Reviews

This one is truly original. A Cult film for the Geriatric crowd. It is good to see that I am not the only one who was impressed with this obscure film from when HBO was in its infancy (channel 6 anyone?) There are some very good actors associated with this project for anyone who was conscious in the 60's and 70's. From Ruth McDevitt to Ian Wolfe you have seen them before in many supporting roles, here you get to see them lead. The film almost has a strange aura similar to The Sentinel (1977) although without the supernatural aspects. Here we have a social satire which focuses on the geriatric crowd affirming their rights in the face of oppression. Coming out of the era of civil rights don't think this subject matter wasn't a projection of society in which many sub-cultures where finding ways to be empowered. This film takes that premise and twists it into some very humorous and macabre situations. The cement pouring scene is a memorable one which stands alongside any early giallo for inventiveness. Dated but still worth it if you can find it if cult is your thing.

It is always interesting to read the reviews of others in assessing a film that touches on traditional mythos in society. There is no shortage of reviewers from the UK who feel as if their legend has been tainted. Notably this film succeeds by attempting to integrate an actual historical investigation into the origins of the Arthur legend. As the basis for the film this works and adds a fresh perspective to the well known story. However, where the film begins to fade is the interjection of all of Arthur's mythological characters and props. Merlin is now the leader of the native tribes, Guinevere a pagan warrior, etc. The scene which has Arthur recollecting about his mother and Excalibur is especially contrived. Its not that these artistic liscenses have destroyed the fabric of the film, it is simply that in attempting to de-mystify the legend all they have done is reformulate the old myth in a different era...rather unoriginal but understandable. The film's major failing is in the direction which attempts to create the sense that this new legend must be supported by Hollywood superhero tactics which are so wholly laughable as to detract from the whole film. One expressly humorous scene shows a Knight with an arrow piercing his chest throw a sword twenty odd feet perfectly into his nemesis before he expires. Schwarzeneger would be proud. The funny thing here is that most of these annoyances could be edited out to save this film's credibility if anyone cared. Finally with all of these shortcomings the film is still actually enjoyable. The knights are all cast well and likable as men driven by their sense of freedom during Roman reign. Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone all deserve mention. Here I believe the all-Euro casting succeeds at least in the US where fresher faces add a nuance to new mythos.

This is an innovative, historical, and very well acted account of the US Government's attempt to put a generation of anti-war protestors on trial. From a political standpoint this film succeeds in outlining the key issues protestors had against the Vietnam War. From a legal standpoint this film succeeds in defining what may have been the most unorthodox and legally flawed trial ever to take place in America. On the artistic side, this film combines fantastic actors who embody the spirit of the true life defendants as well as offering intertwined detailed accounts from the participants themselves.

In respect to the reviewer who stated this wasn't what he remembered, I can only say that media accounts usually do not cover events accurately and that this whole docudrama is taken from the actual court transcripts. As someone who has taught and studied this trial and accounts, I assure you will not find better.

For an understanding of what divided and still splinters our country, this truly is required viewing.

Seriously, how many Indonesian horror films have you come across? This one is the only one I know of and that makes it an interesting watch right off. There is some real creativity here with the flying head and transformation scenes as the story follows a Serpent and the Rainbow kind of plotline. The acting is not bad but the dialogue is hokey (my version was dubbed) but the real success is the soundtrack which varies from spooky to psychedelic rock and the witches cackle which was perfect except overdone. Havent heard a cackle like that since Margaret Hamilton. The films editing is a bit choppy as it combines elements of early 80's f/x ("Tron" style) with Asian martial arts. Overall worth the watch, but not the Indonesian Psycho...but how would I know.

It does amaze me at times to see what are considered camp classics and then see how so many people can miss an obvious one. This is one film that truly has it all...drunken midgets, nazi spies, princess leia, and a host of off-colour jokes sure to offend ALL. Seriously, if your a member of the PC thought police this film will give you reason to write your congressman (or is it congressperson?) but if you are intelligent enough to realize that when everyone is being poked fun at no one is stigmatized then you might just enjoy this comedic spoof which is as frantic and disjointed as the plot.

One last point regarding the "munchkins": although it might be easy to see this film as taking liberty with the rumors (and some were true) that the midgets who acted in the Wizard of Oz were wild drinking partiers, it should be noted that this notion goes just as far to show how normal this population is; just as interested in getting drunk, laid, and having a good time as the rest of society. A very human face which has not always been offered to actors who are seen primarily in fantasy films (Oz, Willy Wonka, Time Bandits, and even Tiny Town). I do know that the actors on this film were paid better than those on Oz and certainly had no problem with the script in giving their enjoyable performances.

A fun ride

It is interesting in reading the reviews here how some people rate a film. Some disapprove of the cruelty shown here (which is mostly psychological as compared with the usual dose of Hollywood guns and bombs) and others are uncomfortable with the subject matter either being "unnecessary" or somehow irrelevant. I must admit the only drawback in this film for me was the postscript in suggesting that the characters were specifically real when they were not. However, the only true mark of a film is how well was the story told, acted, presented. Mullan excels in presenting a dark, claustrophobic film that originates with a beautifully shot intro that speaks volumes about social tradition and religion. The acting is top notch and as one reviewer so perfectly noted (I said the same thing before reading it so I don't feel bad about reiterating) Geraldine McEwan gives the best villainess performance since Nurse Ratchett. Some wonderfully shot scenes which will evoke Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc only from a different perspective. It is unfair to put down a film based on notions that either the material is too cruel or that the material isn't new or an "expose". The story may not be on the same level with Whale Rider or Dirty Pretty Things but the film succeeds as one the more memorable of the year. 8/10.

This is the film that started it all (in more ways than one). This was the play and subsequent film which gave rise to the career of James Whale - acclaimed director of such hits as Waterloo Bridge, Showboat, The Man in the Iron Mask, as well as being the father of horror with Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, and The Bride of Frankenstein. Without his directing this play, whose meteoric rise in England paved his way to Hollywood, we might never have been given the same treatment of Shelley's opus and the key to modern horror films.

The film itself is also a first in that it was the first major film to deal with World War I in such a way that brought it's own brand of horror to the masses. As with other filmmakers whose actual wartime experiences have brought us closer to the realities of war (Oliver Stone, Samuel Fuller, to name a couple) the material was emotional and close to Whale.

Although the first film of this type and a box office hit, Journey's End would yield to All Quiet On the Western Front as the definitive WWI film. Truthfully, All Quiet... is a much better film, however, they are two distinct films dealing with the "reality" of war from wholly different perspectives. All Quiet... gives stirring battle sequences which still stand up but also attempts to represent the common soldier's experience. Journey's End, a play written by RC Sheriff tells the story from the perspective of English officers, of which Sheriff and Whale had both been apart. In this regard, the material can be appear dated and seem more melodramatic than intended.

The film suffers more from the simplistic camera settings than from its significance as an early talkie. Whale's direction is handled perfunctorily as if recreating the stage play. There are a few scenes which go beyond this limitation but they are few in 120 minutes of film. The true success is the first film performance of Colin Clive who handled the material for Whale on stage as Captain Stanhope (after Laurence Olivier left the play after its initial run). Clive is cast perfectly as the tormented Captain (a mood he would later immortalize in Frankenstein). Ian McLaren also deserves recognition as the intelligently human face of Lt. Osbourne.

There are many reasons to seek out this rare historical film. From its place in cinematic lore and significance in the War genre to the fine performances. Either way, its a treat.

Make no mistake this is a good horror film. It has some nice chills, good amount of gore and some disturbing moments that will be with you after the film has ended. But Azzopardi has attempted not just the usual horror flick here; he has fashioned an allegorical gem based on the debate over violence in the media using a horror writer and his family as the focus. Azzopardi has also crafted a post modern film which is self-commenting, non-linear, and offers no definitive resolution for all of his characters which can tend to instill an unsatisfying or muddled ending. However, this film should be viewed as ahead of its time in its treatment of the subject matter and original way of presenting it. The style of the film owes much more to the Italian horror masters (Argento, Fulci, etc.) than it does to North American cinema as Azzopardi, made his mark in Canadian cinema. It should also be noted that while the film is allegory, it was apparent to me that Stephen King was the basis for the main character (even his name is Stephen) and pre-dates any self-referential treatment (The Dark Half) from King by almost a decade. In this regard, the film remains highly original in theme and still well worth watching. Bottom Line: good horror film that will evoke Italian cinema but you must be willing to put the pieces together on your own...a thinking person's horror film.

When you read that this a low-budget film this is an understatement. This film had to be made for under $2,000 in 1962 and that says something. About all they paid for was a truck rental, chickens, and the actors. The acting does have a few good performances (Michael Greene's first film - he went onto a fairly consistent secondary career and is still acting! The highlight is Thayer Roberts as Uncle Jacob) but the majority are first time actors and at times it hurts to watch.

All these things don't doom the 72 minute film though. An inconsistent story and logic, bad direction and editing, and ultimately unsatisfying character resolvment all work to make this rather dissapointing. The film should be commended for its attempt to highlight human reaction to nuclear annhilation during the early 60's. The film is a testament to this era as well as broaching some important questions concerning survival. However, where the film fails is that it can never muster any interesting direction for these questions and its characters.

Bottom line: this is a rarity that has some merit for such low budget fodder, just not enought to make a very worthy watch. The film also has a chicken throwing scene which may have been slightly inhumane for those PETA activists out there. 5/10

First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout.

The f/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations.

The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that.

Having just finished reading the book I was curious to see the adaptation of what I felt was one of the best sci-fi novels I have ever read. What was presented was everything that is wrong about adaptations in film.

WHY do you make this film? The creativity of the story.

WHY would you bastardize the original concept beyond recognition? Arrogant screenwriters who wish to simplify the material to the lowest common denominator? And this should fall at the feet of Alan Sharp. I would love for this man to answer why he was allowed to alter this story so unrecognizable as to be so utterly juvenile and generic.

From the expanded insignificant characters to the alteration of the basic premise of LeGuin's novel this film is a failure on every level and wholly unwatchable if you have read the book. If not, you may try to follow the convoluted soap opera affair awhile. Either way it plays out with all the flair of an outer limits.

what do you get when you put Basil Rathbone, Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, Akim Tamiroff, and Lon Chaney Jr. all in the same picture? A surprising dud of a film that has few bright spots. The usual mad scientist plot is not what kills this picture yet it is the lifeless performances of the stellar cast that give it a feel that they have all become caricatures of themselves. All except Tamiroff who undoubtedly is the only one to offer a spirited role. Bela maybe more than his work with Wood physically shows his deteriorating addiction.

I found this film out due to the incredible cast. In the end, the product falls quite short of its parts. However, most of those parts had little to give at this point in their careers. You're not missing anything here.

I believe the reason after so many votes that no one has decided to offer a review of this film is because it appears so hard to define it as a film. This is much more a tedious, detailed account of Napoleon's victory at the battle of Austerlitz. The film focuses so much on the strategic underpinnings of the battle that is almost seems more like watching a risk or stratego game than a film. From the political maneuvering of how the French and Russian forces came to the battle to the strategic genius that was Napoleon this film does not offer much in the way of character development, acting, or even special effects. What the film does offer is a historical recount of how battles were fought in the early 19th century. The only interesting cinematic points of interest is to look for a young Jack Palance as a Russian General and a scene stealing Orson Welles as an American inventor. Also this was one of the last films directed by the French "DW Griffith" - Abel Gance.

J' Accuse! is one of those imperfect films that have so many captivating and remarkable scenes as to burn them into memory forever. From the first 45 minutes concentrating on the battleground of the first World War that rivals All Quiet On The Western Front to the final half hour of surrealist horror/fantasy that evokes the groundwork for such films as Night of the Living Dead there is much to love about this work.

The editing and use of actual stock war footage actually brings the viewer a historical grounding for the social and moral stance the film takes. The special effects are in grand display for a film of the 1930s and eerily successful during the climax which is one of the truly great accomplishments in cinematic history.

The only drawbacks for the film is depending on your version/copy you may have re-edited scenes which create an odd linear flow to the film and which are also quite obviously placed. Also, the middle of the film does get bogged down in a romantic sub plot that does not seriously work and all too often finds the actors suffering from melodrama.

However, the historical significance of this film's anti-war message should not be detracted from the horrific circumstances surrounding WW II. The film's message actually centers on the scientific advances of the well played lead, Victor Francen, who allows his country (in this case France) the perception of a military advantage to consider war as beneficial. You can easily see this film speaking to the scientific community in any country of the time - especially Germany. Politics aside, the message is clear and as haunting as any you may find in the annals of cinema.

Most effective documentaries allow the viewer to see beyond the headlines and sensationalized issues of the era they are covering. This film is no different. If you have questions about the history of the Black Panther Party and what this movement meant to the struggle for equality of African Americans then this film is a must see.

Director Lee allows for the viewer to become familiar with the main goals and accomplishments of the party, political landscape, and leading figures of the era thru personalized interviews with surviving members and powerful archived footage.

The importance of community-centered programs such as literacy, education, soup kitchens, and self-defense classes lay the groundwork for the coming grass-roots movements of Native Americans among others.

Lee also presents a stinging account of the reasons for the decline and fall of the citizen based movement. Questions surrounding the FBI's use of informants, infiltrators, illegal wire taps, unfounded criminal charges, and assassinations are confronted with disturbing conclusions.

As the notorious public image of militant blacks becomes etched as reality defining the Black Panther Party, it is important to have some record from the perspective of those who won't write history and sacrificed their lives for an ideal of equality and justice. This film serves that purpose. Recommended.

Actually, I rather liked the original title of "California Curse" for this film as it delivers a much more symbolic weight to the morality of the story. This little gem is certainly not a true story. In fact, it comes from the whispers of movie legend originally told to Bogdonovich by Orson Welles. However, some of the reviews here (which sound as if there are still paid Hearst employees around) are missing the point that this is based on a play by Steven Peros. Criticism based on the legend aspect of the film is like knocking Amadeus because it is historically inaccurate. The main reality we should be concerned with here is does this film tell a fine tail weaved around splendid acting and highly competent directing?

Hell Yes! Besides anyone doubting the "realities" of the behavior of powerful men such as W.R. Hearst to control others lives thru intimidation or even murder are living in a box. In fact, the film here does'nt go far enough. Bogdonovich actually spends effort to humanize Hearst and Davies. In this respect, the casting may be the biggest triumph. Dunst continues to impress in her range and may have succeeded the best at fleshing out Davies. However, is there any limit to the style and character that Eddie Izzard brings to any role? He is brilliant. Not as Chaplin the screen star but as Chaplin the man; faults and all. It can't be stated enough the support that is lent by Joannna Lumley, Cary Elwes, Jennifer Tilly et al. They make this an ensemble parade that is dripping with mood and style.

This film with all its legend, mythos, and reality weaved together to make a beautiful picture works on many levels not the least is murder mystery if you aren't familiar with the story going in. In the historic movie feud between Welles and Hearst, I'm sure Orson is chuckling at a fine piece of cinema spouting one more shot at the rich and powerful by his friend Bogdonovich. Bravo Peter.

If you are a fan of German Expressionism, then you will enjoy this modern homage to a beautiful and arresting style perceived and captured wonderfully by Guy Maddin. There is a ton of symbolism and exploration of the sexual taboos found in both the Oedipus and Cassandra complexes of Greek mythology while allowing for quite humorous character developments which certainly make the film that much more enjoyable than just an "art" film. Maddin's use of light and especially color adds to the classic expressionist model which gets a gorgeous injection of modern fare. While I can enjoy the notion of one reviewer calling this a cross between "The Wizard of Oz and Eraserhead", I definately saw this as a much more direct colorful homage to "Caligari" than anything Lynch-esque. There is not the mind-numbing mixture of light and sound which generates its own tension but rather a playful use of sets and characters which surmount to quite a comical time. That is not to say there is not a scene or two that would make a horror fan happy but they are very straight forward and even amusing.

If you noticed that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were listed as Executive Producers for this film you may wonder how much that would translate into this being a snide comedy. Well, You would be right about the comedy at least but this film extends so far to the human capabilities in us all that South Park is not even on the map. Arthur Bradford has accomplished an amazing feat just by allowing his camera to catch the human interactions of his friends who star in this film as "man on the street" reporters. The success and joy of this road trip across the US comes directly from the actors/stars who along their way meet and interact with people from all walks of life. This uniqueness and honesty is all caught perfectly on camera as the ability of each reporter is highlighted and becomes as much an accomplishment as the trip itself. I had the privilege of meeting many members of the film including Arthur Bradford and Susan Harrington during its showing at the Woodstock Film Festival. After meeting them it was apparent that the energy, honesty, and humor that culminates this film was natural and in abundance.

So if you want to take a road trip with some unique, interesting, and genuinely funny individuals then find this film!

Bravo!

B-film? Yes.

Cheesy style homage to yesteryear horror films? well, sort of.

At times intriguing and other times laughable but the most haunting thing about it was I felt as if I had seen it all before...and I had. Slightly updated effects (which certainly didnt enhance the film) and a couple slightly re-arranged plot lines but this was definately a thinly-masked remake of the 1981 The Evil starring Richard Crenna. For those who enjoyed this film find a copy of the original and compare. For those thinking of watching The Doorway, find the Evil and enjoy a slightly more interesting (and original) b-horror film.

Steve Railsback's performance is certainly the reason this film is watchable. The actual story of Ed Gein has only been told twice in cinema. This film and the much superior Deranged (1974). Obviously there has been a host of films influenced by the activities of the original US serial killer. Much like Robert Blossom who played Ezra Cobb (Gein) in Deranged, Railsback gives a strong performance that exudes the somber, repressed, and subtle personality of a human being gone wrong. The film attempts to present the material in a fact-based tone but the obvious license taken with many of the features of Gein's personal life which can only be guessed at fall horribly short of either intriguing or unique. Instead it does comes across at times as a cross between A&E and Tales from the Crypt. Go find Deranged if your interested in Ed Gein not only as a historical figure but because you enjoy horror films.

In view of the hoopla surrounding the Blair Witch Project this film can easily be seen as a rip-off. But a closer look and one can see that it is actually an improvement. Although the Blair Witch was based on a great idea (and much promotion) the actual filming and visuals never come close to fulfilling expectations. Hence, the St. Francisville Experiment is able to pick up the slack here and improve on the film technique of placing you at the scene but never allowing you to see anything. Conversley, although the effects remain simple you get to be IN on some of the scary moments instead of wondering what just happened? It maintains the sense of mockumentary without the fullblown misrepresentation of Witch. Another marked improvement is that the ghost story is based on actual New Orleans myth while using actual paranormal reserachers from New Orleans such as Katherine Smith to weave a sense of reality into the story. The over the top ending deters from the successes of the film but doesnt ruin its effectiveness as a solid ghost story.

A film adaption of David Rabe's play is crafted expertly through the strength of acting, dialogue, and meaning. At first glance, films that derive their anime from dialogue adapted from a play may not capture everyone's imagination but if the acting and plot are strong, wonderful moments in film can be achieved such as Hurlyburly. Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn excel on their part to bring to life the brutal contradiction of what it means to be a human being in a post-modern world. Spacey is perfect in his portrayal of the cold, dead-pan, sarcastic and well-adjusted character in response to Penn's dysfunctional emotive and caring personality. In what must be considered a dark outlook on the changing face of humanity in the world today, the play works beautifully on many different levels introducing colorful characters to drive the plot home. If acting and thinking are your taste, then you will enjoy this film. A successful transformation of play into film not seen since Glengarry Glen Ross.

after seeing the film and attempting to decipher the media hype surrounding it I have come to the conclusion that this film was nothing more than a staged advertising scheme designed to show that with enough media attention any piece of garbage on film could be sold to the public. They have succeeded.