Reviews

I was expected a modern classic, but what a let down. The whole thing was a long, rather mediocre car chase. Here's a guy who supposed deliver a car (one would assume, intact) driving through the desert, off road, etc. I don't think the car was stolen (or maybe it was, whatever...), however the plot of getting to San Francisco in 15 hours on a bet with a small time speed dealer didn't make sense. The only thing that kept me awake was the naked girl on motorcycle. Even the car chase sequences were bland. If you're looking for a car chase movie from that era, try Bullit or The French Connection. Maybe I'm missing the whole 'Lone Wolf/Rebel' bit, I dunno. I realize this was a drive-in/B Movie, however Vanishing Point seemed like a pointless exercise in WTF.

Not a bad film, just not what I would call a masterpiece. It confirms, however, the fact Quentin Tarantino is a film version of a Sam Shepard/David Mamet. Wordy and bloody, the whole thing is not what I would call masterpiece. However, it's not terrible film. Each performance is rock solid; not a bad one in the bunch. The script is classic Tarantino; lots of talk and at times scenes play out like black box theater. Despite all of this, I wouldn't care to see this again and again. A nice piece of cinema, but it would almost play out better in a theater, where dialogue is much more important. But even with the dialogue, it still is just...meh.

This is another "small" film that Nick Nolte has turned into a "must-see" film. His subtle performance (especially when he's playing the burned-out hulk of a man), combined with the Kurt Vonnegut story (with more swerves than you might expect) and some great supporting performers (Sheryl Lee, Alan Arkin, John Goodman and a young Kirsten Dunst)and even its quirky use of Bing Crosby's "White Christmas", make this a film that deserves more attention than it has gotten. From the production side, it also makes excellent use of black and white for the 1960 sequence and tells the flashback in color. Even if you are not a Nick Notle fan, the story alone is worth watching, especially if you are looking for an edgy thriller.

There were a couple of hooks that got me to watch this film. First, it was a chance to see a George Romero film that wasn't a "Living Dead" film. Then there was the poster with the faceless face; it looked very stylish. And best of all, it was free on On-Demand! Well, you get what you pay for. This film has a lot of visual style, but like many of the characters, zero substance. The plot had some good basics, but was often confused and muddling. Henry wasn't much of schlub; he was too good looking, had too much material wealth and didn't seem sympathetic enough. Mr. Romero should have taken some notes from some of the classic Twilight Zone episodes (anything w/Burgess Meredith for example). The rest of the cast is only fleshed out partially. For a visual film, I didn't get enough clues to let me know who's who. The one exception is Milo, who is WAAAAY over the top.

The are some good points in the film, most notably the Misfits being in the film and the use of the mask. The latter, is what sets Romero's Living Dead series apart from the rest of the genre. He makes a statement (living dead = mindless masses)with the film; in this case the faceless people who go through life being ignored and exploited. When the film touches on that theme, it comes alive and draws you in. Unfortunately, they are too few to make this film worthwhile.

Normally, I despise remakes, but I think this film would be a good one to revisit. As it stands, I give it 4 out of 10.

I wouldn't say that this film is "Troma" bad, but it wasn't brilliant either. It was a dark, moody film that offers a bleak look at life for two punk teens in the Pacific Northwest of the US. The script combines elements of Midnight Cowboy, Sid and Nancy, Badlands and Requium for a Dream into the mix. I might even throw in Dumb and Dumber in there as well, since Spike and Sarah constantly do things that make you want to scream, "Don't do that" or "Don't go in there" often. The plot is a bit disjointed at times, which makes it a tough movie to sit through, and its grim theme makes it even harder. The music is (surpisingly) mostly non-punk, which added a slowness to the film that just didn't work for me. Emma Bing is solid in her role as Sarah; hopefully someone notice her and give her another shot. With that being said, this film is interesting , but not enough to be a "must see".

If you're looking for something a bit different in heist film, check out The Good Thief. It's a smart, sexy film that has an excellent cast and some oddball twists (transgender member of the crew, identical twins, a "fake" & "real" heist) that give this film an edgy feel.

Speaking of feel, this film has a style all its own. For lack of a better term, I call it "Euro Sleaze". It mixes the traditional high class of Monte Carlo and the South of France with some of the modern realities of Europe: young Eastern European women being sucked into the sex business, gambling, crime, and ex-pats from 3 continents. You combine this with the mash up of graffiti covered back alleys and glitzy gambling casinos and a soundtrack that mixes electronic and Leonard Cohen, you have an atmosphere that is second to none.

The acting is solid. I'm biased in that I'm a HUGE Nick Nolte fan, and he does not disappoint. Ralph Finnes is more than a cameo: he delivers a powerful performance in short time on screen. Nutsa Kukhianidze portrayal of Anne is incredible, playing the teenager-on-the-verge-of-woman role to the hilt. However, the sign of a good movie is the quality of the supporting cast and this film has as an excellent one. There are no wasted roles or performances.

My only complaint is that there just seemed like there was that little extra something that seemed to be missing. Otherwise, if you are looking for an off-beat heist film, give this one a try. You might be surprised.

An interesting short that I caught by accident on TCM. It should be noted that this is more of a piece of history than anything else. Willie and Eugene are clearly out of their element. Their performances are a bit wooden, but a couple vaudevillians would probably be that way in front of a camera and without an audience to play to. The routine is pure shtick, featuring lots of one liners and a goofy song routine that goes on a bit too long. Again, some of the bits would have played better if there had been a live audience or if I had seen this in a movie theater. Though this short doesn't do them justice, you wonder what it would have been like seeing the Howard Brothers live on a vaudeville stage.

This was a find with On-Demand. The price was right (free)and I could watch it without leaving the house, so nothing was lost except time. That being said, this is probably a film that fans of Nick Nolte, Ray Sharkey and Beat Generation culture would enjoy. Nolte is in the waning days of his "pretty boy" phase, but he gives a gritty performance. Ray Sharkey's maniacal turn as Ira makes you wonder "what-if" all the more. The Beat Generation backdrop seems a little too clean at times, but it gets a fair shot. However, Sissy Spacek is handed a character that she can't do anything with. This comes from the overly broad brush strokes that the filmmaker uses, which leaves little room for Spacek to work.

All in all, not a bad film; just not one for the ages.

I saw this in a theater when I was a kid. My father took me, my brothers and a couple of other neighborhood kids to see this. It was a great, old-fashioned western then and it still looks good today. The Duke and Mitchem make a great pair. The supporting cast, especially James Caan, Ed Asner and the great character actor Arthur Honeycutt, do a great job creating characters that are memorable. Even the bit players chip in with great performances. Wayne and Mitchem let each of the performers do their job and Howard Hawks shows that he knows how to direct a western. Even though my father has passed away, just watching this film allows me to connect with him and his favorite actor, John Wayne. And it doesn't hurt that this is a top-notch, but somewhat forgotten, classic western.

Back in the day, the Trendy McScenesters were falling all over each other in praise of this movie. However, I somehow never saw it, either on video or at the usual midnight/rep theater screening. But, thanks to On Demand, I was able to see this for free. And was I ever lucky! No, I wasn't lucky I saw a great film; I was lucky I didn't waste my precious youth, valuable chronic and the price of admission to see this POS. This movie is somewhere between a big budget Ed Wood film and a C- student film. Pointless, plot less, mindless, and most of all, just plain boring! For the life of me, I can't see what all of the fuss was about.

As bad as this was, I liked a couple of things. First, I'm a sucker for black and white cinematography and Lynch does a good job of it. At times you get the feeling of being in one of those late 50-early 60's British films with all of the grunge and dirt of urban industrialization. The other thing I liked was the special effects. Being a low-budget film, I was impressed with the mutant baby and other effects that were used.

Other than the two above mentioned item, this film sucked. I'm glad that I didn't put out any money to see this overrated, self-indulgent mess.

I can't quite figure out what makes this film so good, other than Dennis Hopper, who does bats**t crazy better than anyone ever did or ever will. Dean Stockwell is a scene stealer, Isabella Rossellini is great, but Kyle MacLachlan and Laura Dern are...well, just meh. There's a lot of typical David Lynch weird-for-the-sake-of-weird stuff, but once that gets stripped away, there's not much left. I saw that the film was originally supposed to be four hours; two hours was plenty for me.

All in all, I don't see what the fuss is about. There are better out there, however it's worth watching if nothing more that watching the late Dennis Hopper go over the top as Frank. A great example of film noir from the 80's, but not one of my favorites.

Just caught this at the Sarasota Film Festival, and all I can say is...wow! One part History Channel Documentary, one part sci-fi/horror film, all mixed with some very heavy questions such as; "Does society have the right to sterilize 'defective' people?" or "Do doctors have the right to deny medical assistance to a 'defective' new born?". It doesn't preach or titillate, it just lays out the history of a pseudo science, eugenics, that was once considered cutting edge at Ivy League colleges, supported by politicians all the way to the White House, and upheld by the Supreme Court. A thought provoking documentary film that will give you something to talk about long after the final credits roll.

I thought Harvey Keitel, a young, fresh from the Sex Pistols John Lydon, then as a bonus, the music by Ennio Morricone. I expected an old-school, edgy, Italian cop thriller that was made in America. Istead, I got a mishmash story that never made sense and a movie that left me saying: WTF!!! Too many unanswered questions, and not enough action. The result: a potential cult classic got flushed down the toilet. Keitel and Lydon work well together, so maybe Quentin Tarantino can reunite these guys with better script. Oh, and the Morricone score: OK, but not memorable.

Overall, not a waste of time, but not a "must see", unless you are a hardcore Keitel fan.

This is one-half of a television preview with a pilot for a series called "Dads" (also on IMDb). As I stated on the message board (yes, an unaired pilot that only has been seen in marketing survey groups has a message board...a busy one at that!!!)for Dads (the other half of this twin bill), this pilot is like watching a heavily edited version of a straight-to-DVD sci-fi/chick flick. The script was choppy, with a lot of "who's that" and "WTF" moments. I couldn't give a spoiler if I tried, the plot was that bad. The premise, ie. meeting your long lost love from another life in this life, had possibilities. Unfortunately, it's not something that would work on a weekly TV series. Rod Serling could have probably made an interesting Twilight Zone episode, but other than that...meh.

Otherwise, the actors worked with what they were given and did what they could with this train wreck. The premise seemed good, but other than that, avoid Soul Mates if possible.

A crapfest from start to finish. A couple of good scares, some so-so acting and little else. All of done with the latest film school craze, the jumpy hand-held video camera. I saw it at a second-run/Dollar cinema (paid $1.75) and still felt ripped off.

The sad part about this film is that if it had been made like a regular film and not some half-assed pseudo documentary, maybe you would have had an OK film. The idea of a Godzilla-type monster attack as told from the viewpoint of ordinary people, rather than from people (scientists, reporters, military, etc.) on the inside was an interesting idea. However, the shaky camera was painful to watch and took away from knowing what was going on in the movie.

As it is, this should have been a bonus disc for a Godzilla DVD. My advise would be to run away from this film like you were running from Godzilla, Mothra, or anything else like that.

I had the chance to catch this movie while I was at the World Horror Convention in San Francisco and I was pleasantly surprised. It's basically a Quentin Tarentino meets Jason from Friday the 13th film, with plot twists that keep you engaged until the end. It follows the murder spree of Spencer Starkington (Brandon Largent), a young man with an explosive temper, who kills his bride and puts the maid-of-honor into a coma on the day of his wedding. Starkington himself is also left in a coma, because he attacks the bride and maid-of-honor from the back of their speeding car. The wedding ring worn by the bride is removed at the scene by an unscrupulous police officer and is given to his fiancé. The comatose Spencer, now being cared for at home by his mother (P.J. Soles), comes back from his coma and goes out in search of the missing wedding ring, regardless of who has it and where. This leads him in and out of the lives (and hideous deaths!) of a variety of seamy individuals as the ring moves from one victim to another.

Spencer is pursued by a pair of police detectives: Detective Rikki Moore (Sascha Knopf), who's consummate anti-girly girl and Detective Cade Hamilton (Aaron MacPherson) who's delightfully smarmy and a perfect foil for Rikki. They until the end, as the movie careens like an out-of-control roller-coaster. You'll never know what the ending is until the final credits roll.

This movie is loaded with great performances, most notably P.J. Soles. Her portrayal of Spencer Starkington's mother is the creepiest movie mother I've ever seen. She is disturbing without going over the top, with a quiet air that hides a bubbling cauldron of psychotic behavior. Sascha Knopf and Aaron MacPherson, the two police officers, work together like clockwork. There performances compliment each other as if they've been together since the police academy. All of the characters are played like something out of Pulp Fiction, with lots of quirky tics and memorable personalities. It also helps that the movie has a great story and a solid script.

The only thing I would have like to have seen would have been a better handling for the movement of the ring. I was confused on why the ring turned up where it did, only to get the explanation late in the film. This made the continuity just a little clunky. I'm not sure if this is the final cut, so this is something that can be fixed with some additional editing. However, don't let this stop you from seeing the film. This movie was a total hoot, with spills and thrills for everyone!