Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Blair Witch Fake - Dishonest to the point of Criminality
29 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The reason for the abysmal review is the fact that the film is sold as being "reality" based. When i say reality based i mean based on actual events, even events that could be construed as debatable. This is simply not the case here. This is an entirely fictional film for which Universal pictures has paid a settlement for having placed fake news stories in order to sell this film. This is a new low in film marketing. I know the excuse will be that films are in and of themselves a suspension of belief but do we need to be lied to now in order to achieve this? I submit NO! If i were to simply review this film knowing in advance that it was pure fiction i would have watched an entirely different film. A film that was slow to develop and only contained a few moments of actual horror. There were a few fearful moments, a feat easily achieved, but largely this was due to the illusion of reality perpetrated by the introduction of the film by Mila (Lead Female role) as being based on actual events. Sadly this seems to be a trend in the horror genre that i fear may continue simply because of the gap between when the general public can unearth the truth about such films and the money generated in the meantime. Suffice to say anyone reading this review before having seen this film will undoubtedly have a quite different reaction to those yet unaware of the films true fictional nature. I might also add that i am a fan of this genre. I enjoyed the movie Communion with Chris Walken purely for the subject matter despite its flaws as a film. Perhaps those who see this film knowing in advance that it is a marketing ploy will find greater enjoyment. I myself was not amused with the deception. Don't take me for a fool, i don't take at face value and abduction story as pure truth but some basis in reality might have been more acceptable to pure lies. There are of course countless encounters of the fourth kind retold by real people to be debated and discussed. The only thing i feel like discussing about this film is how many people will see it before they know the ridiculous deception perpetrated by Universal pictures.
68 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Up! (1976)
7/10
Another Fun Campy Absurd Tale from Cult Master Russ Meyer
14 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I should preface this review by pointing out that Russ Meyer films are loved by many and berated by an equal amount. The themes of violence, sexual exploitation and taboo content either delight some, or greatly offend others.I encourage you to develop your own take on Russ's unusual films.

The film opens with an S&M session involving Paul, the Nazi Adolf Schwartz (who bears a striking resemblance to another famous Adolf) and several concubines. Paul is whipping Adolph as he ravishes the women. Adolph then pays Paul a "bonus" for Paul pleasuring him in two unmentionable varieties.(shown discretely) Cut to the murder of Nazi AdolfSchwartz at his home by placing a ravenous piranha fish in his bubble bath. The identity of the black glove wearing murderer is a mystery.

The story then veers course to show super sexy Margot Winchester hitchhiking into town. A police patrolman attempts to give Margo a lift which she refuses. However she is picked up by a man a few moments later, who then drives her to a wooded location, and struggle ensues as he tries to rape her. He beats her violently unconscious at the edge of a lake and then rapes her. When Margo comes to and discovers him still on top of her she goes berserk and flings him tumbling over backwards breaking his back and killing him. The police officer sees the incident and then bribes Margo. In exchange for a different story about the rapists "accidental" death Margo agrees to "please" the cop. Margo then gets a job where Paul works at Alice's restaurant. Alice the owner and wife of Paul, knows a good thing when she sees one and realizes that Margo's beauty will attract customers. Sure enough it does and things get busy very fast. Things go so well in fact that Alice opens a second café and opening night is especially crowded.

A large yellow haired lumberjack named Rafe goes on a drinking binge and becomes more and more unhinged. Margot gives the patrons a burlesque show and it sets Rafe over the edge. Like a caveman he throws Margo onto a table and proceeds to rape her. Paul tries to stop him but he is knocked unconscious. Alice races to a nearby phone to call the law. Meanwhile while Margo is being raped the other male patrons hold her down and even cheer Rafe on. The other bar patrons hear the cop arriving and flee leaving only Alice, Rafe and Margo inside. As Rafe continues to rape Margo, Alice jumps on his back attempting to end his barbaric assault. Rafe throws her down on top of Margo and starts to rape her as well. The cop arrives and after several painful attempts to stop Rafe he picks up an hatchet mounted on the bar wall and chops into Rafe's back. Rafe stands upright screaming in agony. The patrolman attempts to comfort the girls thinking Rafe has been stopped. But instead Rafe pulls the hatchet from his back and chops the patrolman with it into his chest. He picks up the girls, one under each arm and carries them screaming into the woods. He reminds me of King Kong here. Somehow the cop manages to pull out the hatchet and get to his feet. He sees a chainsaw on he bar wall near where the hatchet once was once mounted. He follows the screaming into the woods. When Rafe flings the two women to the ground the cops lunges and drives the whirling chainsaw into Rafe's abdomen. In a torrent of splashing gory blood Rafe is torn to shreds with the chainsaw.

The movie then cuts to Margo making a phone call at a phone booth near the woods. She drives to a cabin all the while being followed by a mysterious stranger in a car. She enters a cabin and starts to take a shower. The mysterious figure approaches and attempts to kill Margo with a knife ala Hitchcock's Psycho. Margo manages to flee into the woods. When she turns to confront her attacker we see to our surprise that it is sweet little Alice. In a sequence where Alice chases Margo with a knife it is revealed that Margo killed Adolph out of jealousy for his sexual dealings with Paul. It is also revealed that Adolph is Alice's true father and that they had an incestuous relationship. Just when it seems as if Alice is ready to kill Margo things shift gears and it seems they will make love instead. Alice walks Margo over to an abandoned spring mattress in the woods and they are about to start fooling around when surprise! Paul appears wielding a gun and wounds his wife Alice with a single shot. Paul confesses his love for Adolph and the Nazi philosophy. He resents his wife Alice for killing Adolf. Margo times a defensive attack and knocks the gun from Paul's hand.

In a strange twist the film cuts to epilogue #1 where we see Margo inside the police commissioner's office. She's a cop! And she is commended for her great service. And if all this gets too confusing, Russ Meyer helpfully arranges for a one- woman nude Greek chorus (Kitten Natividad) to pop up at intervals to explain what's going on, even if she fails to entirely do so. This is one of RM's more surreal films and often the plot at the end gets very messy and not all the loose ends are tied up. Also reoccurring in this title is RM's obsession with Nazi's which he has stated he developed during his time in the service during WW2. This film contains more nudity and sexual situations than some of his other endeavors. Its typical delightful Russ Meyers campy world of sex, violence, suspense and hot girls with ridiculously huge knockers. Once again its fun to watch even if its crude, convoluted at times, and downright taboo at others.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A striking portrait of the ties that Bind us together.
2 July 2007
The irony of this wonderful film is that the filmmaker herself (Denae Elon) seems to be struggling with what exactly she wants her film to be about. Is it about the politics of the Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Is it a simple reunion of long deposed extended family? In fact it seems to be about her need to correlate the two and make sense of it as one.

The background of the story that unfolds is her relationship to a Palestinian man who essentially raised her as caretaker in Israel during her youth spanning 20 or so years. She has not seen or spoken to Mahmoud "Musa" Obeidallah since the time she moved to America. Her reunion with this lovely man, his family and sons, together with her family is poignant and sometimes heart wrenching. The politics of these two groups of people is seemingly as old as history itself but what this story demonstrates to us is that familiarity and intimacy breeds compassion and trust, more than allegiance to country or even land it rests upon.

I usually like to discuss a film in the past tense, containing spoilers and the like. To discuss a film without these details has often felt more like a bumper sticker to me than an actual review. However in this case the details are so very intimate and complex that I feel it a greater service to simply mention the film in an overall context.

One of the many elements of the film that is touched upon is the notion of "home" and what that means. What we find is that home is not really a structure or a plot of earth but a collection of memories that we carry with us. It is this relation of the human experience and this collection of those emotions that we attribute to a place that we then call home. The two often become indistinguishable. At one point in the film Danae discusses with Musa her confusion over a memory she has of Musa ironing her Israeli military uniform (service is mandatory for Israelis) She struggles with why or how Musa could have preformed this simple service given the Israeli Struggle with Palestine. His answer is more philosophical and brilliant than she knows. The answer he supplies (with a twinkle in his eye) is "Because I was working for YOU...not the military." In short she was a daughter to him no matter what she wore for clothing. This is the crux of the film and why I recommend it so very highly. For it is these ties that bind us together that will eventually conquer all that exists to tear us apart. There will surely be those who review this film purely in a political sense, judging favoritism to one side or the other. They miss the point entirely. This film isn't about who is wrong but more accurately about WHAT is right, be it Israeli or Palestinian. On that point there is no struggle or argument, there is merely a story of a woman being reunited with a surrogate father. And it is a pleasure to watch.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
28 flunks later
4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Does anyone remember the old TV series "Threes Company" with John Ritter? Each episode was essentially built upon a series of misunderstandings that were eventually resolved in thirty minutes. This film has a similar structure, except we are watching the containment of a lethal virus which threatens all of mankind. In one sequence after another the actions of the actors is unbelievably foolish. First the viewer is supposed to believe that anyone would want to return to London after such horrendous events occurred. Then, how may I ask, do two children sneak out of the safe "green zone" they are protected in, and travel miles out into the forbidden and potentially infected zone? This isn't equal to sneaking in or out of the theater you visited to see this film, it's on par with sneaking out of Gitmo (or at least it should be). OK so fine, the viewer might let this slide even though the whole time they watch this portion of the film you are filled with disgust because of the stupidity of the characters actions, as well as the improbability that such an escape could occur. Moving on to only minutes later in the film, the two children discover there mother, whom they assumed was dead, looking very infected in their former home. She is brought back to the quarantined medical facility along with the children and tests positive for the virus. Now the next frustrating and improbable leap. The children's father "visits" the restrained mother inside the "secure" medical facility, swiping a security card through door after door until he is able to speak with her, without anyone in the facility knowing or being alerted to his presence. We are asked to believe that the same card he used to get in and out of his living quarters can somehow grant him access to the most sensitive areas of the medical facility. Also we are expected to believe that there is NO security guarding this woman even though she has been confirmed to carry the virus. We all know what happens next as the father becomes infected and the new outbreak spreads. Onto the next unthinkable wrinkle in the plot. As the infected and uninfected alike run screaming from the facility out into the street the armed forces are asked to target and shoot ONLY the infected. The snipers are supposed to make instantaneous distinctions between those who are healthy and those infected in a fraction of a second? The truth is that everyone running from that facility would be cut down like weeds to prevent ANYONE from leaving the building (which the higher command eventually decides to do much later than was reasonable to do so) It is only through blindly accepting the stupidity of the characters as well as the utter improbability that these characters can go and do as they please, to places they are not supposed to be, that any enjoyment can be achieved. Let's face it, the film may enjoyable on some level, for various reasons, but if you have a hard time with these obvious stretches of reality it becomes difficult to fully enjoy the rest of the film. I enjoyed the first film immensely, and I am well aware that stretches of reality are not uncommon in the horror genre, but this movie just goes too far. I have omitted a continual string of ridiculous plot turns and unthinkable character behavior that follows the breach of the virus because I feel it compassionate to do so. Those who give this film high marks in my opinion are purely giving credit for the minimum. Of course Horror films are not always judged the same as their dramatic counterparts, but viewers have developed a more sophisticated and discerning view of horror films. 28 Days later is responsible for helping lift the expectations of horror fans, this film lowers the bar. I am now going to wander off by myself in the dark, towards the summer camp lake, knowing there is a madman on the loose killing my friends in an attempt to forget this sad sequel. Wish me luck. It might take me 28 months and dismemberment to do so.
65 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Good Time Capsule of the Eighties Hardcore Movement but...
22 September 2006
Fans of this short window in time of musical history will surely enjoy it for its nostalgic merit alone. The footage is raw and accurately depicts the dingy and often violent world of Post "Germs, Sex Pistols" and Pre-metal years of hardcore. Many important bands of that era were not depicted in the film for various legal reasons IE: The Dead Kennedy's, and The Misfits, but the variety of bands presented is a noble effort. Surprising to me was what I considered a LACK of music in the film, as most of it came in the form of the final ten seconds of a songs performance, then cutting into the next scene. The film IS about music so it's not like there isn't any, however I would have enjoyed more extended live footage. My harshest criticism of the film is that it simply shrinks away as to the real explanation of how this movement really came to an end. While it glorifies many great bands that created some extremely potent and visceral music, it ultimately brushed aside why the hardcore scene seemed to sputter and almost vanish. The film near its summation briefly touches upon the influence of heavy metal and how some bands evolved into that new sound. They seem to suggest that the "atmosphere" had changed but in reality the bands changed. Kids showed up a year later and all their favorite bands had grown long hair and seemed to be interested little in their hardcore roots. Sad but true.. but this was a genre praised for its dedication to "Doing It Yourself" but in the end they chose to find a way to pay the bills instead. I have never faulted bands for deciding they wanted to eat more than a package of Dorrito's in the back of a tour van, and I do not view metal as a lesser form of art, but the fact remains that the bands create the music, which in turn produces an environment. I was all too happy to indulge in the personal trip down memory lane, but I would have liked a more probing response as to its demise. I have to review this film positively because I am biased as to the musical content and to the time in which it represents, but to omit that money and industry influence is what truly ruined this scene,(As in most others due to over exposure, parody and more seemingly lucrative musical paths) is a strange and unsatisfying oversight. Having just praised its unyielding, anti-conformist roots I was then expected to forget it ever happened. As I stated all in all it's an absorbing film and a greatly accurate depiction of a highly influential point in the musical landscape. It should be viewed if for no other reason than its tribute to the contribution that American Hardcore had to musical history.
29 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed