The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

very unoriginal and boring. Same storyline, etc. etc. etc. Openingscene very alike to the former recent Texas chainsaw. The "beginning"should of been more focused on growing up and childhood (not just 5mins. of him growing up and being bullied/teased), everything was veryobvious and predictable. No scary scenes, jump scenes used veryexcessively. Too much gore and blood, they tried to make the gore andblood the whole basis of the movie to get alittle more scare. Reactioninstead was just stupid and disguisted. Ending very disappointed, sincewhen do they make a horror where every1 dies? I know it's different butfor this movie it's just disappointing. I hope they end this franchise,it's getting fairly old with the two latest Texas chain. being failuresand disappointments. Overall rating : 4.0/10 and i'm being verygenerous on this 1 (almost too generous).

This Movie Was Terrible I Cant Believe They Can Ever Call It A TexasChainsaw Massacre Movie

First off since when is leatherface a demon child the mother keels overand he calls out of the womb looking like a demon that was justterrible

Second can anybody tell me where all the blood and gore was because itwasn't in this movie i was so hoping to see all this blood and gore andthey like cut out all of it every time he went to kill somebody theywould cut the camera away so you could barely see what he was doing itwas just terrible

In closing honestly save your money don't go and see it and if you wantto see it so bad wait to see if they release a directors cut if theyleave in gore in that version it might be worth watch AndyChrist

The title of this movie should be, "The Death of New Ideas." If you'rea horror movie fanatic, you'd be terribly disappointed in this remakeof the remake of the remake, etc. DO NOT waste your money, wait untilit comes out on DVD in about 4 months, if you're at all curious as tolearning how Leatherface originated… Oh wait, they didn't evenexplain how he originated! I FELT LIKE I SAW THIS SAME EXACT MOVIE 3years ago, except Jordana Brewster replaced Jessica Beil as the femalelead. Regardless, same terrible acting and lack of originality allaround. Toby Hooper should have left his classic original 1974 TexasChainsaw Massacre alone, and be ashamed to have produced this uttercrap! All he saw was dollar signs. Don't get sucked in just becauseit's the only horror movie out now around Halloween… Buy/rent theoriginal. NO Texas Chainsaw remake comes even remotely close.

I've just got one thing to say about this… "Why the **** open yourmouth" I mean whose brilliant idea was it to make a prequel to a moviethat didn't need a prequel. You can't even call this a prequel, it hadnothing to do with the beginning, well a few minutes but it didn'texplain anything at all. This was garbage, the makers of this filmshould be out-casted. "Ohh it had so much gore and it was scary" pleasepeople, the gore wasn't anything to shake a stick at, and I predictedmost of the "shriek" scenes. Don't waste your time on this garbage."The beginning" consisted of him being born, and thats basically itexcept for a few pictures which were out of focus. By then, itliterally skips ahead 20 years which would make it 4 years prior towhen the original takes place. So "the beginning" should be taken outof the title.

I am a huge fan of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and did notlike the remake. So when i heard about this one i was not veryinterested, but with all the wonderful reviews that i have read sayingthat is one of the scariest movies ever and is just as good as theoriginal i thought it might actually be good. But I was very wrong. Themovie is not scary at all and relies on nothing more then cheap scareswhich pop up way too much throughout the movie and become quiteannoying. I don't know how an 84 minute horror movie can be so boring.The characters were not very well developed and i just wantedleatherface to end their horrible acting performances a lot sooner thenhe did. I'm gonna go watch the ultimate edition of the original Texaschainsaw massacre now. thank you Hollywood for yet another piece ofs*** horror movie.

Let me start by saying that i really had high hopes for this moviebeing a fan of the original and the remake that came out a couple yearsago. The remake was so stylized and shot beautifully and a reallynotable "scream queen" performance delivered by Biel. Now going intothis one, i was really anticipating to see something similar and betterthan Biel's film. ( i call it Biel's film because for me she made thatone what it was) but what i didn't anticipate was how SIMILAR they weretrying to make this one to Biel's film. Right down to the similarity ofhair style and "look" of the cast members between the last film andthis new one. They even attempted to re-create some moments (a scenethat involves a blonde character, and nail's scraping on a wall) andalso some of the shots from the last film. The climax also were verysimilar. However the only thing that was noticeably different was theresolution, which, ISN'T a good thing.

all in all i felt the film was a low budget horror flick, that happenedto have a good budget. I know how difficult that may be to understandbut hopefully once you see the film it'll make sense.

Overall it was a good time at the movies, ONLY because we saw it forfree and for the fact that my friends and i laughed the whole time. Thedialogue is rather korny and there's even a moment where a charactertrips so non-chalantly and then swims in a puddle of water for thepurpose of getting herself wet for a nice chase scene. Also, some ofthe decisions the characters made aren't as logical as they were in thelast film and it lead to a laugh and a giggle here and there.

is it worth watching? i suppose. just don't expect the original or theremake of the original.

I have never seen a bigger crock of sh*t in my life. If someone putthis trash in front of you without knowing what it was, you would sayit was a snuff film. And that was pretty much what it was, A SNUFFFILM. If you like 85 or some odd minutes of pointless torture, than seethis movie. The acting was o.k., Emery was cool as usual, but that wasabout it. Didn't explain much about the beginning, skipped like hiswhole childhood and teen years. i think the movie was called the Texaschainsaw massacre. Well, it was in Texas, and it was a massacre, butwhere was the f****** chainsaw?? As a fan of the original and the firstremake, i liked the fact that the chainsaw was in the movie for morethan about 10 minutes at the end.

So my point is to all of you psychos out there, if your interested inmindless gore that doesn't in anyway make a movie scary at all, seethis in theaters. If your a scary movie fan who doesn't really want tomiss this, wait for blockbuster. Heat up some popcorn if you'd like,might i suggest that you don't eat anything that comes from a cow (OMGHINT HINT HINT!!!!!!!!!!) unless you have a barf bag sitting next toyou.

Haters Keep on hating.

Love Nogg

i thought it had nice lighting and cinematography, but could haveworked out some kinks. in the very first version we see "granpa" andthe younger dude who i think was leatherfaces brother? if this is aprequel, who is granpa and the younger guy? what happens toleatherfaces mother? umm when you start a chainsaw you need to pull acouple of times on rope. how is it when he was in back seat at end ofmovie, it was quiet then the saw is just going through? now that bladewas HUGE. how the hell if your in the back seat can you get that to goin the way it did? i have to say though, the way the biker went wasvery cool:) blood is waaay to thick these days. too
much kayro syrup inthe mix.

i HATE movie reviewers. they always think people are going to believethem. yeah i know, i nitpick too much, but come on. if you're going tomake a movie right, really think out things before you just rush out amovie.

let's just say this…this film, just like the first one, is atechnically nice film. the editing and photography are top notch. theacting is decent, esp for a slasher film…the script, though…

i was hoping to see a film about leatherface, and how he got to be theway he was. instead, we get him on his last day working at an abattoirthe day it is to close….i would actually like to have seen that. thepeople who worked side by side w/this guy, who comes to his jobeveryday. does he get along? does he have any friends? does he evertalk? but we don't get anything interesting like that. this film startsexactly;y where it should end, with leatherface inexplicably killinghis boss and co worker…begging the question, why did he not just killthem before? he didn't seem to be too particularly upset by the closingof the slaughterhouse, and killed the boss and co worketr when theyinsulted him. given that they seem rather unpleasant people, i don'timagine that this was the first time they showered such abuse onleatherface…so, why does he decide to kill them now? also, do the coworkers and boss feel even a little concerned by one of their coworkers wearing a mask made from the skin of dead human beings to workeveryday?

guess we're not supposed to think about that.

this film had the opportunity to show the origin and establish thebackstory of the entire family. it skips that , opting instead for arehash of every other slasher film, and more specifically theremake…only without any of the potential drama of that one. see, weknow, this being a prequel, that certain characters survive, namely,the entire family. we also know, since there was no investigation priorto the one that bookends the first film after the survivor reported thehouse and the goings on out there, that no one had survived to tell thetale…thus, no dramatic tension whatsoever, and you are essentiallywatching a snuff film, the only variable being when the kids were goingto get their comeuppance.

the least they could have done would be to introduce a bunch of othercharacters into the family that were not in the remake, giving at leastthe possibility that one of them might get killed.

i cant imagine a more poorly thought out, less interesting, lesscourageous way to continue this story…

thankfully for me, there was a screen next door showing the departed…

anyway, it looks nice, so as a photographic exercise, its got somevalue.

but this one is proof that studio execs are boring and cowardly

What a piece of crap, can't believe Tobe Hooper put his name under thisversion, the 2003 one was semi OK but this? If the body in theslaughterhouse from the guy killed in the early stages of the movie1939, for instance, still were lying there and been found at the end ofthe movie 1969 it been decomposed beyond recognition; at least theshirt had been. (This is not a spoiler since more dies in this one thanin a bad war movie.) No, but it's still marine blue and crispy! lol Ifyou have to watch a stupid remake don't watch this, watch the 2003 oneinstead or even the 1994 one, at least that had a couple of laughs init. Or better yet watch the No.1 slasher-horror 2003/4 Wrong Turn!

Be well, LordParzifal

read comments (0)

The Ultimate Gift

Greetings again from the darkness. Another in the series of Christianmessage films, this one based on Jim Stovall's best selling book of thesame name. With the overall look and feel of a Lifetime Channel movie,James Garner, Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriweither add enough class andtalent to make it watchable and, at times, effective.

Little known Drew Fuller stars as Jason, the spoiled, unappreciativegrandson of the recently departed billionaire James Garner. Givingdysfunctional families everywhere an example of what can happen,Garner's family bickers and threatens lawsuits over his will and whatthey perceive as shortchanging of their fair share. Long estranged fromhis grandfather, Jason is certainly put out by the tests he is forcedto endure for his unknown share of the estate. Of course, the tests aredesigned by Garner to teach Jason the real meaning of life and to helphim find his lost soul.

The best scenes of the film involve Abigail Breslin (so dynamic in"Little Miss Sunshine") as a dying girl who is very concerned aboutleaving her mother alone in the world. Breslin's character has a lot todo with Jason's meandering path to salvation.

With the exception of Drew Fuller (who is a poor man's Robbie Benson)and most of the family, the cast does a pretty decent job of playingthe script straight. Brian Dennehy, Cobbs and a radiant 72 yr old LeeMeriwether (Catwoman from the first "Batman" movie in the 60's and aformer Miss America) are all solid in their support work and manage toboost the film just enough to prevent that slide into pure hokey muck.

Not pretending to be anything but what it is, just know this is amessage film and one designed to get us to look at ourselves.

This is one of the most generic pieces of wannabe films I have everseen! Yet somehow this has over 7.2/10 as of now? (8-30-07) C'monpeople, this film is a joke! It tries so hard to be inspiring/learningabout yourself it's pathetic! This is terrible in every respect, sohopefully people will be a little more honest in the future and givethis a score it deserves! This doesn't deserve anything higher than a3! This is rank film making at it's most embarrassing. Even the star(Drew Fuller who tried his best) of this joke-fest was better in theone year he was on the show "Charmed" then he was in this. Of courseyou can't fault the actors for something that had such a terriblywritten script. Even the cinematography was something that you see donebetter on an episode of "Mythbusters!" The usually always good JamesGarner was completely wasted, and his whole presence was just a sadwaste of his time. Don't waste your time people, if you want to seesomething ACTUALLY INSPIRING watch something, anything else!

Through a charity, I was able to see a screening for The Ultimate Gift,which has already raised millions for nonprofits. I highly recommendthe movie for all families and teens who appreciate emotional, relevantstorytelling. No, there's no gore, sex twists or terrorist plots…justa story that anyone who's ever been part of a family will not only wantto see but tell others about. But the movie's just part of the story Ithink. The message here has really resonated with folks already, asproved by the little underground book that has become a worldwidesensation. Think it will be exciting to watch the movie shock someHollywood types and movie skeptics with its grass roots appeal. I'mgoing on the Hollywood Stock Exchange now and double down. This is mysleeper pick of the season!

The Ultimate Gift is FoxFaith's newest release (the makers of Thr3e,Love Comes Softly,and a few others)…

It is the story of a young man, Jason, whose grandfather has just died.Jason's family is royally messed up, living up to the scripture when itsays, "The love of money is the root of all evil." His grandfather,through a series of video messages, reveals to Jason that he has lefthim what he calls the "ultimate gift", but Jason must first complete aseries of tasks to show his worthiness. The rest of the movie showsjust that, Jason trying to successfully complete his deceasedgrandfather's list of commands and the consequent changes andrelationships that journey brings him.

There's nothing ground breaking here. The Ultimate Gift is a verymediocre movie. The story is one we've seen before…if you've seen thepreviews you could likely predict the outcome of this movie. The actingis very mediocre. The whole movie is just very…mediocre! That's all Ican really say…if you like drama/chick flicks with a somewhat goodmoral, you might check this one out. I wouldn't suggest paying fullprice…

It didn't have a real "message" as other much as other Christian moviesI've seen recently. What it did have was a few curse words (h-ll,anabbreviation for "B-S", and "screw you" ) along with a few sexualcomments and one particular scene where his mom answers her doorscantily clad in lingerie.

On a scale of 1 to 10, The Ultimate Gift, rates a:

Overall:5.5 Artistic/Entertainment Content:3 Spiritual Content:4 FamilyFriendliness: 4

I found it ironic that I saw this film at a sponsored preview hosted bya group of wealthy stockbrokers. They rambled about the "message" andthe ultimate gift and how their business core values were reflected inthe film. Afterwards they all pulled away in their Mercedes and Lexusand went back to million dollar homes. There isn't a medical center oreven a notable charity sponsored by the firm, but they sure liked tobelieve that they were nice people. That aside, the film was terrible!Bad acting, bad directing and a shallow screenplay were the dominatingpresence. I felt like I was sitting through some after school specialmade by a film student. Here's the thing about the message of the film;If you found this to be profound or moving, you are probably a reallyselfish bastard! The message could be put simply as "be a good person."It's not rocket science. People who say this film changed their livesmust have been candidates for an Ebeneezer Scrooge award party prior toits' viewing. But this is a movie site, not a political site so thebottom line is that this movie was BAD! Don't waste your time.

Watched with our 3 kids: 16, 13, and 10 - and all of us enjoyed it.Wasn't really sure it would be good; we've been so disappointed in thepast. Plus - have kids of such varying ages. Hadly any movie these dayscan please all of us. But, this movie had a good story, light romance,intriguing (could NOT necessarily guess what was next…). Had familiaracting faces of the past (James Garner; Lee Meriwether), plus someexcellent newer actors we'd not seen before. Had a strong, clean,message. No violence. No car chase scenes. No nudity. Also, made youthink: what might happen next? Also enjoyed the musical background -was a good compliment to the film. Great movie. What a relief, finally!Thumbs up!! Recommended.

Honestly, this is OK… a lot of people thought it was wonderful,awesome, amazing; but realistically it is just above made for TV.

It has a good cast list and the plot is interesting - but full-onfilm-making it ain't. It is definitely family values orientated - andthe message is definitely one to be encouraged - that the ultimate giftis the stuff money can't buy (If that's a spoiler you're probablywatching the wrong movie)…

It is all a bit obvious, but pleasant enough.

Have to be honest and say it didn't move me that much; I just couldn'tbuy into the premise that it might not work out; that said it may wellbe fine for those who want a nice, gentle movie to watch that won'toffend, has moments of excitement, and some nice character roles.

A pleasant diversion, but not cl
assic in any sense.

*** SPOILERS *** There were a lot of fine plot elements in this film,and it had the makings for being great. Having Jason kidnapped andalmost killed didn't really fit in with the overall story, and theextreme rudeness of the family at Thanksgiving was overdone, so I wouldgive a few demerits for this.

However, what really "spoiled" the movie (and almost made me give it a1 or 2) was that Jason comes close to making up with his ex-girlfriendnear the end! True, he doesn't see it through, but even so I felt solet down by Jason's behaviour at that point that this movie ultimatelycomes across as mediocre. By that point of the movie, Jason had seemedreformed, trustworthy, and now I wonder if he ever can be truly that.

The story is beautiful, even though for some reason the idea didn'tseem very original to me (I think I have seen a similar movie before).But the idea of self discovery and improvement was still very good.

What I didn't like, though, was the direction. I think the film itselfwas poor - poorly directed. I never got to relate to the characters, Inever "got in" their situations, despite the fact that there are somecircumstances that should rip your heart in two. The whole thing seemedto be a lot of different situations all pasted together rather than theflow of a whole story. I guess the book must have been much better.

The movie is still worth watching.

I know, I know, it sounds a little corny and saccharin. That's what Iused to think about the 1970s television series The Waltons, before Iactually tuned in one night and became absolutely captivated by theadventures of John Boy, Mary Ellen, and the rest of that poor WestVirginia mountain family in the Depression era. It's fitting tocontrast cinematic dramas such as these with what I decried in so muchmodern fare with my previous review of Dark Knight.[1] So many movies,especially in theaters appealing to the young, are full of so muchspecial-effects clatter they leave no room for human beings and a storyworth telling.

…

For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and bookreviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.

Brian Wright Copyright 2008

read comments (0)

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

I don't know if I could give this film a zero star rating, but I'dcertainly like to, if possible. I really hated it! I had assumed thatit would present an interesting discussion on a misunderstood issue(the ratings' system) in a fashion somewhat similar to that presentedin "Thank You for Not Smoking" or one of Michael Moore's entertainingdocumentaries. Instead what I got was a very amateurish attemptdesigned to get viewers to take issue with the ratings' system run bythe MPAA. While I think that the premise of this film is interesting,the "presentation" is extremely disjointed and, frankly, offensive inits excessive use of explicit sexual scenes that are way over the top.One or two of the man-on-man-on-woman scenes would have gotten thepoint across, but it seems that a huge chunk of the movie is focused onthese very graphic images and it really makes me wonder if there wasany editorial decision-making used in this film at all. I happen toagree that Hollywood has far too much gratuitous violence in its films,and clearly the MPAA has a bias in favor of these types of films.However, the answer, in my opinion, is not to make movies with womenhaving orgasms with jello more accessible to minors (as director JohnWaters advocated), but to raise the bar on the quality of films, ingeneral. Take a look at movies like "The Pursuit of Happiness" or "AnInconvenient Truth" to see what directors should be striving for –films that generally enlighten while entertaining their audiences. If Itook anything away from this movie, it's that directors, or at leastthe ones portrayed in this film, are seriously out of touch with whatour society needs. Work on making more quality films instead ofadvocating for broader exposure to junk!

The audience at the Sundance premiere loved This Film is Not Yet Rated.Of course, director Kirby Dick perfectly played the role oficonoclastic documentarian who is fearlessly stickin’ it to the man (inthis case, the MPAA). And in fact, the movie was plenty of fun.

Kirby makes frequent use of controversial footage (mostly sex-related)from films, as well as interviews with directors. But the highlight isthe work of a private investigator who is tasked to identify the secretpanel of reviewers who assign the ratings. The fact that the PI is arather dowdy, middle-aged lesbian that is accompanied by her partner’steenage daughter is such a departure from the Sam Spade mythology thatyou’re rooting for her from the beginning. This was a genius move onDick’s part! There is also plenty of footage of former MPAA presidentJack Valenti, often pontificating in the silver-tongued (andsilver-haired) glory he made famous.

I like documentaries, but I’m troubled that audiences are so easilyswayed by these typically one-sided arguments designed more to enrageand entertain than to uncover the truth. So in that spirit, let me makea few comments on the MPAA rating system and the movie. Kirby driveshome the following points:

1. The ratings board seems to have a greater tolerance for violencethan for sex. I can see why filmmakers might feel that way, buthonestly, how on earth can you compare the two? Is one decapitationequivalent to the fondling of a breast? I’m just not sure how anyonecould successfully argue this claim. Frankly, I see an awful lot ofexplicit sex and graphic violence in movies.

2. The MPAA is harder on Independent movies than from the studiosbecause it’s studio-driven organization. This is probably true, but thedocumentary gives the flimsiest of evidence to support it. Kevin Smithgives an example from how the MPAA dealt with him on two movies, oneindie and one studio, but they were five years apart and may havesimply reflected different people, policy changes, etc.

3. The MPAA treats homosexual sex more stringently than heterosexualsex. Uh … yea. And so does network TV, cable, print and the Internet.This is not news. I’m not defending it, but I think it reflects thepublic’s squirm factor.

4. The MPAA reviewers are supposed to be parents of teens or younger,but often their kids were grown. Hmmmm. Who cares? The whole parentthing is a silly PR ploy anyway. These reviewers probably jaywalk aswell, and maybe lead with their dessert fork.

5. The fallacy of comparisons. Dick wants a world where a filmmaker canfind examples of similar scenes that have been allowed in the past toget their scenes approved. My teenagers have tried to use the sameapproach to systematically eliminate restrictions. Open that door acrack and the wall comes crashing down.

6. The MPAA doesn’t publish its standards, which is unfair tofilmmakers. Unfortunately, Kirby never asks why. And there’s the rub.The MPAA secrets its standards because they would be highlycontroversial and the public (as well as Washington) would use itagainst the industry. Everyone snickers about today’s PG’13’s beingyesterday’s R’s, but what if it was laid out in black and white? Whatif the press reported when the MPAA chooses to make a new wordacceptable in PG-13’s that was previously restricted? This is fuel forthose that attempt to censor Hollywood and the result would be exactlythe kind of regulation the MPAA has lobbied against for years. Theevolution of these standards over time would not suffer scrutiny well.Filmmakers can live in an ideal world, but Jack Valenti knew exactlywhat he was doing, which was protecting the economic interests of themovie industry.

I could go on. Personally, I think the MPAA ratings system is anabomination. At the same time, I think filmmakers ought to rejoice thatan organization run by their own industry is allowed to police itselfwith secret standards and the worst punishment being not a restrictionbut rather an ill-defined ratings label. The industry should come notto bury Jack Valenti, but to praise him.

In the beginning some woman complains that the rating board didn't likethe fact that she had an anal rape scene, a scene where someone wipesvaginal fluid off their face, and that they wanted her to cut onecharacters orgasm. That sets the whole tone for this "documentary"-whine, whine, whine. I rapidly lost interest-these people sound morelike internet voyeurs than filmmakers, and make a lot of ridiculousstatements. NO ONE IS THREATENED BY FEMALE PLEASURE! They just don'twant to see their six year old staring at genitalia. Is that sounreasonable? Sex is a necessary part of life, but do we really have toswim in scene upon scene of it? I mean, using the bathroom is also anecessary part of life, but I'd rather abstain from watching HilarySwank on the toilet, if you don't mind. Many of the best movies evermade (Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, Star Wars, etc.) havelittle (normally no) sex, and are no worse for the wear.

I just finished watching this film and was really disappointed. Itpresents a few good points and shows some of the hypocrisy of the MPAAratings system, but it is completely one sided and offers not a singleopposing opinion in the entire film. The problems I have with the moviethat have not already been covered by other comments are:

1) A huge section of the film deals with how sexual content willquickly get you a more restrictive rating while violence is not asproblematic. We are given the argument that we should be more Europeanand value the beauty of the body and sex. It seems that the filmmakerand everyone involved missed the point that the MPAA is to rate filmsfor an American audience, not a European one, and not a liberal one. Ifthe large majority of Americans agree with the ratings, then the MPAAis doing its job properly.

2) The film expounds further on the sex topic by detailing howhomosexual sex is rated more restrictively than hetero. Again, what ashocker! Does the filmmaker actually think that all Americans are socomfortable with images of homosexual sex that the MPAA is out of line?

3) I didn't find the cases where filmmakers were
given an NC-17 ratinginstead of a R very compelling. My fav was the glimpse of pubic hairthat caused "The Cooler" to get an NC-17 rating. I saw a little morethan hair, and I don't see what the problem complying with the ratingsboard would be. A 1 second cut would have fixed the problem and notdetracted from the movie at all. The other examples included filmsdealing with homosexual sex, fetishes, etc. See point 2.

4) An alternative to the system is never suggested. There is no mentionof attempts to change or create an alternate system. If so many ofthese extremely wealthy filmmakers feel so oppressed then maybe theyshould spend a little money and time and try to fix the problem. As faras I know it has never been done. I would think the documentary shouldcover this.

5) Its been said may times in other comments, but the part where thefilmmaker hires a P.I. to find the identities of the secret ratingsboard members is a waste. It was the most interesting part of the movieand the only thing that kept me watching, so that will give you an ideaof how poor the "meat" of the documentary was.

Lastly, I want to mention that the numerous 10 star ratings this filmhas received is a shame. The comments appear to be more of acondemnation of the MPAA rather than a rating of the film itself.

This movie clearly shows the level of person manipulating our lives .These people are complete idiots. Maybe this is why i stopped going totheaters. I have 2 children,ages 7 and 3, and the Mp@@ system islacking to say the least, then on the back side they restrict what getsto the adult public by branding movies NC-17. MP@@ I hope you see this….you are Arrogant,Pompous and lack any idea of what reality trulyis. I hope you have truly sad missionary sex with your frigid partnerafter reading this. What a bunch of total jackasses. Visions ofgrandeur. Oh and just for the record , You have yourself created thePiracy rings that will eventually bring you to your knees…..ENJOI =P

The artsy-fartsy crowd whines again because they can't show everythingin their dirty underwear to the whole world and make millions ofdollars like the big guys in charge. That's the bottom line, the bigbucks, and they want it too. So this crowd feels there need be no rulesin place at all, I guess, and would not mind if all the kiddies couldjust walk in off the street and see graphic sex, because of coursegraphic sex is beautiful and won't hurt the kiddies because theyalready know all about it anyway. Please do not waste your moneypurchasing this movie; hit your local library like I did and see itthat way. It's laughable.

I heard about this documentary and being a film buff was anxious to seeit. What a disappointment. It is downright awful. A documentary issupposed to be balanced. This film does not show the side of the MPAA.During the documentary the private detectives hired to find out who arethe MPAA raters, start to speak about how they met and about beinglesbians. What does the sexuality of the detectives have to due withthe methods of the MPAA? The investigation of the detectives rises tothe point of invasion of privacy.

Wayne Kramer, the director of "The Cooler" makes a lot of commentsabout how the MPAA functions, comments in the negative context. Heseems to state that the MPAA is too conservative when it comes tosexual content of films and how his film received difficulty inobtaining an other than NC-17 rating because of pubic hair beingdisplayed in the film. One problem with this, "The Cooler" is aterrible movie. It is predictable to the point of being painful. Thewhole group with whom I saw "The Cooler" left the viewing moaning insadness at having wasted two hours of our lives. Mr. Kramer would bewiser to spend his time learning how to make a decent movie and notbeing concerned with the procedures of the MPAA.

I found it interesting that most of the filmmakers that appear in thedocumentary are gay/lesbian. What's with that? Except for KimberlyPeirce, most to the directors, including John Waters, haven't made adecent movie. OK, Waters made "Cry-Baby" but he also made "Cecil B.Demented". 'Nough said.

The people who made and appear in this project would have better spenttheir time going back to film school and learning how to make a qualityfilm rather than throwing stones at the MPAA.

"The Cooler" and "This Film is Not Yet Rated" time spent watchingdribble. Time I will never get back. Don't fall into the same trap.

Any film-fan, and especially those that are interested in independentfilms particularly should check THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. DirectorKirby Dick, along with the help of a private-investigator, uncovers thetruth behind, and the identities of, the MPAA board-members that makethe final decisions on the ratings of all films that are submitted forratings under MPAA "guidelines". Dick exposes the hypocrisy and lunacyof the MPAA as a secret-society (that is, until Dick comes along atleast…), and blows the lid off of the subject. The tone of thisparticular documentary is pretty "light" given the serioussubject-matter, and is actually very entertaining. Best part, isthere's a good bit of boobs, butts, and even a few bushes as Mr. Dickshows clips from some films that were rated NC-17 who thought theirrating was unfair.

Anyway - give this one a shot, both entertaining and extremelyenlightening…9/10

If you dig films with a lot of sex or have ever wondered who thescoundrels are that force the gratuitous nudity out of movies than youshould be particularly interested in this documentary. Filmmaker KirbyDick hires a private investigator to keep tabs on the impenetrablebuilding containing the MPAA board who ultimately decide the rating ofa film which can really determine the fate of it's success. There arealso interviews with independent directors who lend their opinions onthe guidelines they were expected to follow after their film whenthrough the MPAA. We are also shown some good clips of thecontroversial scenes from NC-17 rated movies such as "Boys Don't Cry","The Cooler", and "American Psycho". This flick moves along at a goodpace and finally exposes the identities of those involved in the filmrating system. Hell, they actually dig through garbage at one point! Avery interesting movie.

This film consists of interviews with directors and actors, archivalfootage of public events, and clips of what the MPAA considersquestionable taste from mostly recent movies. It's position is clearlya First Amendment one. That's my position too. And the movie is reallyfunny.

The MPAA rating board is a secret organization that determines who getsto see a picture, guides the judgment of potential viewers, or whetherthe film is shown at all. One clergyman who attends the screeningssays, "Jack Valenti wanted this to be a totally transparent process butdecided it would be bad to broadcast it to the public." The"investigative team" who start to dig into the process aregood-natured, cheerful, iconoclasts, including a couple of lesbians.They try to film the nameless board members who leave for lunch, thenfollow them into fast-food joints and try to film them on spy camerasand engage them in conversation. Wearing latex gloves, they steal thegarbage bags of film raters at night and poke through them trying toget some idea of what goes through their heads. The whole thing iscarried out like a CIA operation. And that's what this film is about –the investigation itself, and the attempt that follows to get a ratingfor the film about the investigation.

I don't know that there's all that much new here. We already know thatsome people in audiences are liable to imitate certain actions they seeon the screen. (Rape has a higher reenactment quotient than, say
,blowing one's self up in a crowded place.) We know that our ratings arefar tougher on sex than on violence, and tougher on gay sex thanstraight. We know that the emphasis in Europe is pretty much theopposite. We know that people making films usually throw in one or twosops that they know ahead of time will be rejected by the raters, sothe raters can feel that they're doing their jobs. (Orson Welles didthe same thing with Citizen Kane.) We also know, though the filmdoesn't tell us, that there's a lot more to the relationship betweenmedia and behavior than just copycatting. Canadian border cities likeVancouver, BC, get the same programming that American cities likeVancouver, WA, get — and Canada has more guns per capita too — andyet the homicide rate in BC is minuscule compared to that ofWashington.

Some of the funniest material comes from clips that show what has beendeliberately sacrificed to the censors. I forget the title of the filmit comes from, but one scene has an animated Ken and an equallyanimated Barbie engaged in sexual acts. The raters allowed a missionaryposition and a Barbie-on-top but required the deletion of Ken andBarbie going down on one another, anal intercourse, ondinism, andcorpraphilia. You haven't seen ANYTHING until you've seen Barbie tryingto dump on Ken's eager, smiling face. (I can't stop laughing.) JohnWaters is prominent among the many talking heads, contributing hisinvaluable and fulgurating insights. On the other side is Jack Valenti,grinning amiably and lying into the camera about the board members("just ordinary people"), one of whom lives in a multi-million-dollarmansion.

Can you imagine the job these people have to do? They sit there andwatch movies all day long, keeping an eye open particularly for sexyparts, actually counting the number of f*** and m*********** wordsused? And to get PAID for it? And then to pass JUDGMENT on exactly howfilthy a film is? It's enough to make the rotted corpse of AnthonyComestock push its way out of the grave and come crashing through thedoors, demanding a seat and a pencil.

read comments (0)

This Is England

My friend Charisse perceived that the film is autobiographical.

I am sick of films that cop out with fear of falling like Beauty andthe Beast and Batman or crucifying a black man like Unforgiven andWhite Boyz. And ever since Jaws, of films that start out giving you asociety,a community, and abandon it, for a little drama of two or threemaniacs. And how can those mice in Rescuers Down Under just FORGET theprisoners they were among? But it's the film does. Especially kid films- they think kids don't think, don't remember, don't care.

Grand Illusion ends up with just the two guys, but it's different.

In this film, the bad skins terrorize and rob Sandhu. The boy gets evenfor Sandhu's making him stop reading the comics. (In Erbaugh's in late1940's Yellow Springs, when Bud Johnson would say, "Put up the funnybooks, boys." But how does the boy in the film read so FAST? Bip. Ha haha ha ha. Turn page. Ha ha ha ha ha, so disassociated that he doesn'tread or feel, just pretends to in his ad-if world. Poor kid!!!)

Does anyone think Mr. Sandhu is not calling the police? That there areno consequences? Even if Mr. Sandhu did not know the boy's family, aswe have heard him state he does, do we think that he–or his Simpsonsparallel in US for that matter, who once, when Homer goes to work forhim, advises Homer to take the inevitable bullet in the shoulder–willcrumble? He will not, and is stereotype but a formidable thoughundeveloped character.

When the robbery and terrorizing of Sandhu–which the film suggestscould have led to someone being killed–are left as a mere symbolicdetail, like a shot of someone throwing a candy wrapper on thesidewalk–the film has lost its realism and we don't know where thehell we are.

The little scene of bullying the kids playing soccer uses the victimsas props, enacting a filmic racism in parallel to the characters'racism and gaining no authenticity by doing so; rather, discreditingits authority when it needs it. There is a Pakistani-English communityto deal with. Thatcher may or may not give a darn, but I do and Iexpect no less of my sensitive flawless (New York Times with an almost)film.

The good skins too are a community, and this becomes the subject as theboy goes there from isolation and becomes social. It reminds me of thebaptisms in Tender Mercies, where the kid is in his fifties. Thiscommunity is INTERESTING and filmically REAL, and should not be droppedfor crappy melodrama. PC is no excuse.

The bad skins stride forward side by side the boy in his long blackcoat. Clockwork Orange, which I have not seen. I feel for him. Who isworse for him? The bad guy, or the girl who has him suck her tits? Thebad guy's sins can be washed away with the blood of a Negro, whosedeath, euphemized with a trip to the hospital provides a neat cure forthe boy's attraction to violent fascist-racist-nationalism. But whatwill become of the girl we get no clue. The whole latter part of thefilm is composed of in-your-face see what's happening so you canunderstand the plot stuff–the woman rejects the bad guy so he gets madand has to kill a black guy and worse, use the n-word, climacticrevelation of his wrongness. A film that was a film about some kidstrying to cope has to go Hollywood. Compare Slacker, also about growingup absurd (I cannot tell hat the other book title is. I went to alecture by Goodman in Cleveland. He was a big celebrity.) Slacker neverforgets it's a film.

There is a point in This Is England where you sense that the film hasrun out of truth and is wondering where to go. It tries to pull backtogether at the end with more news footage, to draw back from it'slittle racial-violence porno fling into a social perspective, but thatdevice doesn't do it. I want to know about the kids, the good skins ifyou will. I want what started to continue and develop. I want people Ihave begun to care about to stay around and do something. Have to stophere. Donald Moss. Berlin Alexanderplatz. Old Sodbury 1950-51. TreasureIsland and walking home at ten in the moonlight . . .

A kind of compilation of bits from the director's previous features,this honest, vivid drama gains from its naturalistic performances andobservant asides, but has brutal and hysterical extremes that mayalienate many audiences.

The director no doubt fells strongly that yes, this is England. As aleft winger he will be keen to play up the bad aspects of his countryand down play anything positive. Such is his policy on this movie.Don't get me wrong, the film is well made and well acted but to say itoffers an unbiased view of England is laughable.

The left in the media love to paint anyone who questions massimmigration as a Nazi or a fascist. It is just not credible to themthat the National Front had people in it who were perfectly normal,decent people who felt frustrated about the changing face of theircountry and the mainstream politicians' inability to do anything aboutit. Sir Keith Joseph voiced such an opinion. According to people likeMeadows, skinhead thugs were the prototype NF members. This was not thecase.

Where this film really falls to pieces is at the end when the Falklandsconflict is equated with what has gone before. The determination toembed the narrative in a political context is misguided at best andinsensitive at worst.

It is really no surprise to me that lesser film critics, who are allliberal left, have praised this film so much, where the odd wiser one,like the chap in the Telegraph, have exposed it for what it is: ablustering, fake, sham of a picture with pretensions to say so muchmore than it has the genuine intellect to.

This movie was a throw back to more then the 80's. It's a reflection ona part of society that should no longer exist. Another national fronttype movie, more skin heads, more dilapidated council estates wherethese people tend to thrive (according to the movie producers) and theparts when Sean is snogging an 18 year old woman is just wrong. 18 yearold woman getting it on with a 12 year old boy!!!! You could tell thatthe token black character was going to get seven bells kicked out ofhim in the end; it was just a matter of when and not if.

It's not gritty, it's not on the edge, it's not powerful as somecritics would have you believe. It's actually pointless, mindless, andstupid!

The main skinhead uses the fact the immigrants are taking all the jobsas an excuse to attack them as there are no jobs left for the workingman. I would point to the fact that he had a criminal record, andtattoos on his face would be more of a disadvantage.

Anyone who grew up working class in the early eighties is gonna getright behind Shane Meadows' latest piece, and I found myself whippedback to a time of skineads, unemployment, despondency at our futures,and a general disenfranchised feeling of self worthlessness asexperienced by us, the impoverished masses, spearheaded by what was atrue tory government - not our current lying tory government, hidingbehind a name that used to represent us - but a real tory governmentthat was never afraid to say they hated, yes HATED, us, the workingclass. You can hate her, but at least she told us that.

With that I loved the idea of This Is England and preminisced a storyof wasted and misguided youth, but with an ultimate redemtion in theunderstanding of why we'd been lied to and told by so many that it wasthose of colour who would ultimately lead to us being unemployed whenwe were of age. Or at the very least this could've been a film thatreminded us how this modern government, claiming to be representativeof the working class, was indeed none other than a Margeret ThatcherParadigm.

Sadly, although This Is England very much captures a time and place, itprovides no lessons or explanations for the reasons why we were lead tothink that way, all those years ago in the eigh
ties. There's nothinghere but a story, and if you're going to throw in footage of realevents, then juxtaposion it against the trials and tribulations ofsomething so real as that time, then at least do it with a point!

It's many years since I blamed the failings of society on race, or satin on speeches given by Oxbridge educated men who believed inrepatriation, and I was hoping to see a little of that growth in ThisIs England. Unfortunately it isn't there. There's nothing that decriesracism - or even the current insanity of liberalism that floods thecountry with the things we'd been told to fear back then when it wasn'teven real! There's no reaffirmations of what we should've learnt fromthose times. There's nothing to suggest the stupidy of both sides ofthe political spectrum - the conservatives or conversersly the ultraright wing.

Instead this is just a film about a kid who gets involved in some dramainvolving skinheads. In defence, the acting and direction is excellent- up there with Ken Loach for realism, and lovable for being socompletely English, but a million miles away from Alan Clarke and DavidLeland for what we can learn - it just isn't what I'd hoped for in wayof a bigger picture. Maybe I'm the moron for not being able to see itfor what it is: tantamount to a good episode of Eastenders, but sadly,nothing more. If you ever see Shane Meadow's give an interview, he's areally interesting character - you'd definitely expect more than this.

I bought this film with great hopes for it, several of my matesrecommended it, however, it was absolutely terrible. The writing wasbad, the acting was worse, and even the date it was set in didn't makesense! I didn't develop any attachment to the characters and thoughtthe entire thing was a shambles. DO NOT WATCH! You have been warned. 2great examples of the poor quality of the film;a scene where Shane andhis mum are looking at a picture of his dad and both comment its theirfavourite picture of him, in the picture , you cant even see his face!As well as this, during the movie a girl who must have been about 10years older than him comes on to him! It just comes across twisted andmade the film seem even less real. Sucky film, don't buy, don't rent,don't watch.

It's clear to me that pederasty is the driving subtext of this film.These smarmy creeps… jailbirds, sadists, vandals, babies who nevergrew up…are utterly dysfunctional in their zonked-out post-teen limbouniverse of drugs, booze, violence, vandalism, and sexual ambiguity.Their misery is taken out on despised minorities and women, and, Iimagine, on any 12 year old boy they can lure into their web. Why elsewould they plausibly have any interest in this clueless kid? Buggery isa strong motive. When Smell and Shaun swap spit in an excruciatinglycreepy scene, it seems she's a proxy for these slobs's eroticfantasies. That said, one must praise Stephen Graham and Jo Hartley forexcellent work within the confines of a difficult script. Maybe ShaunMeadows was too personally close to his material. Anyway, he needs tostep up a lot to join the ranks of Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, amongothers.

I'm afraid I disagree..truly a great bit of British Film-making I thinknot… Whats with the Reservoir Dogs pastiche of them Slomoed walkingtowards the camera…been there done that… The characters are allstandard, none are worth any empathy, and the Director doesn't seem toknow which year he wants to be in…(from 1981 to 1985)…The Skinheadmovement was much more prevalent ten years or more prior to thistimescale..I was also told it had a stunning soundtrack…don't holdyour breath… All in all an appalling piece of trite that is overmarketed to to the masses I do hope the Americans don't believe weBrits were really like that..it was just a small minority that didn'thave a a voice…Some of us were off tabbing around the Falklands atthe time..much more interesting…but it wouldn't make a good film…

Latest movie from a rare modern director who actually has something tosay.

It's the early '80s and a bullied school boy becomes friends with askinhead gang.

The third British movie in recent months set in this era after HistoryBoys, Starter For Ten (and Billy Elliot a few years back) this iseasily the finest. The best parts were the terrific performance fromthat ex-prisoner skinhead and the way a lot of important scenes justdeveloped and drew the audience in rather than being forced on them.The movie certainly shifts up a gear once the gang split up but theplot-less story and disappearing characters let the picture down.

This is England certainly stands out from the current dross in cinemas(e.g. Speed Dating) but was somewhat disappointing.

I do not understand all the great reviews this film received.

Over the years we have seen many similar stories of a lad trying tocope after a family tragedy.

In probably in over 90% of them there were likable people,especiallythe young lad.

I saw only about 35 minutes & found nothing to like or care for.

The young lad was presentable like most children are, BUT there wasnothing for me to root for,This type role has been done before too manytimes to count.The rest of the cast looked like rejects from the EastSide Kids films casting calls of years back. ALL stereotypes. At leastthe East End Kids movies had real laughs,the laughter here was forced.

Ratings ** (out of 4) points 56 (out of 100) IMDb 5 (out of 10)

Not as silly as "American History X", but not nearly as good as "RomperStomper", which is far more dynamic. Watching this little drama, Iwasn't sure what to think. Is this realistic? Is it absurd? I guess abit of both. The dialogue appears credible, but not too fascinating.The characters are interesting but nothing to shout about. This is asolid drama, nothing more. It portrays skinheads as the knuckleheadsthat they are.

Graham losing any chance of re-hooking up with his big love triggershis violent outburst against the black guy. That was to be expected,but I agree that the majority of extreme right-wingers are sexuallyfrustrated misfits, and that that's where they draw most of their angerfrom. That and envy - which is also addressed, again in Graham'scharacter, a character which I feel is more central here than that oflittle Shaun, who is like some kind of a mascot for the moronicskinheads. They didn't have a bulldog, so they got a dumb kid.

Turgoose is a very good casting choice; he looks like the archetypalEnglish kid, especially one who'd be picked on or be violent.

The songs in the soundtrack, however, are quite lame. They could haveplayed that stuff in any dumb romantic comedy; it would have fit theremore.

I have no idea why the story is set in Thatcher's Britain. Are there noskinheads anymore in England? And would someone please explain to mewhat the Falkland Island war has to do with skinheads? Fine, Shaun'sfather died in it, but I don't understand why there is so much focus onit. After Graham beats up Milky, we're shown documentary footage ofthat war's soldiers. Why??

Btw, Margaret Thatcher helped Britain's economy recover after Labourmanaged to bring the country to the brink of ruin with their policiesin the 60s and 70s. That's just a little fact that you won't hear aboutin Leftist movies…

"I did see some tits in Germany, I just didn't suck them." That was agood line.

read comments (0)

Tristan + Isolde

This was just not that good. I watched all the ads on TV with relish,excited for the day I could see it, and I feel as though they showedall the best parts on TV. There is no chemistry between the two leads,and not nearly enough "romantic moments." They show all the romanticmoments on TV. Not that much character development, either. There areonly a handful of moments when the two leads are conversing with eachother. I felt as though I was being told what the actors felt insteadof seeing it for myself on screen. I wish they would have stuck morewith the original story of Tristan & Isolde, because that seemed farmore interesting than the plot of the movie and spanned more years, andthe focus would have been more on their love. The fighting was good, Iwish the love scenes were as well-crafted.

This may have been the worst movie I have ever seen…I feel liked Ihave been robbed of my money, my time, and something else I can’t evenput my finger on right now…no character development whatsoever…thebest part of this movie was when it finally ended…how a movie likethis does not go straight to DVD I have no idea…I let my girlfriendpick this movie and she couldn’t have been more sorry that she pickedit…it was so bad that I couldn’t even bust her chops about hermovie-picking ability…I felt bad for her…the only thing I gainedfrom this movie was patience and humility…thank you for letting mevent

I’ve been looking forward to seeing Tristan & Isolde ever since I sawthe trailer, which I thought was fantastic. Well, I went to see it onopening day, and unfortunately, it wasn’t nearly as good as thetrailer. I’m the kind of person who almost always thinks a movie isgood regardless of how much the critics abuse it, but this is oneexception…this movie is absolutely terrible. I understand that itfollows the basic outline of Romeo and Juliet, and I must admit, theTristan & Isolde version of it is very sweet. It could have been doneso wonderfully, but the way the movie chose to portray it through theacting/script/etc. was just bad. I have no idea how long its actualrunning time was, but I felt as though it was over in 30 minutes andthat those 30 minutes were just sex (in a PG-13 way) scenes, fighting,and whispered conversations that made absolutely no sense. Therelationship between Tristan and Isolde was far too rushed and had noexplanation whatsoever, and it wasn’t exactly helped by theirhopelessly cheesy, cliché lines. Basically, the only character thatfelt real to me was Lord Marke, portrayed by Rufus Sewell, because heactually showed some emotion through his words, his diction, and hisacting.

Overall, if you had as high of hopes as I did for this movie, Irecommend steeling yourself to be let down. For once, I agree with thecritics…on my (extremely) generous grading scale for movies, this oneis a 5/10.

OMG this is the best movie EVER!!!!!!! it has like the biggest effecton me!! i watch it all the time and i made my mom buy it for me as soonas it came out!!i love it so much!!!!!i watch it 24/7! It is by far myfavorite movie and it will be for a really really really longtime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!this is a great movie and irecommend it for everyone it is great.It made me cry every time iwatched it because it was so sad, but it is a really great movie and ithink anyone who would watch it will like it!I think Sophia Myles andJames Franco are great together!I really hope they do another moviejust like that sometime!

Although i love this movie, i was disappointed not only by how much ofthe legend they left out, but by James Franco's performance.

I love James Franco so don't get me wrong when i say that i think hecould've done more as the role as Tristan. I just found that yeah hewas obviously tormented by not being able to be with Isolde, you couldsee that anytime you looked in his eyes, But i just wished he would'veshown More than just the "wo to me" side of the character. In the end iwas hoping that the guy that played Melot would've played Tristan (nooffense to James) Sophia Myles was excellent however, when i originallysaw the movie i kept thinking "where have i seen here before?" then ithit me that she played in Underworld (great movie) Also i wish theyhad've told the whole story, it would've made more of an impact andthis movie would've blown other period films likeBraveheart,Troy,Alexander and as such out of the water. Although allthe sets were made from scratch you can tell this wasn't a BIG budgetfilm and i think the filming shows that greatly.

The legend actually in the end makes both Tristan and Isolde verybitter till death but in the end, under all the frustration nd painthey still love one another. so i was disappointed in one way oranother even though for what it is ..its not that bad of a movie and itis one of my favorites.

The movie was a breath taking thriller that had you glued to thescreen. I have never seen two people so much in love. I hope that Iwill one day experience the same love Tristan and Isolde did. Onereason I really liked the movie is because it had so many surprises.Again, I really hope that my love will be as great as theirs. BTW,James Franco is really good looking. I wish he didn't die at the end.He should have gotten on that boat with Isolde and her maid. I cannotget my mind off that movie and how good they looked together. I watchedit three times in a row just because I think James Franco (Tristan) isreally hot. I would take Isolde's place in a heartbeat. I know thatsounds really desperate, and trust me i know because i've heard itabout a hundred times. Well, as i said before, i really liked the movieand i hope that James will look as sexy in his next movie as he did inthis one.

love it!! it was so good and sad. I will watch it again and again. veryaddicting. a hopeless romantic would die to see it. So many twists thatbreak your heart, like when Tristan wins her for mark but doesn't knowits Isolde. You want to yell at the screen for Tristan to kiss her eventhough he is loyal to his king, mark. Isolde doesn't care though. Whenhe tries to resist her, i felt horrible and wanted to cry. then he sayssome heart wrenching things to her, like "Every look he gives you I getsicker and sicker." to let her know he loves her and can no longerresit her. I was like finally! James Franco( Tristan) is so hot. I waslike drooling and had to go home to get pictures of him to print outand make him my background. then i had to see clips and trailers of it.Franco is so believably in love with Sophia(Isolde)

Last night I went to see a preview of Tristan and Isolde, not beingfamiliar with the stars of the movie. I was pleasantly surprised by theacting and the script. The cinematography and scenery was outstandingand accomplished a great beginning to the movie. I was not familiarwith the story of Tristan and Isolde, but found it very satisfying.This story proves that you don’t need big stars to make a good movie,if you have a well written script. I look forward to seeing these starsagain in future productions. I would recommend that you see this one onthe big screen at your local movie theater as scenery is well worth theprice of admission.

I had hesitated to watch this one, as it seemed to be packaged as a'romance' movie to me, which I don't think is entirely fair. Yes, it iscentered on the love affair of the two central title characters of thestory, but it was also entertaining, and an education for me also. Inever new the Irish invaded England in the Middle Ages. And if I'dknown the movie wasn't just a soppy romance, and had some action in it,I would have watched it sooner. (Nothing like a bit of sword fightingand castle storming.) Excellent performances from Sophia Myles, JamesFranco and Rufus Sewell. Woul
d like to see more of James Franco, andRufus Sewell for that matter. And yes I was 'moved' by the love affairbetween the two heroes.

'Tristan and Isolde' is an amazing interpretation of an amazing folktale. First off, the casting could NOT have been better. James Francorocked his role as Tristan. I never stopped believing him for a second.The places they shot this movie were so beautiful and you could reallyfeel like it was the Middle Ages. The passion between Tristan andIsolde was nailed. I completely believed them and every little actionthey had showed their passion. The battle scenes were amazing and sofun to watch. I keep watching this movie over and over and never getbored, I always seem to find something new in the movie. It's a greatmovie to watch with girlfriends and perhaps even a guy or two becausethey'll be so into the fighting.

read comments (0)

Turistas

Well, first I wanna say I am a Latino. I am Argentinian, but yougringos probably don't know what Argentina is. The thing is, the US isfull with ignorant people. And those ignorants make this kind ofmovies: full of stereotypes, full of violence and hate. But you knowwhat, States? From what I know, and I know a lot, Brazil is not agigantic jungle. Brazilian people won't steal your organs. Brazilianswon't kill random foreign people. What I mean is that every piece ofthis planet is full of these things. But as the ignorant andprejudge-filled persons you are, you will fill your ignorant sons withhate, starting the circle again.

But obviously, you won't make movies about how Brazilians are kidnappedby people from the US (I am saying "people from the US" instead ofAmericans, because they don't own the continent, ya know), or howskinheads kill innocent Latinos in the streets.

Besides this, the movie is boring, lacks a plot, the acting is poor,and the research for this movie… well, let's say it is missing.

I don't have a good English, so please errors are normal.

I live in Brazil and I think this movie is not going to be good for mycountry. The another user called Douglas Young post this "I know thatthis movie has convinced me that I don't ever want to go to Brazil."Comments like this are worrying Brazilians authorities, so please Ifyou see the movie (that was a failure in it's first weekend) do notthink that Brazil is only violence and hot girls.

Here Fox is preparing a huge opening, but many Brazilians have alreadysaid that here we will do a boycotting.

Enjoy the movie but do not ever say what that guy said in the othercomment

It's sad how could they do a movie that talks about a country anddenigrate it

The movie is not bad and really scares, but don't believe it, becauseit's fiction. Brazil is wonderful and it's a great place to go forvacations. The only kind of violence there is robbery and sometimesshoot out. USA is really worst in numbers of people who die by homicideBut talking about the movie, it is an ordinary terror movie that terrorfans should see.

I didn't really like it but maybe because I didn't see much truth onthat…

Oh, and the place is Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I saw only the trailer, but the Brazil is not as the film seems toportray, does not have great forests close to the urban centers. E alsonot valley everything here not. They look at this charge that it iscirculating in the country as a form to show its indignation.

charges.u o l.c o m.b r /2 0 06/12/05/cinema-turistas-2

I do not see the history of contemptuous form, but the phrase: "in acountry that if can everything, everything can happen" is very strongand it would not have to be used.

But all good, I remember the episodes of the Simpsons where they hadcome to the Brazil and had committed the same errors. Rude ahead of theNorth Americans was made all a climate, but later it passed. It alsohad the day where one determined airplane pilot showed the finger ofthe way in a photo of identification in the airport and finishedrestrained. Some people do not serve to understand that all we areequal.

Hugs, Verta

Bottom line, what you came hear to know……. It sucked bad! I mean,some sweet tight ass and those skinny thongs are nice and all. You seeone gory part,enough to get you started and thats it, you are left highand dry with nothing else. It seems the the movie was based on onequick part and the rest was just a dull filler, with a cheap andconvenient ending that just sucked. Fit for the Pit, we got in thetheater and about 6 people in there. From the beginning to the endpeople were leaving now Hello…. I think that means something, Bad BadBad Movie. Save your bucks for a good porn at least you get off.

Sign Blunt and to the Point

The film the crappy and Brazil is not like that.

For a full the truly view of Brazil visit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil

This is Curitiba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba

This is Florianopolis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florianopolis

This is Fortaleza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortaleza

This is Sao Paulo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sao_Paulo

Cuisine Brazil's cuisine is as varied as its geography and culture. Onthe other hand, some may find it an unrefined melange, and everydayfare can be bland and monotonous. While there are some quite uniquedishes of regional origin, many foods were brought by overseasimmigrants and have been hybridized through the generations. In Brazil,Italian and Chinese food can often be as baffling as Amazonian fare.

Respect Brazilians tend to be very open and talk freely about theirproblems, especially about political corruption and other problems. Butdon't imitate them, as they are likely to feel offended if youcriticise their country or customs. In some small towns, local politicscan be a sensitive issue and you should be careful when talking aboutit. Be polite, as always.

Very very much like Hostel, but set in Brazil. Its not a bad movie, theacting is good, and there is a great chase through underwater caves,but always feels one step below Hostel. Its not as gory, and there'smore nudity. Some of the plot elements are weak, and those are the onesmost clearly derived from Hostel (ie - the cell phone pictures, whichdo not actually pertain to the plot of Turistas, but are important inHostel). Would love to find the beach, and the caves, where it wasfilmed. They look amazing. The director likes to use the Tobe Hoopertrick of filming scenes in a lot of darkness, which doesn't alwayswork. In one fight scene in particular (in the dog cages), it is verydifficult to tell exactly who is doing what.

tourists a some true excrement is a film without say I admit the ideato it that people kill tourists and these missing is very good could bemade a good film of terror and mystery like hostel although hostel issimilar is better than this excrement I admit it has cast spectacularjosh Duhamel and Melissa George is good and sexy but this film inaddition this very slow does not have been one hour and follows thatmissing and to begun the scenes of terror and condition the point isnot avoids this film you do not see nor in DVD loose it your time andreads to tag line sees house you do not see this sweepings and in factwhen I saw the trailer watched to make very good film and the TV spotsalso was good but this is not an absurdity wanted to copy to hostel andthe only thing that they obtained was that this film was one suck Iadmit it are many bad films but this is terrible

To begin with this movie which i rented recently was utterly a waste ofmy time, i should have red the comments on IMDb first but i wasrecommended to watch it by some friends…big mistake… The movie hasit's beautiful moments nature-wise but the pore acting and low standardon storytelling just kept me wanna kill myself slowly with a scalpel.As many other comments indicate its true that the female actors arepicked more for there looks than there ability of acting. To make along comment short Turistas ends up in the bottom 10. If you still justhappen to see this dreadful movie keep your expectations on a triviallevel and maybe you'll survive the first thirty minutes, Good luck.

American culture is really scary. I think they are afraid of make theAmerican people knowing the culture of another countries, like the richcultures of the peoples from South America.

This movie shows an country which is really hostile to tourists -Brazil. That's very weird, because Brazilian people are known for beingvery receptive, and I think that people from Europe knows this.

To the American propaganda, everybody who is south
from Mexico isMexican. Americans simply doesn't know (because they don't learn thisin school) the differences between the other 'important' countriesaround the world, in the economy, in the politics or in the culture. Isnot difficult that a lot of people in the USA feels more comfortable ofliving in the USA, thinking that people from Brazil are really likethat after watching that piece of junk. They have no idea that there'sin that country a city which is bigger than any American one. They justthink it's a huge jungle country, with violent people with badbehavior.

It's a shame!

read comments (0)

Ultraviolet

Man, I went into this movie thinking it would be bad, but have greatvisual effects. The visual effects were the worst thing I’ve ever seen.It looked like something I could have made in a week with some of myfriends in my basement. There was -20% character development. What do Imean? Yeah, I knew more about Violet in the first 5 minutes of themovie, and figured out less and less as time goes on. The Chinese mafiaon the roof really was the last straw, as it had the worst CGI ever,and there were even shots that were in the first person with an offscale hand shooting, resembling a first person shooter on thePlaystation. I actually only saw about half an hour of this moviebefore I went into the lobby and got a free movie pass, then left. Ifeel bad for anyone who watches the whole thing.

God, why you allow these people to produce this piece of crap? Did youknow how much did I worked for my $2 for renting this movie? Hehehe,seriously, since March 2006 I thought that criticism about this movie,well, it would be more exaggerated… and, like I love Milla so much, Ijust thought it will worth seeing her in any movie… but not thisone… even from the partial nudity that has been shown in the movie…Hell no.

Like I'm not telling you guys so much about the picture (everything hasbeen said) I just like to end this comment about the abusiveapplication of special effects: "If you thought that Torque (2004) wasbad… Ultraviolet is worst than Torque and xXx 2" God, forgive them.

This is truly the most godawful piece of tripe I've seen in years. Theplot and the backstory make absolutely no sense, the characters arezero dimensional and you can't relate to them because you have no cluewhat their motivations are (neither did the scriptwriters, obviously)and the dialog is so bad it goes beyond "so bad it's good" and becomesbad again. And the idea that Milla Jovovich can waltz into a roompacked with heavily armed security guards and kill every one of themwithout being hit by a single bullet is laughable. Then she goes intothe next room where there are even more guards, this time armed withswords! LMAO.

Obviously this nonsense was based on some brain-dead shoot-em-up videogame, well if that's your thing, then you'll have more fun playing thestupid game than watching this brain-rotting rubbish. Or if you're a13-year-old boy then you can get your jollies watching Jovovich inskin-tight outfits. But if you have a functioning neuron in your brain,don't waste a penny or a second of your time on this ConcentratedRecycled Animal Product.

I’m a basic theatre regular, I go a couple times a week just for thesheer fun of seeing whatever is released good or bad, whatever isplaying. Over the years I’ve developed the ability to find a least onegood thing about the majority of bad films I see just to feel like Ihaven’t completely wasted my $10.95. I invited to see a free midnightscreening of UltraViolet, which, judging from the trailer just seemedlike slightly different version of Aeon Flux. I’m trying very hard tocome up with one positive thing about Ultraviolet, but I can’t evencome close. Ultraviolet is so frustratingly awful to watch, I had towalk out an hour through the film because it was giving me a headache.

Calling it the worst film ever made is a bit of a stretch, Iunderstand, but Ultraviolet is truly worthy of the title. Every memberof the cast was terrible, the dialogue sounded like it was written by apreteen fanfiction writer and the CGI was just plain unimpressive anddid not blend in well with the rest of the film.

It is very difficult to give a summary of the film’s plot, because itwas virtually nonexistent. I could not understand what was going on 90%of the time. Many characters, elements and backstories were introducedbut never explained or explored further making them pointless to whatwas going on. It story basically travelled from plothole to plothole,the most annoying of which was a scene were Violent was running fromthe government with 6, a young weapon of sorts Violet, being the coldmerciless killer that she was, decided to save for an unexplainedreason. Endless numbers of guards are chasing them through askyscraper, then outside, then suddenly they’re back in the skyscraper,then they’re outside again, then they’re back in the building and in asubway. It was just confusing! Were they outside on ground level orinside a skyscraper? Never bothered to explain.

Another scene in which Violet was cornered in every direction, she getsa hologram phone call in which see says she would meet Nerva in 10minutes and seconds later she is unharmed at such a meeting point, KurtWimmer (writer) simply forgot to finish writing a chase sequence. Weredid all those guards pursuing her go? How could she possibly of escapedwhen she knew she was cornered? Through the first half of the filmViolet referred to her kind as hemophages, and in the second half asvampires. It did show infected victims of the hemophage disease hadfangs, but how were they vampires? Where did that title even come in?Not one character portrayed any of the trademark vampirecharacteristics. Maybe hardcore fans of the Ultraviolet comic bookwould understand this reference, but what of the rest of the audience?Direction was the worst of it all. Even though I said the actors wereterrible, given the source material and their schmuck of a director, Idoubt any of today’s finest actors could have salvaged anything out ofthis nightmare. The camera work was particularly agonizing and dull, asit seemed every ‘tense’ moment the world had to freeze and the camerahad to jump to everyone’s eyes, guns, outfit several times before thefilm would get moving again. I believe it was a ploy to try andlengthen the 97min running time.

The action sequences aren’t anything to behold, pretty pathetic seeingas how Ultraviolet is nothing but. Every action scene is the exactlythe same as the one on 2 minutes prior (literally), turning even someof the most over the top moments into an utter bore.

Maybe by some freak chance the film redeemed itself in the last 20minutes after I walked out, I wouldn’t know. I can only beg people notto see this movie and allow it to crash and burn like only the mosthorrid trash deserves. One can only hope it bombs during openingweekend, cautioning Hollywood to stop making this type of garbage.

If you must see a piece of eye candy jumping around shooting armies ofpeople and having things explode every 5 minutes, go see Aeon Flux. Itmay not be good, but it at least tries, which is more then I can sayfor Ultraviolet. 0/10

I was really excited about going and seeing this movie and was beyonddisappointed. First of all the special effects are ridiculous. Secondthe acting was horrible. The motorcycle chase scene was actually thefunniest thing I have ever seen. Climbing up the side of a building andthen jumping from one through a helicopter and then landing on theother…..yeah right! No one can use the reason that I didn’t know thetype of movie I was going to see. I didn’t expect an Oscar winner, butI did expect to be entertained. I love the Resident Evil, Underworld,Matrix etc. movies but this isn’t even worth the Sci-Fi channel. Idon’t discourage anyone from seeing any movie because everyone’s tasteis different, but to give this movie anything above a 3 or 4 is insane.

… Because it’s a hunk of crap. I was really looking forward to thisfilm, Equlibrium was one of my favorite action films in the last 10years or so. This is a poor follow up.

Don’t be taken in by the trailer, it is misleading as far as storygoes. Some of the early action sequences in the film were only slightlyabove the level of computer graphics that you find in an xbox 360 game,it seriously looked like they didn’t finish rendering the scenes.

All in all I was heavily disappointed in this film. No need to catchthis one in the theaters, I’m sure when this b
ecomes available on homevideo it’ll come out on blue-ray and a HD version of this at home isgood enough.

To be 100% brutally honest, this movie was horrible. The plot wasweaker than the average porno and the character development wasnon-existent. Why can’t Hollywood get the female super hero right?There is way too much focus on the "womanly features" and not enoughfocus on virtually anything that makes a movie good. Basically anymovie that you walk away thinking "I am a strong, independent,butt-kicking woman, but i can still be sexy" is going to be awful.Here’s a little advice for Kurt Wimmer: Equilibrium was fine the way itwas, it did not need to be remade with a female main-character and a Blevel science fiction story line. Avoid this movie, it ranks among theworst of all time along with movies like Elektra and Catwoman.

There should be a special place in hell for people who make cooltrailers of movies that suck as badly as this one. The action sequencesare pretty cool but there are just *so* few of them, separated byrepetitive and meaningless dialogue. Also, the action sequences get alittle predictable after the third or fourth time, Milla is totallysurrounded and yet ices everybody without a hair going out of place.Far, far inferior to Aeon Flux, worse even than Lara Croft 2 Cradle ofLife. It terrifies me that 40 minutes was cut from the movie - I fearthat one day they will catch up with me and rot my brain. Although onsecond thought, maybe we needed another 2 hours of cuts. I really feellike a fool having paid cash money$ to see this crapola - learn from mymishtake!

Don’t bother paying money to see this in the theater…. this isdefinitely a home movie. After 15 minutes of watching this, you cantell that the storyline was going to be weak. So, one would hope thatthe action sequences would save this movie. Did it? NOPE. They lookedcool. They looked fresh. But every scene was ruined by quick cuts andhyped up music. WHen things actually slowed down to get a look at thechoreography, you were disappointed. Nothing innovative about the fightscenes here. Nothing impressive, in my opinion. If you’re going to makea movie like this… spend more time working out the choreography. Makeit interesting to watch. Make it memorable. Every obstacle that wasthrown at Milla was a joke. She beat every villain without batting aneye. That gets boring after a while. I’m not saying I want to see hercharacter get hurt. It would be nice to see a challenge. Anyone thatdecides to make another action movie using martial arts needs toactually watch some good movies before making one.

Case in point, Jackie Chan’s Who Am I has to be one of the mosthorribly scripted pieces of garbage in the history of film. Yet everyfight scene in that movie was a joy to watch. In my opinion, it savedthe movie! Ultraviolet had a convoluted, futuristic story that could’vebeen saved by the action if any decent choreography was attempted. Butthat was not the case.

I can forgive an action movie for not having the greatest acting outthere, but this had no saving grace at all. The elements meant to makethis genre strong were completely missing. The fights were tedious,leaving the viewer bored and anxious for the story to move on. It’salright to do slow fighting once per movie, but not every time acharacter pulls out a weapon! This also applies to fighting off a biggroup of armored thugs, the basis of almost every scene in the movie.The writing was horrible. All you need to know is the final fightinvolves someone saying, "It’s on…" WHAT!? "IT’S ON"!? The bestactors in the movie were the twelve year old kid and the scientist, acharacter that is on screen for a total of ten minutes. The dialoguewas comprised of one-liners and the delivery left everyone in thetheater laughing at the awkwardness. One other thing was that theentire movie was shot to look blurry. It got on my nerves quickly,that’s about it. Again, I could forgive this piece of garbage if it hadanything to offer, but sadly this wasn’t the case. A complete waste ofnine dollars.

read comments (0)

The Nativity Story

Who would have thought that films about Jesus could get this bad? Getlost, this film is awful. I mean what was the point? Was there even aplot. The story of Jesus is a very beautiful story, this film puts thestory down. It's filled with clichés and is awfully reverent.

It is clearly made to please the Vatican and I sure hope that they arepleased…that makes one anyway and all the Christians as well Iassume.

But to all of you out there who want to watch a good film: AVOID THISONE AT ALL COST!!!!!!! It's not possible to give this film less thanone, but clearly it's a -10.

Sadly this movie is being mistakenly promoted by many denominationsincluding some Catholic dioceses - obviously for the simple reason itis a movie about Christ. Many of the faithful might be lured intoseeing this film which is subtle blasphemy - mostly attacking theBlessed Virgin Mary and especially her Immaculate Conception.

This is readily seen in the trailer so you can confirm it foryourselves instead of wasting your money and seeing it in the theatre.

-St. Gabriel does not say "Hail Mary, full of Grace" but instead saysto Our Lady that she has "found favour with God"

- Our Lady is depicted suffering labour pains (Mary was born withoutoriginal sin) - One scene shows St. Joachim and St. Anne reproachingOur Lady for bringing shame on the family

- Our Lady is portrayed as being very ordinary throughout the film;nothing special about her at all

- St. Joseph delivers the baby Jesus (perhaps not heretical butbanalises the birth of Our Lord)

- When on her way to visit St. Elizabeth, Our Lady is shown thinkingabout her situation, and thinking back to when the angel told her thatElizabeth was in her 6th month. Then she said (thought) to herself,"God, please let Elizabeth really be with child", as if she was notsure she believed it and was going there to find out for herself.

- St. Joseph was very angry when he found out Mary was pregnant as heobviously believed she had been with another man. He even was dreamingthat an angry mob was about to stone her, and he, himself, picked up arock and was about to throw it at her when the angel spoke to him inthe dream.

Also, the woman who was hired to play the Blessed Virgin Mary is a 16year old who is proudly pregnant outside of wedlock.

Of course, audiences will be split in their reactions to THE NATIVITYSTORY: some will value it for its religious values, and the remainderwill try to appreciate it as drama. For the former, it's probablycritic-proof, especially considering the relative paucity of Christianreligious films; for the latter, the story may seem weighty under itsrelative familiarity. Of course, it's not as determinedly heavy as MelGibson's foray, and maybe the most appealing aspect of NATIVITY is thatits subject matter is basically uplifting - and much more watchable.

Pasolini's elegant GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW still rates as the goldstandard. It tells its story naturally and without pretense; it's as ifthis was the way it really happened. THE NATIVITY STORY falls a bitshort of Pasolini; despite some well-rendered special effects, itdoesn't seem to trust its subject matter sufficiently to let it surviveon its own merits. That's a tricky thing to manage. As presented here,the story is essentially drama, but often conveyed as fact, and not allthe actors are up to the challenge.

Managing tone is equally challenging. THE NATIVITY STORY (and manyfilms of its ilk) proceed from the notion that things like humor didn'texist two millennia ago. The inclusion of human responses can enrich afilm like this and make it memorable. The same applies to some of theperformances, in partcilar Keisha Castle-Hughes (WHALE RIDER) as Mary,whose responses to the wonders of virgin childbirth seem ratherlifeliess. As a result, THE NATIVITY STORY can't help but feel a bitstiff, and that's really unfortunate. But a film like this really onlyhas to be "good enough" (at least that seems to be the director'sview), and anyone waiting for unique reflections on the story havegoing to have a long wait.

If a subject is rather extraordinary, it yearns for an extraordinarytreatment. But there will be other nativity stories (I've seen one inCantonese), and maybe it will come out before the second coming.

Although I've only seen trailers, I would like to say this film looksexcellent. Far away from the stereotypical Nativity play you'd expectto see.

I was really annoyed when I read some of the comments because peopleare being really closed minded about this film. Just because itsChristian - doesn't mean you should just write it off. That's justprejudice.

The trailers look as though the movie has been really well thought out,and the story clear to anyone who doesn't know it. Even as a ChristianI only really know the basic storyline - so it will be good to see itsbackground too, so I am really looking forward to seeing the fullstory.

The acting looks amazing and the emotion high. It's much better thanthe shallow so called 'real life' stuff that usually comes out atChristmas about some poor person splitting up with their partner.

I hope the film lives up to the clips and trailers!

This is a film for religious fools who prefer to accept the word of anancient book written by men rather than actual reason and scientificscrutiny. Watch only if you are the sort of sheep that listens to andfollows this crap:

1: There has never been any miracles(e.g virgin births!?!?!?) that havebeen independently verified.

2: Jesus was actually born in September, Christmas is a pagan ritualthat was hijacked by the new religion in town

3: This story does not appear anywhere in any single gospel but is abastardised amalgamation of two.

Mel Gibsons The Passion Of The Christ(2004), which focused on the deathof Jesus Christ. The Nativity Story focuses on the birth of Christ. Itstarts with Mary marrying Joseph so young, being visited by the angelGabriel, and is told she will give birth to a savior. Joseph acceptsit, while other people won't. They start off on a long journey, Joesphprotecting Mary from anybody that is suspicious, and hoping to evadethe evil king Herold, who is bent on destroying the savior. And TheThree Kings are there way too. One great film, if you loved The PassionOf The Christ, then you'll The Navity Story it really gives you reasonto celebrate.

An absolutely magnificent film! Powerful, emotionally intense,gripping. The film was well made and every actor comes to play. Kudosto all the actors who performed in this film. There is no propagandatheme at all. That's just the liberal media and secularists trying tobad mouth the film. When I viewed it, I left the theater emotionallyuplifted. I can't remember the last film that made me feel that way.

What Jesus Christ did for the world is not debatable. At a time whenHollywood is pushing witches and warlocks, hobbits and dwarf's, thisMovie about the Nativity is truly a remarkable story. The message ofpure humility and love are worth emulating more than anything secularHollywood can put out. Excellent movie!

It's pretty obvious what this film is. Many "Christian" films have beenmade by being independently funded, but have lacked the productionvalue that's present in many successful Hollywood films. With therecent success of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, somebodyfigured out that there is a market for films based on religiousmaterial straight out of the bible. I can just see it now, hundreds ofpastors telling their flocks to go support the Christian presence inHollywood. What they fail to see is that The Nativity Story is simplyan attempt to exploit an untapped market. Ca
therine Hardwicke, directorof The Nativity Story doesn't quite seem like the type to have madesuch a film. Her first film in 2003 was the tale of a promiscuousthirteen year old girl diving deeper and deeper into a dark world ladenwith drugs and sex, Thirteen. So as for appreciating this film on alevel where you can realize that someone's moral/spiritual convictionis being projected before your eyes, is completely out of the questionunless an improbable transformation has occurred inside the soul ofHardwicke. However, many great films aren't based in a director orproducers moral conviction, so The Nativity Story still has a chance.The only problem is that as a film it isn't any good. I'm sorry to beblunt, but I feel I must. The screenplay is awful especially when yourealize the source, Mike Rich, screenwriter of Finding Forrester, TheRookie, and Radio (all fairly descent screenplays and his best workbeing the great Gus Van Sant film Finding Forrester!). The acting isdull! It seems like the portrayal of bible characters in most filmsconsist of some of the worst character development ever, not becausethey aren't good material, but because most writers portray them asseeming very fake and in a way that the audience can't relate to them.Keisha Castle Hughes, the young actress from Whale Rider who was castin The Nativity Story as the virgin Mary (even though now her pregnancyat the age of 16 has shown everyone that her personal life is verydifferent from that of the virgin Mary) gives one of the worstperformances I've ever seen. The only redeemable elements in TheNativity Story are the supplementary details. The production design ofThe Nativity Story is very good with details, but you must considerthat director Catherine Hardwicke was first a production designer(credited for such films as Tombstone, Three Kings, Vanilla Sky, andthe classic I'm Gonna Git You Sucka!… ahem) before making herdirectorial debut with Thirteen. The other element of The NativityStory worth mentioning is its score. No doubt Christians and believersin Jesus will praise this film. I'll end with this statement so myreaders don't construe me as being an atheist because of my opinion ofa film: "I feel the distinct need to separate Jesus from lousyentertainment." Which should be more powerful, a film about BobbyKennedy or a film about Jesus Christ?" It's not the historical figurethat makes this film bad, it's who made it. I wish someone would usethis material to its fullest capacity and make a great film aboutJesus, not just about his birth, not just about his death, but abouthim. Watching a film about a great historical figure shouldn't betorture!

When you do a story with a predictable plot, you need to make thatstory stand out somehow. This one failed. It was relatively slowmoving, not terribly intense, and we knew what was going to happen.

This movie needed to add a little something dynamic to make it morenoteworthy. Perhaps they could have built up the humorous spots a bitmore or even intensified the drama by having the characters seem morebelievable.

No matter how you look at it, you know how it's going to turn out, andthere are better versions of the story out there. Save it for therentals!

I find everyone who spends over 5 minutes writing comments shallow andpedantic. It is ridiculous to make a minimum of ten lines. I, myself,am only writing this much because of that requirement. I just find itridiculous that people have THAT much to say about a movie thataltogether amounted to a black guy on a camel, a donkey ride throughthe desert, and a guy with a crazy sweet beard. The goal of this moviemust have been solely to give kid's a reasonable break off of school towatch a movie that was "education about the faith". If you liked thismovie enough to stay awake during it, much less to see it twice then iwill come to your house and punch you in the jaw.

read comments (0)

The Namesake

I expected a great deal from The Namesake. Although I hadn't read thebook (liberating as I went without preconceptions), I'd seen thetrailers, read several positive reviews and really liked MonsoonWedding.

Nair did a pretty good job of giving us the background information thatwas necessary to understanding the characters' motivations andbehaviors. On the other hand, there were things that she kept secretuntil too late — particularly the exchange on the jetty between Ashokeand the 4 year old Gogol or what it meant to "come out of Gogol'sovercoat" — that were clearly relevant to the characters' expectationsand maturation. The information came too late for me and, as aconsequence, Gogal especially lacked the resonance that was necessaryto make him credible. Also, Nair's reminders of that past throughoutthe movie (like Ashoke's flashback in the railway station) were prettyheavy-handed. I didn't need to be reminded repeatedly of the exchangeon the train or the wreck and the scene where Ashoke tells Gogol thatit is not the wreck he thinks of when he looks at Gogol, but, instead,of every wonderful day since was sufficient to make the point.

Tabu was really excellent as the very young newlywed stranger in astrange land and her maturation and ultimate acceptance of her Americanhome was credible and interesting. The multi-ethnic neighborhood partyat the end and Ashima's comments about her feelings about her two homesrevealed a character who evolved over the course of the movie.

Ashoke was not as successful. He was consistently a bit dour, but, Iguess, that was comprehensible given his background and his near deathexperience on the train as a young man. He managed to convey to us thelove he felt for both his wife and his family.

It was the younger characters that were badly developed or downrightmistreated. Khan as Gogol was never really believable as anything otherthan a rebellious teenager whose dad died young. I don't know if thiswas a function of his acting skills or a failure on the director'spart. His ping-ponging from ostensibly hip young architect into ashaven-headed, robed mourner performing the religious funeral ritualsand his shock when, Moushumi, his sophisticated and admittedly (andobviously) promiscuous wife says she's keeping her maiden name didn'twork for me. He had no insight into his reasons for marrying Moushumi(which appeared to have a strong hormonal component) and, consequently,for her dissatisfaction with their marriage and his expectations.

The movie's treatment of both of Gogol's serious love interests was theworst, especially in the case of his American girlfriend. When she isabout to meet his parents for the first time, he gives her a long listof things not to do in his parents' presence and she ignores them all.This was not consistent with her character as developed up to thatpoint in the movie.

Despite all that I've said, I'm glad I went to the movie and rated itrelatively well.

Can't say I'm a huge fan of this genre of movie, I find them all toooften pretentious and clichéd but I enjoyed the first half of TheNamesake, that is until Gogol showed up. Basically I found the pacingof the two halves of the film totally out of whack, first half wasgently building the story, the second half seemed like they wanted toget everything in before running out of movie. The other problem withthe second half of the movie was the acting, I thought Ashoke andAshima were beautifully acted but sadly the younger characters Gogoland Moshoumi were very poorly acted. I find this an ongoing problemwith the North American Indian themed films, unfortunately the actorsjust aren't good enough, Lisa Ray in Bollywood Hollywood and QuarterLife Crisis, Kal Penn and Zuleikha Robinson here. Its a shame becausewith a few changes this really would've been a great movie.

I watched this in anticipation of something great. I'm Indian and hopedthat this was something I could relate to. This movie simply left methinking, "what was the point of all that?". I don't understand whodecides that movies like this and Monsoon Wedding are good. The man atblockbuster said this is the best Indian movie out there. I wonderwhere he rents his Indian movies from.

The plot of this movie built up on the awkwardness of a SOUTHern Indianfamily (I'm not from there and immediately noticed a huge difference intradition). I couldn't help, but laugh at the situations the husbandand wife got into. Possibly the only good thing about this movie wasthe revelation of how arranged marriages work afterwords ("who say youcan wash my cloth!" {newly wed} to "I never have courage to ask you,but why you marry me?" {after 18 years}).

The movie skipped around a lot with absolutely no transition of timewhen various things occurred. Everything that happened in the moviedidn't show any distinct significance to the actual plot (ie. whenGogol goes on a jog) and the entire family showed a kind of tension I'mnot familiar with.

The whole idea behind the movie was of narrow-mindedness, idealism andintegration into society. Every character (aside from Tabu's) wanted toassimilate into society and would do whatever it took to get there.Every character displayed resentment towards their respectivesituations and none of them really added to the story.

Kal Penn could not take on the role of a dramatic character. When hefound out that the girl he married was having an affair, his reactionwas hardly believable. The fact that he found the book at the end,supposedly his anagnorisis, just showed that he found meaning to hisname. The entire family still lived in awkward tension and there was noresolution to anything.

I'm not even sure if this review made sense. The entire movie wasconfusion and melodrama. Of course, it revealed the idea of the new ageversus the old age (parents conserved, children rebellious {when KalPenn smokes weed and then goes to see his possible future wife "Idetest American television"}). However, this movie did justice tonothing and served as a pompous idea for Americans trying to understandthe 'Indian way' (quite like Maxine).

This movie did no justice to our culture. It had no fluidity and wasjust a nag to sit through. The ending didn't conclude anything. Thismovie was garbage.

What a wonderful story and journey of marvelous characters which thebrilliant Mira Nair has given an audience in THE NAMESAKE. A beautifulfilm from frame to frame and a simply tremendous cast of actors whichenhanced the journey each takes to find their past, and in the end, tolearn more about their future. Cinematography is rich and breathtaking.

As "Gogol", Kal Penn, is terrific in his part, and watching him attemptto make a life for himself, and rectify both what he wants for his ownlife in America, along with pleasing his parents, is a journey that hasboth humor and sorrow from beginning to end. THE NAMESAKE is rich instory, character development and direction and the locations of NewYork in contrast to the haunting beauty of India make the film a joy towatch.

You don't even feel the length of the film as you just don't want thecharacters to leave, and the last scene is one to remember. I can onlyhope that perhaps we will see the continuation of "Gogol" in anotherfilm from Mira Nair.

I can ignore the wrong diversion Mira Nair took with the 'Vanity Fair',I loved her work before that, and I love her work in 'The Namesake'. Atrue, heartfelt story! I haven't read the original story by JhumpaLahiri, but the movie adaptation is surely a well-crafted one.

I am happy the immigrant clichés are avoided, which many IndianAmerican movie tend to exploit. However, I feel few things show Indiain a bad light, which I dislike! About the stella
r cast: Being veryfamiliar with Bengalis and their culture, I could see Irfan Khan trulytalked, walked, smoked, looked JUST like a Bengali and nothing butBengali. Tabu, although a great actress (read my review of anotherIrfan & Tabu starrer, 'Maqbool' made by Vishaal Bharadwaj), didn'tquite feel Bangali, however, carried the role of Ashima Ganguli withutter command of histrionics. But the real surprise of the movie is KalPenn. He is truly awesome. He transforms from a careless youth to aresponsible son and a man, with conviction! Rest of the star cast wereso so, and didn't matter much either.

Technicalities of the movie is just average, it has a very documentaryfeel to it. And camera work or music doesn't really add a whole lot tothe entire experience.

However, it's the master storytelling abilities of Mira Nair, thatshows - she handles the subtleties of immigrant family, generation andcultural gaps of Indian parents and American kids beautifully. The endresult is a true heartfelt story. Nothing really dramatic happens inthe movie, however it is to be seen to be 'felt'!

Somewhere on the Net, I read the characters of Tabu and Kal Penn wereinitially being offered to Bollywood actors Rani Mukerjee and AbhishekBachchan - what a blunder that would have been! Neither of them notnecessarily are bad actors, however a movie like this is experiencedbest without the touch of Bollywood glamor.

i thought the entire movie was very loosely made… there are too manyjumps in it… no attempt was made to make one understand how theevents unfold.. all the different stories ranging from 'gogol'sovercoat' to the demise of his loved ones is left hanging in the air..character development is extremely poor.. also one fails to understandwhy some of the characters in the movie were ever introduced in thefirst place..

the first half contains far too less duologue's between the Bengalicouple.. esp after the boldness shown by the female initially… it waslike two dummies hanging around one another..

the movie did well in giving an idea of how lives for immigrants canget and how ones search for their true identity could turn life'stables that were once perceived as immovable…but at the end of it,falls way short of a complete movie… and remains a bits & piecesmovie..!

Films with universal themes run great risks. Mostly this risk entailsdescending into that pit known as cliché. Many films have done it andfallen victim, but THE NAMESAKE uses its universal theme to greatadvantage, never disguising what it is and how important it can be.

The theme is family and how vital they are to our core existence. Theyshape every part of us, from childhood on, for better or worse. Theycreate a sense of belonging, even when we're apart, even when separatedby oceans. They give us our early identity, and even our names.

Most of us don't think about how tough it is to name a human being andhow we lug that title around with us for the rest of our lives. But inThe Namesake, director Mira Nair ( of MONSOON WEDDING fame) gives usGogol Ganguli, a name of substance and importance, but not necessarilyimportant to its owner.

The Namesake is a tri-generational story of a Bangladeshi family. Thefilm starts with the beautiful Indian singing of Ashima (Tabu). Herinitial goal in life is to become a great artist/singer. But familyconcerns override her plans as she returns home to find a marriagearrangement being put forth for her. Her parents introduce her to herfuture husband, Ashoke (Irfan Khan), an architect who's been studyingand living in America. The marriage takes place and Ashima accompaniesher new husband to New York ("Half a world away"). She immediatelybegins missing her family but her forlorn attitude is whisked aside asAshoke teaches her the ways of the City. She becomes pregnant with herfirst child, Gogol. The naming is tricky because normally it is done byan elder from within the family (all of whom are still in India). SoAshoke names him after one of his favorite authors (Nicholas "Gogol", afamous Russian writer). Gogol bares the name with disdain, never fullyrealizing its importance (one of Nicholas Gogol's books actually savedGogol's father's life after a fatal train accident in India many yearsbefore). Gogol eventually changes his name to Nick, thus ending hisfamily's tradition of keeping an appropriate Indian name.

It is this Americanization that is most troubling throughout the film.It invades the very fabric of what Gogol's family represents. Althoughnot entirely without merit (America does give him a good education anda nice job), the culture of his parents seems stilted and uncool. AsGogol (and eventually his sister) grow into adulthood, they search forlove in America, and find it via Americans. This is also another blowto Ashima and Ashoke (Gogol's mother and father). Americans live in thefast lane and often have to choose between one spouse's family over theother. This comes into sharp contrast as Gogol begins dating abeautiful blonde American named Maxine (Jacinda Barrett, POSEIDON).Maxine's pull is strong and forces Gogol to drift farther away from hisroots. His parents call and call but never hear back. It takes adevastating family event to get Gogol back on track and it is this thatgives the film its emotional heft. Tear-jerking and non-forced, thisevent was played perfectly and surprised everyone in the audience (allthe movie patrons gasped around me when it occurred, a true tribute tothis film's masterful weaving of the family theme).

The movie's arc is also well done. It ends just as it begins, with thefocus on understanding family and what it means to move on when thetime comes, but to never forget where you've come from.

When I saw that this movie was playing near me, I had to see it-havingrecently seen Water and being a fan of Mira Nair, I had to see it. Thismovie was wonderful!! The acting, the story the cinematography all makethis one of the best movies I have seen. I did not know what to expect,when I see a film based on a book, I usually try to read the book firstto see how well the story is translated to film. Well, having seen thefilm, reading the book will only bring back wonderful memories. As afan of Bollywood movies, many of the cast members looked very familiar,as did some of the American cast (after checking out the cast list andtheir filmography, now I realize why). Mira Nair manages to getwonderfully subtle performances from her cast, many who have workedwith her before. I surely hope that this movie is put forth for thisyears Oscar nominations as was Water. This is a must see for anyone whowants a wonderful evening of entertainment and insight into families ofall types.

To be honest, I had some time to kill, wanted to see a movie, and I'dseen both action flicks that weekend and nothing else looked even closeto being good. I've worked with Indians over the years and didn't havea clue as to their culture so thought this film might provide someinsight. From what I've read here on IMDb, I did get a glimpse or twoand got a decent story and some entertainment in the process. Plus,someof the Indian chicks were hot. I had no idea. Namesake does provide ajourney, but it was slow in several places (you know, the check yourwatch test). I really enjoyed the footage of the Taj Mahal and thedirector and cameraman deserve kudos for such nice work. I'll probablybuy the DVD just to get the wonderful honeymoon suite dance scene andmusic.

I just finished watching The namesake. The movie starts with an eventwhich will be the key to the message. Yes, this is a movie with amessage. And although this is already a big plus in my book, it's alsodelivered with a mastery which a lot of "would be directors" shouldlearn from. I didn't know Mira Nair until now. A few months ago, Istar
ted watching A Monsoon Wedding, but my girlfriend of the time,being Chinese, just couldn't handle it (go figure!) Anyway, I am nowreally intending to get back to that movie and even explore all of MiraNair's movies. The story is about a couple of immigrants from Indiacoming to live in Boston, and their experience with life there, faraway from their culture, but more importantly, the reason for theirfirst child's namesake. I will not divulge here so many details asothers have already done… sometimes sadly enough in too great detailsfor my taste. What I want you to know is that this movie will highlightsome of the real important things in life, and help raise yourawareness of how much we take them for granted. There are so manybeautiful, both fun and sad, moments in this movie that I didn't seethe time fly. And then some great views of life in India, the richcultural background, so full of colors, of ceremonies and rituals, thatmakes you want to travel there to see it first hand (yes, yes… I nowknow where will be my next big trip) Please do yourself a favor, rentand watch this definite masterpiece.

read comments (0)

The Last Winter

Amazing to see what the director was able to accomplish on such a lowbudget. The feelings of panic, dread, and helplessness are not onlyexperienced by the characters, but by the viewers as well. The Wendigois a fantastic metaphor for the existential predicament we all face inthe current unrolling natural disaster that is global warming. Just asthe characters are being stalked by something they cannot see and donot comprehend, so are we, by the cascading environmental forces wehave unleashed. Hoffman's line in the film, "Can't you see it?", hasimplications far beyond a simple warning to Pollack. In effect,Fessenden is asking why we, the audience, are so blind to what we havedone and are doing to the natural environment that gave birth to us andwhich sustains us. This film is a superb work of art.

THE LAST WINTER (2007) *** Ron Perlman, James LeGros, Connie Britton,Kevin Corrigan, Jamie Harrold, Pato Hoffmann, Zach Gilford, JoanneShenandoah, Halfdan Theodorsson.

"An Inonvenient Truth" meets "The Shining"

Set in the bleak, no-man's land of endless ice and snow at the ArcticCircle an American oil research team is about to unleash somethingunknowingly with deep repercussions. So is the simple plotting for sucha well-structured, taut thriller from filmmaker Larry Fessenden, anindie who may have found his calling (in spite of his previous lamehorror flick "Wendigo" in 2001.

Led by macho hooligan Ed Pollock (veteran character actor Perlman'sformidable presence enhances the scale of the icy terrain that engulfshis party), a dedicated company man for the monolithic NorthCorporation that has a dog in the fight for locating energy resources,namely oil, in the Alaskan frontier. Spearheading the developmentalproject months in the making is researcher James Hoffman (LeGros,nicely underplaying here); fellow scientist Abby Sellers (Britton), whoshares his bed much to the disgruntlement of Pollock who had an affairwith Abby previously (this leads to the underneath the surface tensionas a metaphor for the unstable tundra too boot); mechanic/engineerMotor (Corrigan ably lending some color to the territory ahead);Hoffman's aide-de-camp and computer geek Elliot Jenkins (nicely playedby Harrold); Native Americans Lee Means (Hoffmann), a guide, and DawnRussell (Shenandoah) the camp's cook and soothsayer; and lastlynewcomer Maxwell McKinder (ably played by Gilford), one of thecompany's head honcho's wet-behind-the-ears son and family friend ofPollock's, who proves to be a key to the unlocked mystery of theirenvirons.

What comes across as an atypical ghost story/Indian folklore (Fessendenagain brings up the aforementioned 'wendigo' a spectral being ofnefarious means) mixed with "Twilight Zone" trappings of the familiarsmall band of isolated people faced with fending of their fears and apossible life-and-death scenario: something is in the fiercely howlingwinds and it's getting closer under the skin for its inhabitants.

Palpable tension earmarked by Fessenden is tightly strewn across thestoryline of the theme of mankind again unsettling nature (the film'sdour title is a foreshadowing factor for the team) with a fluid camerathroughout (lensed with precision by Magni Agustsson, an Icelander likemost of the crew since the country fills in for the cold Alaskatundra), sharp editing by Fessenden and unnerving sound design by TomEfinger and Abigail Savage making some truly spooky moments.

The fine ensemble makes the most for the seemingly predictable plotwith Perlman's lantern-jawed brute a fine contrast for the slender,athletic LeGros' quiet thinking and again, McKinder's unraveling like atense coil provides a good middle act only to be thrown by the finalsomewhat let-down cop-out ending.

In all fairness at the sneak preview I attended Fessenden was there fora quick Q&A and I was able to ask him how he was able to film a trulyviscerally hairy airplane crash (trivia note: Fessenden pulls aHitchcock as the doomed co-pilot of the small craft) and he explainedthat it was mostly practical and very little CGI – it truly is the oneremarkable moment of underscoring the horror that has begun to envelopthe encampment.

A combination of John Carpenter's "The Thing"'s paranoia and a mixtureof 'An Inconvenient Truth"'s message of global warming by way of thesupernatural unspooling of "The Shining" and the combination of theformer and latter's isolation/cabin fever/stir crazy fueled tensionmakes a fine cocktail of modern-day terror.

The Last Winter is so bad, I don't even know where to begin. Theheavy-handed political caricature that oozes from every pore of thismovie is distracting at first, and quickly segues into incrediblyannoying.

The hero of the movie? Well, he's an anti-corporate, environmentalistkind of guy. He does NOT - I repeat, does NOT work for "The Man", OK?In case the narration doesn't make his political leanings perfectlyclear, we get shots of his Apple computers, "The Origin of the Species"on the enviro-team's bookshelf, and his nifty hand-knitted Peruvianhippie hat (in stark contrast to everyone else's staid winter gear,natch.) Oh, and did I mention that he gets the girl, too? And, by gum,he's the only one who TRULY UNDERSTANDS what's happening out here!Global warming is causing evil to seep from the earth!!! Why, oh why,won't the evil corporate puppets *listen* to him? And his piercing blueeyes are soooooo dreamy.

The lead evil corporate puppet is played by Ron Perlman, who is a verycapable actor, but who I'm convinced was chosen for his resemblance toNeanderthal man. What better way to drive the point home that thevillain is an unevolved idiot who'll toss human life aside like usedtoilet paper if it benefits the home office? They even made him analcoholic bed-wetter in case the other stuff was too subtle for you!The fictional corp in question is the North Corporation, and by thetime the hero is begging the villain for the umpteenth time that theyneed to head south (Get it? The opposite of North! As in North Corp?Clever, huh?) to the Inuit village instead of further afield to theNorth Corp's nearest drilling post, my husband and I were gigglinguncontrollably and rolling our eyes.

The global warming apocalypse ending and the cheesy ghostmoose-dinosaur effects are merely the icing on the cake, here. Thereare no words to describe how embarrassingly bad this movie is fromevery angle. Perhaps if you're Laurie David, you'll enjoy this movie.But if you're even one *millimeter* to the right of an eco-harpy likeher, steer clear of this unintentional laugh riot.

If you've read any of the inter-planetary novels of J.G.Ballard (TheDrowning World,Highrise,etc.),you'll pretty much know what to expect.This is a thriller,shot on a small budget (co-bankrolled by Icelandicfilm productions),and filmed (partly in Iceland)is about a team ofinvestigators from an unnamed oil company that wants to drill for oilin Alaska,only to find themselves in a creepy situation. Freaky thingsare beginning to happen to the crew,and the project seems to be cursedfrom the onset. An omen on the dangers of global warming,or merely awarning on corporate greed (or perhaps both)? The film featuresstandout performances from a cast that includes Ron Pearlman (from theTV series 'Beauty & The Beast',not to mention such top flight films as'Chronos'and 'City Of Lost Children'). The film was directed,cowritten,edited,etc by Larry Fassenden,who's film 'Habit' from a fewyears back made my top ten list of important independent films to lookout for. I'll gladly welcome any & all of Fassenden's other films thatplay in my area.

Didn't have a clue what to expect from this film… I am a fan of RonPe
rlman just purely from his looks and "unconventional" actingability… and this film, he's good if not quite pushing himself.

The story of a base readying itself for drilling in the Arctictundra… the whole film has a feeling of "The Shining" and "The Thing"as said in earlier reviews… but has it's own style.

The acting throughout is brill, with James LeGros as Hoffman stealingthe show I found…

The story is original… and although a slow moving film I wasintrigued from start to finish wondering what the heck was going on.

Overall it's a message about global warning, but NOT one that'spatronising or gets in the way of a cracking thriller/horror… whichis for the good.

If it's a cold bleak night in your house, believe me, you'd do worsethan hire this one out You wont' be disappointed.

Pug

At 5 minutes I was curious & hopeful. At 20 minutes..frustrated anddoubtful. At 40 minutes angry, disappointed and at 55 minutes it waseither become a charter member of the 'wrist cutters' or bail. JackMathews of the NY Daily News said it best for me: "…moves at glacialspeed….few scares…. and no satisfaction."

The film's production notes also offer major HINTS noting viewers willfind the film "unsettling" that there is "something" threatening thecamp, that we, the audience, will appreciate the horror(?) of a threatthat may be as benign as "may be cabin fever…" and we may gasp inhorror as we view the cast's "growing confusion." Yes, cabin fever andgrowing confusion… the exact state viewers may find themselvesenjoying as the film rolls on.

This faux horror film revealed less and less of a genuine horror genre.Consider the producers caveat that this film, unlike the best of thehorror genre, does "…not descend into (horror) clichés." Sort ofanswers the question "where's the beef" in advance.

Also, having bailed at the half way point I write this review in partin light of other reviews that nail the last half of the film asunredeeming.

OK Well where to start, i was eager and quite exited to watch thismovie After all the hype, and good reviews its received.

Especially the part where its supposed to be the scariest movie of theyear, i would firstly like to ask where? cos in my opinion movies lowbudget horror flicks like Dog Soldiers or The descent were scarier.

Now about the film, It started of with potential, reminded me of thegreat classic The Thing, Then i have no clue as to what the directorwas trying to achieve, either he fell asleep while directing or therewas a script changeover, because all of a sudden it went from good toutter mess and the whole story fell apart.

I honestly have no idea why the director has left an opening for asequel in the style of resident evil.

I've given the movie a 4 for the beginning 20 minute's, and the actingas it wasn't too bad was the only thing that kept me sane lol.

No doubt this film was made with the best of educational intentions.Permafrost thaw is indeed a very real and very serious problem, a partof the positive feedback loop that affects global warming. It'scertainly something that people should know about.

But, honestly, ghostly herds of caribou running around the sub-articlike the creatures in Pitch Black? This is not, repeat, NOT helpful.

Movies like Starlight, The Day After Tomorrow, and this misfire do moreharm to the environmental movement than any goose-stepping right-wingfroth-at-the-mouth blowhard like Limbaugh or Hannity.

It's difficult enough to get the average American to care about theglaringly obvious environmental changes on our planet without havingsome sub-moronic jack-booted boy-man pop up and sneer about how he oncesaw this one movie with global warming and ghost caribou and that guyfrom The Name of the Rose.

Let me start by saying there is one and only one slow-paced arctichorror movie that ever worked and it's John Carpenter's The Thing.Anyone who thinks they can remake—er, rip-off—the experience is settingthemselves up for failure from the start. In this case, The Last Winteris not just a failure, it's a laugh-out-loud joke from start to finish.

Let me start out by saying the casting is terrible. Ron Perlman is soover-the-top as the main leader it was like watching an old, clichédwar cartoon with the stereotypical big/loud commander. Hilarious. Thenyou have all the men referring to Connie Britton's character asdrop-dead gorgeous, when she's just flat-out ugly in this movie.Awkward. The rest of the cast is an attempt at recreating the cast fromThe Thing, but in a politically correct way.

Then you get to the laughable plot. It's reminiscent of The Happeningin that it never outright says "Global warming is making things killus!" but infers it in every single scene. I'm not about to go into theinconsistencies in the global warming debate, but, please, can someoneexplain to me how global warming makes ghost reindeer? Because as yousee in the second scene, ghost reindeer are as scary as "The ScariestMovie of the Year!" (L.A. Daily News) gets.

Wait . . . you're still reading this review as if I'm talking about aserious horror movie? The last time I saw ghost reindeer was on thoseold claymation Christmas cartoons.

If all of the things I just mentioned weren't enough for you to pretendthis film is sitting in the comedy section of your local video storeand not to horror section, I haven't even gotten to the level ofboredom. Point blank: there is a MAJOR difference between buildingatmosphere and just pointless scenes. The original '70s Alien did nothave a single pointless scene, because every single scene addedsomething to the atmosphere. The Last Winter is the exact opposite, andjust has boring, pointless scenes for the sake of boring, pointlessscenes. The atmosphere is paper-thin, except what the arctic naturallycreates on its own. There isn't a single scene of action or thrilluntil the last 20 minutes, and that is the only scene of action orthrill in the entire movie.

The characterization consists of your typical off-screen sex scenes,just like in every other movie with forgettable characters. At onepoint you even get to see one of the men strip off hisclothes—following the rules of political correctness and obscuring hiscrotch—and run around with his bare butt getting screen time. Unlessthe director has the maturity level of a 13-year-old boy, can someoneplease enlighten me of the point of this? Am I really the only personout there who sees no point of cheesy on-screen nudity for the sake of"Eh, every movie has it, so I can't go against the grain"? Well, folks,this is what you get when you give your money to cheesy, pansydirectors.

A few last complaints:

- The script has the realism of something written by a 6-year-old. -The Last Winter isn't scary and it certainly isn't fun or gory. -Cheese drips off every scene. Especially the ghost reindeer. - Theflash-cut directing worked in the Saw franchise, but it's downrightlaughable here.

Do I really need to go on any further, even though I really could? TheLast Winter is just a terrible green film with no intelligence and evenless entertainment. It's just a cheesy, wholesale cliché example of theoverdone cabin fever-type movies. It's like watching the work of a kidwho saw The Thing and had a wet dream, then got worked up in globalwarming, then became a director and welded his two loves together withcheese and unoriginality.

0/10

This is the most transparent and heavy handed piece of propaganda everdisguised as a horror movie.

Earth spirits defending themselves by literally reaching out andattacking hu
mans has been a left wing wet dream for a long time and itwas only a matter of time before it hit the movie screen.

I could overlook the politics, if it wasn't so monumentally boring,silly, and full of stereotypes. Once again, Ron Perlman is cast as aloud ignorant right winger, his vaguely simian cranial features a bigasset to the role, I'm sure, while "Good guy", James Legros is as blandas usual, with a nastier than usual beard.

Can you imagine being the love interest and getting into a lovetriangle with these two puke faces?

Larry (what's his face) the director and star of Habit, the most boringvampire movie ever, should take a lesson from those commie spaghettiwesterns and at least let us have some fun.

read comments (0)