The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

I just didn't like this movie very much at all, first of all it nearlyruins the reputation of the first one which was a classic, and theyjust completely changed the tone from the original as well. The firstone was a low budget shocker and what do we get for the sequel a biggerbudget horror comedy mess. This time around the crazy family is nolonger real and brutal, they have become cartoon characters. Most ofthe humour falls flat on it's chainsaw, the Chop Top character(expansion of the Hitchhiker character, I hear he might be his brother)is suppose to be a hoot, too bad his endless rambling grated me,Leatherface falls in love what a load a crap, the cook yells all thetime and chainsaws become phallic symbols. Seeing Leatherface do pelvicthrusts with his chainsaw or running on the spot like Road Runner isjust absurd. Capped with a finale that seems rushed, a scene liftedfrom the first one and a silly last frame this movie fails on mostcounts. On a plus side though and the only plus side of this movie isDennis Hopper who is a treat as the chainsaw wielding Savior, despitebeing great he's definitely ruins his career by choosing the rubbish tostar in.

I've only ever watched this movie once and that was enough.

There are some movies that should never have been made. This is one ofthem. Where to begin?

1. leather face is a total ass wipe who loves to do pelvic hip thrustswith his chainsaw thingy.

2. one thing i didn't get was when ms. bimbo was giving a tour to theguy with the stds and was telling him goodnight. thats all they weresaying to each other for about 3 hours. i think the bimbo could havedone something else than say goodnight forever.

2. all that retarded bimbo can do is just scream and cry and sit therewhile all the other people are going to straight up murder her ass.

3. what was the point of that old fart grandpa? all he did was moanfrom his aids and threw a hammer at the bimbo.

4. what was dennis hopper going all through leather faces fun housescreaming nothing but jiberish and cutting everything. Than he comes tothat skeleton and starts talking to it telling it not to cry. whatsnext is he going to make out with it?

5. what the hell is with the ending? that retarded bimbo is trying tostart the chainsaw while mr. std is stabbing her. when she finally getsit started she cuts him like once and he falls to his death.

All in all, this movie is a disgrace to the original movie and horrormovies everywhere. If you've never seen this movie, do yourself a favorand avoid it entirely.

For years I heard about this movie. Never fully bothered to rent it orpick it up I was always bitter considering that I was a huge fan of theoriginal and the remake. And when I heard that it was to be released onDVD as an unrated version I was ecstatic. Well, to my amazement, themovie is a total let down. After all of these years of waiting whatrests in my hand can fully be justified as garbage. Now, I do say thatsome of the film has high points, but the overall tone is justhorrendous.

First of all, Dennis Hopper's performance is terrible. His vengeanceattitude is the laughing stock of this film. I can hardly believe or bepushed to accept that he is a man of revenge. To me he is nothing morethan some jackass running around with a chainsaw. Nothing he doescompels you to believe or feel pity for his character. The rest of thecast performance is on the level of cheese or way below it. Leatherface, while being an eerie force in the first film with no remorse hasbeen turned into a weak sissy. On top of that he makes absurd gestureswith his chainsaw that will make you laugh and leave nothing to theimagination. The father character has gone from a controlling figure inthe first film to downright foul mouthed. The corny acting tarnishesthis movie so much, that you can barely hold yourself from laughing.The plot is none existence, the buildup is long and tedious, and themovie goes on such weird directions its hard to believe that this movieis a sequel to the first. Gone is the mystery and suspense, and rawtone. Instead we get nothing but almost two hours of why and how come.

What a shame, I really thought that this movie was going to be good. Ihad such high hopes. The colorful and cheesy direction, bad characters,and a bastardization of a franchise to the a level unlike any trulymake The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 one of the worst films ever. Thismovie is nothing like the first, and I warn you, buy it at your ownrisk.

Everybody wanted to see Tobe Hooper continue the saga of Texas' mostfamous cannibal family in a great sequel to the original classic.

Sorry…this isn't it.

It's OK mind you. It could NEVER be as good as the original, but was itsupposed to be a comedy too? If so…WHY? The chainsaw fight betweenHopper and Leatherface was almost slapstick (splatstick?) in it'sdelivery. Like a Jerry Lewis bit with gore. No thrills or fear. Justgaping awe. And not the kind you want either.

Jim (RIP) Seidow did the best job here. No coincidence he was the onlyoriginal to appear too. A bit of down-home charm mixed withmalevolence. Hopper chewed scenery with abandon. And Caroline (stretch)was just a random figure to center it around. The rest of the familyseemed like buffoons.

Not scary at all. Gory though. And maybe a few good scenes. Butmiss-able it is.

Stretch DID look good in those tight shorts however.

Flying along on a highway 2 vehicles, a truck in reverse hauling assand a couple of irritating drunk punks energized to the point ofannoying .. until a chainsaw grinds through the steel to carve off thetop of one punks head. His hands grasping the air at nothing,the bloodsquirting, the terror in his friend's eyes as he watches and their carcrashes bringing an end to the blood-filled misery. I wonder if Stretch(the radio DJ)could really envision the sight that she had just heard.How long did the passenger lay there watching his life end.. In reallife everyone involved would have sh*t their pants or had heartattacks. Pretty terrifying stuff. A man getting his head bashed in witha hammer by a deranged,cannibalistic Viet Nam Vet. And then his facepeeled off while he's still alive and put on the face of the girl headored. She wore his face (Dead Skin Mask) looking at him as he lookedat her wearing his face .. How f*ing bizarre is this… A woman fleeingup flights of stairs and various platforms of an amusement parkskeleton with a man chasing her slicing her legs and body with astraight razor. That sh*t really really hurt. As she reaches her limitsand she chainsaws her pursuer (Chop-Top)and he falls down the spiralledabyss into nothingness. She screams in rage swinging the chainsawbloodsoaked and terrified. The look on her face and the fear and terrorand rage her eyes… imagine going through this .. Similar to theending of TCM the original (though it was Leatherface)and the anger andthe chainsaw buzzing in the air as it swings and the screen goes blackand it's over. (Didn't hear/read anyone making this contrast). Somepretty sick stuff lol Stretch and her rage filled expression ,pushedpast her emotional limits of survival .. One of the best horror scenesI've ever seen. Gotta love Stretch she's a sweetheart. Freeze the filmand look at her insane expression. thats a person that's been throughsome sh*t. Who could remain sane after that. Great flick if you thinkabout it in these terms. Looking for the realities as opposed to thenon-realities. Especially when .. People really abduct and kill and eatpeople in these modern times.

If you're expecting a film similar in quality to the excellentoriginal, then you are going to be very let down by this woefully badsequel. Dennis Hopper hams it up as the uncle of two of the original'svictims - Sally and Franklin - who is out for revenge on the cannibalfamily from the first film, who are now
living in an abandonedamusement park in rural Texas. When a plucky radio DJ overhears themurder of a pair of teenagers during her broadcast, the family is outto get rid of her and remain unknown. This film is much gorier than thefirst and features a new member of the famous family in the repulsiveChop Top, who was apparently fighting in the war during the first film.The film appears to be a parody of the original, but is simply notfunny. Unless you find the thought of a woman being forced to wear thecut-off face of her boyfriend amusing, then it's safe to say that youwon't be laughing. There is also a lot of noise - whether it isnecessary for the plot or not - which may force you to turn down thevolume or turn it off completely out of utter irritation. Tobe Hooper -who did so well with the original and also his brilliant Poltergeist -should have known better.

A savage satire of the Reagan family values 80s wrapped in a trulyhorrifichorror film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part II is one for the ages. FromCaroline Williams’ brave performance to the remarkable set design to theshocking special effects, this film is one of great pain, anger and humor.See it in widescreen if you can–the letterboxed video is crystal clearanddisplays the great photography. One of the great films of the1980s.

This is the perfect example of a film that challenged me to rationalize whyany production crew with a fairly considerable budget would decide toproduce such inexplicable garbage. It’s rare when you see a film soelaborate, constructed so rich with visual detail that you get a great senseof atmosphere (the underground setting), but also so terrible in ever otherway to cause one to stop and ponder the extent to which films could be madebad all the while cognizant of the fact that it takes many "professional"individuals collectively to take on a project such as this. Basically I askwhy? How?

OK. Maybe it isn’t THAT bad. I remember renting this with 2 of my friends acouple of years ago. Disbelief abounded. That is the best way I canexpress laconically the reaction to the sequel to the cult classic TCM.Disbelief as to how the characters could be so corny, the dialogue so bad,the plot so incredibly paper thin. In all honesty, it was so bad it washilarious, and we have since, on many occasions, recalled some of thefilms’s more memorable scenes such as the one in the beginning when a pooryoung college boy gets a generous portion of his head sliced off by oleLeatherface himself, despite the fact that he’s behind the wheel of a speedy4×4 and you would think that he would do whatever it took to prevent hisbrain from being hacked open like a ripe apple (like maybe ducking). Also,the acting by the lead actress was decent.

It was nice I guess to see Dennis Hopper in this film, but I would seriouslyquestion his sincerity if he told me personally that the TCM2 was just thedignity injection that his career needed.

1 out of 10.

This movie is alot better than the firstone in my opinion. The first one was just amindless horror movie that almost makes nosense. Part 2 has people in it I care aboutwell only 2,the first one has a bunch ofpeople you don’t care about that getslaughtered one by one. Part 2 is also oneof the funniest horror movies ever! I don’tknow why some people don’t like thismovie. Everyone I’m around says part 2 isthe best in the series. I give this movie*** out of ****

i think this movie is made mostly for people who didn’t

like the original,which i didn’t like that much. the reason why i didn’t like the original that much,is that

it was kind of dull,unscary,and laughable at times. the

sequel is a kind of self-parody which to me is one of the

funniest horror/comedies of all time. some scenes in this

movie are gut-busting funny. but a lot of people who loved

the first movie hated this movie. i think it’s maybe because they find it unfunny mocking the first one. i think most of those people don’t really have a sense of

humor. i don’t never get mad if something i like is mocked. it just makes it even better. maybe tobe hooper wanted to have some fun with an other wise disturbing movie. other people i guess didn’t wanna have

fun. but i had loads of fun with it. but even though this

movie has plenty of laughs it’s a tad disturbing in some

scenes, with over the top gore. unlike the original this

movie is never dull, just very funny. i doubt most of it

was meant to be serious. the movie also has a more interesting plot than the first one. the first one was

just a bunch of 1 dimensional characters you don’t care

about who get slaughtered one by one,with the one girl surviving. i care about two or three characters in

this movie. in part 2 it’s about a pretty female radio

DJ who happens to tape two kids getting killed by leatherface while their on the air talking on their car

phone. and some whacked-out texas ranger who wants revenge

on the crazed family who killed one of his family members

in the original movie. so the ranger gets the DJ to play the tape on the radio so that

he can trap them while they come after her,but it goes deadly wrong. it’sjust a underrated,very funny,and semi-disturbing movie. i also never reallyheard any bad hype about this movie untill i came on here. because mostlyeverybody i know likes this movie better than the original. part 2 is thebest in the series. even though i never cared too much for the original,inever thought it was a total waste,but i also think it’s the least in theseries. all in all it’s underrated,and is one of the funniesthorror/comedies of all time! i give the texas chainsaw massacre part 2 ***out of ****

read comments (0)

The Wraith

It’s scary to read the comments for this film. Some people hail this filmasa classic, but it’s not, it’s crap! Some reasons to avoid this film: 1.Crapacting - 2. Horrible script - 3. Bad everything. Even the burgers theymadeat the rather unpleasant diner looked bad. Oh, I almost forgot the carchases: They’re crap.

"The Wraith" is a strange low-budget film from 1986 that never does make asmuch sense as it should. A young boy (Charlie Sheen) is killed one nightwhile he is with his girl-friend by a local gang of crazed automobilepirates. Now the boy is back as a sort of supernatural ghost, car-racer whogets to pick off each member of the gang methodically (all with anautomobile theme). Charlie Sheen returns and everyone in the small Arizonatown seems to have amnesia about what the deceased boy looked like (becauseSheen’s appearance is the same before and after his death). Nick Cassavetesis really evil as the ring-leader of the gang and Randy Quaid is alsopresent as the local sheriff who cannot figure out what’s going on. Thereis just not much substance to this film. The performances are average, butthe screenplay is full of holes and this keeps the direction down as well. Car fanatics should love this film, as the automobiles are something to beappreciated. A stunt-man was actually killed during the filming of one ofthe racing scenes. This film will only be remembered as the "other" 1986Charlie Sheen film ("Platoon"). 2 stars out of 5.

I just cant stop seeing this movie it kicks some major butt, i ordered thetape and ive showed it to all my family relatives most of them all said itwas good, grabbed a handfull of great cars, cast members ((Well ThatGutterguy and skank can get annoying a bit, but they had some humor as well)) iwould suggest you see it if you havent………

A very bad B-movie. Not worth watching. A mix of streetracing / fantasy /romance / action but none of these lines are strong enough. Thecharactersare quite poorly written (except perhaps for the members of the gang). Ifyou do decide to watch it, look out for Sherilyn Fenn topless (about 1second in the TV version I’ve seen).

From the majority of reviews on this site (almost all of them writtenby illiterate individuals who can neither spell nor constructgrammatical sentences), I expected a truly awful grade-B production -ala WAXWORK. Instead THE WRAITH is a quite enjoyable piece of eightiesteen age fluff with a plot that does not stand up to scrutiny. Still,it’s lots of fun.

Most of the other reviewers are confused by the flashback scene inwhich Jamie Henkins is killed by the auto gang. The out of focus, redwash, fast cut editing of the scene leads them to believe that CharlieSheen played this character and they are then confused when thecharacter’s spirit returns in the likeness of Charlie Sheen. Why, theywonder, don’t the other characters recognize him. In reality,Christopher Bradley plays Jamie and in the darkly lit, quickly cutscene, his facial resemblance to Sheen allows viewers to make thismistake. If Mr. Bradley had been allowed more time on screen so that wecould register his face and character, this confusion would not haveexisted. Here is an editing decision that works against the film.

The plot is ridiculous. Don’t any of the teens have parents? We neversee any. Can’t Keri’s folks take out a restraining order on thementally disturbed Packard?

Despite its plot holes, the film is fun to watch. The DVD digitaltransfer makes it bright, crisp and clear - it looks as if it had beenmade yesterday. Cinematography, editing, and a now famous compilationof rock songs soundtrack are all top notch. Despite the miscasting ofNick Cassavetes as the villain- he is way too old (27 at the time offilming) to be believable as a teen-ager - the characters are allinteresting - from the weirdos in the gang to the sweetly innocent.

Charlie Sheen looking 18 himself (he was 21 at the time of filming) issweet, pretty and makes a fine teen hero - he’s also a great kisser.Matthew Barry is a stand out as the sensitive Billy Henkins (without agirlfriend himself, he seems to be meant as a young gay man - note hisattraction to Jake - without spelling it out). Another pretty face isSteven Eckholdt as George - seen only in the opening scene. ChristopherBradley is yet another stunner in his one scene (the murder flashback)but he’s on screen less than 30 seconds. And to give the man his due,Nick Cassavetes is quite attractive.

So you have a cast of quite attractive young men - to offset the uglybunch who portray the gang - and one girl - Sherilyn Fenn - whoregisters only as pretty, not as an actress.

This is a fun movie, full of pretty people, and one in which the badguys lose and the good guys win. I’m not a car person, but that blackbeauty is a stunner. Recommended.

Sadly, i am disappointed by this movie although i loved every otherCharlie Sheen movie. Let’s see how ‘brilliant’ the plot is, right ?Some teenage gets killed for having sex with the big bad gang-leader’sgirl (who doesn’t love him so it’s not actually a relationship). Thenthe same guy appears, living, with a different name but nobodyrecognizes him. He starts drag racing every member of the gang thatkilled him - how is that original ? I mean at first it was kind ofinteresting, wow a challenge, but then it becomes boring when yourealize that there’s a serial killer with a fast car that raceseverybody and then kills them, and you still want to race him. Eventhough he killed all your friends, you don’t break the car’s window,drag him out of it and kill him, you just say "oh so you want to race ?fine, i’ll give you a race" (the scene where Packard and Jake race).The only thing good about this movie was the Dodge Turbo Interceptorwho looks better than any car i’ve seen right now. Hope i didn’t spoilyour appetite to see this movie - it does deserve a shot, maybe you’lllike it more than i did.

The wraith is a really cool movie!

I think the movie really stands out for car lovers (some awesome carsin this movie; not just one), and romantics alike. Who wouldn’t likefor a lover to return and rescue you (after all death didn’t even stophim) and I love the revenge he got on everyone that took part in hisdeath……lawyer, judge, and jury all in one

My favorite part in the movie is when he (charlie sheen) kills packard

I own this movie as well and would recommend it to all 80’s fans outthere

~Angie~

I’m not going to go the way of past reviewers and over-analyse ‘TheWraith.’

Try as I might, I can’t agree that this is a film of great depth packedwith subtle, multi-layered performances. And given its 18 certificatehere in the UK, I won’t attempt to justify it on the basis of its teenappeal. Quite simply, this is not a great film. Sure, I watched it 15years ago as a teenager and found it thoroughly entertaining. But Ialso watched it yesterday as an adult and while it brought a certainamount of (unintentional) amusement, I had to force myself to stay tothe end. As a lifelong fan of lame car chase films, I’ve got to say theaction is lamentable. The quality of the acting is pretty much as you’dexpect, the dialogue is worse and the plot in general doesn’t stand upto even the mildest scrutiny. However, whilst this is one of the worstfilms of the eighties I can’t help but like it for its sheer enthusiasmand self-belief, the earnest cock-rock soundtrack and the cast’suncanny ability to keep a straight face. Oh, and what is possibly thegreatest line ever delivered on celluloid. Assume your best BobcatGoldthwaite shriek and repeat after me: "We gonna beat him like ared-headed stepchild…"

I recently found this movie on DVD and instantly knew it had to be inmy collection. Yes, other reviews will tell you all about the ‘holes inthe plot’ or pick apart the making, bu
t for sheer nostalgic value, thisis a hit. Admittedly, a lot of my enthusiasm for this movie has to dowith the fact that I was thirteen years old in 1986. I have had severaltalks with friends about the ‘cool’ movies we remembered growing up,and "The Wraith" always surfaces. Movies like this one are fun to sitback and grin a little bit at how serious they really were when makingit, and poke some fun at a young Charlie Sheen and Randy Quaid. It maybe slightly on the guy side of the chart, but for anyone that likes alittle cheese now and then (especially if you were a young teen in the80’s), check this one out.

Acting: Rather blah, Charlie Sheen probably wishes he never made the movie,but as Brat Pack movies go it’s alright. Cassavetes actually comes acrosswell as a deranged and jealous nasty, as does Dave Sherrill (Skank) as aseriously tripped out Thug Number One (you won’t believe the variety ofsubstances he attempts to abuse in this flick!) Clint Howard is as usualtypecast as the ‘nerd’ though; he tries, but the role just didn’t give himmuch room. Everyone else (including Quaid) was strictly in it for the moneyon this one.

Vehicles: Oh yeah! The Dodge PPG Turbo Interceptor (value around $5 mil,give or take a few thousand) plus a whole bevy of souped up musclecars, arethe whole reason for seeing this flick in the first place. Apparentlyduring filming Dodge supplied their own security for the PPG, as they didNOT want so much as a scratch on it. Hard to do when everything else onwheels is getting turned into scrap… but they managed it.

Locations: Very good. Filmed entirely on location in the American SonoranDesert. The Tucson Arizona area really gets to show off in some of theaction shots and the "mushy scenes".

Stunts: They’re okay. The car crashes are fairly good considering what’ssupposed to be happening, but somehow they look like cars soaked in gasolineand pushed off cliffs. The race scenes, however, are top rate due to theclose-in camera work. Fights are ho-hum, only one cool explosion in thewhole movie (not at the end either).

Special Effects: sorta-kinda. The UFO and atmospheric effects are cool thefirst time around, but they get old if you’ve seen "Close Encounters" or anyX-Files episode. The juiced-up Interceptor engine is atrip.

Weapons: The cars. Nothing else comes close. The propmaster could have donea much better job with the Wraith’s weapon (LED’s on a twelve-gauge? give mea break!) given what he was driving and what he was wearing.

Raunch Rating: The violence level is a little intense for young viewers,and there’s enough overt teenage sexuality here to keep it off TV unedited,but it’s fairly tame except for the car crashes. Very little blood andguts, most of the "ook! bleah!" factor is from the (bad) dialogue and theplotline.

read comments (0)

The Mission

But then, I have always had great difficulty with films thatreligiously subscribe to the 'style over substance' formula. Joffe'sThe Mission (1986) is no different from the usual unremarkable visualfares. All cinematography and no story. In fact, the film goes to greatlengths to place any aspect before story – be it gorgeous naturevisuals of the setting, classical musical score or actors. The latteris the most heavyweight weapon in its arsenal and it boasts of RobertDe Niro, Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson and Aidan Quinn… all of whom areultimately unable to elevate The Mission above generic 'visual film'formula.

It follows then that we have here an endless tirade of shots of treesblowing in the wind, pouring waterfalls off rocky cliffs, lush dampjungle air and, above all, long introspective images of Native Indians.If you have ever seen Malick's The New World – another fatal 'styleover substance' self-indulgence dribble about settlers coming across aNative population – you know exactly what this film is like.Thankfully, it has slightly more substance when you scratch thevisual-laden surface and it is more strongly acted by its leads.Nevertheless, expect the same kind of lofty narrative, lack of focus indawdling nature visuals and SAME COMPLETE LACK OF ANY TEMPLATE STORY.

There is, however, one scene that has remained with me from the film.This is Jeremy Irons embracing a crying, kneeling and broken Robert DeNiro in the midst of the junglefloor, while the warm breath from themurky brown river gives rich to a tense, beautiful atmosphere. This isregrettably as poignant as it allows itself to get because a minutelater it zooms back into listless wandering with the camera and fallsapart once again. It simply loses itself in its own self-indulgence ofnature portrayals and the Native civilisation, which is not nearly asfascinating or mesmerizing as the film tries to have you believe. Sure,it's pretty; it's picturesque – but what else?

I set out to watch The Mission for its triumvirate of fantastic actors(Irons, De Niro, Neeson) but was offered no showcase for any of theiracting abilities. Although it was quite interesting to see a young veryOirish-looking Liam whenever his character was squeezed in between thethin nature visuals. It needs to be said that this is not anunwatchable film unless you have a short attention-span and demandnon-stop action. It does, however, need to be said that The Mission isnot a poignant or remarkable film and it manages merely competent.

5 out of 10

Father Gabriel ascends the mountains of Brazil to bring Christianity tothe natives. He is successful and brings about a golden age among them.

Mendoza, a slaver, kills his brother in a fit of rage, and only Fr.Gabriel's guidance prevents his suicide. Gabriel brings Mendoza to workat his mission with the natives, and Mendoza finds peace and asks tobecome a priest.

The church , under pressure, cedes the land to the Portuguese whichwill allow slavers in again.

Mendoza breaks his vows and organises the natives to resist whileGabriel warns him to help them as a priest…

the film did absolutely nothing for me. if i want to See De Nirodeliver penance, i watch rocky and Bullwinkle, if i want Ironsdelivering a good performance, i see reversal of fortune. after readingthe reviews, i expected to see something eye opening, maybe evenvisceral, but what i got was a jealous Travis Bickle being saved by theunpopular Gruber brother and Qui Gon Jinn, trying to save a group ofpeople who wanted to be left alone anyway.

maybe i am missing the point, or maybe i don't care if the art-housefolk read this and disapprove.

but the cinematography was beautiful and there was one stand out sceneafter De Niro was shot and looking at Irons for hope, and thenrealising that there is no hope after he is shot dead.

a pointless movie, with beautiful scenery.

Have just watched the DVD of The Mission; the scenery may be verybeautiful but this does not distract from the fact that this is one ofthe most boring films I have ever seen. I really don't know how to fillten lines here, but the film makers managed to fill a whole hour withalmost nothing. I'm just glad that I didn't pay to see the film in thecinema; I watched it at a friends and left after an hour. I'm afraidthat nice music and beautiful scenery can't make up for a poor film,though I have to admit that I couldn't bear to watch the final sixtysix minutes. I was so little enthused by what I saw that I perhapsmissed the best of the film - or perhaps I didn't.

When I first saw this movie, the first thing I remembered was thinking:"Hey, I know this song! But from where…". Then I remembered, thescore is from my childhood. Every morning, my parents listened to aradio station and at 7:58 A.M. there was a show where a priest saidsome thoughts and this music was played.

Well, what can I say about this movie? It is beautiful, one of the mostbeautiful ones I ever saw in my 27 years of existence.

The story, even not being accurate (the Portuguese never massacred theIndians, but the Spanish did - but it really is not important to tellwho did what. The important is to say that it was done, so let’s notforget it never), is simple. There is a conflict of interests. TheSpanish want slaves, the Portuguese can get some and the Church doesnot want to lose the power it has in Europe. And, as always, there areinnocent who pay the bill.

Jeremy Irons is a priest that risks his own life so that the Guaranican know the Word of God. He believes that love is stronger than thesword. And believes that until the end.

De Niro is a trade slaver who kills his own brother due to a woman. "Awoman!" said Jack Nicholson in "Batman". Was that motive strong enoughto do that? I don’t believe so neither did he, because of the grief hefelt and that almost killed him.

The stronger moment in the film is the forgiveness of the Guarani toMendonza (De Niro). They forgave what he had done to them. And what ascene that is. We can’t say if De Niro is laughing or crying, maybeboth, maybe none. Sometimes, when my life is not happy and somethinggood happens, I wish I could do the same he did because I could castall my sadness away.

I dare everyone to watch this movie and say that never felt a bittouched by it’s beauty.

10/10

The British film critic Leslie Halliwell said of this film "sincere tothe point of boredom", and that’s a very accurate description indeed ofThe Mission. It is a beautiful film, both to look at and to listen to.It tells a moving story that leaves an intentionally sour taste in themouth. It also features strong performances and incredible locationwork. One would assume that in any movie where the cinematography,music, script, acting and locality all slot together so smoothly andmeaningfully, the finished product would be truly extraordinary. Suchthinking would certainly be true of, say, Lawrence Of Arabia. But inspite of all its strengths and its evident potential, The Mission doesnot reach the classic heights to which it aspires. Instead, it comesacross as a good - at some stages VERY good - historical account whichnever quite hits a level one might call excellent. I mused long andhard whether to give this film a 7-out-of-10 or an 8-out-of-10 rank,but 9 and 10 ratings never came into the equation.

In the 18th Century, in the rainforest around the modern borders ofArgentina, Brazil and Paraguay, a tribe called the Guarani kill amissionary priest by tying him to a wooden cross and sending him overthe edge of a waterfall. The priest’s replacement, Jesuit FatherGabriel (Jeremy Irons), approaches the same tribe and wins them overwith his patience, love and respect. Before long, Gabriel has convertedthe tribe to the ways and customs of Christianity. Father Gabriel isjoined by an e
x-slaver, Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro), who exiledhimself after murdering his own brother in a jealous rage, and whofinds a chance of redemption by joining the Jesuit order and helping topreach to the Guarani people. Soon, problems arise that threaten theJesuit cause and the existence of the Guarani. A change in borderdelineation results in the Portugese acquiring the Guarani land; thePortugese refuse to acknowledge the tribe as converted Christians,viewing them as little more than animals, good for nothing but slavery.The Catholic Cardinal, Altamirano (Ray McAnally), is told to make theJesuits leave the area and forsake the tribe. Father Gabriel andRodrigo refuse to turn their backs on the people they have worked with- even though they themselves disagree on how best to confront thePortugese. Gabriel, a man of peace, feels that he should die with themand show them how to go honourably to their graves; Rodrigo, a man ofthe sword, feels that the Indians should fight to protect theirmission….

The film’s ending is very sad and demonstrates everything that is wrongwith the policies of powerful countries exploiting those less powerfulthan their own (a theme that is still relevant today - it seems ourpoliticians have learned little from history). Ennio Morricone providesa stunning score which is easily his best work since the spaghettiwestern days, and which brings great emotion to the proceedings. Ironsand De Niro give good performances as the differing Jesuits who cannotlet go of their ideals even though they know they’re doomed if theydon’t. Both are actually upstaged by McAnally, whose role as theCardinal is by far the best in the film, exploring as it does thehumanistic and moral dilemma faced by the character. The Mission isquite a heavy-going film and, like Halliwell said, it is very sincereindeed. Therefore, whilst it has its good points, it is also a hardfilm to watch and is more likely to appeal to those interested in theevents, the period and the politics than to more generally-mindedaudiences.

‘The Mission’ looks so beautiful that you almost forget the other thingsthat can make a movie good or bad. That the story isn’t that great and thatsome things don’t make much sense is too bad but there is enough here toenjoy. The cinematography of the beautiful nature is great. Every shot hassomething beautiful in it. The music composed by Ennio Morricone is great aswell.

We also have Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons with nice performances. Themovie was directed by Roland Joffé who directed the great ‘The KillingFields’ and he does a nice job here as well, most of the time. The fightingsequence in the end was hard to follow. Like I said the story is not thatgreat either but it will not bore you at all. If you like one of the actorsand beautiful nature you will definitely like this movie. Otherwise youmight like it as well, but that is not sure.

This movie is so good it’s hard to write about it without sounding like ahysteric. The script, acting, cinematography and score are wonderful, and the sceneryis breathtaking. The story is totally compelling, deeply moving, and true. Inmy book, it’s one of the ten best movies ever made.

This movie is a rare gem. It is a potent mix of faith, action,historical epic and alegory. It is a revelation of the power ofhumanity over politics and faith over cynicism. The acting, casting andnarrative are as close to perfect as can be portrayed on celluliod.

If you have not seen this movie then hunt it out and watch it withfriends. It is based on true events but takes the perspective of and issympathetic to the men on the ground over the great politicians andself serving churchmen of the time. Looking at the events of the pastfew years in particular this movie offers hope in the role individualscan play in change for the better of mankind.

The Mission was an amazing film for a myriad of reasons. First andforemost, the musical score showed why Ennio Morricone is a giant inthe film industry. For this movie, Morricone displayed the serenity ofthe wind pipes and flutes beautifully. The soundtrack is one of myinstrumental favorites. Secondly, the acting of both the GuarjaniIndians with legends like Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro were amazing.Ihave to admit though, at times DeNiro did come across as a guy fromBrooklyn stuck in the jungles of Paraguay, instead of the mercenaryMendoza. Thirdly, the sentimental value of the film is what reallystruck me. Whether one believes in the religious values of the Jesuitsor not, the belief in G-d and love demonstrated in the movie were thefilm’s epicenter. To see the growth of the Indians through trust in G-dwere powerful. As Jeremy Irons sits and plays the flute to the anger ofthe Guarjani chief, until the end of the movie as the entire villagewalks into the Portuguese gunfire. To conclude, I will be spending partof my honeymoon in Foz De Iguazu on the Brazil/Paraguay border thisDecember, the Guarjani struggle against the colonialists from Portugalwill be on my mind as I reflect on "The Mission."

Reputedly powerful film, but merely well made, about a mission in theSouth American jungle threatened with closure due to politics in theVatican.

Roland Joffe puts the movie together well, but still I find "TheMission" does not have the real impact it could have had. Thecinematography is magnificent, Ennio Morricone's score is haunting tosay the very least, and all the cast, including Jeremy Irons, Robert DeNiro and Aiden Quinn give strong performances. Sadly however, asidefrom all the superb craftsmanship of movie-making on offer here, "TheMission" delivers little else in the way of entertainment. Pleaseendeavour to see this on the big screen.

Thursday, March 19, 1992 - Video

read comments (0)

The Hitcher

There are a few genuinely scary moments in ‘The Hitcher’, but unfortunately,this movie is wildly overcooked, and falls back on one of cinema’s leastinteresting archetypes, the near-omnipotent serial killer. Rutger Hauerplays him as a pastiche of Jack Nicholson, while C. Thomas Howell is totallyout of his depth as his adversary, an apparently innocent victim whoalternates between mortal fear and the desire to sort things out himselfwith the frequency of an electric current. From similar beginnings,Speilberg’s ‘Duel’ went on to achieve much more: milking the premise for allwas is worth; while ‘The Hitcher’ merely over-eggs the pudding. Avoid.

Rutger Hauer plays a homicidal psycho traveller in "The Hitcher." Hisnemesis is the young C. Thomas Howell, who does some of the stupidest thingsI’ve ever seen in a thriller before. Together they form an invisible bondthrough their eternal strugges–the question is, by the end of the film, dowe give a hoot?

Jim (Howell), who works for a car transportation company, is driving avehicle to California. Bored and tired on a rainy night, he pulls over andgives a wandering stranger, John Ryder (Hauer), a ride ("My mother told menever to do this), in hopes of keeping him awake at the wheel. Ryder (getit?), is strange, and eventually he reveals a knife, commanding Jim to keepdriving him onwards. Jim, bawling like a baby, finally manages to bump Ryderout of the car, whereupon he yells like an idiot and curses Ryder, who isrolling helplessly along the sandy highway stretch.

But Jim finds himself relentlessly haunted by Ryder, who seems bent onplaying with Jim. Sometimes he wants Jim dead. Other times he does not. Heframes Jim for his own murders. Then he saves Jim from a police stationafter he is apprehended.

The motive for the killer is unclear, though I suppose that is the purpose.Ryder carries an almost supernatural evilness to him. He’s the UncatchableVillain, the type of bad guy who can walk into a house, unseen by anyone,murder the inhabitant, and walk back out, locking the door behind himwithout so much as a key to do so.

But the interplay between the two is grim and unmoving. Jim’s traits do notmake for an attractive character–he whines and boo-hoos when held hostage,yet moments later he acts like a jerk, waving his fists in the air intriumph after losing Ryder. Okay, so it’s enthusiasm. But you have to createa brave, likable character first. For example, take "Die Hard." Would wecare for John McClane if he stopped in the middle of his gunfights, put hishands on his head and started crying like a child? No. Because though theeveryman isn’t a brave warrior, to make a movie you need a braveone-in-a-million hero. You can’t rely upon a hero and give him unattractiveand uninvolving charms.

Then again, part of of the problem with our hero lies in the actorportraying him, the annoying and squeaky-voiced C. Thomas Howell, whosecareer has also brought such other wonderful modern classics as "Red Dawn"and the worst film of the year (I haven’t seen "Gigli"), "Gods andGenerals." His character is just plain dumb, and often I felt like jumpinginto the TV and strangling him (I tried that once–it doesn’t quite work). Ican’t put it writing the type of profoundly stupid things he does andsays–you have to see it for yourself.

Another problem is the film’s tension–it has none. It’s not the fast-pacedthriller that "Speed" was, nor the smart action extravaganza that "Die Hard"was. It’s not as gripping as "Misery," which often had me pinned to my seat,and it’s not as gruesome as "Silence of the Lambs." It tries to befast-paced by quickly cutting to the next scene and the scene after that,but they don’t hold together and the film becomes messy and convoluted. Ittries to be smart by using John Ryder as a metaphor for death and the GrimReaper, but in turn comes across quite dumb. There are no tension-packedscenes that leave you breathless and sweating. And it tries to become asunnerving as "Silence of the Lambs" by employing tons of blood and guts–but"Lambs" wasn’t sickening because of its violence, but rather because itintroduced us to the sick world of cannibalism. It psychologically affectedus. How does a bucket of splattered blood psychologically affect us? Eventhen, the blood and carnage–by today’s standards–is quitetame.

I waited for a final showdown between Jim and John, and I was let down.There is a brief showdown towards the end of the film, after John escapesfrom a moving police transport van and (get this) leaps out of the back ontothe hood of Jim’s car, crashes through the windshield, falls out again,rolls across the road, then gets up and tries to shoot him with a shotgun.Boring, stupid and way too unbelievable. I don’t mind when things aren’trealistic in movies, in fact, that’s often what I go see them for in thefirst place. But when the ending betrays the film itself, and providesnothing but a really boring shootout that isn’t even remotely exciting, andhas been done over and over beforehand in countless other films…I’minsulted.

Hauer is by far the best actor of the film, giving his villain evil traits,but even then I found his John Ryder character bleak, dull, and not veryinteresting. Yeah, he’s a metaphor for death incarnate, but so what? Thereis no character progression in this movie–by the end we have learnednothing at all. "Why are you doing this to me?" Jim asks Ryder. "You’re asmart kid–figure it out." As for me, I’m still waiting for an answer to thequestion, John.

1/5 stars.

- John Ulmer

This film doesn’t really live up to its cult reputation. Sure, it’sreasonably suspenseful at times, but very short on sense, and, overall, ahuge disappointment. Hauer is creepy enough, but the film fails completelywhen it tries for "depth": there is no sense of "relationship" between thecharacters - a thoroughly evil man torments a thoroughly innocent man. Andwhy are all the cops so dumb? And how many explosions does a "psychological"thriller need?

THE HITCHER is a predictable and slow-paced thriller about a teenager who ishaunted by a violent psychopath he picks up and ditches en route toCalifornia. As far as thrillers go, this movie has little decency. You cantell that C. Thomas Howell was never really a heartthrob just by looking athis performance here. Jennifer Jason Leigh tries a lot, but fails atplaying a decent Texan. Rutger Hauer as the killer is the only interestingcharacter, but even his character is quite confusing. Given the poor scriptit has, THE HITCHER is also a disappointment for its gruesome violence,which is so graphic that you would be too afraid to go to bed if you viewedit at nighttime. Recommended only to night owls.

1 out of 5

Spoilers herein.

All movies start with a bald fact: there is the filmmaker (or group makingthe film) and there is us, the viewers. They manipulate us. Its their job to anticipateour moves, to travel along beside us and intervene to frustrate our normalroutes.

Some films are ABOUT such an intervention, a manipulation. Even though theFreddy movies are cheesy, they stand on this intelligent notion (made explicit inone of the sequels where Craven enters the plot). In such cases, the filmmaker isexpected to be a brutal to us as his monster is to whatever hapless victim is involved. So wehave all sorts of assaults on us — many of these clearly staged for their effect on usrather than on the victim in the film.

So far, the idea is pretty common.

There’s a similar notion in "Bladerunner," that the plot involves creating aperson out of nothing just like a filmmaker does, and the notion of borrowed memories iscommon to both the film and the story within the film. Hauer symbolizes that for mostof us, an association he has been exploiting ever since.

Here we have the two notions combined. Pretty effectively and cheaply, I’dsay. The flaws are significant, though. They didn’t know how to end it, and that’simportant when dealing with such matters. "Identity" and "Silence of the Lambs" did itwell. The other flaw is the misuse of JJ Leigh. She’s not a great actress. She doesn’t have whatDepp has, but she comes from a similar awareness of self-reference. Here, she is badlydrawn (sorry).

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

C. Thomas Howell, looking perpetually dumbfounded, plays chain-smokingyoung kid who picks up a psychotic hitchhiker while drivingcross-country. Masochistic thriller might've been sharper as ashort-film; at this length, one begins to question why Rutger Hauer(looking a bit like Robert Shaw) is so fascinated with this pinheadyouth with the cigarette hanging from his mouth. It's dragged out toofar, and the "surprise" ending is such a labored cliché I wouldn't besurprised if audiences laughed at it even in 1986. Good car chasemidway through shows professionalism, but the rest of the picture is astrenuous ride. *1/2 from ****

This movie scared the hell out of me. When it was over I was trembling allover. Rarely does a movie leave me in this condition. The evil hitchhikerwas well played by Hauer, a man who is just plain evil looking anyway. Thewhole show played out a believable except for the part where Hauer drove atruck off the road and the truck never bounced once. Plus, while off roadheshot down a chopper with a handgun. No way, folks. But is one can ignorethat one crummy scene, the rest of it is done very well. Don’t watch thisone late at night if you are alone.

An unending nightmare filled with one horror scene afteranotheras a deranged hitcher starts his rampage. Off the wall performance byHauercarries the film that is altogetherreminiscent of "Night of the Hunter."

This will drain you dry. It will wear you down to a frazzle. C. ThomasHowell is in for the ride of his life. He is driving through the desert andis terrorized by a psychotic hitchhiker, Rutger Hauer. This has to beHauer’s finest performance. What a menacing character, ruthless andrelentless. The dialogue is a little skimpy, but the violent action sceneskeeps you on pins and needles.

Also featured are Jennifer Jason Leigh, Billy Green Bush and HenryDarrow.

This will remind you to lock the car doors and not stopping foranyone.

The Hitcher makes the most out of it’s concept of a boy being pursued by ahomicidal hitchhiker. C. Thomas Howell has weak moments but Rutger Hauer ispretty good as the heavy. Never any really terrifying scenes but it’s an oldmovie for nostalgia. **

read comments (0)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Picking up from the last Star Trek film, The Search For Spock, theEnterprise crew go on yet another voyage in Star Trek IV: The VoyageHome. Leonard Nimoy directs The Voyage Home (a "Leonard Nimoy Film" noless), only this time he's in front of the camera as Spock as well asbehind it directing the picture. Unfortunately, this Leonard Nimoydirected Star Trek film does not measure up to his last one, The SearchFor Spock, or many others in the series. Utterly ridiculous from itssend off, The Voyage Home ends up dead in the water.

The Voyage Home is in the same vein of Star Trek: The Motion Picture inthat a big unknown thing is heading for Earth with intentions about asexciting as an Aaron Neville concert and just as bad. The crew, aftergiving the middle finger to Star Fleet and breaking ranks to saveSpock, return to Earth to face their trial. Unknown to them, adangerous probe that sends out an Earth-ravaging signal in the form ofthe song of a humpback whale is destroying the planet. According to thefilm, the humpback whale went extinct in the 21st Century. That's anodd thing to say nowadays as there are more humpback whales now in the21st Century there were in 1986 - go figure. But theoretically, thereare no more humpback whales in the era of the Enterprise - alright,we'll go with that. After other successful time travel sci-fi films ofthe era like The Terminator and Back To The Future, the Enterprise crewnaturally go back in time to go catch 'em some humpback whales! So allthis danger and destruction is going on during the film and we as theaudience know that humpback whales are the answer - well, that's someexciting stuff right there I tell you what! On with the show!

Here in this film, the Enterprise crew encounter the exciting,um,-1980s! How exotic a time! Here, they run into colorful characterswith colorful uses of the English language - something that rubs off ona few members of the crew ("double dumbass on you!"). The crew sure hadan exciting vacation when they're supposedly crunched for time: CaptainKirk meets a dame, Scotty looks like an idiot typing away randomly on acomputer keyboard to create a wonderful moving 3-D graphic and talkinginto a mouse like it's a communicator, Mr. Chekov is mistaken for aSoviet Spy, and Sulu gets to fly a helicopter. Other supposedly "funny"things occur throughout the film but they're just not funny at all.Here is one of The Voyage Home's many pitfalls, all the humor is sodumb you are either laughing because everything is so stupid or you arefrustrated that you are wasting time watching this piffle.

Surprisingly, with such a dumb story and poor attempts at humor, themain cast does a good job. Shatner, Kelley, Nimoy, Doohan, Takei,Koenig, and Nichols all end up performing their roles well for whatthey have to do. There is one bad member of the cast that sticks outlike Calista Flockhart's spinal cord however: Catherine Hicks. As ifcasting one terrible future 7th Heaven cast member in a Star Trek filmwasn't enough (Stephen Collins in Star Trek: The Motion Picture), thefilmmakers cast another one. Hicks plays her Dr. Gillian whale-huggerrole to annoyance levels far beyond the readings of mere 21st centurytechnology. Boy, is it ever not fun to watch her flip out…. or doanything, really. The film's soundtrack, composed by the Oscar-winningLeonard Rosenman, is not bad but is ultimately nothing special - thoughsometimes it actually adds to the cheesy unfunny gags found throughoutthe film and becomes insult to injury.

What you undoubtedly knew was coming before you even sat down to watchthe movie, the crew gets their whales (one packed so full of whalespawn it will be able to repopulate the 23rd Century's whale-lessEarth). Of course needing a climatic ending, the crew saves the whalesjust in time from the whalers! Those pesky whalers - just as numerousin the sea as fishing ships apparently. That's right Kirk my boy,de-cloak the ship and hover over the whalers! That'll show 'em - yeah!After such an exciting conclusion (and not dumb at all), everythingelse in the film ends the way everyone knew it would: the whales sing,the probe floats away, the Enterprise crew splashes around incelebration, they get off scot-free, and we see a montage of events wejust spent 2 hours already watching. End curtain - thank heavens.

This is and will forever be the greatest Star Trek film ever made. Why?Because William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley will have nothingto do with any more of the Star Trek films. And frankly, THEY ARE STAR TREK.This was the film that best presented Star Trek to the world. It has a greatstory, fun performances and memorable moments, and wraps up the ‘Genesis’trilogy with flying colours. Even if you’re not a Trekkie, see thisfilm!

This is and will forever be the greatest Star Trek film ever made. Why?Because William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley will have nothingto do with any more of the Star Trek films. And frankly, THEY ARE STAR TREK.This was the film that best presented Star Trek to the world. It has a greatstory, fun performances and memorable moments, and wraps up the ‘Genesis’trilogy with flying colours. Even if you’re not a Trekkie, see thisfilm!

The Star Trek crew proved one thing with this movie. That they are fullycapable of self-irony. A very nice trait in my eyes.

Of course, the plot of the film is totally cheesy. Picking up whales fromthe 20th century because they are needed in the 24th to communicate with adeadly alien probe? Ha!

But the setting which is provided through this plot is so wonderfullyhilarious that I could watch it over and over again. There are some reallymemorable moments in this movie: Chekov with his Russian accent searchingfor "nuclear vessels", Scottie trying to talk to a computer, Bones beingabhorred by 20th century medicine, and Spock cursing and getting rid of apunk in a city bus.

This is great comedy, wonderfully played by actors who can laugh aboutthemselves. Very good.

I am 12. Star Trek Rocks. But it does have its funny moments. And those areoften the best. I mean You laugh so hard during this movie it is not evenfunny. Personally, I think trekkers like this movie because it is a chanceto relax a little. For example, (I will use Voyager) Tinker, Tenor, Doctor,Spy was a great episode. Why? because it is funny. So is Star Trek IV, andthats why it is great.

I have seen this movie again and again and I’ve never gotten bored. It isone of my favorites.

True, it is not so brilliant as far as science-fiction is concerned; it hasno particularly new and astonishing idea. I mean, time travel has been usedagain and again, and I have a feeling that those special effects ofbackwards time travel were copied from the Space Odyssey.

Still, the characters… The actors are at their best and for any fan itwill be pure enjoyment to watch their conversation and theirspirits.

(Spoilers from now on…)

Spock in particular is great. You cannot imagine how funny he can get nowthat he has been literally brought back from the dead and cannot rememberhumor, or irony. Or when he starts swearing to be in the spirit of the time,but all the time keeping his serious face!

Or Chekov, with his very Russian accent, asking a SF police officer fordirection for nuclear weapons…

Some could say that the idea of saving the humanity from its own errors(namely, the extinction of humpback whales) is a bit naive… I enjoyed themovie nevertheless and perhaps a serious problem put this way will get morequickly to the audience and make them think about it… However, I don’twant to sound nerd-like, so I’ll stop here about this.

Overall, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, very funny, very optimisticand very good.

This really is a pretty good film. The thing I liked best about it,
was theway it captured human behavior and attitude nowadays. It was almost a parodyon modern life and modern society and I must say that all jokes and every‘philosophic’ statement was at place and did what it was supposed to do. Iwas really surprised by the good acting. I especially liked Capt. Kirk(William Shatner) and Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy). The acting, the jokes andthe think-about-lines really made up for a very strange (not BAD) story andit was really good that the attention was mostly centered on other thingthan the spaceship looking for whales.

7 out of 10

Amiable, corny, but mostly upbeat and fun fourth theatrical journey forthe crew of the Starship Enterprise, directed by Spock himself, LeonardNimoy. The original cast from the cult TV series travels back in time(to 1986) to save the Humpback Whale. Lots of bright satire andthrowaway good humor, however Nicholas Meyer's "Time After After"utilized the same time-travel conceit to a much better advantage. Thisone is so concerned with being uplifting, it drowns itself in do-gooderclichés and eventually turns into an advertisement for endangeredspecies. Special effects and art design are commendable, if unexciting.The old gang is amiable, but indeed looking a tad piqued. **1/2 from****

I could say this movie was "a whale of a time" but it wasn't really.Starting with a promising premise, as the story unfolded, it quicklylost its porpoise. (Somebody slap me.)

Continuing where *Star Trek III: The Search for Spock* left off(sometime in the 23rd century), we find the Enterprise crew (WilliamShatner as Kirk, Leonard Nimoy as Spock and the cast of faves) on-boarda commandeered Klingon spacecraft returning to Earth, only to find itbeing visited by a mysterious cylindrical alien probe hovering abovethe atmosphere, transmitting in whale song. Earth's authorities (thepresident of the United Federation of Planets looks suspiciously likeRob Reiner) discern the aliens are some kind of whaley protectorsseeking their charges on Earth - and since whales were hunted toextinction back in the 21st century, the Federation believes the alienswill now exterminate Mankind in retribution.

Our Enterprise Heroes must travel back in time to 20th century Earth(yes, The Present) to retrieve two humpback whales and transport themBack To The Future to whale-speak to the probe and – I dunno – dupe theprobe into believing that ALL whales are okay or something. (Even ifthe probe leaves Earth alone, the humpbacks are doomed to anotherextinction, for just two whales cannot possibly re-propagate thespecies, with gestation periods of 12 months and birthing only singlecalves on average every 2 years.)

But no one seems to care about long term strategy – as with all"environmental"-based projects, it only benefits the immediategeneration.

This is one of those plots "so crazy it just might work" – and it does,because the premise of this movie is not to retrieve whales or saveEarth, but to place Our Heroes from the future *in the present* – yes,excuse the further punning, but *Star Trek IV* is a fish-out-of-watertale. Our Heroes land in the mid-80s – and don't QUITE look out ofplace in New Romantic/spandex Los Angeles.

The dialog regarding time-traveling back to the 20th century goes thus:"Slingshot around the sun and you'll achieve time warp." "But that'scrazy!"

I kid you not.

With five writers (Leonard Nimoy, who also directed, Harve Bennett,Steve Meerson, Peter Krikes, Nicholas Meyer) one wonders how theslingshot scene could've ended up so utterly bereft of sense, not onlyin its dialog, but in its execution: judging by the size of the ship asit slingshots around the back of the sun, the sun must be, oh, about100 feet in diameter.

Then again, this one's a comedy; from the jaunty soundtrack during thehospital chase scene to Mr. Spock's dry one-liners. Some might say thatEarth in the 1980s was a comedy anyway, so what's the diff? Our Heroesland in a San Diego field, put the invisible shield on (of course) andfan out in pairs, each on a wacky adventure: Chekov (Walter Koenig) andUhura (Nichelle Nichols) seek the infamous "nuclear wessels" – toreplenish the power that Scotty is always complaining he never hasenough of; Bones (DeForest Kelley) and Scotty (James Doohan) seekplexiglass for the whale tank, Sulu (George Takei) and his enormouswang commandeer a chopper, while Kirk (William Shatner) and Spock(Nimoy) track down two whales at a Seaquarium, with Kirk spending allhis precious Humanity-Saving time putting the moves on the marinebiologist who looks like Elizabeth Shue (Catherine Hicks).

At the time of its release, *Trek IV* was heartily entertaining – butit is dating fast. In ten years, it's gonna look too damn naive tostomach.

The most annoying scene that loses our suspension of disbelief isChekov asking the cop, "Where are the nuclear wessels?" and the copstaring at him blankly. The five writers couldn't come up with aplausible reaction from the cop? At least "Whatchoo talking' boutRusskie?" or SOMETHING? Instead, we get this retarded reaction thatmakes me embarrassed to say I live in California.

After the crew secure all their resources, they rescue Chekov from ahospital (and stupidly beam from the hospital to the OUTSIDE of theirship in the field – why not beam straight INSIDE?), then the chick wholooks like Elizabeth Shue forces herself on-board by jumping on Kirkoutside the ship just before he beams on-board. Oh, like they can'tescort her off – they're still just parked in the San Diego field, notbetween wormholes in radiation clouds. After retrieving the whales inone of the most unconvincing, stock-footage whaling-ship scenes in thehistory of blubber, they "slingshot round the sun" again and arrivewith such exactitude at the second they left the 23rd century, that wewonder why more people don't do this more often and save Kennedy andGandhi and let Vanilla Ice die in the crib.

Seeing Spock being pushed unwillingly into the water (in what I'm surewas a playful ad-lib) is worth the price of the DVD rental, or payingfor HBO.

When the crisis is averted, there is a short epilogue where theElizabeth Shue chick spurns Kirk's advance. Even if we don't require atypical romantic ending, he had saved both her life and that of herprecious whales – the ABSOLUTE LEAST she can do is allow nuzzling ofmammaries for one night; instead, Kirk is blue-balled and can only hopefor another sequel where he can get his body-oil on and wail on somechick who is not even his species.

One good thing about this Star Trek movie is that any future picturescouldonly get better. This is as low as Star Trek can get. It’s hard to believethat a better story couldn’t have been written for this installment. Atthebeginning of this film the council watches the destruction of theEnterprisethe way the movie going viewer did from Star Trek III. Time out!..Who orwhat was recording all this for the council to view? Did they pop into avideo store and say "Hi there we need a copy of ST III The Search forSpockso we can have evidence to prosecute Kirk and his gang"? The CatherineHickscharacter Dr. Gillian Taylor is taken back with the crew to the 23rdcenturyand then the next time we see her she’s a big wig science officer. In anoriginal series episode an Air Force pilot is beamed aboard the Enterpriseto avoid killing him when his F-104 begins to break up under the strain ofthe tractor beam. When Kirk suggests that he be kept on board and broughtback into the future with them he’s reminded by McCoy that "The man wou1dbeantiquated in our time period virtually archaic" The Gillian Taylorcharacter however isn’t hampered by being transported 500 years into thefuture. She’s right at home sitting next to non human looking
aliens andisso well adapted in 23rd century science she’s quickly made a Star Fleetofficer. In an earlier film Kirk is told the Enterprise is beingdecommissioned because that class of Star ship is too old. At theconclusionof this movie another one has been built just for this particular gang tozip around in. This is what made the films, particularly this one soinferior to the original series, which were written clearly by moreeducatedand imaginative minds.

read comments (0)

Stand by Me

This movie, Stand By Me, is a retelling of a novella by my favorite author,Steven King, an one of my favorite stories ever. So, anxiously, I picked upthis movie and…

Hated it. Oh, I’ve seen bad movies before, and this was not the worst, butit wasn’t a movie I’d come back to. After seeing The Shawshank Redemption,another King novella in the same book, I expected more great things.Alas…

I’d like to finsih this by saying that the acting was not bad, but it ismostly just the director’ uncanny ability to draw out the best. So, I mustgive this a 4 out of a possible 10, and pray that people who liked this seeShawshank Redemption and THEN watch it. See the difference!

Easygoing but overrated hokum from Rob Reiner and Stephen King. Thedialogue, rich with King’s cheerfully vulgar folk idioms, has an undeniableenergy, but the actual narrative unfolds like a parody of King’s non-horrorwork. It’s a corny, weepy, ostensibly-manly-yet-two-hugs-shy-of-homoeroticpiece of mush, and it’s so nostalgic for the period you may feel likeburning down your local oldies station after watching it.

The performances are uneven. Wil Wheaton looks the part as bland,high-waisted little Gordie, but when he’s called upon to emote he shows he’snot much more than Christmas-pageant material. The young River Phoenix isunusually mannered as Chris, and Teddy just seems like a composite of CoreyFeldman characters from other films. Only Jerry O’Connell, as chubby littlechatterbox Vern, really convinces. (Sadly, it’s perhaps the only time inhis career he has done so). Kiefer Sutherland also injects a bit of life inthe kind of teen bad*ss part that was his trademark in those days, but he’sonly one drop of flavor in a barrel of sweet, sweet sap.

Reiner’s direction is typically unremarkable, and no doubt the film’searnestness and lack of complexity account in part for its enduringpopularity. But popularity can’t change the fact that `Stand By Me’ isnothing more than a children’s film (R rating notwithstanding), and anyoneapproaching it should bear that fact in mind. 5.5 out of 10.

The early death of River Phoenix has given his films a posthumous lustre;but ‘Stand By Me’, though not without merits, is not a great film. It getssome things right: for example, it has the courage to tell a tale of fourdecidedly pre-pubescent children, and while they do not necessarily makepleasant company, its a relief to see a "rights of passage" film notentirely shaped by a story of first love. But the characters aredisappointly archetypal: the sensitive writer, the wise gang leader, thestupid fat kid and the wild one; and the dialogue and story are at timesweighed down by the burden of implied significance. Also hard to understandis why the older boys who also appear should be quite so wound up by thefilm’s (much younger) heroes. The low key ending is also undermined by thesentimental wrapping provided by the narrator. Read Roddy Doyle’s novel’Paddy Clarke Ha-ha-ha’ for a less heavy handed story of children growing upby stealth.

STAND BY ME (1986) *** Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, JerryO’ Connell, Kiefer Sutherland, Casey Siemaszko, John Cusack, RichardDreyfuss. Excellent and nostalgic adaptation of Stephen King’s novella"The Body" about four misfit boys in the 1950s who bond on a journey tolook at the corpse of a young boy and find instead mutual anomie andangst. Nice performances by all and able direction by Rob Reiner.

Based on the Stephen King novel "The Body," "Stand By Me" is a good(albeit overrated) film about friendship.

It’s really made all the more touching due to the passing of RiverPhoenix in the early ’90s, which ties in to the plot in a number ofeerie ways.

The film is strong in terms of acting, writing and even directing (byRob Reiner) - unfortunately its flaws are that it’s sometimes a bit tooemotionally controlling and constrictive, laying on the cheese a bitheavy.

But it is a fine film, worth watching now and again, "The Goonies" foradults.

On another note, I just purchased the new Deluxe Edition DVD, which isreally just the old Special Edition DVD re-packaged with a CDsoundtrack. The "Deluxe" DVD itself was a disappointment as it even hadglaring grammatical errors on the back cover. I felt a bit ripped off.

The best ever adaptation of a Stephen King work ("The Body" from hisbook "Different Seasons"). In 1959 Maine, 4 12-year-old boys go to finda dead body. It’s a 2 day journey and, along the way, one of them Gordy(Will Wheaton), grows and realizes things about himself.

Yes, it’s a coming of age story, but very well written, directed (inOregon) and with mostly great performances. Corey Feldman and JerryO’Connell are just OK as two of the boys. Wheaton is very good as Gordyand River Phoenix is exceptional as Chris–it’s sad that he ODed atsuch a young age. Also Keifer Sutherland is chilling as the head of ateenage gang. Also John Cusack has a good small role and RichardDreyfuss narrates the story.

This movie perfectly captures what it’s like to be a 12 year old boygrowing up–the dialogue is just perfect. Some people complained aboutthe excessive profanity in this (it IS R rated), but swearing did existback in 1959. Well worth seeing.

Don’t see this on commercial TV: that version edits the language outand renders parts of the film incomprehensible.

Stand By Me (1986) was a pedestrian adaptation of the novella THE BODY.The direction by Rob Reiner was real good by the script was bad and itwas too white bread for my taste. That’s what I liked about the story,anyone could relate to it but when it’s milked through by a hack writerand pacified for mainstream audiences it becomes bland and generic. Butthe acting form the kids was real good and it’s watchable but not asgreat as soon many people make it out to be.

STAND BY ME follows the main character Gordie as he relives his longlost childhood. A recent tragedy brings upon long lost memories of hisold playmates. We relive that hot summer of 1960 and learn about themain characters and the trials and tribulations of growing up. One day,the summer of their innocence was lost forever when one of theirfriends tells them some news and takes them on adventure. A long onethat re-examines their lives and what lies ahead of them in the future.

Not a bad movie and not a classic. But if you’re a fan of River Phoenixor his eighties running buddy Corey Feldman then you’ll be in heaven.But fans of the book might not be that stoked about it.

Lots of intense drama and loads of side splitting laughs. Equally as goodasKing’s short novel. The 4 boys interplay was flawless; their boyishactionsrealistic. The pie eating scene was one of the funniest things I’ve seenonfilm yet. Wonder what happened to good old Ace Merrill?

This is a movie in hand if you are feeling down. It is bright, innocent,cute and it truly cherishes the meaning of friendship. I found it enjoyableand well acted but still…it is so extremely typical American film, verytypical with some light chlicés. The part where one of the boys tells astory was somewhat stupid. Why do so many American films want to add momentsof dumb people playing with food and vomiting it out totally un-naturally? Ijust don´t get it!

But don´t get me wrong. The story was a wonderful mix of sunnyness and emotions. I´m sure that expecially young boys will be delighted and why notthe whole family? All of the young actors were natural and good. ExpeciallyI was impressed by River Phoenix and Will Wheaton´s performances. Theydelivered rich emotions and cried painfully real. Yes, they were good.

But we must admit that this movie has been made again. The Sandlot, Now andThen (a girl version), Little giants, they all are very simil
ar to Stand byMe.It´s a very enjoyable, colorful, 50´s spirited, cute family film. I give it***from*****

A film always worth a second look. You become entrancedby the performances, especially Phoenix, who in his youngcareer showed the promise of a Clift, Dean or Brando. Thisfilm made him and made audiences take a closer look at young actors. RobReiner’s most important film.

read comments (0)

Sid and Nancy

GREAT MOVIE. IF YOU’VE NEVER SEEN IT YOU HAVE TO. IT’S THE STORY OF SIDVICIOUS & NANCY SPUNGEN (THE 70′S KURT & COURTNEY). OLDMAN & WEBB ARE BOTHGREAT. THE ENDING DRAGS A LITTLE BUT IT’S STILL GOOD.

***SPOILERS***I finally got around to seeing this movie, seeing as it is some kind oficonwithin the world of punk rock, which I feel very much a part of. Afterseeing this movie I’m left confused as to the cult status it has. I guessitwouldn’t bug me so much if this movie weren’t made out to be the true storyof Sid Vicious and the Sex Pistols. I can’t even see how someone whodoesn’tcare about punk rock could enjoy this movie, I really thought it was thatbad. The "facts" in this movie are just a farce, the Sid Vicious here is acaricature of the worst elements of his personality brought out by hisheroin abuse, which Alex Cox is seemingly intent on glorifying. Otherelements of punk in this movie are all wrong as well. The scene in whichthePistols are playing on a boat traveling up the Thames portrays the boat’stravelers as a bunch of clones with colored mohawks and studded leatherjackets. This punk image didn’t come along until years after the SexPistolshad broken up. If you’re looking for a real documentation of the SexPistolscheck out the Filth and the Fury, or read John Lydon’s (JohnnyRotten)autobiography. If you want to see a well done punk cult classic,check out Repo Man or Return of the Living Dead, because Sid and Nancy isnothing more than tired old stereotypes and myths about punk (and the SexPistols) with terrible glorification of heroin abuse thrown in. I mustadmitthough that Gary Oldman plays the Sid Vicious role given to him quite well,and judging from everything I’ve read about Nancy, she was played well too,but it’s not the casts’ fault they were working with such a badscript.

I hated this movie because I’m not a junkie, I don’t live in the gutter andI’m not violent. Being this way I don’t particularly enjoy seeing arealistic portrayal of a life of a person who is a violent junkie living agutter-like life.

I rated this a one because I personally believe movies should beentertaining unless they’re rated educational, and I don’t think thisis.

However based on what you find entertaining you may feel extremelydifferentabout this film. It was well done.

Oldman and Webb ignite this wicked film about mad rocker Sid Vicious. A blend of dark humor and brute violence, it’s an excellent film that features a sardonic rendition of "My Way." For some, it may leave a nasty taste in your mouth, but it does leave you thinking.

If Nancy Spungen was anything at all like Chloe Webb portrays her here, it’sno wonder Sid Vicious stabbed her to death. Did Nancy really behave like apsychopathic toddler and speak with that Marlboro-throated screechy whine? My gawd.

2 things happened after I popped this movie into the VCR and startedwatching–

1) My neighbor called and asked me to please turn it down. And it wasn’teven that loud!

2) During Nancy’s first tirade my roommate came out of his bedroom andasked, "What the *hell* are you watching?" I laughed knowingly.

And I thought Johnny Rotten was supposed to be THE original punk-spiritanti-estab badass? The way he’s portrayed here makes him seem like the modelof charm-school decorum and a certified puss.

Fun scene: Sid breaks up with Nancy and starts to stagger out of the hotelroom. Nancy screams and cries and whines and yells, rolling around theskuzzy floor until she finally shouts to him, "SID!!! COME BACK! WE FORGOTTO DO THE FAREWELL DRUGS!!!"

"Farewell drugs". I love it. Those silly heroin addicts!

As someone who doesn’t know the Sex Pistols’ music, I now feel like Iknow everything about Sid Vicious…and it makes me want to avoid theSex Pistols. "Sid and Nancy" deals with what may be one of the ugliestsubjects ever, but never goes overboard in being nasty.

In the late ’70s, Sid Vicious (Gary Oldman) is the lead bassist for theSex Pistols, and one of the angriest men alive. Even after he meetsNancy Spungen (Chloe Webb), he still seems like he wants nothing morethan to be bad, living the most self-destructive lifestyle imaginable.The movie even shows him having some withdrawals caused by drug usage.

What eventually becomes of the two lovers is less important than thedestructive relationship that they had. I guess that the importantpoint is that Sid Vicious tried to express his anger at the system, butcouldn’t do so in a manner that really meant anything. Billy Bragg onceexplained how the Clash managed to channel the working-class rage intosomething meaningful.

Anyway, it’s a really good movie. As gritty as any movie could be, youwon’t come away with a positive impression of Sid Vicious afterwatching this.

I can’t recall ever seeing a better feel-bad movie, especially not one withtwo blistering lead performances like those of Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb.The story of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen is a brutally tragic testament tothe punk attitude. These two losers managed to carve out names forthemselves in punk history, despite the fact that neither one was reallyvery talented at anything, and through all their difficulty with heroinaddiction and the fickle nature of fame, they stuck out the hard timestogether. Theirs was a love of the saddest, and most beautiful, kind: theystood by each other because they simply had no one else to keep them whole.The drugs, the illness, and the lack of money threatened to tear them apart.Realistically, how else could this story have ended? Two of the saddestchildren of the punk movement, absolutely lost in life and havingsuccessfully alienated all those who used to care about them, could onlyhave found release in blissful oblivion. If there’s any justice, those twowould have found peace at last after death. They lost it all, and finallylost themselves, only to find redemption in hindsight as heroes of the lost,self-destructive punk generation.

Sid & Nancy the 70’s version of Kurt & Courtney. Gary portrays Sidbrillantly right down to the padlock chain round his neck. Chloe makes mebelive she’s Nancy (particularly toward the end in the hotel room scene.This film does lag in some parts of the film but its still a great film.This film isn’t for everyone (I’m surprised BBC 2 screened it uncut) ifyou’resqueamish don’t watch the tail end of the hotel room scene. A great filmandGary burst his lungs for My Way & I wanna be your Dog.

An absolutely brilliant film about two infamous, self destructive punks inthe 70’s. Chloe Webb is fascinating as the manipulative, manic Nancy andGary Oldman gives his best performance ever as the talentless, witless SidVicious who was lucky (or unlucky) enough to be there at the right timewhenpunk and the Sex Pistols took off. I read somewhere once that Oldman hatedthe movie, and I wonder why. This movie is dark and ugly and real and inyour face. And after seeing it, "My Way" will never sound the same to you.

I’ve been wanting to see this film for a long time and just finally rentedit. My husband and I both thought it was a very accurate picture of thepunkscene of the late 70’s and early 80’s and for the most part that the actorsdid a great job. The parts of Sid and Nancy must have been extremelyintense to play.

After seeing Courtney Love in "Larry Flint" I think she would have made amuch better Nancy than Chloe Webb. Chloe was really very obnoxious butmaybethe real Nancy was just that way. I guess at the time Courtney didn’t haveenough experience to get the part.

Overall this was a very good movie, but get ready for a realdowner!

read comments (0)

Jumpin’ Jack Flash

Saw this movie’s starting on TBS. And got hooked as the suspense keepsbuilding from start. Good one time watch movie with mix of comedy,action andmystery. Not many big name actors. But Whoppi does a good job and several funny one liners and scenes.The oneabout canceling the message near the end Ouch!!. Movie from the 80’s like these rocked and are fun to watch.

A good movie to watch when bored. Cant find many movies like that coming out today. Should be released on DVD. And hopefully will be soon.

I gotta say that i am one of Whoopi Goldberg’s biggest fan. She has amazedso many people with her quick wit of comedy. What a woman! This movie i haverecently bought on DVD was worth buying. Whoopi’s character Terri Doolittle is a "talk to yourself" kind of personbut that doesn’t mean she’s mental, it gives the film humour and outrageousbehaviour when it comes to her stunts and assignments she needs to do, inorder to save a British Intelligence agent who calls himself "Jumpin’ JackFlash".It’s filled with a great cast and i hope that all of you out there watchthis film. I give it 8/10.

B-FLAT!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree with John Ulmer. I’d give this movie a solid three out offive stars.

This movie is fun escapism. Granted, it is not one of the greatestmovies ever made, but it is cute and worth your time.

It’s a movie that I enjoy watching every other year or so. It is wellworth the two hours investment of time. It beats watching the news ofhurricane destruction and loss of life in Iraq!

The cast is a lot of fun. They work well together. Stephen Collins iswell cast as the "mouse" that saves the day! And what does the "E"stand for in Phil E. Hartman?

I am hopeful that the movie will be released on DVD. I’d like to have acopy for my DVD collection.

***1/2 out of *****

Plot:- Whoopi plays Bank Worker Terry Dolittle who while working on her(very dated-It is 1986!) Computer, gets a coded message from an unknownSource, after Decoding the Message, she starts chatting to a man calledJack (Johnathan Pryce) who turns out to be a British Intelligence Spywhose in great danger,Terry tries to help her new friend out - but bydoing so puts her own life in danger and bad guy Jeremy Talbot (JohnWood) is on her tail.

Will Terry Survive? will Jack make it home in one piece? will there bea Happy Ending? - What do you think? This is Hollywood After all!

The stars:- Yes, I know Whoopi does tend to go OTT in this film with alot of shouting,screaming and swearing which might put some people off,but this is one of her Best Films, She is a very talented actress andbecome only the second African-American Woman to win an Oscar but sadlyher career started heading south long ago with Flop after flop afterflop tarnishing her achievements in ‘The Colour Purple’ and ‘Ghost’ andjust to prove it by now she has been reduced to appearing in BabyGeniusses 2: Superbabies which is by all accounts one of the worstmovies’s ever made.

Johnathan Pryce a fellow Welshman and also a very talented Actor isonly seen in the last minute of the movie, but his voice is usedthroughout. Pryce is probably better known as the Bond Bad guy ElliotCarver in 1997’s Tomorrow Never Dies, But has done a lot of work on thestage as well as on the Big Screen.

The Co-stars:- Stephen Collins. Carol Kane and Annie Potts and othersare great and it really looks as if they’re enjoying themselves

The Directing By Penny Marshall (Sister of Garry) is really quite goodconsidering it’s her First shot at the job.

This movie wasn’t much of a hit on it’s original release,but in my viewit’s one of the better movies from the 1980’s & It’s one of myfavourites.

Imagine you worked in a bank. It’d be pretty dull right? WRONG! Because ifWhoopi Goldberg worked there it’d be the best job you ever had! Ithink.

But that’s only about 6%of what ‘Jumping Jack Flash’ (I’ve spelt itcorrectly here) is actually about. You see Whoopi (Whoopi! Whoopi! I lovesaying her name) works on a computer and can dress how she likes when shemeets this secret agent. I say ‘meets’ but he actually sends her anelectronic message asking her to help him. The Wachowski brothers in thefilm ‘The Matrix’ later stole this idea. For my money they should have putWhoopi in that film too, as ‘The Other One’. Awww man that would have beenso cool! Neo kicking butts whilst Whoopi got all the other people in thematrix to join in and have a good time. `C’mon, we can really rock thisplace!’ she’d shout as she brandished a Franchi SPAS12 at a securityguard.

For my money there’s not enough of Whoopi in this film and the directordoesn’t make use of her comedy talents as much as she could. But having saidthat, it is very funny! Can you imagine sitting next to Whoopi for 8 hours aday and getting paid for it? No? Well I can and it’d be really, REALLY cool!We’d also probably hang out at lunchtime together as well, because I justknow we’d be good friends.

In homage to this film I have decided to call my first-born child Whoopiafter the talented Ms Goldberg. Although I’m currently single so if anybodywants to meet up and get married then please let me know.

Neonsamurai Movie Rating: 14

This is without a doubt THE ULTIMATE WHOOPI GOLDBERG MOVIE. Its funny, itsfast paced and has a goofy plot and a fun cast. I hate Burglar and there isonly SOOO many times i can see Sister Act before i get sick of it, but icanalways come back to this movie. This comedy has every thing!!! NO WHOOPIFANCAN AFFORD TO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE….

While I’m not much for comedies, this is one of the funniest I’ve everwatched. I’ve seen it so many times, that I could easily quote it word forword! I now watch it late at night so as to not make my husband angry.Watching this movie a couple times was enough for him.

The cast of characters were a perfect compliment to Whoopi’s part.

This movie is so funny!i thought that this movie was one of those boring 80’s movies buthey,this movie is now one of my favorite movies in the wholeworld!just watch the part where she gets druged by those spy people and she goesaround town doin all sorts of idiotic things…very cool!

i thought this was a really funny and entertaining film. ok, the plot isextremely far fetched but what the hell. Whoopi Goldberg is my favouriteactress of all time. shes one of a kind. Highly reccomended if your stuckfor something to watch one night,7 stars out of 10 *******

As a child of the eighties I have to say that I love this film andstill do to this day (having recently purchased it on DVD). It may notbe one of the more classic films of the era, but Whoopie Goldberg putsin a great performance which always leaves me with a tear in my eye atthe end of the film!! It is also quite amusing to see how us Brits wereportrayed in the eighties with references to Benny Hill and of coursethe Rolling Stones. If like me you are a collector of eighties filmsand are ever feeling nostalgic then I would add this one to yourcollection.

Go on give this film a try you know you want to!!!

read comments (0)

Night of the Creeps

1986 was a pretty good year for horror films. There were stellar,undeniableclassic releases like ALIENS and The Fly. Gore soaked goodies such as FromBeyond and Demons. And then there was a severely underrated gem calledNight of the Creeps.

A skin crawling tale about parasitic alien slugs accidentally unleashedfroma cryogenic state of suspended animation, wrecking havoc on a collegecampusby way of invading the student bodies bodies through the mouth,effectivelyturning them into kill-happy zombies. The infesting parasites incubate inthe brain long enough to spawn another generation. When the alien slugsareborn, the host’s top pops!

This is a endearing homage to everything from 50’s B-movies, George AndrewRomero’s zombies, silly teen/early twentysomething movies, slasher flicksand much more, wonderfully directed by Fred Dekker.

If you enjoy watching college frat boy wannabes screaming like banshees, acool, catch phrase spewing detective settle old vendettas with an axwielding reanimated corpse, gratuitous scenes of slugs violently andgraphically erupting from peoples heads, and a little T&A to arouse youreyes…well this movie’s for you. I know it’s certainly for me. I’ve seenit so many times(lost the exact count)and it never losses it’s appeal. Thebiggest draw in this movie is unquestionably venerable character actor TomAtkins performance of a lifetime as Detective Cameron. Trust me you willhang on every word Atkins utters.

If you have not yet viewed this cult fave stop for a moment and give thisone the chance to creep up on ‘ya!

Fun, over-the-top ’80s cheese.

Easily one of the best B movies ever made, and it proudly attempts toachieve that status. Starting off with an alien sequence that’s sogoofy it’s enjoyable, and ending with a massacre that involves blowingoff the heads of frat boys’ with a shotgun, this is one cool movie.Marvel at all the in-references to horror directors littered throughoutthe movie.

If you’re looking for serious, thought-provoking horror…go looksomewhere else. This is one stupidly awesome time. And it’s obviouslyproud of that fact. Fred Dekker’s the man.

I found this movie to be very entertaining for the most part. The toneof the movie is set right from the beginning. Seeing mutant teletubbiesrunning around, shooting at each other was absolutely ridiculous. Andthat is what this movie is…ridiculous. But that is what makes thisfilm entertaining. The movie never intended to be a seriously scarymovie. That is why I gave it higher marks then it probably deserves.

The movie starts off slow, but, hang in there because, towards the endit does pick up. The basic plot of the movie is that some type of alienslug falls to the earth and when they enter the mouth of a living being(ie humans, dogs, cats) they turn those beings in to zombies. Theseslugs infiltrate a college campus and turn some people into zombies.

Tom Atkins’ performance is the one I found most entertaining. He playsthe strong detective who is intoxicated and trigger happy. In contrast,Jason Lively plays ‘Chris’, a shy nerd who would love to get laid sometime in his life but doesn’t have a clue where to begin. His character,like his name, persona, and charisma, just wreaks of weakness. I foundhis character rather annoying along with his sidekick.

Overall, the movie is funny, over-the-top, 80’s horror. I give it 6.75out of 10.

If you like a decent horror film complete with old fashioned make-upeffects, you will LOVE this this film. If you like to have a good laughand some gore when you watch a horror film, you will LOVE thisfilm…If you like a combination of both, you will have the time ofyour life ! This film by Fred Dekker easily joins the chosen few; funnyand at the same time good horror films of the 80’s. It’s right up thislist together with Evil Dead 1 & 2, Re-animator, the Blob and maybe afew others. The story begins in the 50’s. An extra-terrestrialexperiment escapes from the spaceship and falls to earth ( By theway…Night o/t Creeps has the funniest aliens you’ll ever see ) Duringthe same night an psychopath with an axe is loose, this experimentmakes its first victim on earth. How ? Slugs enter your mouth, crawl upyour brain and there they lay eggs. They breed while the victim walksaround…dead. Zombies in other words. Very cool. The axe murderer getslaughtered by rookie cop Ray Cameron and the infected person getsfrozen. Then the story moves to the 80’s. As a prank the frozen mangets released and the terror can begin. Rookie cop Ray Cameron is nowdetective Cameron and he joins Chris, J.C and the lovely 80’s babeCynthia in their hunting game to kill as much slugs as possible.

I realize this is just one man’s opinion, but as far as I’m concernedall the elements to great horror are here. Good story with a few nicetwists and decent make up effects. Ray Cameron is played by Tom Atkins,a great B-film actor who has amazing expressions in his eyes and aterrific body language. The script contains very funny lines all firedoff by him. Example : "well girls, I got good news and bad news… thegood news is your dates are here." "What’s the bad news ?" "…they’redead". I assure you, this is great fun to watch. And did you thinkBRAINDEAD was the first film to use a lawnmower as a zombie-weapon ??Think again. Add to this a soundtrack with golden oldies from the 50’sand you got yourself a piece of pure entertainment. What else could youpossibly wish for ?? Nudity, you say ? OK, the story mostly takes placein a sorority house, so we’ll throw in a couple of boobs in as well. Myadvise, get your hands on it as soon as possible.

And then finally this little extra for the horror buffs : Do thefollowing names of the leading characters ring a bell ? ray CAMERON -Cynthia CRONENBERG - Chris ROMERO - J.C HOOPER - Detective LANDIS -Detective RAIMI … Indeed, all characters are named after the biggesthorror directors. This is a lot of fun when you’re watching the filmfor the 2nd or 3rd time. Heck, even the small roles are filled in. Thejanitor’s name is Mr. Miner ( The first "House" film was directed bySteve Miner) and even the cat is named GORDON ( Stuart Gordon directedRe-Animator). Rent this film. Unfortunately, it hasn’t came out on DVDyet…damn shame that is. You’ll love it and re-watch it over and overagain.

Taking virtually something or another from every horror movie everproduced,this lively homage makes once tired cliches seem fresh and alive again.Thistime around a college campus falls prey to an alien parasite that isaccidently unleashed as the result of a frat initiation gone wrong. Thisfilm’s sense of humor is sharp and the scares are plenty. The effects areoutstanding and the finale at the sorority house is one of the mostmemorable from an 80’s horror film.

Rated R; Nudity, Violence, and Profanity.

I am reviewing the theatrical release and not the horrible cut fortelevision.

I believe that Rob Zombie once said that ‘Night of the Creeps’ is one of thebest B-movies ever. The director knows he’s working on a B-movie and usesthis at his advantage.

The one liners, the 50’s soundtrack, the story, the gore, it all works tocreate a true masterpiece.

Of course no one understood this movie, so there’s not even a VHS release.Who’s to blame? Well, you!

10/10

Many people I respect absolutely LOVE ‘Night Of The Creeps’, but while Ienjoy watching it for the most part, it just doesn’t live up to itsreputation. Horror and comedy for me are an uneasy mix. For every’Re-Animator’ or ‘Frankenhooker’ there are dozens of lame attempts that areneither amusing or scary. ‘Night Of The Creeps’ is somewhere in between forme. It’s fun but not particularly funny. The movie begins with some sillyaliens, then a tongue in cheek 1950s sequence inspired by the likes of ‘TheBlob’. If it had stayed in that period/style I might have en
joyed it a lotmore, but it then jumps to the 1980s, hardly a golden era of comedy for me.The lead actor is even from one of those Nation Lampoon vacation movies. Iget it that the characters are named after horror directors… so what. Ithought initially that it was going to be a lot more self-referential andfull of in-jokes, but that’s it folks. The movie never really seems quitesure how to approach the material, and that’s why I have reservations aboutit. Maybe they should have just played it straight, I don’t know. I watch’Night Of The Creeps’ for one reason - Tom Atkins (okay, it’s nice to see aDick Miller cameo too, but that’s all it is, a cameo). Atkins is great inthis and comes up with all the best lines. Every time he’s not on screen myremote control finger gets itchy. If you’re an Atkins fan you must see thismovie, otherwise proceed with caution.

It all starts out with a beautiful black & white prologue at Corman(nudge nudge) University in 1959. Some "creeps" (disgusting littlethings) come to Earth and attack a young man (they get in through yourmouth, turn you into a zombie and plant other "creepers" that shot outof the mouth to infect people). He is caught and frozen solid and (forsome reason) kept at the university. Then, in 1986, two friends ChrisRomero (nudge, nudge)(Jason Lively) and J.C. (Steve Marshall)unwittingly revive him. He wakes up and attacks the university. Soon,it's overrun by the things–it's up Chris, J.C., Cynthia Cronenberg(nudge nudge) and Detective Cameron (nudge nudge) to battle them.

As you can see this movie doesn't take itself seriously for one moment.Heck, there's even a cameo from Dick Miller! And it IS very funny(especially some of J.C.'s lines). But it doesn't shy away from bloodand gore–there's PLENTY of that. And it is creepy (sorry) more thanonce. They even break one of the rules of horror films–POSSIBLESPOILER AHEAD–a sympathetic character (I won't say who) dies and it'sactually one of the film's more unpleasant moments (you don't see itbut you HEAR it). As 83 minutes it doesn't overstay it's welcome andends with an all out massacre (I'm REALLY surprised–and pleased–thatthis got an R rating). There are some gaps in the plot (things happenway too quickly and characters just automatically correctly guesswhat's going on) but this is a small quibble.

I saw this back on video in 1986 after Fangoria magazine raved aboutit. I loved it–then it disappeared. I never even saw it again untiltoday! Here's another great movie awaiting rediscovery. From what Iheard Sony owns the rights–hopefully we'll see the DVD someday.

A fun, scary, gory movie. A 10 all the way! "The good news is that yourdates are here. The bad news is they're dead!"

‘Night of the Creeps’ is a pretty enjoyable killer-monster movie fromthe 80’s.

**SPOILERS**

Two slug-like aliens accidentally allow a container carrying mutant DNAto escape from their ship. The container lands on earth in 1957 near acollege in Connecticut. It escapes into the night and inhabits one ofthe students. In 1986, two college nerds, J.C. (Steve Marshall) and hisbuddy Chris (Jason Lively) are awestruck over a woman, Cynthia (JillWhitlow) on campus. They meet her at a party for one of the sororityparties, only to be stopped by their cowardliness. They decide the bestway to get her to notice them is to pledge her fraternity, and areasked to perform a special task. The two sneak into the school’s morgueto steal a body, but find the body frozen in a solid steel coffin anddecide to unfreeze him. He comes back to life, and they run. PoliceDetective Cameron (Tom Atkins) is assigned the case of the missingcorpse and realizes it’s gone. The corpse finds it’s way to a sororityhouse, where it releases thousands of miniature snails from inside itsbody. The next day, as the corpse is found, Cameron thinks the body ispart of a pledge prank and brings in J.C. and Chris for questioning.Infected bodies with the slugs begin killing people, including thewoman at Cynthia’s sorority. J.C., Chris and Cynthia have to find outthe truth about the slugs before more people are killed and how to stopthem.

The Good News: The sarcastic-ness of many people in this film was avery nice touch. It was good to see situations where people weremoronic and someone insults them to put them in their place. I feelthat is a quality that is missing a lot, not only in today’s world butalso in movies and TV shows. The best example was Tom Atkins’character. He was such a sarcastic person that many of his lines toother police officers or to students made me crack up a lot. His firstappearance in the cryonics lab to the other officers is an absoluteclassic that includes several different rants. The gore in this movieshould also be commended. There are the usual bodily mutilations, butwe also see different stages of after-effects to the gore. We see whathappens when the creatures have finished with their kill and the messthat it has made. In addition, we also get to see some very well donehuman heads exploding and several bodies that have been decayed androtting moving around. The suspense is also much higher than I thoughtthere would be for a movie like this. Once all the creatures come outof the woodwork, there are jumps piled up on top of jumps in tons ofgreat scenes. Three come right in a row after they are trapped insidethe tool-shed. That whole scene was really creepy and it has become oneof my favorite scenes in the film. The ending is also a veryentertaining part of the film. With an ending that includes zombies,gore, surprises, and tons of suspense and shocks, it has become myfavorite part. This film may surprise you because you it is better thanwhat the reviews about this film say about it. It is very entertainingand it has a couple of interesting turns you wouldn’t expect the movieto go.

The Bad News: The opening of the film, which was filmed in black &white, was a total irritation. It never really made the film scarier,except for one scene with the high suspense. It was nice and freshapproach to film the scene like that, but I felt it never served thefilm much importance. The slugs were a little too obviously fake, asthey really did look like they were small puppets being pulled aroundon strings, but at least the strings were hard to see on film. I neverdid see them.

The Final Verdict: A very overlooked and entertaining movie that hasbecome one of my personal favorite movies. It may contain some cheesymoments, but it becomes an entertaining film over time. I recommend itto those looking for a hidden gem or to those who want to see somethingnew from their killer monster movies.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Adult Language, Nudity, and the aftereffects of violence towards animals

The ’90s presented a slew of tongue-in-cheek, self-referential horrormovies that owe everything to writer/director Fred Dekker and Night ofthe Creeps. Not only does this SEEM to be the first to capitalize onthe name-homage (characters named Raimi, Carpenter, Cronenberg, etc.)but it also appears to be one of the early forerunners in theself-parody vein–I’d spout off a line or two but I don’t want to spoilit for you…

So…does it really deserve a 10 out of 10? Yes and no. The effects,while above average, still belong in a B-budget flick. The same can besaid of the acting–great for a low-budget horror effort, so-so if heldup against the likes of a Pachino or Brando. Ditto for story, dialog,etc, etc. Taken for what it is, you will be hard pressed to find abetter effort– especially from a first-time director.

read comments (0)

No Retreat, No Surrender

Can you believe that!!?!?!?!?

So many hysterical lines in this film. So It is YOU!!! And that stupidBruce Lee mimic the lead actor does at the beginning of the film… How thehell did Van Dam get cast as a RUSSIAN!!!?!?!?!? Yes it is that oldproblemof fitting accent to flunky..

Rating: must see again 17 years in the present tense..

For those who have never seen this classic, it is finally time to finda version or catch it on TV. Directed by Corey Yuen (Transporter, DOA:Dead or Alive - and one of my billion 'Yuen Brothers' to include SammoHung, Yuen Biao, Yuen Woo-Ping, and Jackie Chan) it was his firstAmerican film with a script that is so bad you would probably laugh theentire movie would it not be for the actors actually trying their bestto make the most out of it.

With no budget and no stars No Retreat No Surrender follows young JasonStillwell (Kurt McKinny of Guiding Light fame) as his family moves fromLA to Seattle after his Dad closes his karate studio following a fightthat saw his leg broken by Ivan (VAM DAMME!). Dad decides that fightingisn't the thing and the family moves away from where 'the syndicate'could get to him. Jason meets a friend right away in RJ, a black kidwith soulglo in the curls and a BMX bike with a tiny boombox on it. Healso makes an enemy with Scott (the EXCELLENT Kent Lipham) who is alarger bully type with an abhorrence for Bruce Lee.

The plot is then plagued with the karate-hating Scott getting beat upby Jason when he defends poor RJ at a burger joint. His next run-inwith Scott is at a karate dojo where Scott is a member. Doesn't he hateKarate? It is of no matter - as we see that Scott is friends witheveryone at the dojo including tough-guy Dean Ramsey. Jason sort-ofstinks at karate and gets beat up at the dojo and his girlfriend'sbirthday party.

JASON GETS MAD and prays to Bruce Lee at his grave. So what is thesensible thing to happen? Bruce Lee's ghost comes to visit Jason andtrains him for…EVERYONE! So when that final fight happens withJean-Claude Van Damme we all know Jason will save the day.

The movie is filled with all those great eighties moments. Badmontages, bad clothes, bad hair, and some bad acting. However CoreyYuen can direct some great fight scenes, has some great actors inMcKinney, Lipham, and (don't laugh) Van Damme, and is entertainingenough for you to watch twenty years later and keep you entertained.

My new bootleg DVD purchase has added scenes then my original VHS tape(the first I ever bought) had. These are more character buildingmoments of some of the more minor characters that truly weren't neededin the movie, so it is understandable why they were originally cut. Butas the movie is short enough and my love for this ultimate B-movie gemgrows, I welcome whatever scenes are available.

I say bootleg DVD because as of this point (Feb 2007) there isn't anofficial US DVD release. Why? Who knows but this film could use a niceCorey Yuen director's cut. The plot is pure cheese but who can beathaving Bruce Lee come forth from the dead to train you? If it had beenYuen Biao instead of Kim Tai Chong (Chong and the famous Biao bothdoubled for Bruce Lee in the horrible Game of Death) this film wouldnot only be a classic, I'd have the movie poster framed on my wall.

The film is followed by several sequels including the next film whichis directed by Corey Yuen. It was said that Van Damme talked McKinneyout of being in the sequel and thus the plot was changed to fit two newpeople and not follow any characters from the first film.

WHO CARES! Find this movie! Revel in great acting, bad acting, and JeanClaude's 'first' movie role (though I still love his bad dancing in thefirst Breakin'). It's never going to be Enter The Dragon, DragonsForever, or Once Upon A Time in China, but it will still give you manygreat hours of viewing pleasure!

Jason ( Kurt Mc Kinney(is an on off Karate student with dreams of beingjust like Bruce lee,he is beaten up by a wannabe boyfriend of hisex,and asks for help from his idol,the deceased Bruce lee,who decidesto train him,if he is worthy,also includes some fantastic fight scenesfrom Ron Pohnel,Peter Sugerfoot Cunningham,and a yet to be known youngmartial arts star Jean Claude Van Damme, great soundtrack and a realbooster for any budding Karate Man,Notable lines form the film are"whose the lard ass","Go On and Play with your wooden dolly Brucie".Andthe immortal line "Karate is used for defence only",as Jasons fathersquares up to a karate master.

I’m a big, no, a huge fan of cheesy 80’s movies like schwarzenegger stuff,van damme stuff, and stallone stuff. However, this movie crosses the lineof"what can be funny because it’s pretty bad."

The acting is horrible, the directing is non-existent, and the plot iswell,well i don’t think there really is one. This movie is not fun towatch…actually it is very painful. This is the only movie, out of theover300 movies i’ve come to own, that i’ve actually fast forwarded in parts,ahem the "bruce lee" part.

This is absolute absolute garbage and should not be watched. It’s fine towatch cheesy 80’s movies, but this isn’t even cheesy…it’s a pile ofdripping contents like that guy who gets acid on him in the originalrobocop, yeah you know what i’m talking about! Stay faraway.

I hired this movie on a really old video tape and i only hired itbecause Jean-Claude Van Dam is in it and before i watched it i thoughtthat this movie would be great full of heaps of action scenes but themovie turned out to be a bit crap.I have seen most of Vam Dams moviesand this movie has to be one of his worst movies and he is only in thismovie for like 25 minutes or less.U should only watch this movie if uare a fan of martial arts movies or Jean-Claude Van Dam and the onlygood scenes in this movie are in the end of the movie. And over allthis movie was bad but it is still an OK way to spend an hour and ahalf and my rating is 4 out of 10.

This is a bad movie, but so much fun to make fun of, and so veryentertaining. The dialogue is howlingly hilarious. The acting is downrightembarrassing. The editing is horrendous, but just adds on more laughs. Themovie is full of hysterical scenes, like when R.J. the black kid startsdancing, and you can clearly see its really a white guy doing the dancing(!) Another howl which happens to be my favorite line of the movie is:"Beatit Brucy, go home and play with your wooden dolly" (!) Also the scene whenJason gets picked on, and beat up at the birthday party had me in stitches.Van damme fights at the end of the movie. Van damme beats the crap out ofthe first two guys, but has trouble with the third guy. All in all a badmovie, but extremely hilarious and one of the most entertaining, andwatchable movies I’ve ever seen.

This is not such a good film now that I have seen it 17 years on. At thetime I remember thinking it was excellent.

This was one of the first of the range of martial arts films that had aRocky style soundtrack and lots of training scenes involving someone who hadeverything on the line to regain his honour or whatever it was he wasfighting for. For this reason I think people judge this film harshly,because they say it has been done before. But this was done first and theothers followed.

Anyway, this is a film about a young karate student (kurt McKinney), whoseDad, a karate instructor, is injured by a gang representing some mob. Thefamily move but the problems continue with the son finding himself beingpicked on by others for standing up for his friend against the local bully. After a fight with another young man, a black belt from a nearby club, theson seeks help from the spirit of Bruce Lee. Roll on the training scenesand the Rocky style music. Add a full circle of events leading to a bigf
ight climax and you have a fairly successful and watchable film. Justdon’t expect to see the best acting in the world. Jean-Claude Van Damme ishardly a great actor and he practically shines in thiscompany.

I won’t knock it too much because I recently bought a second hand copybecause it is now unavailable in the UK. My money was notwasted.

Wow, No Retreat, No Surrender, this seems like it was made for peoplewho just love terrible films, its so bad that its actually really goodBilled as a Van Damme movie (though hes just a silent bad guy and notin it much), this has all you can desire from a film.

Bad acting, bad dialogue, bad dubbing, suitably cheesy undeniably 80ssoundtrack. Want that ? look no further its here.

The only true redeeming thing about this film is the fight scenes arenot all that bad, good martial arts by people who know what they aredoing, (though let down by the inappropriate THWACK that follows eventhe lightest of taps) Want a laugh? watch it then

This is THE greatest bad film ever made! The acting: perfect, thedirection: sublime, the cinematography: flawless, the script: supreme!J.W. Fails in my opinion steals every scene that he is in. How hedidn't go on to become the leading African American actor of our timeand that joke Denzel has, puzzles and repulses me. He really owns thecharacter of R.J. and I'm pretty sure to get a performance like thatyou would have to take a leaf out of the Daniel Day Lewis book ofacting and prepare for months so you could know the conditions yourcharacter lives in. The storyline involving the ghost of Bruce Leeisn't misjudged as many of my friends have suggested but actually has adeep message which will have some resonance with anyone who has had atotal stranger pass away on them in recent times. This film is a muchoverlooked masterpiece from the greatest decade in the history ofAmerican cinema, the 1980's. The decade that also gave us the AmericanNinja series and the genesis of the careers of Steven Seagal, JeanClaude van Damme, Arnie and Dolph Lundgren. Watch this film, itshilarious!

The last time I watched it was 20 y ago. For me It was the cult moviethat gave me the willing to practice karate. It was also the first timeI saw JC Vandamme on TV.

So I re-watched it yesterday. OMG what a lame movie ! Really, I can'thelp but laughing watching the bad acting, the bad scenario, the badfilming, no really the magic wasn't there anymore. It looks like a 70'saction movie parody !

Karate Kid is a masterpiece if you dare comparing.

But hey ! The little child I was enjoyed it. So I keep it in my hearthlike my believing in Santa Claus

read comments (0)