmy god…oh my god’). The film also ends rather abruptly. If your going totell this story, I would have loved to have seen how humans at this timeallegedly lived. I would have loved to see maybe a ‘life history’ of one ofthese characters over time. Something that gives insight into thesecreatures and their odd lives.

"Quest for Fire" is a truly unique film, yes. But uniqueness ALONE is notenough for me to highly recommend it. Go ahead and see it, but don’t cancelother plans to do so.

Final rating: 5/10"Your standard film (albeit strange). You can watch it once, but then moveon with your life."

I am usually a fan of Prehistoric Drama's, but this movie was justplain awful. I really don't understand what everybody likes about it.

Firstly, the special effects are pathetic, even for 1981 (Clash of theTitans was better!)

I don't even want to talk about the "acting". Everett McGill gives anincredibly atrocious performance.

But the worst thing i hate about this movie is how the fan boys"Attack" One Million Years BC (1966) simply because its HistoricllyInaccurate (Of course its Inaccurate. OMYBC is a Fantasy movie,Dumbasses!) Overall, this film is over-rated (10,000 BC is probablyonly a bit worser). I do not recommend this film, but i do recommendOne Million Years BC (1966) and When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1970).

And I’m serious! To be honest, I wish this would have been shown in myhigh school class, we would’ve had so much fun with this flick. I’m alittle upset, it sounds stupid, but I think I needed to see more "Q"movies, and this started with a "G"!

The movie? Ah, cavemen love. To think that the future cavemen’s childwas conceived when he was taught how to do the deed right. Mind outof gutter, mind out of gutter.

The movie isn’t bad. I actually thought it was a lot better than "2001:A Space Odessey". Yeah, it’s a little slow paced and you have to guesswhat’s going on during most of the movie. But if you didn’t figure mostof it out just by the title, GET HELP! GET HOOKED ON PHONICS! Themovie is interesting and was a pretty decent watch.

8/10

I almost hate to be writing this, but…

I first saw this film nearly twenty years ago, when it first premieredon HBO, I’m guessing, and at that time I am sure I enjoyed it. Ithought the idea of having no real spoken dialogue was inventive, theacting was realistic, and the story was about as accurate one couldexpect with no real history to base it on. I had fond memories of thefilm when I saw it was coming on the other night on Encore…

Like I said, that was nearly twenty years ago. I decided to revisit thefilm. Something had changed. It was funny. It was, in fact, teeteringbetween "ha-ha" funny and "I can’t believe I’m watching this" funny.Even scenes like the trio of fire-seekers being trapped bysabre-toothed lions(?) which had seemed intense in 198? caused me tochuckle. My wife, who had never seen the film walked in about twentyminutes in, chuckled a couple of times, and walked out abouttwenty-five minutes in. Don’t even get me started on the sex scenes (oris it "mating scenes"). I wanted to still like this film, but I justdon’t thin
k it stands the test of time. Just my opinion.

set 80,000 years ago when fire was of the utmost importance and languageswere in their infancy, this film follows three tribesmen on their quest forfire. there’s no dialogue to speak of (pardon the pun) and the charactersare far from typical (they’re neanderthals), and yet it’s a remarkablyentertaining and well-paced film. you’d think that it would get slow, but itsomehow manages to avoid that. i think there are few reasons for this:first, it has a sense of humor - it’s not an overly heavy film. second, it’sa subject matter that is rarely breached outside of academic texts…we’ve seen plenty of "period" films,but few of them go more than a couple thousand years back…this one goesback 80,000 years. and lastly, it’s a film that is boundless…it doesn’thave any cultural or time boundaries on it. the spoken language that thecharacters employ is completely made up and primitive, and the film speaksto fairly universal themes of love, life, survival, our origins, success anddefeat. the film speaks in broad terms and uses our early ancestors as itscharacters so it’s likely to be enjoyed by all. much of the film rests onthe acting and it is uniformly good. i’m not sure if it’s really easy orreally hard to act like a prehistoric man, but either way they pull it off.B.

Quest for Fire straddles a line that is somewhere in the range ofnature documentary and sillier caveman films of the olden days of Bmovies. There's luckily more intelligence and storytelling power thatkeeps things from turning into a silly epic, and the action that occursis supported by characters we do kind of care about. It goes withoutsaying that despite the attempts by the filmmakers (and includingAnthony Burgess) to create a dialog of sorts for these 80,000 BC homosapiens and neanderthals, that the power of the film lies in the simpleintent of what's said, or felt with the "dialog", than what one wordmight mean or another. As a purely visual experience, it's pretty good,if not really 'masterpiece' worthy. It's a minor cult item, to put itanother way.

In fact, it's the strength of incorporating a linear storyline intowhat is essentially a near plot less tale (what plot can there be witha quest for fire when it's not in the usual conventional mode of a'quest'?) of a group of homo sapiens at odds with all the forces ofnature- animals, neanderthals, rival 'gangs', weather, quicksand. Thereis a kind of 'romance' that blooms between one character (I forget whoplayed him) and Rae Dawn Chong's talkative, happy but strong character,and the problems of her former tribe in developing the earliest stagesof a tribal sacrifice and prison and whatnot. It's kind of touching tosee the filmmakers have the faith in the intelligence of the audienceto follow both threads: naturalistic caveman adventures with a"conventional" romance story.

This isn't to say, however, this is for young viewers. Its R rating ispretty well deserved; there's lots of sex, even a caveman rape ofsorts, and lots of murders and death, including one shocking one by abear (it's not so much the bear itself but what immediately precedesit). But for teens and up it should be pretty intriguing viewing thatactually hasn't dated very much. It isn't to say you can't see its 1981wear and tear (i.e. certain close-ups of mammoths scream it), but itspower lies in its simple, primal power of storytelling. A-

read comments (0)

History of the World: Part I

This movie is another awesome Mel Brooks movie and continues the streakof never seeing a bad Mel Brooks movie. This movie has just aboutnothing wrong with it as it's the funny,Stupid humour that Mel Brooksis famous for and always will be. This movie is one movie of quite afew Mel Brooks movies where he is the star and in this one he is by farthe funniest person movie in the whole movie( for example "The SpanishInquizition" song was one of my favourite Mel Brooks clips ever.Another good thing about the movie is that it makes fun of thingsthroughout the movie as most spoofs just make fun of stuff for half waythen start going to different types of humour. Overall I rate thismovie a solid 97% for being a damn funny movie that deserves the highpraise it has.

I loved this movie! I wish he would make another one like it. I heardof a Part II but have never seen it. I actually watched this movie somuch I can repeat it word for word (almost) as well as wore the movieout!

The pair of Brooks and Kahn were the best I have ever seen. They havedone some amazing scenes in numerous films and I would LOVE to see moreof them together. If there is actually a book II I would buy it andnumerous copies for my family and friends. It is a shame that some ofthe actors are no longer around to participate in another film forthis. Almost every film I have viewed of Mr. Brooks has been, in myeyes, a hit! Thank you Mr. Brooks for creating laughter and happinessin the lives of my family and me for all those years.

This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite comedies of all time, coming asit does from Mel Brooks as it successfully skewers such movie staples as thebig-budget epic, musicals and, of course, sequel-itis.

Mel (in my humble yet informed opinion) has never been in better form duringthe ’80s as he was here: lashing out in full force as writer, director andactor against the stoic straightness of history with a sardonic smile andtwisted wit.

He surrounds himself with a more-than-capable cast, including such mega-starcomics as Caesar (whose caveman seemed to develop all of man’s firstinventions all by himself), Kahn (his eternal diva and a sassy diva atthat), Greene (pompous, puffed-up and ready to pop), DeLuise (makingslobbery a pure art form), Korman (Hedley Lamaar in royal French garb - andstill as funny), and even such loyal stand-bys as Carter, Murray, Milliganand DeLuca offer able-bodied support.

But let’s not forget Hines. In his first major motion picture role asJosephus, he shucks and jives, sand-dances and withstands the fiery dancingof Caledonia like a pro. Just an inkling of what his career had to offerlater on, and a perfect calling-card for a future in showbusiness.

And the jokes! There are some classic Mel bits here that have stood thetest of time and will continue to do so. Such classic bits as "TheInquisition", Comicus’ first gig at Caesar’s Palace, the Caveman’s critiqueof that cave painting, "Count duh money, count duh money!", that obsceneFrench chess game, even the coming attractions offer a fewsmiles.

But how can anyone cite certain favorites? The whole movie is a grab bag ofjokes, many off-color and sure to offend. As if Mel made "Blazing Saddles"to please everyone…yeah, right.

In the end, "History" was the passing of an era, since Mel has made fewermovies as "R"-rated, raunchy, raucous, dis-respectful and belly-laughable asthis one. He’s still good, mind you, but just watch this one and see if youdon’t agree: what a wonderful "World".

Ten stars and a true sense of "awww" for "History of the World, Part I". Just ask Mel, he’ll tell you - it’s good to be king.

I remember first seeing this movie when I was a child, and now at theage of 17 it still remains a classic in my mind. This movie’s trulymemorable moments stick in your mind forever. Anecdotes, and quotesfrom it are as frequent as those of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Somany double entendres, and single entendres, that just leave youlaughing until the next one. Its a vicious cycle ladies and gents,trust me. This is not a movie that you will watch just once, oh know,this is one of Mel Brooks best, along the lines of Robin Hood : Men inTights. But as a warning, if your the type that online likes teencomedies, or movies where the humor doesn’t require the slightest bitof thinking, then you wont laugh as hard during this movie. To end thisoff with no spoilers, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT MOVIE, AND I’m STILL WAITINGFOR PART II. Hitler ON ICE, WOOOOHOOOO!!!!

I think anyone that saw this film should have seen that it is possible tobereligious and laugh at ourselves. God created us and I think one of thethings this movie shows is that He intended for us to have a sense ofhumor.I think it is brilliant as is Mel Brooks. Members of our family andextended family use lines from this movie still today. Last familygatheringone member told a joke that drew a couple of giggles and that was all…mynephew said "when you die at the palace, you die at the palace" and we alldid belly laughs. "History of the World, Part 1" is not just a movie itisa tribute to everyone that had anything to do with it. It makes us laugh,acommodity there isn’t enough of in this world.

37. HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1 (comedy, 1981) A farcical telling ofthe history of the world. From the 'Stone Age' to the Frenchrevolution.

Critique: Though many critics (and fans) regard Mel Brooks' first film,'The Producers' (1968), as his masterpiece, I consider this to be hisfunniest and most innovative work. With Brooks' giving atour-De-force-comedy role as writer, director and actor.

Narrated by 'monochrome voiced' Orson Welles, it stars many of Brooks'regular troop including: Cid Ceaser, Mel Torme, and Gregory Hines inhis first starring role as the Roman slave Josephus (from 'Ethiopia . ..105th street').

The film opens with the 'Dawn of Man' sequence (modeled after '2001'),as the 'man-apes' stand up and become humans, masturbating to theclassical theme of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'. Then we move to the 'StoneAge' where we see how comedy, music and the first 'homo-sapien'(and'Homo-sexual') marriages came to be.

The scene then shifts to the brief Old Testament sequence where Moses(Mel Brooks) descends from Mount Sinai with the '15' (and not 10)commandments. Then comes the center piece of the film, the Roman periodwhich follows Comicus (Brooks again) and his attempts at getting a jobas a 'stand-up philosopher' in Caesar's Palace. We are also introducedto the character of Josephus, Caesar (Dom DeLouis), Swiftus (Comicuspartner) and Susan (a 'vestal virgin').

'The Spanish Inquisition' period becomes a musical where the monksexact torture on Jews with song and dance. The last part deals with theFrench Revolution as King Louie is replaced by the "piss boy" to escapeexecution (a take off on Dumars' 'The Man in the Iron Mask').

The film's humor comes from the fact that everything said is takenliterally. When Caesar asks for a "small liar" to play, his guardbrings him a small thief. What also makes it funny is the many sexualreferences throughout, especially in the French period where "it's goodto be the King!".

Whatever happened to 'History of the World Part 2'!!?

That’s what Mel Brooks must be saying all the time, especially after thisfilm. This is one of his funniest films that looks at history instead ofparodying other films. Great fun, as we look at The Stone Age, The TenCommandments (thats probably the funniest part), The Roman Empire, TheSpanish Inquisition (that song is hilarious) and the French Revolution(notto men
tion the look at History of the World part 2 featuring Hitler onIce,A Viking Funeral and Jews in Space). Hilarious all around, but only ifyoulike this type of humor. A

I found this to be the most boring and unfunny ‘comedy’ i have ever hadthe misfortune to endure. It tries so hard to be Monty Python but islight years behind. It uses very simplistic humour and relies onunfunny innuendo.

I only managed to last just past the Spanish Inquisition part beforenearly losing the will to live.

Total waste of time.

Was this film aimed purely at entertaining Jewish people? Is it Jewishhumour or have i just missed the point?!

Mike.

I watched his film with my brother when we were kids and can barelyremember it. What I do recall is that it was absolutely hilarious andwe were both incapacitated with laughter. I must get it on DVD becausethe TV companies dare not show anything that we might actually want tosee. I gave this film a rating of 6 but that is 6/10 based on mymemories of so much laughter. I think that it may well be an 8 but willhave to reserve judgment until I have seen it again. Mel Brooksdefinitely is a class act.

Since "History of the World: Part I" is from Mel Brooks, we all knowwhat that means! Specifically, there's the Fifteen Commandments, thewaiter at the Last Supper, a musical Spanish Inquisition, and a veryun-French Revolution. You gotta wonder how Mel Brooks comes up withthese things. I think that my favorite part was the Inquisition, andthe joke on Torquemada's name. And of course, the suggestions for thesequel were also great; the sort of things that only Mel Brooks coulddo. Classic, hilarious, and everything such.

Anyway, Brooks plays several different people throughout the movie.Also starring are Dom DeLuise, Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman, ClorisLeachman, Gregory Hines, Sid Caesar and John Hurt. Orson Wellesnarrates. You read that right: Orson Welles narrates a Mel Brooksmovie.

read comments (0)

E tu vivrai nel terrore - L’aldilà

When i read all his hype about "The beyond" I thought: it should befreakingsweet gore movie… yeah should be… Maybe it was scary or gore sceneswereon ok level when this movie was made, but now it’s just boring, not evenfunny. Why funny? ‘coz at least from some of the crappy horrors you canlaugh right now instead of be scared as it was intended. Ultimate gore?Didanyone have seen "Braindead"? That’s ultimate gore, yes it’s great comedyalso, if you don’t like comedies go for trilogy of G. Romero ("Night oftheliving dead" if someone don’t know what I’m talking about. There is alsonew, color, remake for those one who need too see blood in red but if youare a real horror fan you should first watch original version form 1968 -yes old one but for sure not so dated) or first 3 movies of "Hellraiser"oralso 3x "Re-animatior" or again 3x "Evil dead", "Texas chin sawmassacre"…and so on. I guess this one is only for spaghetti horrors fans and seamslike I’m not the one of them.

Lucio Fulci’s Zombie films are mostly highly regarded by horror fans.They’re mostly grotesque, quite simply extremely gory and this seems toappeal to most of his followers. The Beyond is most often cited as hisbest effort in his Zombie outings, and since I haven’t seen Zombie 2 orCity of the Living Dead I can’t comment on whether this is his best. Idid however see The House by the Cemetery and this is a definiteimprovement over that sorry film.

The Beyond succeeds brilliantly is grossing out the viewer, startingwith a pre-credits whipping that’s simply disgusting. But that’s onlythe beginning in this splatter fest that has plenty of revolting scenesto make you wish you hadn’t ordered a pizza before sitting down. Ifonly that were enough for me, then I’d be in movie heaven.

I find this Fulci film to be lacking in anything called suspense. Thestory, while being somewhat interesting to a fan of horror movies, isfairly confusing at times and that hilarious dialogue and dubbing don’thelp in that department. To say the acting is bad is a given, but ifthat were enough to get your nickers in a twist you’d best steer clearof all Italian thrillers, be it films by Mario Bava, Dario Argento etc.

Instead of coming up with any novelty story wise Fulci goes for theyucks every single time and in the end it becomes depressing. But then,this is premium Italian gorefest and therefore, not for everyone.

With the sole exception of 'Don't Torture A Duckling', a damn finegiallo, none of the Lucio Fulci films that I have seen so far haveparticularly wowed me. His gore 'classics' certainly managed to satisfymy hunger for blood, guts and eyeball violence, but none of them reallydelivered the goods as far as coherent storytelling and competentdirection were concerned.

'The Beyond', which is often cited as the director's masterpiece, is afilm I had only seen previously in a severely cut form (thank you somuch, the BBFC, for protecting me from fake blood and latex in myformative years); I didn't like it that much. With the uncut film nowavailable on DVD, I decided to give this Fulci favourite anotherchance: just possibly, without the interference of a scissor-happycensor, the film might make some sort of sense.

No such luck! Even uncut, 'The Beyond' proves to be as sloppily writtenand poorly directed as the majority of Fulci's other efforts. The storychops and changes without rhyme or reason, characters come and go (orrather, die) with little explanation as to exactly what has happened,and the whole thing ends leaving one totally confused. Once again, onlythe delightfully squishy effects, courtesy of make-up maestro GianettoDe Rossi, make the film worth a watch.

In this muddled supernatural tale, which sees David Warbeck andCatriona McColl fighting zombies after a door to hell is accidentallyopened, we get plenty of graphic violence, and, for this reason alone,I managed to stay the distance. Gory highlights include the openingscene, in which a man is nailed to a wall and melted with quicklime, aneyeball gouging, a face melted by acid, a hilarious scene in which aman's face is eaten by spiders (most of which seem to be made ofpipe-cleaners!), a throat ripping, and a marvellous moment in which agirl's head is blown apart by a bullet.

Rarely boring but completely nonsensical, I award The Beyond 5.5 out of10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

The movie was poorly made. The blood and flesh were fake. Soundeffects, acting, and contact lenses were poorly done. The dubbing wasOK. Very fake spider. Background for final scene of hell is all thesame shot from the same perspective. The actors are superimposed. Veryobvious. Bad makeup.

The plot was spare. Woman moves into old house. Bizarre "accidents"claim the lives of various people. Various things tell her the cause issupernatural, but she doesn’t believe until a zombie tries to kill her.She seeks the help of Manly Doctor, who doesn’t believe her until azombie tries to kill him.

The various deaths are bizarre. Painter sees zombie reflection inwindow and falls off scaffold. Plumber grabbed by zombie in basement.Woman killed by zombie of plumber in bathroom, even though his corpseis in the hospital. Man grabbed by zombie in basement. Man falls offladder, is conscious but lets his face be torn apart by tarantulas, whocome out of nowhere.

This was all just too childish for me. Never has 86 minutes seemed solong. After about 40 minutes my mind started to wander–what do I needto do when I get home? Why did I let my friends talk me into watchingthis? The positive side is that some parts were so bizarre that theywere funny.

First of all, I like horror films and have nothing against blood, gore &violence if it has any meaning to the film. But most of the gore in thisfilm has no meaning at all, it just seems that Fulci was obsessed withoverexaggerated scenes of blood &guts. For example the scene where a man falls from a ladder in the library.If it was some other director the man would have simply fallen and diedwhenhe hit the floor. But thats not enough for Fulci! After the fall the man isattacked by spiders who shred his face into a bloody mess! Really, whatdoesthat have to do with the rest of the film? Overall I think Fulci is wayoverrated. The reason i hunted down some of his movies (they are not tooeasy to get hold of in Sweden. Especially uncut) was that I had seen on theInternet that many horror-fans consider him one of the greatesthorror-directors. I now have seen New York Ripper, Zombie, House By TheCemetary and this one and I find all of them to be plain garbage. It seemsto me that Fulci was without any talent whatsoever. This movie is notscary,not funny, it is just ludicrous. The only way you can get something out ofwatching this is if you like to watch bad films like Plan 9 From OuterSpaceor if think it is fun to watch lots of fake-looking gore.

Lucio Fulci is regarded by many hardcore fans as one of, if not the,masterof Italian splatter cinema. Many others however, including myself,considerhim to be a talentless hack, whose films are mostly exercises instupidity,and plagiarised at that. Characters in his films are almost alwayspersonality-voids who are so stupid you just want to slap them about andscream "Oh come on, work it out!" One example is the hero of this film,whofires off about thirty rounds from a revolver into a parade of zombies.Thehits to the body have no effect, apart from cute little squib splatters,butthe head shots quite obviously kill them instantly. He eventually comesacross the original zombie, and shoots it in the body, then again, andagain, and again, then runs away. He was too dumb to work out that ahead-shot might be a good idea.

With characters this dumb, plots this pointless, and gore which variesbetween excellent (a man getting nailed to
a wall is a sphincter clincher)and laughable (the worst fake spiders you have ever seen in your life -yes,worse than Jumanji), we turn to Fulci’s directorial skills. Histraditionalextreme facial closeups are here in abundance, along with his bafflingpull-focus push-focus technique. All the scares are either telegraphedhours ahead, or happen so suddenly, the audience forgets to befrightened.

If you want excellence in Italian horror cinema, watch Dario Argento. Ifyou enjoy awful splatter, you already know about Fulci.

I found it very hard to like something about this movie, but I must say thatthe visuals were rather nice. Therefore I give it 2/10, instead of 1/10,which I have never given to a film. Why this film is a minor classic? Well,some people have a very very poor taste and that’s all I can say about that.I’ve seen ZOMBI 2 (another film by Fulci)last week and although I thoughtthat film was not a very good one either (to say the least), it was farbetter than this tasteless and ridiculous tale, which seems awfully similarto INFERNO by Dario Argento from a year earlier. A few examples ofstupidity: a woman’s face (bad special effects too, none of the victimsseems to be in any pain when being killed) is getting covered with acid, andthere are still large bursts of blood coming out of the face; lightningstrikes in the basement; a man runs out of bullets, but keeps firing atzombies in the next scene; a woman is standing at the door when beingattacked by a zombie, but still manages to get to the other side of the roomso that there’s no way out anymore; and so on, and so on…This is just gore, gore and more gore, just for the sake of it. I understandthat some films gain a cult status, although they’ re no masterpieces. Butin that case it’s really not very difficult to become a cult classic. Justmake a bloody and absolutely ridiculous film, with bad actors( whose voiceshave been dubbed) and with a totally inappropriate soundtrack.

Know that I have no problem whatsoever with gore, blood and intestines. Butdoesn’t a film got to have other qualities besides that? A bit ofcleverness, humour,…? BRAINDEAD, for example, was a great film. Very verybloody, but very inventive. See the films of Peter Jackson instead of thosemade by some Italian sickos. What’s the matter with the film-making in thatcountry? Fulci, Argento, Pasolini,… Subtlety… anyone?L’ALDILÀ is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Oh, I just can’t waitto see another "masterpiece" by this Italian horror maestro. I’m evenconsidering of giving up my passion for horror altogether.Just one last word about the film. The story? One bloody murder afteranother. Thrills? No, just disgusting killings. Laughs? Nope, it takesitself far too serious. Music? As ridiculous as the film was. Acting? …2/10 (oh, and try to figure out what IS realistic in this film, I haven’tfound a single thing)

P.S.: what was Fulci’s obsession with eyes? To figure that out, I guess youhave to see the films for yourself. Or do yourself a favor:don’t!

This movie is bloody awful. It makes zero sense. It has some of themost inappropriate uses of gore I’ve ever seen, it’s just a collectionof hastily strung together setups for really bad special effects thatgo on way too long. For example, when the guy falls in the records roomand the spiders come for him, why did they use real and fake spiders atthe same time? It’s laughable. Why was there an opened bottle of acidin the autopsy room and why did the lady just fall down and sit therewhile acid poured on her face?

I watched this movie with a group of friends late last night and wewere shocked by how bad it was. The viewing turned into an episode ofMST3K, everybody was ripping it. I’ve seen Fulci’s "Zombi" and "TheCity of the Living Dead" and all I can say about this director is thathe is completely overrated. His films do not hold up over time, theyaren’t frightening and they certainly aren’t entertaining. I can’tbelieve that Rolling Thunder helped re-release this schlock. When youconsider the other horror films that were coming out in the statesaround this time, like "Alien" and John Carpenter’s "The Thing" itreally shames Fulci. "The Beyond" is low-budget gore-spoliation thatmight have been freaky in say 1973, but in 1981 it was passe and in2004 it is comedy. Take it from me, avoid this at all costs. Where do Igo for a refund?

I’ve read several rave reviews for this movie and I still cant see whatthehype is about. I recently purchased the video "The Beyond" from Anchor Bayentertainment. One thing I will say is that the movie is VERY graphic, butit lacks any real entertainment value. If you really like watching gorescenes, and you dont care about anything else, then this movie might beyourkind of thing, however, if you like any kind of logical story with yourmurder scenes then you will surely be disappointed.

In spite of itself, I must say that I did have some laughs over this one.There are no end to the ridiculous flubs in this movie. Here’s an example:(the setup) A painter working on a scaffold is frightened, and falls off.The next thing we know, he’s lying on the couch puking up blood. The ownercalls a doctor for a house call (instead of calling an ambulance!). Whenthedoctor arrives, he decides that the painter needs to go to the hospital,sohe asks the handyman to grab his legs, and they carry this guy (with acrushed spine, mind you) out to the doctors car, by his head andlegs.

I could go on, but I think I’ll wrap up by saying that if extreme graphicviolence is your only prerequisite for a good time then this one willsurelydo it for ya, otherwise, just watch something else!

Usually, I'm rather a fan of 80s horror-movies, i don't mind the latexFX, i rather like the typical synth-music and their overall atmospherebut here…

I definitely don't want to deny the movie had a couple of very goodmoments, namely the beginning and the end of the movie were just greatbut what was in between was just the thing that makes B-horror moviesridiculous rather than scary.

It was my first Fulci movie and I was quite looking forward to seeingit after all the great things I read about him, but this reallydisappointed me, especially all the gore. Or more exactly, not the goreitself (e.g. I loved Braindead!!!) but the fact that in this movie, itis absolutely useless and in many cases I realized the detail of an eyepopping out of somebody's head actually completely destroyed anysuspense, tension, fear or horror the scene was trying to build up.

So overall rating - don't expect too much and you'll get a good, notTOO scary (for the tougher ones, not scary at all), popcorn-videohorror movie you might enjoy when you're in the mood for some easyentertainment…

read comments (0)