Reviews

In the 80's, we were blessed with oppressive, right-wing, ultra violent action films. And the people cheered. Absurdly violent acts would be shown, close up. In Commando, we see a saw blade thrown into a guy's head, for example. In the 90's action movies became weak. They were pushed and prodded into PG-13 ratings. Gun use became prevailent. We would see splashes of blood and THAT WAS IT! Bad guys began dying by bullet wound, dramatic fall or explosion.

Now, to Exit Wounds. By no stretch of the imagination was this a good movie. But it took the action movie from Bad to Rad. Here we have the right-wing ultra violence that was expected from every Steven Segal movie of the 80's. The story is ludicrous. Only one twist was even remotley unsuspected and that's only because I left my brain at the door. We get a car wreck where we actually see a face go through the windshield. We get broken legs, we get people being impaled on a variety of items. We get an empty shotgun fight. A sword fight. Fist fights. A lot of gunfights, but very few gun related deaths. And I rejoiced.

Thank God, thank Buddha, thank Krishna, thank Allah, thank Jesus, thank Joel Silver. Thank you Joel Silver for delivering unto us an action movie that is truly full of physical action and gruesome death. Now give us more. Preferably without Segal, but hey. I'll take what I can get. My tape of Commando is wearing out.

I'm not quite sure what to think of this movie. It was good. But it was also bad. It was involving and slightly thrilling while being really dumb at the same time. It had it's positive moments (the phone call between Clarice and Lechter) and it's moments of sheer stupidity (I have wild boars that are trained to eat human flesh when they hear screaming!).

Scott has found himself a happy style. He never tries anything different or daring, he continues to make solid movies. Not films, but decent ways to spend a couple hours. Which is sad. His career began because he was able to take risks. Look at Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, etc. Then look at 1492, Thelma and Louise and Gladiator. No risks taken there.

In the end, most of Hannibal was just gross. Every so often we'd get to see the classic Hannibal Lechter, but the rest of the time he was almost an absurd heroic version of the psychopath we had grown to admire in Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs.

So this movie was not a waste. It wasn't incredible, but it held my attention for two hours. And the conclusion on the airplane was almost as good as the conclusion for Lambs. Yes it was chilling, but it also made me feel good, hinting that this may not be over.

Before you go and see this film you must first ask yourself a question. Are you an adult? As an adult, have you forgotten the child-like wonder that went along with fairy tales? The majesty that accompanied "Alice in Wonderland" the first time you had it read to you? Do you like the upstanding morals that our current society hides behind? Are you proud of your sensibilities? If you answered yes to any of these questions, this film is not for you.

However, if you re-read classic "children's" tales, have fantasies about other worlds, love mythologies and enjoy a good yarn, rent this and watch it with your child.

I have always (and probably always will be) a big fan of Disney movies. But nothing ever captured on film has ever filled me with such child-like wonder.

With Baron Munchausen Terry Gilliam succeeds in bringing to life the wounderous fantasy that exists only in the mind of a child. It isn't an A to B to C film, however. It is a handful of seperate stories brought to life. Each chapter works on its own, each in a different outrageous setting, each with its own outrageous characters. The film is full of flights of fancy, and they are all given a good amount of time for the audience to absorb and be enthralled by.

While science has done a great deal in helping us advance, we must always remember that none of it could have been done without someone using their imagination. No matter what anyone says, anything can be done. Anything can exist. And no one can say differently.

And you CAN get everywhere with fancy and hot air.

All in all I thought this was a decent film. Unfortunatly the film we all saw in the theatre was two hours too short. Miramax, which five years was the major promoter of indie film, has now gone corporate. They forced Billy Bob to cut over half of the film to make it "more marketable." Unfortunately this meant cutting character development and minor story elements. Everything people complained about was due to the film left on the cutting room floor.

Again, read the book. It goes on my top ten list of conteporary literature. Then give the film another chance. It will make the midde third make a whole lot more sense.

Take a look at a few comic book adaptations that have made a load of money. Superman wasn't a good movie by itself. It was a setup for the rest of the films, like the first part of a serial. We are introduced to the characters and their motives. Superman is the hero. Clark Kent is a wimp. Lois Lane is head-strong. Jimmy Olson means well but always winds up in trouble. Lex Luthor is the stereotypical villain. The film is nothing more than an intro to a serial. Mystery Men is the same way. We are introduced to all the characters as they slowly get their team together. The film is funny in parts but it is also paced very methodicaly. This film was made to have sequels. The characters don't even come together until the last section of the movie. It's really a shame that we will never see more of this. A second part would have been faster, funnier and more tightly knit. The story could start off immediately, as we have been introduced to everyone already and we know who they are and what they do. What is also a shame is that X-Men got far more recognition than this and it follows EXACTLY the same format. This however, will get a sequel while Mystery Men will always be seen as a subpar effort instead of an introduction.

The first being Hamlet in 1996. This film is not for the standard American audience. This was made abundantly clear by the incredibly tiny theatrical release. It only played in one theatre in my town and unfortunatly I missed it. If you liked the horrid mainstream rendition of Romeo and Juliet a few years ago, you will not like this. Go rent a Freddy Prinze Jr. movie. This film uses the original text and finds great actors who know how to perform it. No one is below par here. The direction, while a bit pretetious at times (whatever that really means) is awesome. The imagery is brilliant, and the story, while not rife with symbolism or hidden meaning like Shakespeare's later works, is very good. It has a solid beginning middle and end, all in all a great five act. Give this a shot. If you can understand it, you will enjoy it. Don't criticize it for setting it in another era/world/environment. That is never the issue. It is the story that is important. The problem with Baz's version of Romeo and Juliet (besides the fact that it is one of Shakespeare's worst plays) was that he cast the box office draws in it and not actors. He found people who look pretty. NOT ACTORS. Anthony Hopkins, by the by, gives one of his most powerful performances, and that is saying a lot. This film has made in into my personal top 100.

This is not the greatest film of all time. This film is a masterpiece. I admit that openly and freely. It is technically perfect, and the story clips along decently. It is incredible that Welles was able to do this when he was only 25 years old and it is incredible that this was his first attempt. But it isn't the greatest film of all time. It is impossible to truly believe that in 60 years of filmmaking nothing better has come around. I was very pleased to see that IMDB users have picked The Godfather as Number One.

What I advise all of you to do is pull your heads out of your inner reigons and watch this film without the influence of all the film goers in their berets and black turtlenecks who only venture down to the film center to see black and white foreign films. The beauty of film is the ability to create something like Kane and still be able to turn out mindless entertaiment. All you people who only watch artistic statements, independant films and anything made before 1950, you have no right to review movies. An open mind is required to honestly review movies. There is such a thing as a great action movie and a horrible art film.

But I can easily see how it's not for everybody. Unfortunately, people are afraid to write negative reviews here. Personally, I loved this movie the first time, and I still love it the tenth time. But others are right. It can be a little slow. For me, the end of a movie often makes up for any flaws or slow bits in the whole. For instance, look at the Godfather. Any slow bit in there is made up by the incredible last shot. Look at it like dinner before dessert. And the same holds true here. Most of the dialouge is quick, but there are times where you want to get back to favorite characters, not the one's you're forced to watch. But that holds true of any ensemble cast, look at Magnolia. But the conclusion of this incredible film, knowing that this is a sick game and that it will be happening again next year makes all the trouble worth it, as you learn that it was all a game, things that were said weren't really meant, so on and so forth. So I loved it, but the MTV generation might not. But hey, it's their loss.

For those of you who have read the negative remarks made about this masterpiece. Sure the special effects were bad. And the production value was low. But that's not the point. Unfortunately it has been only recently that science fiction has completely become exploitation. Look at the tripe we are served up. Star Wars I and Battlefield Earth are good examples. Zardoz is a great example of a utopian society (in fact I have just seen it in a utopia/distopia film class I am taking). The fact that it makes no sense on occasion is alright because it is mainly visual, and sense doesn't need to be made from a vision. Sure, the vision wasn't executed to the same extent as Boorman's later films, namely Excalibur, but the film's excellence comes from the plot and the ideas. Please, give it a chance. Watch it with an open mind, be ready to laugh at its absurdity but also be ready to think about the Eternals and their ideals. It's pretty cool. And yes, there is a giant stone head that vomits up guns and says "The Gun is Good, the Penis is Bad!"

What is wrong with all the people who have called this movie c**p, the worst of the decade, etc? People attack this movie for not making sense. It only makes enough sense to transport you from one scene to the next. Basically we see our lead, Nic at three stages in his life. Yeah, so the story isn't terrific. But it's the visuals that are astounding. And the Adam/Eve representation was also very well done. This is not a bad movie. You want to see a bad movie? Try Where the Heart Is or Salo's 120 days in Sodom. Or, dare I say it, Fame 2? Save your criticism for these, don't put it here.

So this movie was bad. It was stupid. The only thing it had in common with the comic book was a wisecracking duck and his love interest. But you can't help but enjoy this movie, even if the enjoyment is derived from talking back. We have Lea Thompson (plus) a walking talking duck (plus) Tim Robbins making an ass of himself and huge aliens that want to take over the world. Sure it SOUNDS stupid, and it is that, but it's a fun kind of stupid. And remember that it's not as bad as Godfather III or 120 Days in Sodom.

Disturbing? Yes. Good? No. This film is one of the worst things I have ever seen. There is no point. It is not a display of fascism. This film made me physically ill. There is a lot of violence, rape, death, and consumption of feces. DO NOT WATCH THIS!

I was weaned on Star Wars, as were many others. And, like the others, i nearly wept the first time I saw the trailer for this disaster. The excitement had built in me, and I was expecting greatness. Or at least goodness. But no. Lucas decided that he could write. If you look at Star Wars (IV) you can clearly see the writing is awful and the direction is juvenile. This is why the others were written and directed by other people. These films were better. Indiana Jones was terrific. Lucas came up with the stories for these legends and let others write and direct. He's a great idea man. But he's just no good at anything else. Episode 1 contained bad acting, horrid dialogue, an obnoxious sidekick and feces jokes. I only hope that Lucas learns his lesson for Episode II.

This movie was a major disappointment. The first film in the trilogy is by far one of the best movies ever made, and the sequel almost lived up to that title. But this third installment uses the name to ruin everything. The first hour and a half is incredibly slow. The opposing families are killed off in an unrealistic action movie fashion. Once the scene changes to Italy, the film picks up a bit, but not enough to save it entirely. Granted, the attempted assassination was intense (although stolen from the first film). The best part was the end, where Michael truly gets his.