My comments are simple....this film is pure genius. Leone's previous westerns to this one are good, especially the masterful Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but this one really is his true masterwork and pretty much the final word in westerns. Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven was a superb sort of "send off" for the genre, in terms of fairly traditional westerns, OUATITW is simply the towering achievement of what feels like lifetimes of work. An amazing film. One of those "you must see this before you die" type of thing. It also showcases the brilliance of Ennio Morricone, yet again. All the talent involved just really came together for a colossal project..something that really humbles all that came before it and, as many have said, you will never see this again. Tarantino's Kill Bill comes close in terms of being an homage to past cinema (which this film was intended to be, to a certain degree), but the sharp dramatics and stunning originality are just impossible to imitate. Movie magic.
Reviews
26 Reviews
Run Ronnie Run
(2002)
Ouch. This one hurts...
22 February 2004
For years I've loved the work of David Cross and Bob Odenkirk, and certainly enjoyed Mr. Show, probably the best television comedy show since Kids in the Hall went off the air. However, when Bob and David themselves set out to warn people how awful this movie was, you KNOW you had to be worried. The fellas claim that studio interference from New Line made the production problematic and that the cut of the movie they wanted was largely sabotaged in favor of trying to compete with your usual "Cooter Patrol" style Hollywood comedy in the vein of utter retardedness like, say, American Pie. In the end, they claimed that Run Ronnie Run had been turned into a piece of garbage, and they are RIGHT. I don't care how deep your love for Bob and David runs...avoid this movie. Everything clever, subtle, and interesting about their comedy is sabotaged in this flick. Yes...it has it's moments. There's a few scenes here and there where I did honestly laugh. But all together, that totaled maybe 5-8 minutes of the rest of the flick. I love these guys but I have to be honest...something screwed up here. Whether it was New LIne or Bob and David just not being too good at a movie-length format, this just isn't what Mr. Show fans want to see.
Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas
(1977 TV Movie)
Achingly detailed, marvellously crafted; a gem.
10 November 2001
Emmet Otter might be dated, but it's one of Henson's finest offerings. Not only is the story well written (without talking down to children), but the level of artistry in the models, backgrounds, puppets, whathaveyou is simply amazing. Frank Oz, Jim Henson, and their crew created one of the pinnacles of "Muppet" based entertainment proving, even after 20 odd years, Henson is STILL the master.
Johnny Mnemonic
(1995)
Really poor attempt at adapting William Gibson..
10 August 2001
Movies like Johnny Mnemonic astonish me for one reason: despite the fact that the material it's based on is incredibly short and sweet, thus making it perfect film material, they STILL screw it up. The original story is a fantastic one, pakced with loads of great action and details. Expand the story just a tad, and you've got a great movie. Sadly, the filmmakers here decided they were too good for that, and arrogantly attempted to virtually rewrite 70% of Gibson's story. None of that was needed, so we get this lukewarm attempt at translating a whole HEAP of Gibsons ideas, instead of just a few. Bad idea when your budget is so low and the best actor you can get to play a villian is Dolph Lundgren. The writers and directors obviously tried to make Neuromancer, instead of actually making Johnny Mnemonic. sadly enough, the CD-ROM video game released the same year (with tons of live-action footage) was much better.
Devil Fish
(1984)
My god..this was Lamberto Bava?
3 August 2001
I actually saw Devil Fish long before its infamous MST3K showing. The majority of the horrible editing and pacing were actually from some kind of strange censoring in the print that MST used. There's a lot more gore and violence in th eoriginal cut. Now, don't misinterpret that as praise...Devil Fish is crap and I'm utterly blown away that Lamberto Bava ghost-directed this. Mario Bava must've spun in his grave. Granted, Lamberto has done some dumb movies, but Devil Fish is practically not even a movie...just random crap strung together with a bad storyline. The gore of the uncut version made it BARELY watchable, but not by much. It's still a hilarious movie, though, and MST did it right.
Jurassic Park III
(2001)
Great fun but...where's the end?
29 July 2001
JP3 made a wise decision, script-wise, in abandoning a Spielberg type angle and, instead, making itself a B-movie, but on the same token.....where was the boom? Where was the final act? I mean..I'm sorry, but the final dino attack and the few crumbs that followed were NOT an ending. There was no big bang or bold, explosive action sequence! Considering how well the movie chugged along, I expected a monster conclusion..something to rival the finale's of the first 2 films. Instead we get a fairly mediocre "Oh, we're running out of budget" close-up. JP3 was at least B+ entertainment all the way through, but that stinker of a final 15-20 minutes (everything after the pterodactyls) brings it down to more like a C.
The Mummy Returns
(2001)
Amazing, "pulp" entertainment...
14 May 2001
I'll grant that Mummy Returns lacks a bit of script and story spark that drove the first film, but it makes up for it by adding in some good villains, tons of action, and a spirit of adventure. As someone who grew up on Harryhausen-style fantasy fables (like the Sinbad films), I can confidently say that Mummy returns is probably the closest modern cinema has come to that age of pure adventure, when it was all about the heroes taking on supernatural evils and such. All the flaws here amount to virtually diddly squat compared to the sheer bang for the buck you get. Like the 1998 Mummy film, what we have here is a wonderful, "pulp" serial adventure, harkening back to the days of jungle adventures and such. Mummy is often criticized for borrowing a lot from other movies, but yet oddly enough, it does it better than the movies it's borrowing from. I also hear Indiana Jones rip-off, bandied around alot, failing to note that Indiana Jones was, itself, a tribute to classic adventure serials, and ripped off tons of stuff from those. Ignore the critics on this one, because they seem to be taking the wrong view of this kind of movie. I could see bad reviews if this were touted as a Shakespearean masterpiece or a triumph of Oscar-worthy acting, but it isn't. At no time has this film ever been advertised as anything but a fantasy adventure, pure and simple. Why is it so hard for people to make that division between works that SHOULD be artistically examined, and works that shouldn't? As a sequel, Mummy Retusn promised more action as the Mummy comes back to wreak havoc. Did it deliver that? Yes. No argument.
A black comedy for the open-minded.
21 March 2001
Although it seems to be the PC thing to instantly leap upon Fred Leuchter as an anti-Semite, I actually foundt his documentary more of a comedy of errors then something that made me angry. Holocaust revisionism is terrible, for a variety of reasons, but I find it hard to develop any hatred for a man who bumbled his way so laughably through these issues. I was practically in belly-laughter during the video clips of his "scientific excavations", because his science was SO unsound and his preparations were SO amateur and pathetic. Why jewish people went out of their way to turn this man's life into a living hell (gee, much like Nazis) is beyond me since he's such a harmless, sadly simple figure. He thought he was being honored, but instead he blundered into walls of historic impossibility and seemingly didn't care that the issues were so important to so many people. To me, Fred is hardly some scary, goosestepping racist...rather a man so posessed by his own idea of greatness that he fails to even acknowledge his own mistakes.
Slaughterhouse-Five
(1972)
Confusing, disjointed...and that's exactly the point.
17 December 2000
While I appreciate the lengthy analysis some people have written down here, I think it's safe to say they took the film (and the book) far more seriously than Kurt Vonnegut himself did. As an adaption of the novel, Roy Hill's film is brilliant and hauntingly accurate. Yes, a bit dated perhaps, but the novel is not really sci-fi per se, despite Vonnegut's classification as a sci-fi writer. It's rather one of his more elaborate, humorous attempts at telling a smply story in a very unusual way (much like his Breakfast of Champions saga). The movie is, for the most part, without genre. It's simply the tale of Billy Pilgrim who lives out his rather unusual life in random order. The film is what it is, and brings the whole Dresden bombing sub-plot to exactly the right level of depth that the novel featured. It doesn't take over the film, but it certainly effects the overall ideas.
The Keep
(1983)
Interesting film, bad translation of the novel..
25 November 2000
It warms my heart to see at a least a FEW people giving good comments about The Keep, undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and over-criticized horror films of its age. Yes, it has it's flaws...some of which are horrib. But, you know, there are times when an element YOU don't like might be pretty much way too opinion based. (I especially liked the "rancid Tangerine Dream score" comment, despite the fact it's hailed over and over again and one of their best scores and TD fans desperately want the CD). All that aside, The Keep isn't as bad as the ranting comments go...it's just a very conceptual, weird movie. Michael Mann tried to take a very basic, gothic horror story and make it very meditative and surreal. As an interpretation of the SETTING of the novel, the film is utterly brilliant beyond belief. The feeling of the novel is present here, and even the little map included with the book was followed to make the Keep set. Unfortunately, the film takes MAJOR detours from the book afterwards. For starters, the plot is seriously paired down. While the book is a straightforward battle between German soldiers and a supernatual being (essentially a vampire), the film adds an element of vague-ness for some reason. The being is never really defined, his character is never developed as it is in the book, and they even reversed his name, possibly the weirdest thing yet. The ending was also changed...good god, why??? The book had a straight ending...the film puts in a bizarre, vague, "what really happened" style ending. Bad choices making the film much weaker than it should have been. All that aside, though, visually this film is impressive, it just makes a few mistakes with where it takes the plot, and the goofy costume for the evil being doesn't help things. I still love this film because it's so well put together, despite the awkward script problems. It's so moody. Regardless, the source novel makes a better read and if anyone wanted to make a more accurate film based on ths wonderful novel, I wouldn't object. Too bad F. Paul Wilson has sort of fizzled out as far as great horror novels go.
Supernova
(I) (2000)
Close, but no cigar...
17 November 2000
I found Supernova bordering on something that could have been a stellar, if not simplistic, sci-fi/action film. Instead, the dialogue sucks and characters seem to do illogical things like have sex under crisis situations. Had the film stayed on the core plot and beefed itself up with better character development, I think we would see a much better response to it. Also, the ending was terrible. Why was it changed from the original? Audiences aren't stupid...they WILL smell a phony, happy ending when they see one. The studio has no one to blame but themselves for this turkey (that took 3 years to complete), despite the fact they're taking it all out on Walter Hill, whose direction is fantastic. But, even Hill can't make a garbage script likable.
Fantasia 2000
(1999)
Flawed, but still worth the price of entry...
17 November 2000
Fantasia 2000 without a doubt has it's share of problems. FOr starters, at only about one hour, it lacks the truly epic blast of the original. For another, the return of the Sorcerer's Apprentice is horribly out of place. Footage from both movies should have either been mixed, or simply make ONE new movie. Another problem are the introductory segments. Some are themed (Quincy Jones introducing Rhapsody in Blue, Penna nd Teller presenting Sorcers Apprentice), but Steve Martin? Come on! All that aside, Fantasia 2000 is still VERY impressive if not brilliant. I was highly critical of this film,a ctually, and saw it almost unwillingly. The minute the first segment started up, my fears dissolved. It might not be as radically mind-altering as the original, but the few segments that ARE here are fantastic and show a great deal of creativity. Hopefully the next Fantasia will keep ths spirit, isntead of selling out and doing cheap crap like associating the segments with the newest marketing thing, or something like that.
The Changeling
(1980)
Extremely well crafted.
9 October 2000
Though I think some of the praise is a little too lofty, this film certainly compares with some of the best ghost/haunted house stories of all time. It doesn't use violence or elaborate special effects, but rather skilled acting and general crafting to evoke a chilling response. Few films really make me uncomfortable, but this film succeeds in sneaking up on you and freaking you out when you least expect it. The ending is a little outlandish, but overall this is a gem of a horror film.
Picnic at Hanging Rock
(1975)
It is NOT based on fact...
20 July 2000
A beautifully creepy as "Picnic" is, the biggest myth about it is that the novel is a true story. It isn't. It was completely fictional. The book managed to capture the imagination of so many people that it became accepted myth it was based on a true story. That aside, the film is a wonderful piece of work. Arguably surreal, it paints a vivid portrait of these girls and their tension-filled lives (be it sexual or otherwise), almost as if the dissapearance was a metaphor for them escaping the clutches of this simple reality.
Manos: The Hands of Fate
(1966)
A masterpiece of anti-filmmaking.
5 July 2000
I've seen a lot of comments calling this a "bad" movie. Hardly...it's so incredibly inept and utterly pointless that it's a BALL to watch! Everything about this movie is so surrealistically awful that it takes on a life of it's own. People acclaim films like Citizen Kane for their artistic girth. To me, not even PLan 9 From Outer Space can really touch the level of bizarre non-filmmaking going on in Manos. At least Ed Wood KNEW what he wanted and went for it with outlandish effects and over-the-top performances. This film, however, is simply a void of anything that even remotely makes sense and it's wonderful. While I will admit, the MST3K version is funnier, the film by itself is a truly warping experience. Perhaps the most profound comment ever said about this film was a quote from MST3K: "I wonder what the cast party was like?"
The Rocketeer
(1991)
Wonderful serial-style throwback...
25 June 2000
A lot in Rocketeer doesn't work for most people, which is understandable. However, I think Joe Johnstons throwback style (essentially copying a lot of Commander Cody serials from the 40's) works very well overall. The cast are all incredibly accurate, if not stereotypical, metaphors for the type of characters they need to be. The special effects and art design are clevery conservative so as not to overwhelm the period. And there's little doubt that Lothar is supposed to be a reference to 40's/50's horror icon Rondo Hatton. The whole thing works well when viewed by a film buff/cult fanbase audience. Perhaps, this is it's most serious problem...movies with a lot of in jokes and throwback material tend to ignore the larger picture that more people will see it than just the people you're "speaking" to. As a result, Rocketeers datedness and lack of intense action leaves many people just wondering what the hell was going on. All that aside, the film is a fantastic job at re-visiting rocket-man serials with modern effects.
JFK
(1991)
Good, but a little too complete for such a mystery..
25 June 2000
Oliver Stone's JFK is a good movie, but it relies on too much historical revision to get it's point across. It's good that viewers have had their minds opened and may now believe JFK was killed by our own government, but at the same time Oliver Stone's rather fanatical opinions about government issues in the 60's and 70's cloud this film. For all of you who have not actually read any detailed research about the assassination, I would recommend it. The film JFK takes many elements which are only speculation and makes them into hardline fact. Now, I don't think the film is bad...80% of it is pretty much all based around the circumstances that comprise most of the conspiracy theory, but the remaining 20% is a little iffy. The best example I can think of is Donald Sutherland's character of Mr. X. In the film, Mr. X is essentially the turning point for Garrison. His story convices Garrison that the assassination is well beyond the scope he initially assumed. However, in reality, Mr. X didn't really exist. The story he tells in the film was actually lots of information from several different sources and people. Making the character of Mr. X might have saved screentime, but it deteriorates credibility. Audiences were probably pretty impressed that a high-ranking military official would confess these things to Garrision...well, he didn't. While some claim that Mr. X was indeed a real person, the information is sketchy. my point is, Stone makes a lot of the case look for more believable than it really is. Regardless, the movie certainly makes people think, and maybe that's why so many right-wingers love attacking its fans as "Communists" or historcial revisionists. Anyone who earnestly thinks the ENTIRE case for conspiracy is simply paranoia and coicidence must be virtually brain dead, as much as I hate to say it. There is something here, and getting people to think and talk about it is pretty damn important.
Jacob's Ladder
(I) (1990)
A masterpice to me, but some of the cuts are unsound.
25 June 2000
Warning: Spoilers
When Jacob's Ladder first hit theatres, I loved it. It effected me in incredible ways and made me very philospohical (annoyingly so) for months. One comment makes the rather brash and arrogant assumption that if you like Jacob's Ladder, you're too young to have seen better. Pfeh. Ridiculous...just because the film is entirely original is hardly reason to condemn it. The stylistic treatment and creative departures from the norm are simply fantastic. I personally look at the film as a metaphor for personal trauma rather than JUST about dealing with hallucinations and themes of death. That aside though, something ALWAYS felt lacking in the film to me. After having seen the DVD edition with features quite a bit of cut footage, I must say that I do NOT agree with some of the cuts made to original version. This isn't really a spoiler, but the DVD contains a lengthy deleted sequence that extends the role of the Chemist. This scene would have fleshed out the last portion of the film IMMENSELY. The fact that it's missing leaves a gap in the film that I felt when it was brand new and in theatres. While I don't like the originally planned ending, the other deleted material is a TRAGEDY to have been omitted.
Braveheart
(1995)
Historically inaccurate, whitewashed garbage.
24 June 2000
I gave Braveheart and earnest chance upon first viewing, but halfway through I jsut could NOT believe how terribly inaccurate this film was. I don't mind a little bit of poetic license to spice things up, but this film goes way too far. To begin with, Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace as this lion-ish freedon fighter with a knack for Martin Luther King-style speeches is grossly exaggerated. Wallace was actually a pretty crude, foul man by all historical accounts. Not some romance-book cover icon dashing into battle with chest exposed. Wallace wanted his own freedom...he wasn't some eloquent scholar or brilliant tactician. He was an ordinary man who decided to lead this crusade for the logical purpose of tiring from English tyranny. Last I checked, any evidence of the affair Wallace had with the English royalty is SKETCHY at best. Hardly even fact. Making it such a heavy piece of the film was not exactly the most credible route to take. The one-dimensional characters don't help much either. Wallace is surrounded by what might as well be the supporting cast in the average modern-day action film. We even get one-liners!! Gee..that was creative. However, what really made this film subpar for me was the ending. In reality, Wallace died a simple death. Not some martyr-esque way where he shouted "Freedom" from the rooftops. In fact, some accounts claim he actually recounted his beliefs for leniency. The story would have been far more gutsy had it been realistic and balanced, rather than some machine written action film set in medieval times. Mel Gibson obviously has talent...his ego just seems to get in the way.
Altered States
(1980)
More creepy than anything else...
24 June 2000
I've always loved Altered States. While some have trashed it because of it's lack of scientific background, I fail to see how that really hurts an essentially fictional movie. I've always considered the movie something of a creepy horror movie, simply because the subject matter is so disturbing. A fanatic scientist trying to uncover repressed memories of the origins of the universe seems scarier to me, than fascinating. THis isn't a bad thing...just my interpretation of the events. However, where Ken Russell makes his biggest mistake is in the assumption that one is familiar with the book. Too much of the film is vague (especially he ending) when it's not put into the context of the book. Supposedly, Paddy Chayefsky hated this movie, but I can't see why. It's an incredibly accurate depiction of his novel...few movies-from-books keep such a level interpretation. William Hurt's first performance is his best. His manic style of acting never really seems to suit any of his other characters, but this one. The newly remasted Dolby 5.1 soundtrack on the DVD release is a dramatic upgrade of the digital sound on the VHS, and quite impressive. A lot of the special effects are extrememly impressive considering the lack of digital technology. However, I urge any fans of this film to go out and research more about this kind of unusual science. The links between mental regressions and the rejection of classical religious icons is a facinating subject.
Mission: Impossible
(1966–1973)
One of the best US TV series' ever.
9 June 2000
I have fond memories as a child of desperately awaited another re-run on Mission: Impossible to fill my Summer days. While a few episodes were little on the long-winded side, most of them were cleverly constructed mysteries. The actors always had to come up with new accents, characters, and mannerisms for each of their undercover roles, which added immense variety to the show. If the US can lay claim to something "James Bondian" it is indeed M:I. Lots of creative ideas and technique found their way into this show and I hope the entire series sees DVD release. However, I'm not some fanboy who can't stand change. I personally felt the movie was nowhere near as bad as the majority of reviews did. The plot kinda mirrored the complexity of the TV show, although making Jim Phelps a villain was a strange twist. Regardless, the TV series was a magnificent combination of good writing and excellent actors. You'll never see anything like this again witht he current state of network TV "pretty boy" pap. The attempt at ressurecting the series in the 80's was a bad idea, though. The new cast and "MacGuyver" style plots showed how the concept just didn't hold up to writers trying to spin it into modern times to furiously.
Gone in 60 Seconds
(2000)
Bruckheimer & crew blow things up...yawn
7 June 2000
Gone in 60 seconds (which I caught at one of those free advance screenings) is one of those movies where a big budget company grabs some obscure low-budget gem with cult fans and gives it this glossy sheen as if they're redeeming it. The original "Gone" was a low budget film in which a bunch of people who really liked car chases decided to make a whole film based around them. It was fun, and showed that the people earnestly were so into this stunt racing they wanted to do something interesting on film with it. It wasn't supposed to be a masterpiece, and it did it's job quite well. Ahhh..the wand of Hollywood has now graced us with this remake that is supposed to be "better" and more exciting because it's got all this nifty money behind it. And let's not forget star power. Unfortunately, this new version is so horribly shallow that audience members really ought to seriously THINK about stupid these filmmakers WANT you to be. Yes, the new stunt work is impressive, but it's all pap. These filmmakers want you to forget that someone in the 70's used blood, sweat and tears to get a movie made, and instead pay attention to their rock-video generation garbage. Gee..I can't wait until Hollywood next decides to "legitimize" yet another cult-fandom movie. Lets see a remake of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" with kooky Will Smith and *insert generic Tiger Beat star*!! Or how about a new, action-sequence laden remake of Rocky Horror that's turned into a "hip hoppin' comedy!" so it can now be "understood" by the masses with easy to remember, HIT soundtrack!
The Saint
(1997)
An odd choice of concept..
4 June 2000
While many people have bashed The Saint ridiculously (I'm tired of hearing the "worst movie" epithet applied to anything someone happens to not like), once one actually understands it's origins it's not too bad. Philip Noyce basically wanted to make a prequel to the Saint books since the the original novels never gave Simon Templar an origin. So, it was concieved that he'd be a sort of flawed hero who would be encouraged into being more like the Saint we know by his encounter with his romantic interest. Making Val Kilmer don weird disguises was an unusal way of abusing the Saint name, though. Nothing in the film really feels much like it belongs as part of the myth of the Saint. It's not abad film, it's actually a very well crafted thriller with some style. it just doesn't have a whole lot to do with the Saint books or TV show since they were trying to create an origin story. I admire the effort, but overall it doesn't fit with the tone of what The Saint is all about. Ignore the naysayers, however, who can't seem to distinguish personal rants from properly balanced criticism. See it for yourself and see if it's to your taste.
Lorca and the Outlaws
(1984)
An interesting low-budget sci-fi flick if you put some of the bad points behind you.
8 May 2000
When I first saw Starship, I was actually pretty impressed. Sure it's kinda dim and has badly cliche'd characters, but I thought the direction and general style of the film lended itself well to the subject matter. It's fun in a cheezy sort of way, and even vaguely artistic to a certain extent. Where things really go wrong is the inclusion of Deep Roy as "Digit"...the robot companion. Oddly enough, most version of this film have mysteriously dubbed over Digits name and changed it to "Grid." Considering it's low budget, Starship comes off as a more entertaining sci-fi style film than alot of higher budget, straight-to-video drek. Just don't take it too seriously.
Inferno
(1980)
Brilliance of a strange sort...
8 May 2000
For some, Inferno results in a head scratching moment where they grasp neither the plot, nor the point. This is especially true of people who have never seen a Dario Argento movie before. In essence, though, the lack of cohesion in Inferno seems to be its biggest draw to me. At it's simplest, the film could best be described as the story of very strange building and the unusual events inside and around it. Of course, technically it's a continuation of Argento's "Three Mothers" concept begun in Suspiria. Regardless of all these factors, though, Inferno is a tour de force of haunting imagery and classic scenes. I hadn't seen the film in years when I finally got my hands on the new DVD edition, and was simply in awe of the film all over again. It's dreamlike quality and fantastic visuals are simply a joy to behold. Despite it's confusing and hole-filled plot, most people won't care..but rather be enthralled by the fantasy nature of the film. I first saw the film with I was about 15...and characters like Kazanian and Varelli just stick in your mind after a few viewings. The whole movie forms it's own mythos and world of a sort. It's a beautiful experient in sheer unusual filmmaking, and a horror film really unlike much else. Those criticising the special effects pretty much miss out on the subtle touches, not to mention the effects were actually pretty high-tech for late 70's Italian cinema. Of all of Dario Argento's great films, Inferno feels like his purest....not worrying about plot too much, but rather focusing on twisted visions of a horrific building.
Tell Your Friends