The World’s Fastest Indian

I was deeply disappointed with this film. Anthony Hopkins never seemedto me to be anyone other than A Hopkins with a very dodgy accent andthe other characters seemed totally predictable(and pointless). Also,why the peeing on the lemon tree other than a hook for the end of thefilm? Extremely contrived. A selection of characters dragged in for noreason..literally dragged,in the case of the transvestite.An olderwomen apparently finding him irresistible and with woeful lines tomouth, in fact the whole script was cringe-worthy.There was never anydoubt that good old Burt was going to have his attempt atBonneville..the scenes at the salt flats being the only interestingthing about the film. I went to this film with high hopes…..whichwere well and truly dashed.

Don't believe the hype . This movie is boring . In between the sceneswhere nothing happens even less transpires . He wakes up . He makes apiston . He urinates on a lemon tree . I'm sorry but I just don't seewhat everyone loves about this flick .

And then there's the transvestite . Talk about a red herring . She / Hebelongs in the Deleted scenes / Special Features part of the DVD . Idid not understand what this person did for the film .

And finally , and I mean FINALLY he gets to drive fast . What ananticlimax .

People , go rent another film . This one will not interest you in theleast .

I wanted so much to like this movie, but it just got to be too much tobear. "Crazy but Sweet" Burt gets on your nerves after the first 10minutes and it becomes a challenge to grit it through the hackneyedsituations and corny dialogue.

The gratuitous menagerie of "California Flakes" that Burt encounters onhis trip to the USA is also way over the top.

The only reason this movie got any stars at all was that the motorcyclescenes are above average, though the manipulation of the film speed ispretty irritating.

Sorry, but this turns out to be a big yawn.

In my opinion, the generous viewers who gave this film top marksbelieve that engine works on bathos. No: engines work on highlyexplosive fuel mixture and expertise, none of it visible here. Munro isdescribed as a god old-timer with a bee in his bonnet and someback-in-the-woods good sens. Why do scriptwriters believe that thepublic is a technical moron in this technical world? Why is it allright to show the highly technical way Audrey Hepburn learns to breakan egg in "Sabrina" (1954), and unacceptable to explain a minimum ofhow to lower a center of gravity, and what's a fuel blend (evenSchwarzenegger shows how to blend explosives in The 6th Day)? Viewersare indeed supposed to have a heart, but they are not necessarilybrain-dead. This film is only a rehash of The Triumphant Underdog,midway between "It's a Wonderful World" and "Pretty Lady". We don'tneed a Kiwi filmmaker to make our heart throb: we've already gotHollywood for that.

I was really wanted to see this movie since I've been a motorcycleenthusiast since I was 8. The trailer made it look exciting andinspiring. What a letdown. Boring, slow, and way too long (2 hours).I'm not sure how much of the story was real, but the befriending of thetransvestite seemed way over the top and tacked on. And aside fromHopkins, the acting was horrible…almost too painful to watch attimes. I don't know whether to blame the supporting cast or thescreenplay, but it was BAD (it's funny how you don't really notice goodacting…only bad acting).

The scenes at Bonneville at the end of the movie are the only redeemingfactor in this movie, but not worth sitting through the first hour anda half.

I'm somewhat of a car/motorcycle nut and was really looking forward toseeing this movie about an amazing man and his amazing motorcycle. Iwanted less personal relationship and character development and moredetails about the man and his dream. This is a chick flick with lots ofwarm fuzzy feelings. It is not a racing film. Anthony Hopkins did notplay the sort of person that I imagined on a racing motorcycle. Myvision is an energetic wiry motorcycle nut, not a slow couch potato.

Was this man really such a womanizer? That single fact dominated themovie. I will be investigating the history to confirm or deny thisfact.

Of course the highlights were the actual racing scenes. It sure took along time to get there!

The World’s Fastest Indian started out slow. I didn’t feel it reallygot interesting until he actually to the racing area. A number ofquestions rose up. One of my key ones was "Why is everybody being sonice to him?" As much as I hate to say it, people arn’t that nice. InAmerica, people don’t go to that much trouble for someone else. I didnot like very much of the acting, and I thought the plot moved slowly.Very slowly. Much of it was not important at all and very boring. Nowfor the good stuff. I loved the racing scene. My heart was pounding ashe started going faster and faster. Even though I knew he was going tomake it I still wondered how he could possibly do it. I liked theacting of the racer, playing such a dedicated man. That was probably myfavorite part. I also liked the part where he’s being sold the flowerand she steals his $10. All in all, it an amazing story, but needs somework.

The movie The World's Fastest Indian screened in Invercargill's cinemaslast year. Now this DVD movie is now on sale.

As a profoundly deaf person, I really expected to have one, but to mydisappointment, this does not have subtitles so I decided not topurchase.

Did the makers of this DVD movie have ignored the needs of thousands ofhearing-impaired and deaf people in New Zealand? Is the next major NZmovie going to be subtitled?

I am very much appreciate if someone has the right answer.

Regards Andrew

I think I failed some kind of IQ test because I got the idea thatAnthony Hopkins was playing a native American Indian (or 1/2 blood) bythe title. Also I thought the land speed record that was set might havebeen the actual world's record, not the small motorcycle record. Eitherwould have made the film more interesting.

Also I thought the story would involve more racing. And there might besome real adversity. Instead we are subjected to struggles such as "Hiscrate got damaged in shipping. Is the bike OK???", and "Will they lethim in through customs??", and "Is he going to be allowed to registerlate for the competition??" Oh my god, the suspense is killing me. Not.

Anthony Hopkins can make anything interesting, and yes, it's a truestory of perseverance that is worth of respect. But compellingstruggles usually involve people, not engineering tasks or travellogistics.

Anyway, I thought it was adequate, and give it a 6 out of 10, but I wasdisappointed and thought it might be more like October Sky, which is areally amazing story about a boy who wants to be a rocket scientist,which you should definitely see. Or Rudy, which I enjoyed even thoughI'm not a football person.

Who should see this film:

– Arty types, I can't stop you anyway. The film is more a charactersketch than a plot-driven movie so you'll probably eat it up.

– Racing fans

– Action-movie lovers, skip it, the amount of action is minimal

Can't think of anyone else. I'll give The World's Fastest Indian a 6out of 10.

"The World's Fastest Indian" tells a great true story, Burt Munro'sepic journey from small-town old kook to record-beating hero. It's justa pity that, unlike its hero, who displays grit, imagination, andoriginality, this film rides a long highway of often cringe-inducingclichés. Right from the word go, we have such standard feel-good movietouches as t
he adorable little boy who assists, the nasty neighbors whoharass, the wise old Indian man who gives Burt a good-luck charm,chirping American gals cheering him on, and, worst of all, the cute andfriendly transvestite who aids our hero. On cue, Burt develops a heartcondition for pathos. On cue, Burt drives on the wrong side of the roadfor big laughs. He even sets fire to his lawn just to prove what agrand old eccentric guy he is.

Scene after scene in Roger Donaldson's script presents a stockcharacter type, an anachronism, a self-contorting attempt to please theaudience, or Anthony Hopkins drawling on with some tinned old codgerrumination or dirty talk. Hopkins' accent wanders all the way fromWales to Wellington and over to Long John Silver, even as he gives thepart his best and carries the film along on his back. It's a pity thefilm progresses so unimaginitively, because Donaldson is a goodimage-maker and the climactic scenes are extremely well-done. It's acrowd-pleaser, but it pleases the crowd with a bunch of tricks they'veseen too many times before. This racer stalls at the starting line.Send it to the junk yard.

read comments (0)

The Pest

I find this movie very funny. But I’m also in Highschool. We recentlyread a story called. "The most dangerous game" I find that this storyresembles the story. Where an eccentric millionaire who has his ownlittle private island hunts down humans since animals aren’t achallenge anymore. This is a good movie to watch if you want a goodlaugh. John is a great comedy actor. I would watch this movie once ayear, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favorites. If you want to seeJohn in a more serious role. You can try Romeo+Juliet (1996) version.Most of the other actors in this movie I haven’t seen in other roles. Iwouldn’t be able to recommend anything else.

This is a terrible movie, don’t waste your money on it. Don’t even watch it for free. That’s all I have to say.

This was playing at the local movie theater I worked at about three yearsago. During our lunch, we were (ahem) "allowed" to watch the movie. Afterten minutes of "The Pest", I decided I’d rather go back to work. Noredeeming qualities whatsoever, and stupid, insulting humor not worthy ofAndrew Dice Clay, let alone John Leguazamo. His role as Luigi in "SuperMario Bros." had more dignity (and laughs) than this.

This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script(was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor.Justplain horrible.

I had seen ‘The Wishmaster’ a couple weeks before this movie and I thoughtit was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw ‘The Pest’and suddenly ‘The Wishmaster’ didn’t seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.

Obviously, this one doesn’t aim for the brain : the so-called"humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnicgenre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as theyare not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, JohnLeguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such aself-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point intrying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of thetitle could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman’sfinest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused

The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because ofJohn Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another secondrate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it.His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sellit.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on"House of Buggin’" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. Thereisa fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we’ll just say that Leguizamocrossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous andcrazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I’ll say that he tried too hard.Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can’tsay I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you’d try as hard ifyou could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr.Leguizamo…

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "racecard", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks,Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind areamong those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too muchtries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takesall of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you’re going to bypass plot and reality forcomedy’s sake, just make sure it’s funny, or all you have is 90 minutes ofsenseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo’s "Pest" quitenicely…

I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the videostore.This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completelyunwatchable.I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thoroughwaste of celluloid.My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).

What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawnwasthe worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types ofcomedyfrom stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is apiece of trash.

Ok, I’m normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a goodside to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is anexception.

I won’t waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along thelines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all ofthem and you won’t be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racismthat was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool,white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but whenthe same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration bythe way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamofor this film. I had almost given up hope when the ‘My VH1 Awards’ werescreened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rarefeat of a comedian bombing on stage. You’d have to be a complete sadist tolaugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Small time con artist Pest is into the Scottish mob for $50K. When a caseof mistaken identity leads me into the employment of German hunter Gustav heis offered a simple proposition – be hunted for 24 hours. If he lives hegets $50K, if he loses he will be beheaded and mounted on Gustav’s wall as atrophy of the Latino race.

This film is about 80 minutes long but you don’t need to watch that long tofind out if you’ll like it or not. In the opening credit sequence Pestdances , sings and does impersonations in the shower – if you laugh oncethen this film is aimed at your mentality, if you hate it then you’ll hatethe film. I hated it…..

I thought this would be funny. I didn’t realise that it would be a cartoonOTT film that tries for laughs by putting lots of `wacky’ sound effects inand filling the rest with crude fart jokes. The plot is a copy of HardTarget (not a great movie itself) however this made me realise how much Ienjoyed Woo’s first US film. The comedy is puerile and mostly comes fromthe mistaken belief that Leguizamo mugging and being `wacky’ is hilarious initself.

I didn’t think I’d ever see Leguizamo give a worse performance than he doesin Spawn – however here it is. He simply overacts the whole waythrough……and expects this to be enough to carry the film. From the openingcredit scene (the shower scene) to the end credits (the shower scenerepeated) this he is terrible – even if the material had been funny, hisperformance would have killed it. It’s even worse to see Jeffery Jones playa German with a terrible accent – he’s been in some good stuff and deservedbetter.

The film is offensive throughout. Not only is the idea that someone thoughtthis would do as my evenings entertainment insulting but most of the film istoo. Running across the whole film is a raft of racial stereotypes – allbases are covered, white, Latino, African, black, Jews, Germans. It’samazing that Leguizamo makes lazy comedy of such crass stereotypes – whatwas he thinking?

Overall this is one of the worst things I have ever seen – and I’ve neversaid that before in a review. If I had to list my 10 worst films, thiswould definitely be there. No laughs, no plot, no enjoyment and the mostirritating, childish and stupid performance ever from Leguizamo. Uttertrash.

read comments (0)

The Missing

I had high hopes for this film based primarily on my admiration of RonHoward’s prior body of work, but my hopes were dashed by a lousy script,marginal acting, and generally a story that didn’t really go anywhere. Thetale was so trite that it didn’t really warrant being turned into a film.Man leaves family to live with Indians. Man returns to see abandoneddaughter twenty years later. Man not at all repentent. Daughter not at allforgiving. Grand-daughter gets kidnapped by Indians. Army can’t help intimeto save child. Non-forgiving mother accepts help of non-repentent fathertotrack grand-daughter’s captors in hopes of reclaiming grand-daughterbeforeshe is sold into servitude in Mexico. The storyline goes flat from thatpoint on. The tracking of the captors is standard fare. And the dialogbetween the father/daughter is supposed to be reflective and supposedlyhealing during the tracking, but it comes across as neither. It’s flat.WhyTommy Lee Jones is considered an A-list actor is beyond me. Here was hischance to truly convey some emotion on the screen in a subtle yet powerfulmanner, but he failed miserably. Put him back in his element: surroundedbyspecial effects that distract from his lack of acting ability. CateBlanchett’s performance was "okay" but it was like a joke without apunchline: it was hanging out there waiting for the dialog and the otherlead actor (Jones) to make it meaningful. On the whole, don’t botherseeingthis film. I hope Ron Howard rebounds and returns to making memorablefilmsworth my $8 plus popcorn and soda.

Kind of a western version of GI Jane. People inevitably compare thisgarbage to The Searchers but that isn’t fair. The Searchers is probably thebest western of all time. This movie is at the other end of the spectrum. I could list all the accoutrements of revisionist history in this flick butI won’t bother. Suffice to say the tough female hero of this turkey is moreof a man than any man is. And believe me, that gets old after a shortwhile. Yes, she’s chopping wood. Doctoring the poor who can’t pay. Isbi-lingual. And if that wasn’t enough, she’s gods gift to heterosexual men. A true role model for feminist, (of any era.)

Even if like Tommy Lee Jones, don’t bother with this piece oftrite.

Ron Howard fulfills a dream to make a western but doesn’t seem to beable to make up his mind if this was a western, a thriller or a familyyarn. I was very disappointed with this film because I had heard it wasworth five stars out of five, but after watching it, I gave it six outof ten !!

It’s lovely to watch, great scenery, Cate Blanchett is superb and TommyLee Jones is great as her father, but to begin with, the daughter theyare searching for is a little toe rag and I was thinking that it wouldbe better for everyone concerned if she stayed away. She evoked nosympathy in me whatever, however the other little girl was cocky andshone above some of the adult parts. I loved her without the actressbecoming precocious.

You get to see far too much of the villain’s in this piece for the filmto work as a thriller. There is no suspense. What begins as horriblycruel and disturbing becomes ‘oh not again’ when they reappear tenminutes later in another scene.

This is obviously not the genre (Thrillers) for Ron Howard and betterhe stay with what he’s worked on before, "Beautiful Mind", "Cocoon" etcand leave supernatural alone. The script is so-so and the music isbeautiful but it doens’t rate very highly with me, sadly.

James Horner, I have only one thing to say to you…stop cannibalizingscores from your other films because you’re too lazy to compose anentirely new soundtrack! You did it in Mask of Zorro, stealing wholeparts of the Willow soundtrack. Now, in The Missing, you put in largeparts of The mask of Zorro, which was stolen from Willow in the firstplace! How many times are you going to retread the same old pipe music?Do you think that people are too stupid to notice?! That aside, thismovie didn’t quite gel for me. It wanted to be too many things, andwasn’t enough of any of them. To start with, I saw very little emotionbetween Cate Blanchett’s healer ‘Maggie’, and her restless andfrivolous daughter Evan Racher Wood ‘Lily’. More, Cate didn’t seem asunsettled by her father’s (Tommy Lee Jones) reappearance as she shouldhave been, considering the fact that he’d run out on her and her mothermany years ago. But then, everything in the film has a rather gray,listless cast to it. It’s pretty scenery, but that’s about it. I didn’tsympathize much with Lily when she was taken by the renegade Apaches tobe sold down in Mexico, because I sincerely didn’t like her. And twiceduring the film, she could’ve gotten away. Once, she could have left byherself. But instead, she unties the crazed mother with the dead child,then gives the woman a gun! The woman promptly shoots herself, and Lilyis recaptured. I was gritting my teeth by then. And then, when theApache comes to rescue his daughter-in-law and Lily, she screamsbecause she sees the cross he’s carrying, that her mother had given tohim so that she’d know he was trustworthy! He promptly gets killed bythe kidnappers, and Lily and the Apache girl are recaptured. I wantedto shoot the girl myself by then. She was so annoying and stupid thatthe whole rescue party didn’t seem worthwhile. There are a lot ofgruesome scenes that seem to have been thrown in just to convince youthat this is a ’serious’ and ‘gritty’ film. They’re mostly gratuitousand just take up too much time that could be spent forwarding the plot.And the Brujo, or witch, isn’t terribly frightening-Howard seemed tothink that horribly scarring and pitting his face would make up for thefact that his personality just doesn’t seem twisted or frighteningenough. All of the characters seem half asleep, running on empty. Andone thing I found really disturbing was how much weight Cate Blanchetthas lost. She looked like an animated stick figure in her clothes, withher cheekbones jutting out under her skin. Maybe the Brujo put a curseon her like the one in Thinner?

The Missing features two major stars in the US film industry, CateBlanchett and Tommy Lee Jones. Jones plays a partially deranged, loneApache American Indian who returns to his own history by meeting upwith his daughter (who he presumably abandoned after ‘killing hiswife’) Mrs. Blanchett as usual performs to her utmost; a fanaticalChristian who is completely against the ‘Injun’ ways, and the underusedMr. Jones is a tired grumbling fellow who resents revealing his lovefor his family. There is a series of trying confrontations betweenJones and his daughter, Blanchett – but the movie only begins here.

Without revealing too much detail, I want to discuss the sort oframifications the film has, and the sort of interesting take on life inthe west, post Civil War. There is a sort of good-Indian, bad-Indianroles, which play out in a pretty stereotypical way. The bad-Indiansare the perpetrators behind a sex-slavery ring (the historical basismust be questioned, especially since this film goes beyond a classic"B" or "Spaghetti" western in the sense that realism is the goal, andsemi-historical fictionalization) In any case, the film mixes oddvoodoo behaviors of the evil Apaches with the good counter-eviltechniques of Jones, who, albeit being an evident ’sinner’ stillretains some qualities to be admired.

The director has produced a mixed feeling – as an audience, we mighthate the Apaches, for even Jones leaves much to be desired as a human.We are awed by their mystical properties, their chanting, magical dust,and amazing healing ability. There is little ‘human’ about the Apaches,as far the way the director has portrayed them. This is a seriousdistraction from the film which makes us purposely resent a group ofpeople we need not, and must not.

The films essential and predicable blood, gore, and portrayal of miseryare nevertheless evocative, along with the Hollyw
ood ending.

"Do you want to risk both of your kids’ lives to save just one ofthem?" RATING : 4/10

It could have been so good. Tommy Lee Jones and whatserface in amiddlebrow production, but somehow the only feeling I am left with ispain.

The pain of sitting through such prolonged meanderings. OK, to be fair,I watched it on TV, and there were quite a few adverts, which neverhelps, but when a character shot themselves to end the agony, I couldreally relate to that decision.

If they cut about 45 minutes from this film, apart from giving me timeto make a sandwich, it could really have improved the pace. The reasonI am a bit miffed about this indigestible offering is that I satthrough it into the small hours, with fairly unconvincing backgroundcharacterisation - which is OK if the action and plot developments keepup, but they just didn't.

I fought sleep for this schtinker, and I only wish I had lost.

When I first read the box I thought wow a new kind of Western..sadlythat was not the case..the description was misleading..viewers can andwill draw the wrong conclusion..every time..two people at the countersaid the same thing when I returned the movie "this movie was a hugelet down" what I would like to know is where is the alleged shapeshifter?..it never happens!what you see instead is a butt ugly Indianwho relies on ancient Indian voodoo to victimize his enemies…the onlygood thing about this movie is Tommy Leee Jones! I do NOT recommendthis movie unless you are a Tommy Lee fan..In my opinion thedescription ruined the movie..had it been more honest my expectationswould not have been soo high..a true let down!

Director Ron Howard strikes gold again with an intense western dramabased on a novel by Thomas Eidson. The screenplay is the work of KenKaufman and New Mexico provides some very awesome scenery. The story isset in the 1880’s when after a long disappearance a father(Tommy LeeJones)finds the family he left behind. His daughter(Cate Blanchett)isnot so pleased with her father’s return and intends to allow him tostay long enough to receive some medical attention and then move on.When one of her two daughters is kidnapped for Mexican slave/sex trade,she agrees to accept her father and his Native American ways to findthe girl. The father and daughter team proves to be a force to bereckoned with. A dramatic heartfelt finale complete with sadness andthe reinforcement of independence leaves you throughly entertained.Also in the cast are: Evan Rachel Wood, Jenna Boyd, Steve Reevis, JayTavare, Sergio Calder and a cameo role for Val Kilmer.

I like Cate Blanchett and Tommy Lee Jones, but this movie was tooboringly predictable for me. I have to admit that the fact that theback of the DVD referred to the brujo as a "shapeshifter" is what keptme watching. I kept thinking, "So…when’s he gonna shift shapes?" OK,so that’s what they called them back then. Still, if the brujo hadactually done some shape shifting, it would have been a little moreexciting. It was just another western…howbeit, with a more uniquestoryline…but it was too predictable and the characters were notdeveloped enough for me to sympathize with any of them. I’ve seen muchbetter from Ron Howard.

This movie is so far from being any kind of classic, it’s not even funny.Which kills me, because I love Cate Blanchett, I love THE SEARCHERS (whichremotely, very remotely inspired it) and I loved the trailer, whichsuggested a kind of Horror-Thriller-Western hybrid that might have worked,had it been done right.

The blame goes to Ron Howard, who has got to be a candidate for theshallowest directing this side of Don Taylor. Now, Howard knows whatsubstance is supposed to look and sound like, he just doesn’t know whatsubstance is. This is not just a problem with THE MISSING, it’s a problemwith every picture Howard ever made. But THE MISSING, not having a verystrong script to begin with, stumbles and collapses under Howard’s emptyheavy-handedness.

THE MISSING also suffers from that worst of current Hollywood maladies,EXTREME AND UNNECESSARY LENGTH! At 90 minutes, it might have been a niftylittle thriller. At 136 minutes, it wallows and succumbs by trying tobecome "an important motion picture".

Here’s a suggestion, when they make the DVD, offer the public two versionsof the picture accessible through seamless branching: the theatricalversionas directed by Mr. Howard, plus the version that would have been directedbythe guy who made the trailer. Now there’s somebody who knows what he’sdoing.

read comments (0)

The Lair of the White Worm

at a dig outside a hotel of sorts, Angus finds a skull of of an animal,it could be a cow or it could be the head of a reptile. it just turnsout that the same house where the dig is being set, the mother andfather who owned the house, disappeared without a trace.

Legend has it that centuries ago, the then lord of D'ampton slayed thewhite worm, and since then, they have been celebrating the defeat ofthe worm at a sort of party yearly.

strange things start to happen, lady sylvia marsh arrives on the sceneand people start to get attacked and start to act differently. thefathers watch is found and so the search resumes for the parents.

what happens from here is a visceral journey of blasphemy and paganismwhich is really confusing to describe as a plot but it is worthwatching.

russell has made an assault on the senses just like he did with alteredstates, and makes his obsession with phalluses and the phallic symbolevident. the is intensely erotic and has intense images that aresometimes disturbing and sometimes damn near confusing.

the story and narrative is easy to understand but very hard to explain.the only real acting standout is donohoe who makes a convincingtemptress.

the rest of the cast are below par, but this is one film that does nottake itself too seriously.

a great guilty pleasure.

THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM was a film that was about a era aka "the men ofthe cloth" and delt with occultism in europe. This era was tied in with themystery religion sect craze aka ie. the freemasons, set egypt sects, thulesetc. around mid 1800’s. This production was tounge and cheek and had acontroversial tone. The film marks the first appearance of HUGH GRANT whowith ANGUS his "grenade hiding under the kilt by his willy" sidekicksinglehandedly save the women and vanquish a satanist cult tied in with theroman empire from their small community. The film uses sexual metaphor andbondage as a commentary on satanic cult seduction and the "adam and eve"tale. The film uses over the top metaphor and dark humor to convey it’sstory. Different from previous films like THE WICKER MAN, this film had attimes an experimental video look and was a cross between a cult classicmovieand an experimental piece. Interesting film which combines visual allurewiththe battle of good and evil plot. The story could have been done indifferent formats…this one uses a dry british AVENGERS style wit.Currently the film has an underground following abroad. Enjoy. 4 out of 7stars.

Sammi Davis, what can you say? She has got to be the worst actress ofall time, yet possibly the most seriously deluded. Check out this pileof horse poop, "The Rainbow" and "Hope and Glory". She’s the samewooden dork in all three.

I just read her whining 1991 interview after she’d moved to LA (run hername through Google). She slams Britain for not appreciating her"overwhelming acting talent and she’s so glad to leave this dirtyIsland". Puleasse, you’ve go to be kidding me Missy! Strange thing is,The U.S. doesn’t seem to have appreciated her much either, because shehasn’t "acted" in a movie for 6 years and the few before that seem herusual "standard". She also moans that Brits don’t accept an actorunless they have had formal training and surprise, surprise, shehasn’t. She had virtually no training and boy it shows.

I’m glad you’re working as a photographer now Sammi. Anything butacting has to be an improvement and blessing for us all. Stay behindthe camera for ever. Oh and as for your bad-mouthing the UK, well, goodriddance! America is welcome to your sorry ass.

Sammi Davis, the worst actor to ever be allowed on the big screen?

This is a campy film that most will enjoy for the sheer "cheeziness" of itall. On a shoe string budget, Ken Russell made an enjoyable film. DVDversion features commnentary from Russell which made the purchaseworthwhilefor me!

Director Ken Russell brings us another fun, wicked and ultra campy outing.This time around a small sleepy town is plagued by a series of murders andit seems a snake / vampire cult that worships a giant worm is behind itall.Even though the budget is extremely low, this delivers the goods. Thescriptis smart, intelligent and funny. Amanda Donohoe is a riot. Huge Grant’sserious performance works 100%. A real treat.

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

Wow, I can’t believe this movie is actually in here….I first saw itwhen Iwas 15, drunk at a buddy’s house, and afterwards I thought I hallucinatedthe whole affair.A lot has been said about the horrendous production values (that hugesnakein the pit??? WTF?) and the overobvious sexual imagery (I have the imageofthat dildo scarred on my mind forever), so all I’ll say is this: eventhough this movie ranks in the lowest of my faves, the sheerentertainmentvalue in watching it can’t be beat. Definately a high campclassic….

Here comes one of those weird Ken Russel flicks(the one behind the bizarre"Gothic"). This one is about an archeologist Angus Flint(Peter Capaldi)whodigs up the skull of a creature from many centuries ago. Lady SylviaMarsh(Amanda Donohoe)is a reincarnated pagan member who steals the skullfrom the room of Flint and goes about her business of pursuing EveTrent(Catherine Oxenburgh)who is a virgin to sacrifice to the white wormwhich rests in a green abyss in a lair nearby her mansion. Sylvia is somesort of serpent and tends to bite male genitalia in order to take control ofthem and turn them into her snake servants(with me so far). Hugh Grant(yesthat Hugh Grant)portrays Lord James D’Ampton,a very rich lord who is datingEve. Anyways this film is wildly bizarre as most Russell films are as wellas quite frightening. It has one of those shocking endings,but is also veryoff-putting and sick.**/*****

Ken Russell has made a masterpiece. I really believe this is one of thebest of all time!

Staring Hugh Grant and Amanda Donahue this film is a weird mix oferoticism, scary psychedelic hallucinations, a Gothic hammer horrorfilm, British charm and lots of snakes.

The storyline is weird, in typical Ken Russell nature, and the actingand special effects leave a lot to be desired, but this almost adds tothe brilliance of this film.

I love this film. If you have any sense so will you, especially if youare into Ken Russell or want to see what Hugh Grant was doing beforeHollywood. 5/5

The lair of the white worm is an interesting British film about animmortal worm and the female keeper. The worm woman keeper has theability to become a vampire like person and goes around biting otherpeople. Once bitten they become subordinate vampires doing the biddingof the worm woman as she attempts to sacrifice a virgin (Oxenberg) tothe D'Ampton worm. An archaeologist (Capaldi) a local girl (Davis) andher sister (Oxenberg) and their rich 'mate' (Grant) fight the wormwoman and try to keep the area safe. Some good camera work, strangespecial effects/flashbacks, typical brit dialog with dry humor and agreat performance by the worm woman (Donohoe) make the film worthwatching.

Spoilers herein.

Ken Russell makes the assumption that you are exceedingly dull, so explainsevery joke, even wrapping the simplest formulaic device in endlessexposition. A skilled watcher will dig below his horizon.

Luckily, we have the character Mary. She is played by Sammi Davis, whoactually has some depth as an actress, and who seems to envelop this visionin her own. Some of that may be deliberate in her Virgin Mother character,but most — it seems — is because she is so much more intelligent than thefilmmaker.

There’s danger in following this thread — you can get lost in the higherlayers of pagan mesmerism. But after a few
viewings, you can see that she isthe real master of the petty destinies here.

read comments (0)

The Jungle Book

"The Jungle Book" was the last film of any kind to have Walt’s personalguidance and overall stamp on it. He was very specific on precisely what hewanted to do with it, and his notes and instructions on it were massive.Then just before it was finished, he died of lung cancer (he was a heavysmoker) and the rest of his staff was left with the painful task ofcompleting it without him. Fortunately, they had all his notes he had leftbehind and bent over backwards to be sure it was exactly as he hadenvisioned.

Now I would very much love to say that the end result to all that talent,dedication and determination to stick to Walt’s intentions was proved worthit in the resulting film, but I can’t.

"The Jungle Book" is the weakest and most odious of all of Walt’s animatedfeatures.

The plot is not exactly the best in the world (plot: Bagheera is takingMowgli back to human civilization, that’s it). The film is basically astring of animated music videos strung together on an extremely thin strandof plot, structurally making it the only animated movie in history toresemble Prince’s "Purple Rain". Many have complained that it is reallyDisney’s animated "Robin Hood" that is the weaker film because it hasvirtually no plot at all–and that is true in terms of the story, but atleast "Robin Hood" had genuinely catchy songs from start to finish, boaststruly inspired character design and has memorable, likeable characters withfully-developed personalities and emotions. "Robin Hood" is considered astaple on TV and in the hearts of Disney fans everywhere for those veryreasons, not to mention far more memorable. In sharp contrast, none of thecharacters in this version of "The Jungle Book" appeal very much–although,of course, Baloo is a lot of fun (Phil Harris is perfect for this role), andBill Peet’s idea of putting in a song called "Bear Necessities" was a strokeof genius, especially since it basically could have been fit in a stricterversion of the story. Maybe if Peet (who was also responsible for thewonderful animated version of "101 Dalmations") had stayed on with the staffinstead of leaving after Walt’s upsetting him one time too many there wouldhave been more of such moments. The fact that all the other characters areso cardboard is completely inexcusable considering the richness of thesource material.

But the biggest and weirdest problem with this movie is how it thoroughlymangles the original classic and considers itself clever for doing so. Itwould normally be thought that the rest of the staff screwed things up afterWalt’s death, but no: Walt originally INTENDED the final result to be likethis! According to the original artists who worked on it, he brought inKipling’s book and said, "Here’s ‘The Jungle Book’. The first thing I wantyou to do is to not read it."

Bizarre errors of judgement are present all over this film, weird and odderrors which a younger Walt would never have allowed in, say, a masterpiecelike Pinocchio or Fantasia or Peter Pan. Even the animated "Sword in TheStone" can be excused from this fact because the original T. H. White books,which "Stone" was based on, were every bit as goofy as Walt’s version. Wasit old age or nicotine frenzy?

An excellent example of strange ideas inserted into the film getting moremessed up than they originally were: the puzzling vultures with moptops andLiverpudlian accents. Disney had decided for some strange reason that theywould originally be charicatures of The Beatles and was going to invite TheBeatles themselves to voice them and perform a song for them (now believeme, it isn’t The Beatles themselves I object to here–I adore them!). But atthe very last minute, Walt decided to have the vultures sing like abarbershop quarter instead because he decided that The Beatles were merely aflash in the pan and wouldn’t remain very popular for another year or two(THIS is "great genius"??!). Now while it can be argued that this was allWalt’s opinion and that he had the right to correct what he felt was amistake, it nevertheless begs the question: if Walt was so convinced thatthe old idea was a bad one in the first place, then WHY DID HE LEAVE IT INAND MERELY EDIT IT INTO ONE THAT WORKED WORSE INSTEAD OF REMOVING THE WHOLEPORTION THE WAY HE WOULD HAVE IN THE PAST? The resulting scene, rather thanbeing "corrected", is instead even more confusing and bewildering than itmight have been in the first place. Walt’s instincts must have really beenexhausted for some reason or other… did Mary Poppins take that much out ofhim?

Judgement like this abounds all throughout "The Jungle Book", and while itssoundtrack boasts gorgeously hypnotic orchestration and three thoroughlywonderful songs ("Bear Necessities", "I Wan’Na Be Like You" and especially"My Own Home"), the others are simply awful. (The most annoying one of allis the one from the previously-mentioned section, "That’s What Friends AreFor".)

The film as a whole moves on in a droning, sleepy pace, never once pickingup its molasses-running speed. You keep hoping it will pick up, but it neverdoes.

All of these points I’ve mentioned, and many more, have all been pointed outover and over again since its release by not just paid critics, but also byanimation fans and especially Kipling admirers, who rightfully feel thatthis movie is an appalling travesty and a dreadful mockery to the originalstories, but none of this criticism has affected its performance at the boxoffice and as a home video release–in this respect it has been a shockingsuccess.

I have no idea how pleasing this is in the long run, though: "The JungleBook" remains the only Disney animated film I ever saw as a child which, onall three occasions when I saw it at different ages while growing up, boredme to the point of nearly putting me to sleep.

For the most part, "The Jungle Book" is another situation where Disneytook a classic novel and padded it with songs. I liked the 1994 moviebecause it focused on colonialism. This version piques my interestnowadays because of who provided the voices: Sebastian Cabot, LouisPrima and Sterling Holloway to name a few. To add to that, the vultureswere a semi-tribute to the Beatles; I wouldn't have expected Disney todo a tribute to them.

But for the most part, I think that Rudyard Kipling (happy birthday,Rudyard!) wouldn't really approve of how they sanitized the story*. Ifwe accept it as brief entertainment, then it's OK. Is it racist howthey portray East Indians? Maybe, but as long as we understand that,then it's OK. After all, there are lots of bare necessities out there.

*As another example of Disney sanitizing a classic story, there's"Cinderella". In the original story, the stepsisters mutilated theirown feet to fit them into the glass slipper.

Any child is going to like this movie which is very loosely based on theJungle Book. But I have reservations about the story change. The wolves arebad so how can they be heros of a child movie. So after a few minutes theyare(un)gracefully removed. No doubt wolves are extinct in 48 of the US states.I hope Disney remake this movie showing why exactly wolves were chosen toraise man-cub than any other animal - no animal other than humanscan matchthe family ties of this animal in a pack.

‘The Jungle Book’ is a Disney animated film about a boy who was raisedby wild animals, and this film is basically a musical representation ofhis time with these animals and to celebrate his growing up, into anadult and to leave the wonderful animal world behind. Later, Baloo thebear and some of the other characters of this film would go on to be apart of a cartoon series "Tale Spin" on the Disney channel.Regrettably, I did not enjoy this Disney animation. The only thing thatit had going for it was t
he music. It’s an easily-forgotten Disneyanimation, and I would not particularly recommend this film. Try’Bambi’ or ‘Lady and the Tramp’.

When I saw this movie first, I enjoyed it. It was funny, the animationwas good and the songs was enjoyable. Yet I must say that the movie isvery roughly based on the actual book by Rudyard Kipling, which is farbetter than the movie.

If it stood to me, the actual story is far from a children’s basicbedtime story. Many important factors was excluded from the movie,which I am very disappointed of. Kaa, who originally was a wise oldpython and one of Mowgli’s best friends, was turned into a greasy badguy, helping out Shere Khan. It’s almost like he took over the role ofTabaqui the jackal, who didn’t appear in the movie at all. Akela,Raksha and the rest of the wolves, did hardly have any part in themovie, unlike in the book. Also, the originally smart, bold andrighteous Bagheera was completely out of character, and so was Baloothe bear. From a strict old teacher of the wolf pups, he turned into acarefree goof ball without any connection to the Seonee Pack at all. Isuppose that the added character King Louie, only was a comic relief.

Of course, this is meant to be a children’s movie, but still I was verydisappointed when I saw it as child. I just wish Disney had followedthe book more properly.

I can recommend this movie to people who just wants to have mere funout of it (because this is a classic Disney movie, with a lot of fun!),but fans of the book shouldn’t get their hopes up.

The tiger, the panther, the snake and the orang-utan may be the bestanimated animals the screen has seen - and the bear isn’t bad, either. In away it’s the last great fling of Disney’s old veteran animators. (Most ofthem were still some distance from retirement, but never again did they fireso magnificently, all at once.) Anyone who appreciates fine characteranimation HAS to see this. Despite the rough outlines favoured by WolfgangReitherman (he presided over some extreme cheese-paring after Walt Disney’sdeath), there’s also a sumptuous feel to this film, at least while they stayin the jungle.

The lack of a story is a problem. "Flabby" is the word that comes to mind.It’s really just the story of Baloo and Mowgli bumming around in the jungle.Now and then something happens. At one point Mowgli is pinched by somemonkeys, and taken to some old ruins, just so that the orang-utan can stagea musical number. It’s a pretty good musical number - did I mention thatthe orang-utan is skillfully animated? - but that doesn’t disguise the factthat it’s unmotivated. After enough running time has passed the incidentsstop and the film ends.

It’s enjoyable enough, and worth seeing for visual reasons, but bewarned.

The Jungle Book is set deep in the Indian jungle, its star is Mowgli thelittle man cub. He meets lots of other interesting characters such as abear and a panther, I won’t tell you their names you will have to watch itto discover the truth. It is a metaphor for exploitation and manipulationof facts about jungle animals, who ever heard of a bear that sings?Realismis important, the panther that talks in constant aliteration is a drag onthe brain - baby! Remember its a jungle out there mister!!!

Based on the Kipling novel, this Disney animated classic has a young boyraised by wolves who must choose between his jungle friends and man. Alively score and typical great Disney animation make this a zany fun timefor all ages. A great sound track as well with the famous "trust in me" andthe oscar nominated "Bare Necessities"on a scale of one to ten…6

Walt Disney. A Great Man ,Creator,Voice Talent Of Mickey Mouse BackThen,And One Of The Greatest Creators Of All Time.He Really Proved HisCreativity And Movie-making Talent In Movies Like "SnowWhite",’Pinocchio",And ‘Fantasia" And So On.But "The Jungle Book" Is ByMy Opinion One Of Walt Disney’s Ultimate And Greatest Triumphs! ItContain’s A Very Strong Story,Some Of The Best Animation Acting Ever InA Movie,And To Top It All Up,Great Music by George Bruns And One OfDisney’s Greatest And Most Thrilling Climaxes.How Long Have I BeenUsing the Word "Greatest"?Ha,Ha,Huh.AnyWho,It Even Uses Some Of TheMost Famous Voices From The 1960’s.Such as Phil Harris(Baloo).And LouisPrima(King Louie).It’s Animation By Some Of Walt Disney’s "Nine OldMen"(About 4 To Be Exact)Is Spectacular.And The Sound (Which IsStereo)Is Awesome.Oh!That’s Another Thing.IMDb Made a Mistake On TheSound Recording On "The Jungle Book".They Said It Was Recorded InMono.It Wasen’t.It Was Recorded In I Believe Four Track StereophonicSound.Anyway,The Climax To This Film Is Outstanding1The Battle BetweenBaloo,Mowgli,The Birds,And Shere Kahn Is Very Thrilling! The JungleBook Was Also The Last Movie To Be Personelly Supervised By WaltDisney.He Died During It’s Production.The Jungle Book Is a Film AlmostLike No Other.With it’s Characters,Music,Drama,Humor,And Animation.ThisMovie Is Definitely Walt Disney’s Greatest Classics.

[CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Our story opens in the jungles of India. Bagheera thepantherfinds an abandoned baby in a crashed boat. He takes it to be raisedbya family of wolves who take an immediate liking to the man cub,evenstern Rama, the father. But one night, 10 years later, the wolvesgottogether to make a difficult decision. See, Shere Khan the tiger,hadreturned to that part of the jungle and he hates man! He’ll kill oneforno reason. They were deciding that the man cub, Mowgli, would havetoleave the pack. Bagheera offered to take him to the man village.Mowglididn’t want to go and since it was dark, they sleep in a tree whereKaathe python attempts to eat Mowgli, but they send him flying out ofthetree. In the morning, they’re awakened by Colonel Hathi the elephantandhis dawn patrol. Mowgli runs away from Bagheera and meets Baloo thebearwho teaches him about the bare necessities of life. But then Mowgliiskidnapped by monkeys and taken to see King Louie, who wanted to belikeman. He wanted to know how to make fire. Baloo and Bagheerainfiltratethe palace and escape with Mowgli.

Bagheera spells out the whole situation to Baloo, whofinallyagreed to take Mowgli to the man village but when Mowgli found out,heran off. Kaa found him and Shere Khan found Kaa, but luckily notMowgli.Mowgli escaped Kaa and met a gang of vultures with nothing to do,sothey all become friends. But then Shere Khan shows up and triestoattack Mowgli. It was Baloo to the rescue but it was Mowgli whotieda flaming branch to the tiger’s tail. He ran away. Bagheera showedupand all was happy until Mowgli saw a human girl and went off tojoinher in the man village. Bagheera and Baloo feel happy for him thendanceaway.

A pretty good Disney movie! Great music! Alot of familiarvoiceshere. Sebastian Cabot is Bagheera. Phil Harris is Baloo.SterlingHolloway is Kaa. George Sanders (Mr. Freeze on "Batman") is ShereKhan.Louis Prima is King Louie. J. Pat O’Malley is Colonel Hathi.BruceReitherman is Mowgli. All the above are dead, except for Reitherman,I’mnot 100% sure. Baloo the bear had his own spin-off show: Tale Spinwherehe and his co-pilot, Kit, were out to stop the evil Don Carnage.ShereKhan and King Louie were there too. I hear they’ve made a sequeltoThe Jungle Book: The Jungle Book 2. How typical! John Goodman willbeBaloo and Haley Joe Osment ("I see dead people") is Mowgli.Thisendless cycle of Disney sequels. Will it never end? But anyway,Irecommend The Jungle Book! It’s really good!

-

read comments (0)

The Lady Eve

This is a very pleasant romantic comedy, more mildly amusing thanoutrageously funny in my opinion, that gets better as the storyprogresses. One has to like the chemistry between a very dapper andyoung Henry Fonda (Charles Pike) and a very beautiful and young BarbaraStanwyck (Jean Harrington/Lady Eve). The two worked perfectly togetherand made a believable couple.

For all the chemistry, I must confess that the first half of the moviedid little for me. Charles and Jean meet on a cruise from South Americato the United States. Unknown to Charles, Jean and her father (CharlesCoburn) are con artists who seek to bilk people out of their money incard games. Love, however, intervenes. Jean and Charles fall head overheels, and Jean doesn't want Charles to be cheated. Charles, however,discovers her identity and ends the relationship. I didn't find muchfunny in this part of the movie. It picks up, however, in the secondhalf. Jean decides to get her revenge by masquerading as an Englishheiress of some sort; hoping to get Charles to fall for her again andthen take his money. The humour picks up here. First, it's hard to tellfrom scene to scene whether "Eve" loves Charles or not. Henry Fonda'sphysical comedy at the dinner (tripping over couches a la Dick VanDyke) and constantly having food and assorted other things spilled allover him is truly funny, and the scene on the train after they marry,as "Eve" takes her revenge by telling her new husband about all the menin her life, whom he knew nothing about, got me laughing.

I was never clear about the importance of the snake, except to drawsome sort of connection between this Eve and the Eve of the biblicalcreation narrative, although I'm not sure why that connection wasnecessary to the story.

As I said at the outset, this is a pleasant movie, but in my viewnothing more than that. I give it a 5/10.

I had to go all the way back to 1941 to remember how good movies could be.Was Henry Fonda ever that young? I certainly enjoyed the evening watch theLady Eve show us a few tricks including how to play cards and catch yourman. This is a must see for anyone who would like to savor how comedyshouldbe done.

This movie suffers from two problems: Henry Fonda and the plot. Fondamanages to do some funny pratfalls, but he just isn’t very adept at comedy. Gary Cooperand Jimmy Stewart, for instance, could portray earnest-yet-naive characters while still castinga humorous wink at the audience. Fonda, on the other hand, plays an earnest-yet-naivecharacter with grim determination. He’s Tom Joad with lots of money and a wackygirlfriend.

The other problem is with the plot. The first half of the movie is, ineffect, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" on a boat. A bumbling, distracted, rich naif is targeted forromance by a woman with mercenary motives. He falls in love with her, and, despite her bestefforts, she falls in love with him. Then, just as she’s about to reveal everything, he finds outabout her ulterior motives on his own and, in a disillusioned funk, dumpsher.

At quayside, however, the plot turns. Instead of taking the Jean Arthurapproach (or, indeed, the Barbara Stanwyck approach in "Meet John Doe") and attempting to win backher man, Stanwyck decides to get even with Fonda. This is a refreshing twist on whatis basically a Frank Capra plot, but it is at this point that all semblance of charactermotivation breaks down. We’re not quite sure why Stanwyck plots her revenge, we’re not quitesure why it works, we’re not sure why Stanwyck recants (again!) after exacting herrevenge, and we’re certainly not sure why, in the end, everything ends uphappily.

The supporting cast is uniformly good and there are some humorous moments. As an example of this particular type of genre (savvy dame falls for bookish guy),however, it doesn’t rate alongside "Ball of Fire" (a much better Stanwyck performance)or even "Bringing Up Baby."

Maybe I wasn’t in the right mood, but I just didn’t think this film wasthat special. I can’t say anything bad about it exactly, because therewas nothing wrong with it. It just didn’t have that spark that othermovies of its type have.

Maybe the problem lies with Henry Fonda, who I never thought had muchchemistry as a romantic leading man. Barbara Stanwyck is great andsexy, so the fault doesn’t lie with her.

I almost feel bad about not liking this movie, because all of theelements for a good movie are there, and I can’t give any rationale formy opinion. But for me it doesn’t even come close to matching theallure of other screwball comedies from the 30s and 40s.

Grade: B-

Lady Eve was one of Sturges best films, wittily scripted (for the mostpart) filmed and acted. And yet as with all of his films it leavessomething to be desired, there’s just something missing that preventsany of his efforts from being a true classic. Immensely enjoyable, buthis best stuff all suffered from such choppy or convoluted unbelievableplots that detracted from what was going on.

Of the scintillating lead quartet Coburn would definitely be someone toavoid at the card table, Fonda needed a bodyguard to protect him fromthe ever flailing Demarest and while Stanwyck was very alluring, butshe wasn’t cut out to act the part of an English Lady, even in comedy.Very versatile however, she had only 3 years to go to starring as thebest femme fatale ever, as Phyllis in Double Indemnity. The satiricalscenes with Eve’s reception into American Society can be very funny butyou can’t help shaking your head at old Hollywood’s pre-occupation withnobility or good breeding. Of course nowadays we’ve gone to the otherextreme: born and live your life a drunk and violent junkie pimp in adark sewer makes you a hero!

Back to soft fantasy: imho an almost brilliant romantic comedy blackand white 1940’s film overall with a few faults mainly centred onimplausibility, but a catchy insistent theme tune I have a job shiftingafterwards: Recommended.

If The Lady Eve is not the funniest film ever made, it is on a short listofcandidates with Some Like It Hot, The Producers, Bringing Up Baby, HisGirlFriday, and Sturges’ own Hail the Conquering Hero and The Miracle ofMorgan’s Creek. Barbara Stanwyck was never sexier and Henry Fonds wasneverdumber. And in my mind, William Demarest’s perfect last line outshinesevenJoe E. Brown’s in Some Like It Hot as the best last line infilm.

Preston Sturges never fails to amaze me. His directorial skills areexcellent. His skills as a writer are even greater. There are probably fewerthan five scripts better than The Lady Eve. Both the plot and dialogue areexquisite. It is a comedy, but it is also a grand romance and an affectingdrama. Barbara Stanwyck, always a master actress, is at her very best here.I’m not very familiar with Henry Fonda, but his performance is as good ashers. 10/10

And that goes for ‘Sullivan’s Travels’ as well. It’s amazing to thinkthat both of these films premiered in 1941, Preston Sturges must havebeen eating his spinach that year.

I’m not going to bother stabbing away at the plot, you can get thatsomewhere else if you need it. Instead, I’ll just start lobbingadjectives at you: Hilarious, vibrant, nuanced, well-acted, sparkling,balanced, refined, poetic, honest, tour-de-force, superb.

Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda both give the comedic performances oftheir career, Stanwyck especially has a vibration that almost comesthrough the screen. The supporting cast (Sturges mainstays like CharlesCoburn, William Demarest, and Eric Blore) play their roles toperfection, as always Sturges manages to wring every drop out of hisactors.

If you’ve never heard of Preston Sturges don’t waste any time mopingaround about it, just get out and latch onto a copy of both ‘The LadyEve’ and ‘Sullivan’s Travels.’ The guy should be pointed out a
s one ofthe all-time greats, Hollywood wasn’t big enough to hold him and hemade frustratingly few movies but if you haven’t seen these two yetthen get cracking.

Two week ago, I saw "The Lady Eve" for the first time. Having seen a greatmany classic films in my 26 years of existence, I had never seen a PrestonSturges film. Major reasons has to be that :

A. Dutch and Belgium TV channels almost never broadcast a film that’s morethen 20 years old and if they do it’s either a. "Gone With The Wind" b."Ben-Hur" or C. "Doctor Zhivago".

B. The BBC never broadcast them.

But after reading hundreds of books about film and seeing dozens ofdocumentaries, I of course know, who he was and what films he made. So Ibought both "The Lady Eve" and "Sullivan’s Travels", just to see how goodthese films really were. And I have to say they were both equally perfectscrewball-comedies.

Henry Fonda was great in one of his rare comic performances as Charles"Hopsie" Pike, I wish he had done more comedies. Babara Stanwyck graces thescreen as Jean AKA the Lady Eve. I had seen William Demarest before in acouple of supporting roles, but I had never really noticed him before thismovie, he was hilarious.

But was else is there to say this movie. It’s a great screenplay, all theactors are on great form, besides the three mentioned before, we haveCharles Coburn, Eugene Pallette and Eric Blore.

A pure delight

10/10

Everybody else has commented on this comedy’s exquisite screenplay,direction, and acting, so let me direct you to one line of dialogue. WhenStanwyck finds she’s actually falling in love with this poor rich jerkFonda, she turns to partner-in-crime Coburn and says dreamily, "Hopsy, tellme my fortune." So we know that she has suddenly made a real connection withanother human being and her whole life is about to change. That’s where westart to see beneath her larcenous facade and care about her, and it’s oneof the best fadeout lines I’ve ever heard. (Stanwyck’s delivery, of course,is an immense help.)

That’s the difference between a good comedy and a great one, becausesuddenly Sturges’ screwball mechanics, perfection in themselves, have beensuffused with emotion. He never melded mind and heart together sobeautifully, though "The Palm Beach Story" comes close.

read comments (0)

The Lady from Shanghai

Despite loving Rita Hayworth, finding the final few sequences of thefilm intriguing and being able to appreciate some of the subtler"symbolic" aspects of the cinematography, The Lady from Shanghai didn’tquite work for me. I had a problem with most of the performances, thescript and the overall structure. And in a film that’s mostly peopletalking with each other in various situations, that’s quite a problem.The Lady from Shanghai ended up at a very low "C", or a 7, for me.

The Lady from Shanghai is really all about Orson Welles’ character,Michael O’Hara. O’Hara sees Elsa "Rosalie" Bannister (Rita Hayworth) inCentral Park on a carriage ride and hits on her. Later, he saves herfrom a mugging and she takes a shine to him. O’Hara is a seaman fromIreland and the globetrotting Elsa happens to own a yacht with herhusband, Arthur (Everett Sloane), a very famous and powerful Californiadefense attorney. They talk O’Hara into working for them, despite hisinitial reservations–it seems to him, and to the audience, that Elsais just looking for someone to have an affair with, and O’Hara doesn’twant to get involved.

Shortly after going to work on their yacht, a strange man, GeorgeGrisby (Glenn Anders), who says he’s Arthur’s partner, shows up at aport of call and begins stirring up trouble. Eventually, Grisby asksO’Hara to enter into a very dubious and dangerous scheme. Foolishly,O’Hara agrees. Naturally it gets him into quite a bit of trouble, andeventually, a number of mysteries are revealed.

Maybe my problems with the film lie in the fact that, so far, I’m notexactly a huge fan of Orson Welles, and here, he produces, writes,directs and consumes most of the screen time. I haven’t seen anywherenear the majority of Welles’ work yet, but I’ve tended to like hislater films better, when he became a bit more campy andperformance-arty. I love F for Fake (Vérités et mensonges, 1974) forexample, and I even kind of like his performance in Casino Royale(1967), when he bizarrely insisted on being allowed to do magic tricksat a baccarat table, but Citizen Kane (1941) never did much for me,despite giving it 3 or 4 chances over the years (including about oneyear ago; my rating was a low 7–the same as my current score for TheLady from Shanghai).

Welles’ performance and the dialogue he’s written for himself comeacross as affected and pretentious to me. He’s a bit of a motormouth, abit of a boor, and a bit monotone–he tends to sound like he’s reading.His performance reminded me of what I’ve seen of Welles’ version ofMoby Dick (listed on IMDb as 1999, but "completed" in 1971, it can alsobe seen in Orson Welles: The One-Man Band (1995)), where he seems to bejust reading to the camera and believing that he’s inherently,sublimely dramatic. I’m also someone who almost never complains aboutaccents, but somehow Welles manages to make his Irish accent soundaffected and pretentious to me, too.

As for the other performances, I can only say I thought Hayworth did anexcellent job. Of course she’s gorgeous, which doesn’t hurt. Plenty ofeye candy here. Like Welles, Sloane also seemed a bit affected andpretentious to me–I never quite bought his character, his handicap andso on, and Anders is simply bizarre where bizarre doesn’t seem to fit.Welles often shoots him in close-up and Anders almost always has someover-exaggerated, manic expression on his sweaty face.

Structurally, The Lady from Shanghai is very uneven. The first 50minutes or so are extremely bland and soap-operatic, although the soapopera ministrations tend to be approached from a tortuous oblique. OnceGrisby introduces his scheme, things pick up a bit, and mostly improveas we near the end. But by the time The Lady from Shanghai becomes acrime/mystery film, it’s too little too late, and it quickly turns intoa courtroom drama before the sudden, thrilling ending that comes almostout of nowhere and is over far too quickly for its relative excellence.

The ending is more action-oriented, less-dialogue heavy, more variedand exotic in settings, and at times, fairly abstract. Welles handlesthat combination of material skillfully as a director. If The Lady fromShanghai would have been a largely a combination of the crime/mysterystuff and the arty ending, it could have easily been at least a 9. Thefinal scenes are easily 10s, as Welles shifts from a Hitchcockiansuspense scene in a San Francisco Chinese opera house to anothersuspense scene in a Chinese amusement park. The funhouse climax usescinematography that was experimental for its time. It’s well integratedwith the script, as it allows a complex resolution and fuels a lot ofsymbolism.

The cinematography throughout is interesting, even if it usually can’tmake up for the problems in the foreground. Welles blocks scenes withskill. There are lots of attractively filmed settings, from CentralPark to Acapulco to various San Francisco locations. Welles effectivelycreates symbolic backdrops for his action, from the emphasized heightsand precipitous drops of Acapulco to the maze-like Caribbean streets,the beautifully framed and silhouetted shots of the San FranciscoAquarium, and so on. The romance material, for which the Aquariumserves as one backdrop, is interestingly tempered with a kind of uneasethroughout the film, but on the other hand, that makes the romancenever quite work as romance.

Surely serious Welles fans will appreciate The Lady from Shanghai muchmore than I did, and of course it’s worth a watch if you love RitaHayworth. The Lady from Shanghai isn’t exactly a terrible film, in myview, but it’s dangerously close to not "passing". Proceed withcaution.

It's very hard to say just what was going on with "The Lady fromShanghai" and what the film could have been without studiointerference. Orson Welles' prime interest in film at this point was toraise money for his theater; indeed, funding his own projects is whatdrove him to seek out acting jobs. He made "Lady from Shanghai" for hissoon to be ex-wife, Rita Hayworth. Harry Cohn was fearful for Rita'simage and held back the release of this movie for one year.

The plot concerns an Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara, who falls in lovewith Else (Hayworth, stunning with short blond hair). Her husband is awell known criminal attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) who isas crippled on the inside as he is out. He hires O'Hara to work on hisyacht, and there O'Hara is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of murderand deceit.

"The Lady from Shanghai" moves at a snail's pace, though I agree withone of the posters that films today are criticized for taking time tobuild a plot. Still, this movie drags. The scene in the fun house isfantastic - Welles wanted it without music, though, and I believe thestudio cut it down. It's a shame. The photography throughout isstunning, atmospheric, bold, and very stylish.

Welles was an excellent actor, handsome in his youth, charismatic andpossessing a magnificent voice and technique, but in many films, it'salmost as if he doesn't trust himself or doesn't take the time todevelop a character. Instead he relies on externals such as accents andfake noses. One of the only times he didn't do this was "Tomorrow isForever," where the director gets an excellent, deeply felt performanceout of him. Contrast that with "Compulsion" where he shows he is amaster of pure technical acting as he phones in his performance. HereWelles is doing quadruple duty - as director, star, co-writer andnarrator. Sporting a completely unnecessary accent and looking intensewas a fast way to a characterization. Nevertheless, he is alwayscompelling.

The supporting players are excellent, including Sloan and Glenn Anders.Hayworth, gorgeous and soft-voiced (her singing was again dubbed byAnita Ellis) is as usual a complete goddess and one of the great screenpresences. What a sad life for such a vibrant beauty.

Any film that Orson Wel
les directed is worth seeing, and "The Lady fromShanghai" is no exception. But this one leaves the viewer frustrated,as does "The Magnificent Ambersons" - as does any work that Welles didwithin the studio system. He was a great artist who should have beengiven a freer reign; he wasn't. He was a strange dichotomy - he neededmore freedom, but as is evidenced by some of his later work, he neededthe structure of the studio. Alas, he couldn't have both.

The Lady from Shanghai failed to work for me. Orson Welles is one ofthe most brilliant men to work in Hollywood. Some brief flashes of thatbrilliance do show through in Lady From Shanghai. It may have been amuch better movie if Harry Cohn had allowed Welles' original vision toshow through. He didn't and the result was and is a critical andcommercial failure. Cohn chopped nearly an hour off the films runningtime. He added some ridiculous scenes like Hayworth's song andinterfered in the pictures scoring.

All the interferences notwithstanding, there was much mediocrity inWelles' original vision as well - the ridiculous court-room scene is acase in point. Welles spent a lifetime blaming the studios fordestroying his career. Certainly, he had flashes of brilliance andCitizen Kane was a monumental achievement - the only one no one waspermitted to change. But his genius could border on the insane andridiculous as well. The halls of mirrors and fun-house scene arebrilliant - even though audiences only see a truncated version ofWelles' original vision. It has understandably lost some of its magicbecause modern audiences have seen rip-offs of that scene in countlessother movies. I do wish Welles had been permitted to make one more filmsans interference and had not been so erratic.

The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminentdirector, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many amoon. It’s a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period whenmore conventional films of this type were quite popular, and itconcerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls inwith a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at thetime), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with abrainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows,with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan’s lawpartner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving oddspeeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that theman is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and allsorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at thispoint the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes offthe deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliantdirectorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give themovie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself,possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at alltimes incomprehensible mess.

It’s hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film asidefrom maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle forhis wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does withWelles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she isalso cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beautyher most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, aquality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself isstrangely unappealing and hammy at O’Hara, the (presumably) easygoingsailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easyman to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later SeanConnery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Wellesdoes not. The most interesting performance in the movie is GlennAnders’ as Grisby, Sloan’s loony, treacherous law partner. Anders workswonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while hisscenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but forall this he manages to make Grisby’s derangement palpable anddisturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyantMethod actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.

There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Wellestrying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tendedto make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with hisworld view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have ananswer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. Hehad reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system hedespised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn’t exactly anose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that itis, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers)expressing Welles’ opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That hepresented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself wascertainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place forlong. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigiousfilm (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from whichhe never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speakits name in this film, which is to say Welles’ personal failure in notgetting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and hisinability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of himturning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could notforestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himselfin the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack ofself-knowledge on Welles’ part. He was much more of an inside playerthan he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of theworldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much.

This 1947 film stars and was directed and written by Orson Welles (witha funky Irish accent) and also stars the gorgeous Rita Hayworth withless appealing short blonde hair. So, I've hung out with Orson beforein Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane and the Third Man etc. but this wasmy first Rita Hayworth interaction. Our first meeting went well, shedoes a superb job playing the frightened/cagey Elsa, married to acrippled millionaire lawyer. Mike (Welles) and Elsa fall for eachother. He wants to run away with her, she doesn't know if she can livewithout the things money can buy. Elsa, her husband, and his partnerbicker and bite, just like the sharks Mike describes attacking eachother and his foretelling proves just too true. Several twists andturns follow in this murder mystery as we come to the climax in the funhouse. (Think the ending shootout in The Man with the Golden Gun, whichborrowed heavily from this scene). I wasn't sure who the murderer wasuntil the end.

This movie is like shrimp in garlic and lemon. The dish centers on thesea, it is subtle, sour, and pungent, all to great effect. These mightnot be the best, fresh shrimp, but good quality frozen shrimp fromCostco. The flavorful sauce adds to the naturalness of the pink shrimpas you fill up on a healthy, but filling alternative to more mundane,common fare. 7/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies

This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. Theseremarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing,worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately,squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy towithstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler likeShanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic trickson, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploringhere. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; whichtakes a lot of effort and attention, but adds absolutely zero to thefilm. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. MrArkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project.The material is inconsequen
tial. It just can't bear the weight of allthis mannered embroidery. For a director trafficking in reality-baseddrama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceitsback to reality. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous.

Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and gettingthat performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest,most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. Buther treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperatedecision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. Themovie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60seconds.

When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all forwhat?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Wellesmore to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity tothe scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders whatShanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire,arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in lovewith filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance.

It takes a while - a good, long while - for this movie to pick upsteam. The first half or so I found infuriatingly dull and difficult tofollow as well as lacking in any real atmosphere. Even the extendedtime the main characters spend on the yacht seemed bland. That settingwasn't used to very good effect. The performances really didn't helpall that much either. I haven't seen a great deal of the acting ofOrson Welles over the years. Based on this movie, I can't say that Ifeel I've missed all that much. He came across as dry and largelyunemotional, making his character of Mike O'Hara not particularlyinteresting. I make the same personal note about Rita Hayworth - Ihaven't seen much of her work. Here, as Elsa Bannister, her beauty isused to very good effect, but the performance itself seemed, likeWelles, strangely emotionless. The only performance that I thought wasmodestly effective was that of Everett Sloane as Elsa's husband Arthur.

Even given the weakness of the performances, I'll say that the moviepicks up steam eventually, particularly with the beginning of O'Hara'strial. It's at that point we begin to understand some of the confusionthat dominated the first half. To make a long story short, O'Hara -with a checkered past, but still a character who isn't particularlywell developed - just by chance found himself as a pawn in the middleof a game played by the Bannisters, who basically want to be rid ofeach other, and O'Hara becomes a convenient tool to accomplish thatpurpose. There's a bit of uncertainty as to how all this is going toturn out, but, frankly, the end struck me as anti-climactic at best,although I enjoyed O'Hara's shark story and how it tied into the film'splot. The somewhat interesting second half made up a little bit for aweak first half, but still, I don't think this is any better than a5/10.

And yet, despite the flaws mentioned in my summary heading, it keeps youwatching until the fateful climax in the Hall of Mirrors. But along the waythere are some real problems.

First of all, Orson Welles’ Irish accent is not only distracting but oftenhard to understand. And whoever did the dubbing did a poor job of it.Likewise, Rita Hayworth delivers many of her lines barely above a whisperwith background music making her dialog unclear. This is particularly truein the aquarium scene.

Secondly, the editing is clumsy. Obviously the film was longer than itspresent length and the cutting shows. Who is to blame for this? Is thisanother case where Welles had no control over the releaseprint?

Thirdly, Welles himself is miscast as the Irish seafarer. He is never eventhe least bit convincing and there is no actual chemistry between him andHayworth. Too bad Glenn Ford wasn’t offered the part.

The convoluted plot makes THE BIG SLEEP look like child’s play.

Rita Hayworth is excellent as the femme fatale wife of Everett Sloane, whogives a brilliant performance. Glenn Anders does a marvelous job as thecreepy Grisby. The story is a tale of deceit and murder with Welles beingused as a pawn–and the ending is a highly effective one in which Hayworthreally shows herself a fine actress. And incidentally, Rita Hayworth isgiven some of the most ravishing close-ups of her career and looks greatwith cropped blonde hair.

But it’s too bad the murkiness of the plot and the choppy editing have madethis somewhat implausible story seem to be much ado aboutnothing.

Put Welles into a flick like ‘Body Heat’ and you expect good things tohappen. Put him into it with Harry Cohn overseeing production-and you getsomething like This instead. I have a mixed reaction to this atbest.

I went into it expecting alot better-the ‘Fatal Attraction’ formula wasclearly at work, I liked the cast, and of course the genre. Wellesthough…his track record tends to be over-rated at the least, here forexample he tries an Irish brogue, which lapses in and outta the dialoguedepending on the take-ala Tommy Lee Jones in ‘Blown Away’. Rita Hayworth Ijust could Not ID, kept on thinking ‘Claire Trevor’ or ‘Lana Turner’. As aplat. blonde-here icily restrained at best-she doesn’t quite cut it. Bringme back Gilda.

Sloan and De Corsia of course are always good; the trial scene Was rightoutta the Dancing Judge Ito’s, I wasn’t sure if it was her husband or hislaw partner who wanted to fake a killing, then when I got That figgered out,you get the whackjob editing and mirror room foolishness. I still liked itbut it was strange.

Put this down to ‘nice try’; perhaps it woulda worked better if they’d letWelles have at it w/out Cohn’s interference OR gotten some one ala Hawks orWyler to direct it, pushing aside Welles’ excesses and replacing them withtauter direction and storyline.

**1/2 outta ****

I admire Orson Welles. Not for everything he has done, but mainly for theway he has been apotheosized by the film community years after his filmswere made. Granted I, like just about any other film lover, am enamoredwithTOUCH OF EVIL (despite Charleston Heston’s ridiculous attempt to portrayaMexican) and adore the grandiosity and genius of KANE. But I think thatallowing those films to be color his other work does not allow for anhonestappraisal of his output, whether it was hacked to bits by the studios ornot.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

First of all, Welles’ Irish brogue is horrid; he should have justportrayedan American or actually paid attention to how the Irish speak. It ranks(andI do mean "rank") with Tom Cruise in FAR AND AWAY, Sean Connery in THEUNTOUCHABLES (who really has no excuse since he is bloody Scottish) andBradPitt in THE DEVIL’S OWN as one of the worst attempts at an Irish accentin afilm that takes itself seriously. Now, I am not one to claim that theability to mimic an accent is essential to acting, but if you are goingtoattempt an accent, give it a good try, especially if the film you are inisa thriller. This may seem a minor point of contention, but Welles istalkinga lot of the time and his dubbed, ridiculous brogue is truly distracting.This is a perfect example of Welles needing a director to shout, "Cut outthat terrible accent!" The problem, of course, was that Welles was thedirector. The other characters were also pretty annoying; Everett Sloaneandhis "piercing gaze" and "maniacal laugh"; Glenn Anders and his truly overthe top scenery munching; Rita Hayworth as an unconvincing, languid femmefatale. Say what you will about how the editing affected the picture, theacting was meant to be kept and should have been junked.

The camerawork is something different altogether. Welles displays hisgiftfor angles, contrasts, lighting and ambiance in several notable scenes,something that is truly remarkable. That said, I find the cartoon
ishnessofthe Hall of Mirrors scene, which seemed Welles intent, to be a bit of ayawner, not the spellbinder a lot of people like to call it. This, aswellas the court room scene, is a perfect example of Welles not being subtleandcoming off overly ham-handed. A little subtlety would have been nice,evenif satire was his aim.

All in all, the film is amazingly mediocre and uneven, something I doubtadding back the other hour would change.

read comments (0)

The Hills Have Eyes

‘The Hills Have Eyes’ is a far superior film to Wes Craven’s previousdrive-in exploitation flick, ‘Last House on the Left’. This time round,he makes an effort to create a coherent storyline, more roundedcharacters, and a sense of real tension and suspense. He’s aided by afar more competent cast, most of whom are capable of delivering actualperformances.

The movie starts out great, with a mysterious and ambiguous meetingbetween Ruby and the owner of the old Gas Station. When theall-American show up, asking for directions, the tension is masterfullybuilt. Once the trailer goes off the road, however, things come to agrinding halt – characters behave in unrealistic ways, run offrecklessly into the night, and take implausible risks. Thehill-dwelling crazies seem to take an incredibly long time to make anappearance, and waiting for them, rather than drawing out the suspense,actually kills it, and the film descends into tedium.

The last third of the movie, after the attack on the trailer, restoressome balance to things, with some genuine excitement generated. But forme, at least, it was too little, too late.

For a horror movie, and a Craven horror movie at that, there aresurprisingly few scares and the gore is of the ketchup variety. Ahighlight is the work of Robert Burns, who created such memorable setsfor ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’, here working similar magic on anequally tight budget, creating a believably sun-dried rottenness to thelocations.

An okay movie, containing a suitable sense of dread and menace in thesun-bleached mountains, but far from great. ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’is still seven years away, and it shows.

*They wanted to see SPOILERS, but SPOILERS saw them first* The Carterfamily - father Big Bob (Russ Grieve), mother Ethel (Virginia Vincent),kids Bobby (Robert Houston), Brenda (Susan Lanier) and Lynn (DeeWallace, now Wallace-Stone), along with Lynn's husband Doug (MartinSpeer) and their daughter Katy (Brenda Marinoff) are traveling throughthe desert looking for a silver mine, a present for Bob and Ethel'swedding anniversary, but due to a street map mishap, they get strandedin the middle of the desert.

As if the heat of the day and the cold of the night aren't enough,there is a deranged family living dangerously near where the Cartersare, a family which robs and kills their unfortunate victims.

And when they'll hit, it's going to be hell…

This movie is the second of Wes Craven's 'revenge bilogy', the firstbeing 'Last House On The Left', in which good people react to the lossof some of their own by behaving as violently and viciously as theirattackers.

This movie, though, enrichens the metaphor with a very clearcontrapposition at the beginning, with the Carters being this WASC(White, Anglo-Saxon and Catholic) family, all prim and proper, who cando no wrong (it's significant the fact that Big Bob is a retired cop)family while Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth)'s family is a family ofsadistic cannibal murderers (with the exception of Ruby (JanusBlythe)), and then blending, blending, blending so much that at theend, even as the evildoers are punished, there still isn't anysatisfaction.

Oh, and one doubt I have; are they ever gonna get out of that damneddesert?

Having first seen the great (though not perfect) remake made byAlexandre Aja, I really was interested in seeing the original. Ofcourse, being a fan of horror movies, and of Wes Craven's movies inparticular, I was aware of THHE, but I've always heard, that this isjust a really mediocre movie, and that it was surprising, that theremake, while taking he same premise, has managed to become a reallygood film. Now, after finally having seen the original, I have to say -everything I've heard about it and its mediocrity is true. And yet…

First of all, let me say that the original and the remake are indeedvery similar. The characters of the Carter family are the same, thebasic premise is the same, indeed the whole first half of both versionsis pretty much identical. The big differences appear in the second halfof both movies, and that's where the original THHE begins to beinteresting. Now, don't get me wrong - Aja's remake is far superior,and not only because of the much better technical execution and thebigger budget. But the original had some really great ideas, that weredropped for the remake, and while I appreciate Aja's more complex storydevelopment and its darkly satirical, almost political context, Ireally think that Craven's also very dark and satirical, but also moreanthropological approach to his movie made it at its core moredisturbing, but also more believable.

Craven's Carter family isn't as likable as the one in Aja's remake, sowhen their lives finally are in danger, the audience doesn't connect tothem on the emotional level as much as with Aja's characters. But, onthe other side, they are the more realistic family. An other importantdifference between the two versions of THHE are the villains. While inthe remake the Carters are fighting against a bunch of mutatedindividuals, who just happened to live in the same city, the villainsin the original are clearly shown as a degenerated FAMILY. And that isa really very interesting approach, which is completely lost in thenewer film. In Craven's movie, there are two families, one the mirrorimage of the other, and both have the same goal - to fight for theirsurvival. They have even more in common, but it's subtle - afterviewing this movie and thinking about the two families I've noticedthat they weren't that different from the start. That's why theCarter's are not as likable as in Aja's remake - Craven didn't want tojust show some good people fighting against some bad people, but tofurther the commonness of the both sides. He shows us, that thecapability and the willingness to become extremely violent is in everyperson and even more - it's a part of human nature in itself. Unlikemany vigilante movies,and also Aja's remake, the original THHE isextremely pessimistic about this subject. That's why the last pictureof the movie is a freeze frame of Doug furiously stabbing Mars - thereis no redeeming for Doug for this killing, except his will to surviveand protect his beloved ones - he has become not more than a desperateanimal. The question that follows, is: Was he, or a human being ingeneral for that matter, ever more than a desperate animal? Is the"good", civilized, suburban Carter family really that different fromthe degenerated desert freaks they have the misfortune to encounter?The only real difference between them appears to be the protectiveshell of civilization, which is quickly stripped off the Carters, oncethey are lost and alone in the desert.

Now one could argue that Aja's movie achieves the same effect andprovokes the same thoughts - but there IS a fundamental difference. Ajadoesn't show Doug who becomes a monster, as does Craven, but Doug whobecomes a HERO through becoming a monster. And after all the brutalkillings that Doug is responsible of, he returns to the remains of hisfamily as a hero and is looking forward to live on his civilized life.Essentially, Aja's movie shows an extraordinary development of anordinary guy in an extreme situation. Craven shows us, that there isnothing too extraordinary about it - violence is a part of our nature.That's why his movie is more disturbing, and also more interesting thanthe remake, when it comes to the subject matter. But I can't deny thesheer visceral impact Aja's remake and its great technical executionmade on me. After all is said and done, the newer film is the betterone. It benefits from the beautiful work of the cameraman and overallfrom the higher budget. But I can't discard Craven's original because Ican't help but think that this movie made (maybe even unintentionally)an interesting and provocativ
e statement about the human beings, andit's a great pity that Wes Craven hadn't more money and also experienceas a director to make his movie the definitive The Hills Have Eyes.

The second film directed by Wes Craven is a lot less impressive as hisdebut, the notorious Last House on the Left. But Craven can’t really beblamed for that because he obviously was a lot more careful when he wrotethe script for The Hills have Eyes. Last House on the Left almost destroyedhis career before it even begun and the shocking character of that moviemade him pretty hated among critics and producers. Craven obviously keptthat in mind while working on the Hills have Eyes and so, the villains are alot less "human" and it doesn’t at all contain perverse -or even erotic -sequences.

Especially the character-building in The Hills have Eyes is a bit of aletdown, according to me. The villains are supposed to be a bunch of savageand cruel madmen, but they look pretty organised to me and they’re overallrather ‘normal’. The protagonists of the film - the entire Carter family -fail to impress. As a viewer, you never feel connected with them and youdon’t really care whether they’ll make it or not. Michael Berryman reallybecame the icon of the film and that is well-deserved. Due to his naturallyinherited disease, he looks spooky and primitive. Casting him for the roleof Pluto really was a brilliant idea. Other positive aspects of the filminclude the terrific use of settings and locations, the solid directing byCraven and the raw character of the film. Craven uses the hot and hopelessdesert as a powerful tool of suspense and atmosphere and I guess that’s themost perfect element in the entire movie. Even though I think The Hills haveEyes doesn’t belong to the absolute top of horror, it’s Craven’s second bestfilm without a doubt. I’m not a fan of his modern work and I truly loathScream.

The Hills have Eyes recently received a special double-disc DVD editionwhich is a real treat for the fans. It contains fascinating commentarytracks by Craven himself and producer Locke. Besides that, the extra disccontains a documentary about the greatest directors in the genre in whichthey express their love and motivations towards horror. It’s called theAmerican Nightmare and I certainly recommend giving that a look as well.

This movie is a notable improvement over Was Craven’s first movie, "LastHouse On the Left" (Of course, after that movie anything would be animprovement). The film has a rather creepy premise and atmosphere and issomewhat more techically well-done than Craven’s first feature. Not tomention more appropriate music this time around. The two major flaws Ifoundwith this movie are the obvious moral (asking the question of which familyis more "civilized") and the sudden ending. It looked as if Craven hadsimply run out of ideas and decided to end the film. Still, a pretty goodmovie and definitely an improvement over "House."

‘The Lucky ones died first’ the exploitation tag line for Wes Craven’s’The Hills Have Eyes’ a story about a nice middle American family ontheir way to California break down in the desert and are set upon by aclan of cannibals who snatch the tasty looking baby. The premise farmore disturbing than the film actually is, but this compared toCraven’s brutal ‘The Hills Have eyes’ both movies are in the ‘horror ofthe family’ sub-genre in which the nice middle class family have toadapt and become savage killers in order to survive. This characterchange is extremely interesting and frightening at the same time. Forthis alone the movie is worth checking out, a must for horror fans &gore hounds those who easily offended should give ‘The Hills Have Eyes’a miss (Note torn Jaws poster apparently a dig at the movie suggesting’T.H.H.E’ is real terror!)

The Carter family is speeding through the Nevada desert on their way toCalifornia. As a gift for their 25th Anniversary Ethel and Big Bob gotthe deed to old abandoned silver mine, so they make a refueling pitstop so they and their son, daughters, granddaughter and a son-in-lawcould stretch their legs. But little do they know that hillssurrounding them are full of maniac. A backwater cannibal clan has settheir eyes on the Carters. When they are stranded in the middle ofnowhere the situation becomes dire as they are forced to become likeanimals to protect their family.

Wes Craven’s fourth attempt at directing (Last House on the Left anduncredited stab at a porno flick with "Hills" producer Peter Locke, whoknew) "Hills" is a simple down and dirty exploitation low-budget flickthat at times can really get down to the nitty gritty. The movie hasexcellent photography and an occasionally unsettling musical score. Theacting (including Dee Wallace’s first foray into horror) is very goodwith most of the principals turning believable performances (especiallythe cannibals, they usually steal the show). "Hills" is one of Craven’sbest and a solid exploitation entry film.

While I enjoyed The Hills Have Eyes, it’s not among my favorites. It’sslightly dull, seems like it pulled a few punches with the content forsuch a feature, and just not quite as interesting as maybe it shouldbe. Nonetheless, it has its merits as well; a fine 70’s-horroratmosphere, distressing plot, relentless baddies, and, of course,Pluto. As an entry in the inbred, cannibalistic sub-genre, the changeof settings was a nice touch, moving it from the mountainous woods tothe dry, rocky desert. Perhaps my favorite scene in the movie was theuse of Ethel’s corpse as bait…there’s just something gleefullyunsettling about how that idea plays out. Anyway, as I said, it’s not apersonal favorite but definitely a movie horror fans will want to checkout, as it is one of Craven’s best.

the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of theimagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you wouldexpect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is veryslow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeatingthemselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with alot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a cleardirection.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for itstime.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is amuch more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little inthe way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be bothgrating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used tocover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie,though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking atthe time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it wouldend .when something finally did happen any promise the film had wasruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like togive a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loudscreaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to anysort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so atleast one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't theworst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch itagain.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of thatversion.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while othertimes was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry,occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block,screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet wouldbe the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which isbeing generous

Tagline: the lucky ones died…before watching this.

I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say thisis the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I'veever watched. I can't almost remember it.

All I can recall is a fam
ily of stupid people who don't do anythingright. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so theydecide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of theirlives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of aband of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the ideato report the fact to the police.

And, speaking of the police…if those freaks have lived around thereeating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared…howcome the sheriff didn't suspect anything?

But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. Therest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.

I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting.And the effects.

I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates asnake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they haveto do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone,demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and forthings that happen on planet Earth in general.

I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in1977.

Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to thedirector for this attack on intelligence.

read comments (0)

The Evil Dead

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

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

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

THE EVIL DEAD

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The Exorcist III

As anyone could probably guess, this was not a good movie. George C. Scottseemed a little… I don’t know… gassy? Random shouting and yelling atpeople; I still don’t get it (listen for "We’re fine!" and "It is not in thefile! It is NOT!!"). There was some dialog about a carp at the beginningthat you can find under the memorable quotes section that seemed to havesome relevance, but not enough to keep it from sounding very silly. Theentire movie was boring and slow, except the gross parts and the scenes withBrad Dourif as the Gemini Killer. Dourif is brilliant in this film, howeverimpossible it may seem. I love him. If you’re a fan, this movie is amust-see. If not, look for him in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest," "Eyesof Laura Mars," "Wise Blood," "Ragtime," "Blue Velvet," "MississippiBurning," the upcoming "Lord of the Rings" movies, and many, many more."Gracious me. Was I raving? Please forgive me… I’m mad."

George C. Scott takes over Lee J. Cobb's role from 1973's "TheExorcist", playing police detective Bill Kinderman who is still workingin Georgetown and mourning the death of his friend, Father Karras; onthe 15th anniversary of Karras' death during an attempted exorcism of ademon-possessed child (which, coincidentally, was also the night aserial killer was executed!), grisly murders begin happening in thecity that have Kinderman baffled. He should be–the plot threads andcauses for these ghastly deaths make little sense, while Kinderman'squestioning of an isolated hospital patient (played, for no explainedreason, by both Jason Miller and Brad Dourif) tries and fails to injectan exorcism-scenario akin to the first film onto a detective-storynarrative. William Peter Blatty based the script on his novel "Legion",and while he has a good ear for joshing conversations and b.s. humor,he goes way overboard on the nasty intricacies of a demonic slaying.There also seems to have been some confusion in filming the lastportion of the story, as Kinderman talks to mental patients and onehighly-strung nurse but is never shown putting the pieces of thispuzzle together. Blatty, who also directed, initially prods ourmemories of the first film amusingly, but quickly exploits that plotwith useless references to the characters and with the casting ofMiller (an idea that just doesn't pan out). Scott is terrific asKinderman and actually gives these metaphysical ramblings some weight,but Blatty has no sympathy for his gaggle of victims. He ends upexploiting himself. *1/2 from ****

In my opinion "Exorcist 3" is definitely better than really awful"Exorcist 2:The Heretic",but worse than the original.It’s true thatdirector William Peter Blatty doesn’t rely on blood and gore;instead ofhe creates an unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear.Some sceneslike the confessional sequence are indeed really creepy.Unfortunately"Exorcist 3" is relentlessly talky and dull in places and not reallythat scary,mainly because I’ve seen much more scarier flicks like"Suspiria" or even Zulawski’s "Possession".I didn’t find itdisturbing-if you want to see something totally mind-shattering try tofind "Cannibal Holocaust".Overall I was a little bit disappointed withthis one-I expected a creepy masterpiece and finally I’ve got prettyscary,but also deadly dull horror film.So if you are "The Exorcist" fanthen this one is a must-see,if not avoid it.My rating:7/10.

Why bother with any more sequels? The original Exorcist was a stand alonefilm that told a complete story. Exorcist II was a bad enough omen totellfuture film makers what was to come. This one suffers from what ExorcistIIsuffered from. Excessive re-cutting, re-shooting and massive re-writeshavemade the proceedings in this one confusing and hard to follow. George C.Scott isn’t even able to lift the film’s burdens. Only thing saving itfroma one star rating is a few memorably spooky set pieces. Otherwise,consideryourself forewarned.

Rated R.

Watched it last night for the first time. Found it pretty average …George C. Scott is great though … and there were a few very creepymoments. Unfortunately though, the film as a who-dunnit-it sucked. Itwas quite obvious early on as to the means used in performing themurders.

The film was also guilty of treating its audience like idiots e.g.(Minor spoiler alert here) When it was revealed that the fingerprintsfrom the confessional were different to those found in the firstmurder, George blurts out something like "so we have two differentkillers". Totally redundant dialogue. There are a few other examples ofthis in the film where I just had to groan.

And as for the exorcism scene, its a joke.

In conclusion, this film is nothing in comparison to the originalexorcist movie. The original is much richer thematically, morehorrifying and more atmospheric. The exorcist III is merely a mediocrehorror/Detective hybrid video flick.

If you want to see a really good horror film with George C. Scott init, go check out "The Changeling".

The Exorcist III starts in 'Georgetown 1990' with Lieutenant WilliamKinderman (George C. Scott) & his close friend Father Joseph Dyer (EdFlanders) conducting a annual ritual in which they go to the cinema towatch 'It's A Wonderful Life' in memory of their friend Father DamienKarras (Jason Miller) who died when he fell down a flight of steps 15years ago… Afterwards Kinderman confides in Dyer over his latest casewhere a young black boy named Thomas Kintry (James Burgess) wasmurdered, decapitated & his head replaced by a head of Christ from astatue. Shortly after another murder with strong religious overtoneshappens, this time the victim is Father Kanavan (Harry Carey Jr.) &around this time Father Dyer is admitted to hospital where he becomesthe next victim of this sadistic serial killer who has exactly the M.O.as someone dubbed the 'Gemini Killer' 15 years ago when very similarcrimes were committed. Is it a copycat killer? Or does it havesomething to do with the mysterious James Venamun (Brad Dourif) whocurrently resides in a padded cell but seems to be possessed bysomething evil…

A box-office flop when released The Exorcist III was written & directedby William Peter Blatty based on his novel called 'Legion' I personallythought it was rather dull & didn't do much for me at all. The scriptgoes for psychological horror rather than visual, The Exorcist III ismore police thriller than straight horror with most of the running timeconsumed by Kinderman's investigations into various murders before theclimax where a few horror elements kick in particularly the exorcismwhich felt out of place when put beside the rest of the film. I foundthe character's bland & forgettable, the film has a slow pace & I foundmyself rapidly losing interest in the whole thing despite being a hugehorror fan & liking The Exorcist (1973). Put as simply as I can I wasbored & it just didn't grip or engage me whatsoever although havingsaid that as a thriller it was OK. The horror is very subtle & apartfrom the climax there is barely a drop of blood in the entire thing asThe Exorcist III tries to shock you with it's dialogue drivendescriptions of the murders. I didn't even like when Kinderman & the'Gemini Killer' met each other & talked. Technically The Exorcist IIIis alright although the cinematography got on my nerves as directorBlatty likes to keep his camera as still as he can & insert lots ofrandom scene setting objects into sequences which really slow the filmdown. The locations & sets are OK with nice detail & overall it's wellmade with that Hollywood polish to it. The acting was OK but I didn'tparticularly like or feel for a
nyone & Scott as Kinderman started tobecome irritating to me well before the end. I really didn't think toomuch of The Exorcist III, it just bored me plain & simple. It seems toget good reviews & I'm sure there are people out there who willappreciate & enjoy The Exorcist III more than I did. A bit of a bore asfar as I'm concerned I'm afraid.

Hey! The Gemini Killer was Brad Dourif, from the X-Files episode "Beyond theSea", playing practically the same character! I guess the X-Files writerswere watching this movie too…anyways, besides Dourif’s creepy performance,this movie was pretty lame. "The Exorcist" didn’t need a sequel, let alone athreequel!

This film was a great thriller and featured some REALLY scarymoments.(Patrick Ewing as an angel, the evil nun/nurse chasing people aroundwith the coroners’ bone cutter)Scott’s performance as a bleary-eyed homicidecop in the twilight of a career plagued by memories of past murders is deadon. My one complaint with the movie is the totally unnecessary exorcismscene added to the film after it was already complete. Apparently the studiofelt that the audience would feel ripped off seeing an "Exorcist"installment without one included in the film. Big mistake. As a sidenote-the film is nothing like the book-which is quite scary in it’s ownright.

Forgeting about John Boorman’s film of EXORCIST II THE HERETIC, WilliamPeter Blatty tries to cheer us up with this sequel after making his novelLegion but fails. George C. Scott takes over for Lee J. Cobb as Lt.Kinderman who has a feeling that his old friend Father Karras [Jason Millerfrom the first film who was trown down the stairs] has been possessed fromThe Gemini Killer who is played by Brad Dourif who killed several people.Scott Wilson’s character is shameless as a doctor who can not stop smokingand later kills himself. Nicol Williamson plays The Exorcist and VivceaLindfors, Mary Jackson, Zorha Lampert, Barabra Baxley, Lee Richardsonco-star and Samuel L. Jackson and Larry King play cameos.and Scott’s speechabout the carp is a joy. The film however dose leave Triva andGoofs-

The Triva.William Peter Blatty had Louis Fortaker play a Nurse but he wanted her lineto be bigger and then had her play Nurse Merrin in which Blatty took it fromhis orginial film where Max von Sydow played Father Merrin.

Lee Richardson meations that his favorite flick is THE FLY. Richardson wasin THE FLY and THE FLY 2.

The Goofs.The University President tells Kinderman about the exorcisim of ReganMacNeil well there was no need to because in the original film Chris MacNeilhad already told Kinderman about her possessed daughter.

Father Dyer has flashbacks in which he was not present. The possession ofRegan MacNeil and the death of Father Karras.

Father Morning’s vest he wears to begin the exorcisim starts on fire visiblythe scene of were Father Karras starts the fire in thehospital.

The Exorcist 3 is not a very good sequel but dose get credit for trying. Myrating- 6 out of 10 ******.

There are several very effective scary parts of this film. The old lady,the white figure… When I saw this film in the theatre when it came outsomeone started screaming during a particularly tense moment.

Unfortunately the film doesn’t hold up too well over time. It looks prettydated and the creepy bits, while still very eerie, do not make it worthsitting through all the tedious boring parts.

George C. Scott is pretty good though. And that has to be the voice ofColleen Dewhurst as the demon, no one had a voice like she did, but shedoesn’t seem to be credited anywhere. Am I hallucinating?

read comments (0)