Reviews

I thought the Incredibles was brilliant! There are few films that bring out your inner child. In fact, most irritate you! However, this film is like picking up your first superhero comic. What is truly awesome is when all the factors of a big budgeted film come together to make a truly great picture. Pixar cannot seem to make a wrong move. I have not seen any of their other pictures but they are meant to be very good. When effects, acting and story come together it is actually very impressive. George Lucas take note!

The voice acting in this film is very good. Craig T Nelson makes a very funny, kind of deadpan Mr Incredible. Also, Jason Lee was an interesting choice to be the baddie, Syndrome. Holly Hunter is also good as Elastigirl. They give the characters a lot of life, which is a good thing considering how flat comic book characters can be. But Brad Bird steals the show as Edna Mode. The superhero fashion designer.

What is refreshing about The Incredibles is that it takes a kind of Simpsonesque humour to Superhero movies. With so many 'serious' superhero movies coming out, it is a much needed change of pace. At the heart of this movie is a very well written and clever story. The Incredibles has a solid storyline, instead of being the usual one joke wonder that afflict superhero parodies.

The film cuts into the heart of suburbia and takes a look at things like boredom, mediocrity and a stifling sameness. The protests against everyone being the same. The Incredibles are superhero's! Why should they just be like everybody else? All attempts to suburbanize the Incredibles end in failure because they represent the forces of difference and uniqueness. Are not superheroes the ultimate or the most individual of individuals? The film amusingly gives us a look into the everyday lives of superhero's. Mr and Mrs Incredible get married, have kids and get a bit overweight. A very funny example of everyday superhero life is when Mr Incredible works for an insurance company. Another funny bit is when he states that he feels like the maid! Can't the world stay saved for at least 10 minutes? In these moments, that is where the inherent charm lies in the film.

There are many great moments in this film. When Frozone is trying to get his suit and his wife is yelling at him. The jokes about villains monologuing. The cape story of Isadora Duncan that not even I was aware of. The domestic over finding the way to the villain. The family squabbling. There are just heaps of funny bits and it does remind you of an episode of the Simpsons.

The animation is also really cool and everything has this awesome 60's retro look about it. In fact, I thought this was going to be another overrated, geeky animated superhero film. I have been very pleasantly surprised!

The Incredibles is a film that appeals to all ages. With themes like non-conformity, individuality and the strength of a family when it pulls together. How can you possibly go wrong? 10 out of 10. You would have to be a real spoil sport not to like this film. ALL HAIL BRAD BIRD!!! See! Superhero movies don't have to suck!

Emperor of the North is a very strange film. Strange because it covers a subculture that I certainly had no idea existed. Hoboes who ride trains and challenge each to become the king of the train routes. Lee Marvin is of course the hero, A No 1, the ultimate bum. Why the position of A No 1 is coveted for is quite obscure. However, in the harsh 1930's, I guess any title is better than none.

The film introduces the viewer to an entirely different world. A world that has come crashing down. This is shown when Marvin is sitting in a dump. Suggesting that the world has fallen apart. The dog-eat-dog nature of the 30's is also suggested by Marvins fight with three youths. Yes Marvin can fight three guys armed only with a chicken. The ultimate hard man.

Although Marvin is very good in the picture. It is actually Ernest Borgnine who steals the show. He plays the malevolent Shack with a psychopathic gleam in his eyes. In fact, in the first five minutes he has killed some poor guy who happened to stow away on his train. He also has some very creative ways of the torturing poor hoboe train riders. This is a guy who is actually disappointed when the hoboes are not burnt to death on his train! Like a demented cave troll, he lugs around a hammer living to gruesomely maim and graphically kill. Yes Borgnine makes a great villain.

Although made in 1973, the film has a kind of 60's mentality about it. Borgnine could easily be seen as representing 'the man.' He is industrial culture, cruelly riding over people and their lives. The 20's were the introduction of the Fordian industrial production line. This film kind of shows the extension of this into an alienation of people. Are not hoboes the most dehumanised people that exist in any society? A No 1 represents the human side of things. How his creative flair, innovative spirit and dogged determination have him ultimately winning against the system. In fact, Cigaret is thrown from the train for not having 'heart.' This is obviously the crucial factor of being human.

The idea of 'beating the man' is a theme further shown when A No 1 steals a chicken. The cop that chases him is driven away by a group of hoboes. What is interesting about this scene is the idea of people coming together about challenging authority. This hints at a vaguely Marxist underpinning.

The film although an interesting watch is quite slow. Plus you can only get so excited by people hiding on a train. But the real fascination here lies in the exposed subcultures. If you did not know anything about hoboes in the 1930's, you will after watching this film. This would actually be a great film for those studying sociology.

There is a kind of existential angst about the film. That is people thrown into circumstances and constrained by powerful forces outside their control. Borgnine is doing his job, Marvin is trying to survive. The two of them symbolise two great machinations that will ultimately clash. Isn't this the story of the 1930's, where human life and welfare was placed below economics?

This is a good film. In writing this review, I have actually realised there is a lot more to this film than I had originally thought.There is a very strong subtext running underneath. This is much more than just an action film with some big stars. It is a mostly well acted, interesting time capsule. If you can find it, then most definitely watch it. I'll give it a 7 out of 10.

Also kudos to Ruthless Reviews for reviewing this movie on their site. Otherwise I would never have known it existed.

Metallica is indeed one of the most successful heavy metal bands in existence. However, this documentary, Some Kind of Monster, also exposes them to be one of the most bereft. I will leave it to the readers imagination where bereft should be placed. This doco does not give a flattering portrait of the band members. Some Kind of Monster is absolutely unflinching in revealing the underlying psychological dynamics of the band. I give Metallica credit for exposing themselves on camera so brutally.

Much humour comes from the fact that as the band members characters are revealed. They often come off as a real life spinal tap. It is such, that an outsider, who had never heard of Metallica, might perceive this documentary as a mockumentary. Kirk Hammett comes off particularly as a good guy who is just not very clever. Stating that things work themselves out for the better or worse, but they work themselves out. Well duh... Also, after getting some creative lyrical input, all he can add is 'Your lifestyle determines your deathstyle.' Probably one of the dumbest lines that I have heard in a while. Even for a metal band.

The main 'issue' that this doco reveals is that Metallica needs to ride off into the sunset.The three band members are burnt-out and only really making their music for money. All of the bandmembers have moved on and grown up from the angst ridden, angry twenty-somethings that they once were. Hetfield is now trying to be more of a family man. Lars Ulrich is more into art and seems more like he wants to be a dealer rather than a drummer. Even Kirk Hammett, who is the peacemaker in the band looks like he needs to move on. All of these guys would probably be happier if they called it a day and went their separate ways. It would also be easier on their fans, who by my quick glances at amazon, are not happy with Metallica's latest release.

It is not until they hire a new bassist, Danny Trujilo, that a new life in the band seems to appear. The band complains about showing up for practice, for coming up with music. They complain about having to be in a studio. Excuse me? These guys are making millions and they are complaining about having to spend some time in the studio? Oh to be a rock star with over 500 guitars! This lack of enthusiasm only adds to my theory of burn out.

Metallica illustrate how far they are now removed from their macho roots by hiring a therapist. Former bassist, Jason Newstead puts it best by saying how lame it is that they can't sought it out themselves. However the ego's of Hetfield and Ulrich are absolutely rampant and probably need some control through negotiation. Also, their producer is to obsequious to really confront their unbridled self indulgences.

Ulrich is possibly the most irritating man in rock. He absolutely rails against napster. But he also owns an impressive art collection that is worth millions of dollars. The hypocrisy is terribly confronting. This is revealed when he sells the paintings and gets drunk as they are auctioned. Because of Ulrichs grandstanding soapbox routine about napster. The inherent decadence of this scene totally annoys the viewer.

Ulrich talks, talks, talks and then talks some more. He pontificates pointlessly on the beginning and ending of art. Managing to completely sound pretentious. His father also steps in to state that their work just isn't much cop. Absolutely infuriating him! But the thing is he never actually says anything. Vapid, manipulating and annoying. But then Hetfield is a total control freak. The struggle for control of the band is a constant issue between these two characters. The funny thing is that because they are both such control freaks, they accuse each other of having major control issues.

The therapist himself doesn't really seem to do anything except be very serene with being paid 40,000 dollars a week. It is even revealed that he intends to move from his home and set up a base with Metallica. It is plainly obvious that the therapist has observed a major cash cow just waiting to be milked. Eventually the band remove him, but without some major group therapy work first.

What is also interesting is when Dave Mustaine shows up as part of the therapy. A whiny Mustaine bleats about how he was thrown out of Metallica. This is nonsensical because although Megadeth are not as successful as Metallica, they still have sold 15 million albums. When I was a teenage their was always someone wearing a Megadeth t-shirt! What is even more nonsensical is that Mustaines assertion that they are number two. Hey! Maybe back in the eighties Dave! The therapy session between Dave and Lars is never really resolved. Dave moans about being kicked out and Lars is so egocentric, he is incapable of caring.

What is more telling about these guys is the world that they live in. For instance, they are asked to appear on M.T.V's ICON at the end of the doco. They are given a standing ovation in a small M.T.V music studio. This endless adulation that they receive obviously does these guys no good. It is just a reminder to the viewers how artificial the worlds are that celebrities live in.

Overall, this is a very good doco that cuts right to the heart of Metallica. If you are a fan you should definitely see it. If you are not, you should still see it. It is a fascinating look into the lives of Rock Stars and how they are not as bulletproof as they would like to think that they are. As a docu it is excellent and really gives you the 'real' Metallica. 9 out of 10.

I think that this quote from film maker Tarantino perfectly captures Kill Bill and its endless references to other films. The excess references artful or annoying? I still have not decided.

Some of the things that follow Tarantino films make my skin crawl. For example the rabid fans, the geeks with their black t-shirts and their obsessive record and DVD collections. The ones that refer to the director as 'QT.' Another example would be all the fashion crap that seems to travel. Vain celebrities who hope to get noticed by being at QT's premieres. I hate Hollywood! Will there now be a million duplicates of Kill Bill? I hope not.

I have extremely mixed feelings about Tarantino and his films. His movies are ultra-violent with little redeeming value. 'Kill Bill' shows Tarantino to be a kind of Godard of Violence. The problem with a film like Kill Bill is that it seems that you really have to be a teenager to enjoy the movie. I am sure many adolescent males will love this film along with its cult movie flavors. Kill Bill reminded me of when I first discovered Manga. I thought it was the cool new thing at the time. Anything with super-violence appeals to you when you are a teenager! I am older now and have left Manga and comics behind. But this film and its popularity proves that some people still reside at this developmental point. What is with all the comic book films?

My main complaint of Kill Bill is like a comic book, there is no psychological depth to any of the characters. The figures in this film could all be action figures from your local Wal-Mart. The plot is that a woman goes to get married in Texas. Her old assassin pals show up and kill everyone at the wedding chapel. The bride is left for dead but survives. She proceeds to enact revenge by killing literally hundreds of people.

That is the movie in all its simplicity. That is why Kill Bill bugs me. The film is like a glossy magazine for people with ADD. It is pretty, glossy with beautiful people plastered all over it. But it has absolutely no depth. What is interesting is that Tarantino films used to be synonymous with clever dialogue. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were cool because they had some interesting dialogue. Remember Steve Buscemi as Mr Pink? Remember Samuel. L. Jackson and the path of the righteous man? Yeah, that was some cool dialogue! Moreover, the films of Tarantino all speak like he does, in that motor-mouth random fashion. In Kill Bill the dialogue is very minimal, which actually surprised me.

The major factor in this film is that it is a 70's or 80's action film that has all the terrible idiocy taken out. It is a 'Delta Force' with no Chuck Norris. it has high production values, good acting, superb direction and nice choreography. In other words it is everything an action film is not. But it is also as standard as any action film gets. This is exhibited by the usual revenge plot that we the viewer have observed so many time in other action films.

Tarantino must be congratulated for making an action film that is not stale. This standard action flick still manages to be fresh even though the material is not. It is well filmed and I liked the animation sequences. But animation interjected into a live action film is a double edged sword because it reinforces the idea that you are watching nothing more than a comicbook. For me it makes the film seem like it lacks depth. What is interesting here is that there is another film that suffered from the same problem as Kill Bill. That film was Natural Born Killers. Actually written by Tarantino but directed by Oliver Stone. The film threw in a lot of things, including an animation sequence. This detracted from N.B.K and made it seem even more shallow than it was. the constant insertion of different styles detracted from the film. Most notably the dysfunctional family sequence set to a sitcom format.

However Kill Bill is the better film and there are some good things about it. The fact that you have some damn fine looking woman fighting, this is always a good thing! Samarai swords and swordfights are cool. There is no way of getting around that fact! I thought it was quite amusing to have a kung fu fight set in a domestic setting! There was another cool bit where the Bride tells a young gangster off by smacking his bottom with a sword. 'This is what get for messing with the Yakuza!' YOU GO GIRL!!!' There is another great bit where the Japanese sword-maker states that if God were in a swordfight with the Bride and his sword, God itself would be cut. This is a nice touch and reminds the viewer that Tarantino still has his dark sense of humor.

But the main problem with this film is exhibited by the final part of Kill Bill. Ultimately the movie is one long video game. It reminded me of when I played Enter the Matrix on the playstation two. But then I have never really been a kung fu movie fan. Kill Bill is a film that will not linger in my mind. It is not my kind of film but at the same time I can recognize Tarantino's talent. This is volume one and I don't really care what happens in volume two. I was pretty indifferent to the characters because they had the character development of WWF wrestlers. I kept expecting the Rock to appear at some stage. But in a film such as this, who wants character development? Watching a film like Kill Bill makes me want to see something character driven like Six Feet Under to compensate. I give this a 7 out of 10 and feel a definite ambivalence.

The problem with religion is that when it is filmed the followers of that religion lose all critical distance. I am an atheist and can easily maintain an objective distance from the material. I have sympathy for religious people who will never look at the flaws of a film because it is important to their faith. I myself find it really hard to be critical of Terry Gilliam's 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,' even though I know it is a noble failure of a film. I like the book so much I just think it is a good film and do not look at its flaws.

I was not going to see this film but the controversy just would not die down! So, I wanted to find out which side of the debate I would be on. Is this a great film that powerfully exhibits the central message of the Christian religion? Is this film anti-semitic? Are Jewish groups being too sensitive? I was reading reviews that were all vastly different in their interpretation of the film. As a result I became very curious.

Martin Scorsese's 'Last Temptation of Christ' was also extremely controversial when it came out. This film was about exploring the psychological make up of Jesus and his message. It was controversial because Scorsese dared to portray Jesus as a flawed human being and not some sought of superhero. I thought that the Passion might be a similar case where the message had been portrayed using a controversial angle. This version of Christs story is controversial for a typically American reason, the violence.

When I think of the messiah. I tend to think of the good things he might have done. He stood up for the little guy. The lepers, the sex workers, the poor and neglected. He stood up against a corrupt establishment that cared only about money. Jesus could be a passive version of Che Guevara! Jesus was certainly not a money hungry televangelist.

I also have never understood the Catholic fixation on pain and suffering. I would focus on the mans life, not on the horrible way that he died. This is where the film fails, it is so gruesome that Christ's teachings take a back seat to extreme physical violence. I have seen this happen in two other films, the infamous 'Baise Moi' and 'Irreversible.' Both focused so much on violence that the message was almost completely drowned out. 'The Passion' is as violent as these two films and I don't understand why it needed it to be.

I found the Passion offensive because it bordered on emotional rape. When you see someone being brutally tortured it causes you to react in an extreme way. 1+1 does equal 2. Unless you are inhuman, you feel empathy, how can you not? Even if it had been Chuck 'I'm more wooden than Chucky' Norris up on that cross I would have still felt really bad. However, Mel Gibson doesn't want to simply show Christs plight. He wants to, through violence, brutalize the viewer, so they will submit to his extreme Catholic ideology. Personally I thought the violence was self defeating because it reduces the alleged messiah to nothing more than a screaming, groaning punching bag.

What also makes this film manipulative is that Gibson removes the viewers critical distance by placing the emphasis on the image. Remember Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will.' That was another film that focused on music and image. It was a brilliant piece of propaganda that encouraged emotion rather than critical analysis. The whole thing plays like an early music video. 'The Passion' is no different. Gibson stated that the images should be the guide. Sometimes there are no subtitles further demonstrating this fact. There are many shots in slow motion and there is actually little dialogue. Again 'the Passion' could be a very long Christian music video. All of this helps manipulate the viewer into just emotionally reacting to all of the images of horrific torture. It discourages the viewer from actually questioning what is taking place.

Gibson has stated that this is the absolute realism of the crucifixion. Give me a break! How many bits are thrown in for artistic good measure? How many times does Satan actually show up in the new testament? How many evil demonic children actually chased Judas? These are all bits that have been added in. Gibson cannot have it both ways, he cannot put fake bits in and then state that he is being realistic. This picture is obviously Gibson's own interpretation and it is an interpretation that is full of hate.

I do believe this film is anti-semitic. Pontius Pilate was recorded in history as an absolutely brutal man. A man who even Tiberius said should calm down on punishing the Jewish population. Here he is portrayed as a soulful man whose hands are tragically tied. A man who actually broods over Jesus...GIVE ME A BREAK! Pilate would not have given a second thought to crucifying Jesus. The Romans did not mess around. They thought of the Jews as ignorant, militant savages. Any Jews that resisted were brutally killed! It was that simple! What strikes me as odd is that the Roman policy on execution normally meant that the entire family would be killed. This ensured that no one would come back to take revenge. In the bible this obviously does not happen. I wonder why? Please e-mail me if someone knows the answer.

Then came the scene where the Jewish crowd is baying for the blood of Jesus. They do this not once, not twice but THREE times! I almost walked out. I have never walked out of a film. So, I wasn't going to let Gibson try my patience that much. What made me angry was that it is like Gibson is screaming at the viewer, 'LOOK AT THEM! OBSERVE THEIR TREACHERY! LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO JESUS!!!' It is Caiphas who is really vilified, this man receives all of Gibsons wrath and is portrayed as treacherous and evil.

Gibson gives lip service to the Jews by having just TWO priests stand up for Jesus. The Jews are portrayed in that same old tired stereotype that the Nazi's loved so much. As money grubbers who are looking out only for themselves. Even King Herod and his court are portrayed as decadent, foolish and disgusting. The gospels may portray things as being this black and white but I severely doubt it was ever this clear cut. The gospels were controlled by the Romans weren't they? Therefore they abdicated their responsibility. It impresses me that Jewish groups have not protested this film more vehemently. Israel's current policies with the Palestinians may suck but the Jewish people do not deserve this kind of covert hatred coming from Gibson and his Father.

This is a film that goes so far as to portray Jewish children as evil demons. In fact, that moment where Judas is being chased I realized what a superstitious world religious people live in. Where common physical signs, such as the moon or a bird, can be interpreted as symbolic. Bizarre. Symbolism and semiotics are great in art but in real life?

What is also bizarre is that the teachings of Jesus come back as flashbacks. We get Jesus washing feet and telling everybody about love. Then the viewer is thrown back to the incredible violence that exists in this film. Maybe you just have to be Catholic to get 'the Passion.' What the viewer ends up learning from this film is that Gibson has an obsession with martyrs, masochism, blood, retribution and extreme violence. You can observe all of these themes within all of his films. What amused me is that if you were from the planet Mars, the end scene could be interpreted very differently. You can just see the sequel tagline 'Jesus is back and this time it's personal.' Next thing Jesus teams up with Bruce Willis and they go and deal to the evil Jewish and Roman state. The sequel is then called 'The King of The Jews Dies Harder.' Or 'Hard to Kill.' All of a sudden Jesus has a pony tail and a pot belly.

This film would appeal to Torquemada. There is only pain. It is a depressingly bleak film that does not carry the hope, love, forgiveness or redemption that you expect of a story from the new testament. We are virtually told that Jesus died because of those bad Romans and Jews. To me, what Jesus was trying to do was not portrayed. This is because the focus is on death. You could never accuse Mel of being one of those Christians who sings in the street and acts like a crazy hippie. This guy is like a cinematic inquisitor.

My conclusion is that this film is anti-semitic, has no idea about history in an academic sense and in my opinion is barbaric. I would have given the film a five but because of the hatred hidden within it I will give it a 3.

I am not anti-religion but a film like this makes me 'thank god I am an atheist.'

Just as a postscript, at the end of this film when the lights came up I looked around the movie theatre. This film may be a restricted 16 picture here in New Zealand. But there are still whole families with young children watching 'the Passion.' This is like taking your kid to 'Irreversible!' It disgusted me! But I forget people are much more comfortable with extreme violence than extreme sex. Western culture is more comfortable with fighting than fu**ing. We are all screwed up!

Flicking through an old book called 'THE WORLDS GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL SCANDALS.' I look for Jerry Lee Lewis or the 'killer' as he was known. Funnily enough he isn't in the book. That is exactly the reason I got this film out. I know nothing about the man. I am always curious about musicians, especially musicians who are supposedly from the 'golden' era of music. What fascinates me about the fifties is the dualism of that time period. You have elderly people who tell you how much better things were back then. How it was as sterile and perfect as the inside of a burger king fast food joint. Then you actually look into the history of that decade and you find...

...lots of nasty stuff. Racism, sexism and communist blacklisting. A period in history where no one could freely express themselves. Where African Americans could still be lynched. Yeah, what a great decade...

I find it funny that even the Beach Boys were really screwed up. Didn't Bryan Wilson have some massive psychological problems? I digress...

Jerry Lee Lewis grows up in the south with his cousin Jimmy. He learns to play the piano and is influenced by the blues and jazz. He later goes on to joins Elvis's record label and soon is on the way to stardom.

The film itself is total bubblegum. It is an attempted celebration of the 'killer' and a musical. It has no depth and does not explore the relationships of Lewis very well at all. However, I did not really mind this because as soon as I saw Dennis Quaid on the cover, I knew...

I knew that this was going to the cinematic equivalent of a double whopper. In fact it is hard to rate Quaids performance because was Lewis actually like that? Maybe the guy was bipolar? Normally, I would say that the performance is way over the top. A caricature, but then I have nothing to go on from the real person. I know absolutely nothing about the subject that the performance is based on.

What is also funny is that Wiona Ryder looks like she has wandered onto the wrong set. She keeps looking like 'what am I doing here?'

Another interesting factor about this film is just how dislikable the 'killer' actually is. Lewis comes off in this movie as an egotistical, self centered, sometimes cruel, petty, not to clever individual with a severe case of arrested development. It is funny because this is a film that is meant to be flattering. What if the director had not liked him? He could have made Lewis into an absolute monster! Marrying a 13 year old girl who was his second cousin? I thought this was a stereotype of the 'south.' Obviously, I have been proven wrong! He must have given up on trying to be an adult! He was actually surprised this helped to destroy his career? That is pedophilia! How dumb is this guy? In the film he actually states that you have to get them when they are young so they can serve you well. The 50's were hardly the time of female liberation. Myra leaves the house with a doll house as a suitcase. I found this all kind of creepy!

What is even stranger is that Lewis is related to Jimmy Swaggart. The famous televangelist was later caught with a prostitute by a private investigator hired by another televangelist. Marvin Gorman had been looking for revenge for Swaggart exposing him. Swaggart later admitted he was addicted to pornography. The woman he was caught with also stated in a penthouse interview that he wanted her to give consent to him having sex with her 9 year old daughter! This is obviously a really screwed up family! What the hell is going on in the south?

So despite the fact that this is meant to be flattering to all those that are involved. The really strange situations of the film allude to a much darker narrative. I suspect if this was made like a hardcore Chekhov drama that the film could have been extremely dark...

But really just see this film if you like Jerry Lee's music. The movie reminded me of that Buddy Holly musical that tours around now and then. The script and acting don't really matter. They are just window dressing for the actual music.

What I find amazing is that Lewis survived through the sixties and didn't join N.A.M.B.L.A! This is a strange movie! I'll give it 5 out of 10.

I am quite surprised that this film does not have a higher viewer rating on the IMDB. Recently I saw the English zombie-flick '28 Days Later' and actually preferred this film, 'My Little Eye.' Recently there has been something of a cultural renaissance in horror films. The 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'Cabin Fever' are two such recent examples. This dark and worrying fact cheers me up, as I myself have always been a huge horror fan. As early as I can remember I have enjoyed horror films. From werewolves to chainsaw wielding rednecks. There was even once a time that I was petrified of those cheesy vampires from the 'Hammer horror' series. However, I was wearing Star Wars pajama's at that particular point. Now all Hammer films do is give me the uncontrollable giggles like I am on acid or something.

Why I am surprised that 'My Little Eye' did not get a higher rating is because this is a very nasty little film. A film that has gotten very little press. Well at least here in New Zealand it got very little press. I actually think this is very unfair when pieces of crap like 'Final Destination 2' can get advertising hype.

'My Little Eye' is a film that keeps the viewer tense and wondering what the hell is going on. It uses many interesting features. Firstly the setting is very important, America is the land of the conspiracy theory. Many people can find it plausible that someone can go out into the middle of nowhere and disappear into the frontier forever. If you want to be creeped out at how easy this actually is, go to the 'Unsolved Mysteries' website. In America, from time to time, people quite literally vanish without a trace.

This film plays as a combination of the 'Blair Witch Project' and the reality show 'Big Brother.' Oh why could they not have used the cast from the original Australian Big Brother series? I would have loved to see Sara Marie die horribly! Better that than having to watch her do the butt slapping dance! The viewer observes a bunch of wannabe famous kids get together in an old and empty house. They are all played by unknowns and this adds to the atmosphere because it does seem to be natural. I was actually surprised when many people commented that they thought these characters were stereotypes. Compare them to the contestants of 'Big Brother.' These characters were relatively calm in comparison. The dialogue is somewhat banal at times but I never had the feeling that it was particularly clunky. I mean reality tv shows have the most banal dialogue ever uttered. That is why I don't watch the abomination that is reality tv.

Marc Evans also uses interesting footage. Using not film stock but camera's that a bad reality tv show would have. The viewer is guided through shots of the house like in a 'real' reality tv show. Sound effects are minimal. However, instead of going for complete naturalism, Evan's decides to throw in some savage horror sound effects. I thought they worked and enhanced the horror and the tension of the film. The bleakness of the setting helps. But this also points to the overall problem in the film. If it had been me, as soon as I saw that house I would have walked away! I mean, who the hell is going to stay in a house out in the middle of nowhere? It just makes you to vulnerable. This is a definite plot-hole but I digress.

Basically as in all horror movies things start out fine. But combine the eventual cabin fever with the sexual tension between a bunch of young people. Then throw in a bucket of 'you suck, I hate living with you.' Mix that crap with the strange events that begin to take place...Events like a bloody hammer being left on a pillow. Strange noises occurring in the middle of the night and a seductive stranger showing up just to inflict more stress. This is to give the whole situation that extra bit of powder just before the whole keg explodes. The 20-something characters who are all just as naive as each other, have no idea how to cope. Unknowingly they have placed themselves into what is basically a horrific psychological mind game that is being played on a Godzilla like scale. These tensions help propel the film into the horrific state that it locks itself into to.

The film is actually very nihilistic and seeks to utterly destroy those who are desperately looking for their 15 minutes of fame. How far would you go? Obviously, the concepts of this film are not that original and I think this is what ultimately hurts 'My Little Eye.' It certainly is not as good as 'Series 7,' which I thought was a brilliantly dark satire on reality tv. Also films like these live under the curse of the 'Blair Witch.' Ever since 'Blair Witch' people have always felt ripped off by anything that is in the reality tv format.

The scene where the guy goes to give a back massage. Oh dear! This scene did make me jump! Strangely enough I was actually watching this film with my Dad. He jumped as well and kept asking me why do I keep getting out such 'sick' films. This film is genuinely nasty. A horror film like 'Jason versus Freddy' is fun for its camp value but does not contain the overall nasty vibe that this film has. The massage death makes the film feel like snuff and the whole thing plays like a nightmare.

I also liked the ending. The woman at the end, was she trapped in a meat-locker? I can't remember. 'My Little Eye' certainly does not have a happy ending, which to me is the first rule of a horror movie. NO HAPPY ENDINGS!

Personally I liked this film for its bleak nastiness. Everyone pays for their sins in this film and the bad guy wins. Despite its problems I'll go against the grain and give it 7 out of 10.

As I said it is a nasty little flick but you gotta love it. Plus it does not deserve it's 'rep.' I would rather watch this over '28 Days' and 'Gothika' any day or night.

Mr Darkness, Billy 'I directed the Exorcist' Friedkin gave this film his personal recommendation. This is with good reason. The film 'Narc' is excellent. So good it even got the attention of Tom 'I'm still a scientologist' Cruise. As a debut feature this makes the film even more impressive. I look forward to this directors next feature.

Obviously there is a glut in crime drama. You have so many cop shows out there. Law and Order, Special Victims Unit, Murder One. All of these shows play here. It would be easy for this film to be ignored for this reason. But this film succeeds because the material is tough, unflinching, intense and chock full of grit.

Don't watch this if you are into crime fantasy films like 'Red Dragon.' In fact, the makers of that film could learn alot from this director. He truly understands the material and the film feels totally authentic. It also feels totally honest. This is how cops work and how they are. We are not treated to the usual bulls&*% that you get in most Hollywood cop movies. It was very refreshing to see an honest film in this genre.

The film sucks you in from the first moment with an excellently filmed chase scene. This sets up the main protagonist. But what is important here is the energy of the chase scene. Using a minimal amount of shots and a hand-held camera, it is all very visually effective. This scene also underscores the films content. This film has an inherent nastiness. Notice when the fleeing perpetrator sticks needles into an innocent bystander to try and stop the cop chasing him. This illustrates how uncompromising the film is going to be. One worry is that the director will now compromise his films when he makes a film with a higher budget. I hope not! This is fierce film making and another reason why I have not yet given up all hope that good films can still be made on a tight budget.

The major thing that has to be mentioned is the quality of the acting. The acting IS JUST SO GOOD. Ray Liotta is awesome and really captures the role. I am a big fan of Liotta and think he is a very underrated actor. Jason Patric is also awesome and almost redeems himself for being in 'Speed 2.' He could have easily played the same role as in his other cop film, 'Rush.' However, he does not do this and we actually have a character instead of a stereotype. The intensity of the two actors is just breath taking. These two actors really go for it. This is real acting. Ben 'frat boy' Affleck take note. This is not the cliched cop/buddy movie. Both of these of these cops are 'wild-men.' Cops who do what they have to do to catch dangerous criminals. They look and feel like men on the edge. Also, unlike 'Seven,' the older cop/younger cop dichotomy is not played upon obviously. Forget the crap of the 'Lethal Weapon' series. These two cops are different in their methods and thinking but are still as effective as each other. Both characters are developed in a skillful and thoughtful way. The writing of this film is just so well done that I think that some major Hollywood film directors should have to watch this. It is the only way they can learn on how to make a good film.

So many scenes stand out to me. Who knew that Busta Rhymes could act? One of the final scenes where Patric and Liotta argue. It is just PURE INTENSITY. Brilliant acting. See Hollywood! You don't need a big budget! You just need some good actors and a well written story. That last statement is something I keep having to repeat. Forget effects, films are about writing and acting. 'Nuff said.

A film like this that is set in Detroit makes me feel utter contempt towards a film like '8 Mile.' If Eminem had wanted to he could have made a film as raw, honest and brutal as this one. But no! He is just another phony, sell out. Instead he made an escapist urban fairy-tale 'Narc' captures the real Detroit, even though it was actually filmed in Toronto.

The ending of the film has a twist, which I will not reveal but it floored me. You see the director makes you care about these guys. You really feel that cops have a really unpleasant and dangerous job. You also really feel for these guys families and realize how TOUGH this kind of work is. Working undercover is something that I personally would never do, even if I was a cop. I would much prefer to watch.

This is an excellent nights entertainment and I highly recommend it. Especially to all those, who like me love drama that leaves you floored.

10/10

This cop film has no car chases, imagine that, a cop film that doesn't feel the need to prop up its second act by having a car chase. Wonders will never cease. ALL HAIL JOE CARNAHAN!!!

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I was expecting a really bad horror film but thanks to Terry O Quinn the movie is saved. O'Quinn is simultaneously creepy and hilarious. He stabs a man and then states 'you should call before you drop in.' I laughed! There is another vicious scene where he beats his wife with a phone. It comes so unexpectedly that I actually cringed. Which is unusual for me in horror films.

Another funny scene is when O'Quinn takes his anger out on his tools. He rants, raves and beats up the basement. The actor is excellent at losing the plot and nutting off. It is damn funny but also unnerving and you are glad that you are not living with him. In a nod to the Shining, a superior film about another family with a psycho father. O'Quinn really hammers the door. O'Quinn really goes for it! That poor door. What a nut!

A scene that sticks out to me is when the psychiatrist tricks Jerry into showing him a house. His questions are so obvious, they are questions only a psychiatrist would ask. He may as well resort to the old cliche of 'tell me about your mother.' Jerry goes nuts and kills the shrink but not before some hilarious dialogue from Jerry as he starts nutting off.

The Stepfather is an eighties film that picks up on the collective, cultural anxiety at this time. The divorce rate was increasing and the nuclear family was changing. Conservatives were not happy about this. From the late 1970's onwards divorce had began to increase. People were deciding not to live in misery and were starting to do their own thing. The mother in the film is punished for finding a new man. I am not sure what she is meant to do exactly. Become a high profile lesbian perhaps? She is also punished for not having faith and believing in her family. Her family being her daughter in this case. This is what makes this film something of a teen flick. The teenage daughter is of course right about Jerry and becomes Nancy Drew. She investigates Jerry and ultimately kills him. She is the main protagonist in the film. It is a teenagers nightmare and Jill Schoelan is the heroine who can survive the madman. The film is the ultimate empowerment of the teenage girl.

Jerry himself is obviously a conservative, right wing, family values, kind of guy. Jerry the psychotic republican. He should run for office. It is to bad that he is completely psychotic! Jerry could be a Ted Bundy that was never caught. There are some nice moments in the film from director Joseph Ruben who shows a scene where Jerry watches a family. This seemingly perfect family of wife, daughter and husband are a psychological schema for Jerry. To Jerry they represent the perfect and ideal family. However, this ideal can never live up to actual reality so Jerry will always kill his family for disappointing him. 'Maybe they disappointed him!' Jerry says with vehemence, when he see's an article in the local newspaper about the previous family that he murdered. These little details made me think that the director is not a complete hack.

The film has some problems, the acting is bad from all. Even O'Quinn is pretty silly and sneers. Sneering, see he must be the bad guy! All the actors are really bad and wooden, most notably Schoelan. Scary Jerry has some sought of weird sexual attraction to her. The writing is also bad. There is a subplot of the most recent murdered family's brothers chasing Jerry and it goes absolutely nowhere. The plot is also horribly predictable and you will know what I mean when you watch it. Of course the daughter sees through Jerry's act. Of course she is a problem child that gets into trouble. Although she acts like a member of the Brady Bunch. You also have the 'burnt out journalist,' another character stereotype. You even have the token black guy who, as you guessed it, is 'the world weary, hard boiled' cop. AAARRRGHHH!!! Why can't writers just spend a little bit of time on their characters?

The end is interesting. The little bird house, representing Jerry's ideal world, is on top of a large phallic bit of timber. The daughter cuts down the house. She has destroyed Jerry and this is symbolically destroying him by cutting down his manly phallic pole. His power has been exorcised. Jerry has fallen and now so has his psychotic ideals.

Despite the film being completely obvious it is still enjoyable. You could do much worse when you choose a film from your horror section down at your local video store. I give this a 6 out of 10. What ever happened to Terry O'Quinn? He showed some real promise in this film.

After hearing so much about Gummo, I was really wondering what side of the argument I would be on for this film. Is this film a honest look at urban decay or is it an exploitative piece of trash? Well after seeing it I would say Gummo is a flawed piece of art. Maybe I am psychologically disturbed but I really enjoyed this film.

The statement above is a quote from Lars Von Trier. I use it for two reasons. One being that Harmony Korine is obviously influenced by Dogme 95. The wobbling camera, the decision to go for absolute naturalism in the setting. I also see elements of Godard, John Waters and Andy Warhol. This latter influence is interesting because Warhol also gathered weirdo's for his films. This was much to his detriment when he met Valerie Solanis. Korine is undertaking something similar. Lets us hope that none of his subjects decide to shoot him! Although some of the reviewers on this site would certainly enjoy that. The second reason that I use this quote is because I cannot remember a film that made me so uncomfortable. This film is truly like having a rock in your shoe. There is a relentless push-pull effect in this movie. The filth, the inbred, red neck populace all push the viewer away. But despite the repugnance of the setting you are drawn to these people and their lives. Korine seems to saying that life is beautiful, although beauty is not the first thing that comes to mind when watching this film. I really like the way Korine filmed Gummo. The sequences that played like home movies were very cool and worked well. They worked so well that I thought I was reading these characters case studies like I was an investigator of some kind.

The acting is pretty so-so. The scene with those kids pretending to be the town Sheriff who shoot the rabbit-boy stands out to me. Is this a comment on how hate, racism and bigoted behaviour can start very early on? It is almost like this is a behavioural script the children are playing out because they have observed it happening in their elders. Chloe Sevigny is almost unrecognizable with that bad dye job. But I thought her performance was really good. Also, how many mullets can be in one film?

Do places like this actually exist? I am taking it that this is based on a real town. Isn't this Korine's home town? I saw Ken Park and this was a film that just didn't work. This was mostly because the film became too self-indulgent. This is exactly the same problem here. The film is fundamentally flawed because Korine cannot reign himself in. You want to show urban decay? Well, fine. But do it in such a way that is consistent. What really bugged me is that Korine is determined to get a reaction by showing the viewer fouler and fouler things. After a while the viewer just blocks it out or tunes out. Some of the things don't even bother to make sense. For example, in a chair wrestling match you have an African American dwarf standing around watching. Why? This just seems like an attempt to turn the movie into a freakshow, which I guess this is. But you don't have to be so obvious about it!

The other problem with the film is that it has an overall feeling of nihilism. The characters are observed but there are certainly no resolutions formed. The film has a kind of existential angst. Notice the Madonna song, Like a Prayer, 'life is a mystery, everyone must stand alone.' Someone pass me Sartre It seems to say that life is absurd and offers no solutions to the characters on how change can be achieved. As a result of these factors the film is always going to have charges of exploitation thrown at it. I can't remember who said it but it was either Peter Greenaway or Francois Truffaut that said you can only have 20-30 percent experimental stuff in a movie before you lose your audience. Korine has gone for the experimental side of things and as a result has lost everyone.

To me, the image that is the entire film is the kid with the bunny rabbit ears playing the accordian in the toilets. This strange image is very striking, disturbingly original and all at the same time kind of repugnant. This is Gummo.

Harmony Korine is undoubtedly a talented guy. I look forward to his future films. But Harmony, how about a story mate? Also, stop getting so excessive. Remember Bresson? Less can sometimes be more. This film is good but not great, 7 out of 10.

Excess is allegedly the American way. Gummo is more evidence of this.

Because I don't! I defy anyone who has ever been involved in a serious legal trial to state that western nations have a great and just legal system. The Mcmartin trial represents a real failure of our system and should be a warning of what can happen.

Similar trials happened in Australia, England and here in New Zealand. We had an innocent man here put in prison on the basis of hysteria. Although, many conspiracy nuts would state that abusive satanic cults exist and are covered up by the highest levels of government.

The actors that play the Mcmartin's are very good and you real feel sorry for them as they are caught in a nightmare not unlike Kafka's, the trial. James Woods is also good playing the motor mouth defence lawyer. Oliver Stone is also involved as the producer, which is no surprise. I bet both of these guys know whats up and want to expose the stupidity that was America's longest and most costly legal battle. Remember this trial went for 10 years!

The film explores all the things that made this trial a joke. The highly leading questions asked by social workers to children. The fact that Mcfarlane pressured the children to admit to sexual abuse. The politicians using this as a spring board to getting elected. The fact that the children even identify Chuck Norris as one of the villains. The correctly defined anatomical dolls. Judy Johnson and her bizarre alcoholic, schizophrenic ravings. The children giving bizarre confessions where they would be flown out to places to be abused. Then came satanism. The children stating that they were brought through tunnels and abused underground. No physical evidence of tunnels were ever found under the Mcmartin pre-school. The Mcmartins apparently dressed in black robes, chanted and ritually abused the children according to the victims.

Does anyone find any of this highly unlikely?

Normally if you are going to sexually abuse children, by the time you get to Peggy Buckey's age you have a major history. Child molesters do not just fall out of the sky. This case is about cultural anxiety. At this point in history the two genders had become more equalized. Both mom and dad were working. So more and more parents were dropping off their kids at daycare centers. The problem was that many people felt very nervous about their kids being at these centers. An actual book came out reporting abuse that went on in daycare centers. I have not read this book but I would imagine only a minority of centers would be abusive to kids. As things become more equal the divorce rates were also increasing as woman were walking out of bad marriages. This just increased the uncertainty felt at this time.

The problem is that there are still people who think that the Mcmartins are guilty. I am all for stopping molesters but this is just getting hysterical. It is exactly the same as the Salem witch trials. We think that we have changed since then. Well we haven't really! We can still just as easily deceive ourselves. If you look around the web you will still find websites that claim that the tunnels existed and there was a huge government cover up. Why would the government bother? Even if the Buckeys were working for a satanic pornography ring that is connected to the government, which I highly doubt. Why wouldn't the government then hang the Buckey's out to dry if they were caught? If they stated that they were satanic molesters working for the government then they would look crazy.

The other pet peeve I have about this case is that Kee Mcfarlane and her ilk were never held accountable for their actions. Social workers and mental health workers should be held more accountable. Mcfarlane's poor interview techniques caused children to believe that they were victims of a satanic cult. It seems the higher up in the food chain that you are. The more likely that you'll never be held accountable for your actions. It is a sad fact but in my experience and observations, it is a true fact.

Satanic ritual abuse has been proven to be false. The whole thing collapsed when the FBI, lead by Kenneth Lanning, COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of the existence of any satanic cults. Lanning's official report is available online. However the conspiracy nuts state this is just more evidence of a cover up. That the FBI are part of this satanic cult or that the cult is so extraordinarily tricky that they avoid detection. I don't know about you dear reader but this sounds ridiculous to me! Lanning used the sound logic that the bigger the cult the more physical evidence that they would leave. None was ever found.

The infamous Laurence Pazder was even involved in this trial. The man who with Michelle Smith gave us Michelle remembers. The book that started the whole SRA hysteria. Why satanism? If you ACTUALLY read Anton Lavey he states that you should treat animals and humans with respect. His writings are also a rip off of Ayn Rand. Some ultra right wing people will be disturbed and not very happy about that fact!

I would also like to add that this hysteria still goes on. The case of the West Memphis three to me is the most infamous. You have three young men convicted of child murder. Why? Because they dared to dress in black, explore alternative belief systems, such as Wicca and listened to heavy metal. Most notably Metallica. Madness! All of this is dangerous madness!

The last peeve I have is that because of this mess. The teaching profession has taken the most major blows. Here in New Zealand there are few male teachers, 90 percent of teachers are now female. This issue is one of the major factors of why men no longer want to become teachers. They are afraid of being accused of child molestation. Men who want to work with children, especially young children, are considered to be strange. No real man wants to work with kids! This modern hysteria has only added to this cultural stereotype. As a result our school system suffers as boys struggle to find male role models. Boys are failing but girls are succeeding.

Some films have to be watched so we can learn from them and not repeat our own mistakes. This film is also a critique of the legal system. To me it illustrates that some fundamental changes have to happen for our legal system to function adequately. I give this 10 out of 10 and think everyone should have to watch it. All those who have never had dealings with the courts, well this is an education and a half.

There seems to be some unwritten rule that stories about obscure illnesses, true crime and cults have to be made into really bad tv movies. I think this is a real shame. Stories such as these would make great 'real' movies, especially if they were put into competent hands.

12 years ago I was wandering through a second hand book shop and came across a strange looking paperback called when rabbits howl. I found the contents to be even stranger than the cover. Ever since I have been fascinated by multiple personality disorder and have read many books about it since.

In my review of Sybil, I give a brief history about multiple personality disorder and challenge its existence. So if you want some more info on the disorder please read my review. The problem with this case is that Chase actually went to a seminar where Dr Wilbur and Sybil discussed MPD. Many people claiming to have alters have already been exposed to the disorder so they know how the disorder is meant to work. This is problematic, because as we know from Kenneth Bianchi, the disorder can be acted out convincingly. Bianchi studied the tv movie Sybil to pretend he had the disorder. Thankfully it didn't work.

The question always surfaces, 'does this disorder actually exist?' Or, is it just used by manipulative individuals who want to escape responsibility for their actions? Or to get attention? The other problem I have with Chase is that she and her therapist claim that she has 99-120 personalities. This is stretching credibility. Remember back in the eighties, as cases of MPD were increasingly being diagnosed, the number of alters inside the subject were also increasing. To me this sounds off warning bells that the disorder is socially induced and is not a natural phenomenon. One therapist even claimed their patient had 4, 500 alters!

Despite the problematic nature of the disorder it is amazing that Truddi Chase managed to survive her childhood. Chase in her book states extreme abuse in great detail and it is full of the sexual perversions of her stepfather. Her stepfather was a cruel, sick, sexual sadist. Her mother was a religious weirdo that was physically and emotionally abusive. What I have always wondered is what happened to her siblings? Didn't she have a brother?

This is where the film falls down. If you were to make the film from the book it would have a R18 rating. Because this is a bad tv movie it totally avoids the abuse. Only implying 1/10th of the horror that Chase had to live through. To compensate for this the director has turned the film into crap. Johnson does not have the balls to represent the material accurately. I would call this film cowardly because it avoids the material to fit a rating. The fact that Chase herself is part of the writing team is depressing. Didn't her troops realize that they were making crap? The film should be renamed 'a multiple in the world of the young and the restless!'

It's really irritating because all the viewer observes for the majority of the film is Shelley Long working, seducing, arguing, shouting and generally being really annoying. Most of this is focused at her husband. By the time that her therapist learns that she is a multiple, the movie sort of glosses over it. Very little time is spent analysing the material or even discussing it. Maybe the director just did not comprehend the material.

An aspect of the film that did amuse me is that it is so eighties. Too eighties for words and Long has some of the worst dresses since Full House.

There is one part of the film that really bugs me. The therapist states that after learning of Chase's abusive history and her disorder that at the very least she should be a whore! Excuse me? Just because someone has been abused does not mean they are going to be sexually promiscuous for money or anything else. Who wrote this? It disgusts me.

Shelly Long is hopelessly miscast. She is a bad actress and I just cannot separate her from the character 'Diane' from Cheers. In fact, all of the acting is terrible. Not that Long or the other actors have much to work with. I can't think of one good performance in this horror of a film.

However, the main problem with the film is that it lacks any psychological depth. Chase writes of a horribly abusive family that is totally dysfunctional. The actual relationships between family members are never explored in the film. In fact, there is very little time spent in Chase's childhood. Most of it consists of Long being overly dramatic in New York. You also don't learn anything about the disorder and you don't learn anything about Chase. The film is completely pointless and tells the viewer nothing. MPD needs to be demystified and this film does not help.

It is all a terrible shame. Chase deserves to have her story told and the viewer can learn about what the horrors of child abuse can cause. The director of this film is a hack and did not seem at all concerned about the material.

A horribly wasted opportunity of a really interesting book. If you want to know about Chase then read her book. Avoid this film because it sucks and is about as deep as any soap opera on television. Please Shelly long, stay away from acting. I give this film a 1 out of 10 for being gutless. Even Sybil, which suffered from the same problem had more balls than this film and dared to explore the psychological factors in a deeper fashion. I give it 1 out of 10. I hope that one day a good director will film the book.

Also if there is anyone out there who knows what ever happened to Chase and the rest of her family. Send an e-mail my way.

I don't really like science fiction. However, Dune is one of my favorite books ever. It has a depth to it that eludes most sci-fi. You notice in most stories of this genre there is very little spiritualism. David Lynch in his usual style goes after the more surreal elements of the book. This has got to be the only sci-fi story that has the characters taking hallucinogenic drugs to gain enlightenment. The film has a really cool psychedelic element to it. When Paul takes the spice melange and the sandworms look down upon him. Yeah man, pass me the bong!

There are so many cool scenes in this film. When Paul has to put his hand in the 'Gom Jabbar.' I can't remember whether that is the correct way to spell it. When he ingests the spice melange. The final battle between the freeman army and the Emperors sadukar troops. Any scene with space navigators. His 'fear is the mind killer' mantra repeated as he rides his first worm. All of this is exciting and very cool. Lynch takes us into a completely alien world.

The set designs are wicked. The whole film looks great. The space navigator guild looks like a bunch of s&m freaks. The bene gesserit look is also cool. I love how the space navigator creatures are worm/lobsters that live giant fish tanks.

This film fascinated me as a little kid. I remember seeing it and much of it was lost on my little mind. My father being an avid fan encouraged me to read the book. I found my answers there. What makes me wonder is why don't people do the same? Nothing has to be handed to you on a platter. You do the math. Besides there is no way you can cover Dunes depth in the running time of the original film.

Basically reading interviews with Lynch he states that he lost virtually all control of the project. That the studio began to make decisions for him on the picture. Lynch stated that the whole shoot was a nightmare and the film was just cut to pieces. He also had to keep the film reasonably mainstream. So basically you have a watered down Lynch version of Dune. But you also have an audience friendly version that is not friendly enough. So nobody ends up happy. The new extended version does not help things either. It adds a bunch of unnecessary footage and throws in a lame intro. Can you imagine if cult director, Alexander Jodorowsky of El Topo fame was hired to make this film? He was the original choice to direct. The film would have been amazing! What a shame!

This film has some very visible flaws and is far from perfect. The Baron is overacted, although I did not really mind this. After all, he is the mean and maniacal villain. However, the actor I did mind was Sting. Besides from being a caricature he looks like a demented circus clown. He was obviously miscast. Patrick Stewart is another actor who is miscast. He does not play Gurney well and yells his lines Also Richard Jordon as Duncan Idaho was bad. I have always thought that this guy is a bad tv actor and I am glad we only see enough of him to be killed.

However all the rest of the cast are dead on. From Dean Stockwell as the traitorous doctor to Duke Leto as the proud but doomed martyr figure. Kyle Maclachlan is also an excellent choice for Paul. He gives off a quiet, confident and regal air.

Yes, some of the special effects are not very good. But this film was made in 1984 and is not going to look like the Matrix. The story is actually much, much deeper than the Matrix. Dune is also pretty slow by todays standards.

But the film is tense and sometimes exciting. This is unlike the tv mini-series, which contains much more detail but manged to put me instantly to sleep. It was sooo boring. Not only that all of the acting sucked! Alec Newman can't act to save his life and has absolutely no charisma.

Lastly the music is very dated now. Brian Eno is a talented guy who deals in electronica but electronic music does date easily. Some of the guitar driven stuff like when Paul first rides the sandworm reduces the film to a kind of Flash Gordon camp.

Overall Dune is a very mixed bag, it has many flaws but is still enjoyable. Not as hard to follow as some of the reviewers here would make out. I think if you are a first time watcher this is the best choice. The mini-series is strictly for fans because the plot is sooo detailed that the casual observer will just lose interest. Plus this version has better acting, effects and is just much more fun. It has a deep and intangible mystery. An enigmatic air, which the mini-series sadly lacks. But like anything if you want to understand the plot in its full entirety then read the book. Problem solved. I'll give it a 8 out of 10 because I am a fan that is not afraid of ambiguity.

The real Henry Lee Lucas had one of the worst childhoods that I have ever had the misfortune of reading about. Growing up in Texas he lived with a family that was totally dysfunctional. He grew up in a shack, that had nothing more than a dirt floor. The father being a legless alcoholic, literally as well as figuratively. The mother worked as a prostitute. Henry was also forced into sexual activity with her clients. They forced him to dress as a girl and then would proceed to have sex with him. He was a child that grew up being raped.

He then grew up with such an intense rage that he became a serial killer. Are we surprised? Now, I am not trying to justify his behaviour. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that these people do not just fall out of the sky. There is no such thing as an inexplicable evil. That is, the person is just evil because they are. Yes, there seems to be some genetic evidence for psychopaths. However the majority do not become killers. The ones who become killers are made. If you are truly interested in what makes a psychopath, I suggest you read, 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity ' by Dorothy Otnow Lewis. Serial killers are often portrayed as being like Hannibal Lecter. Smart and talented creatures that have suddenly lost their moral code. The truth is most are a psychological mess. Losers that are full of conflicting emotions. There is also strong evidence to suggest that these people are made by a specific form of brain damage. Basically when you combine trauma in childhood and frontal lobe brain damage, you end up with Henry.

This movie is what happens when people are treated in an utterly horrific way. Michael Rooker is excellent as a psychopath who seems normal but deep down harbours a psychotic rage against society. He and Otis travel around killing. Why? Why not? The pointlessness of their lives is perfectly captured. People complain about the lack of plot. I think it perfectly captures the plot. It shows the emptiness of these characters. In fact Henry and Otis feel nothing unless they are killing. The emotional side of the characters has been like killed off by previous abuses against them. They are not unlike the living dead. Even when Otis's sister shows some affection towards Henry he cannot reciprocate. He can't relate to people, he can only get off on torture and death. Yeah, this is shocking. But it is also incredibly sad.

Here in New Zealand there are many shocking drunk driving ads that they play to try and get people to stop this behaviour. I feel that this movie is like that. The movie is an ad for psychopaths, who they are and the dysfunctional psychological world that they inhabit. It is a film that honestly looks at these kinds of people. This certainly does not glorify these people, which is a criticism that has been levelled at the 'Silence of the Lambs' series. This is why I think it shocks people. The serial killer kills for visceral, physical pleasure. As Ted Bundy stated, 'I killed because I wanted to.' Maybe, this is where the film falls down. That the characters motivations are not explained well enough. But either way the viewer is given a shockingly realistic interpretation of a serial killers world.

Obviously this is a film that was made on a budget! But this just adds to the bleakness. In fact Chicago looks dirty, grimy and not like somewhere that you would visit. The performances of the rest of the cast are pretty average if not bad. So the film has some definite flaws. The exploitation factor is there. But then I think of films like Baise Moi and this film has nothing on that!

Overall I think this is an objective look at a world that those of us who come from normal backgrounds will find horrific. A world that we prefer would never exist, but however does exist. Maybe one day, as our society matures these people will cease to exist. Stories like these will become completely fictional. I really hope for that day. 7 out of 10.

The real Henry Lee Lucas had one of the worst childhoods that I have ever had the misfortune of reading about. Growing up in Texas, he lived with a family that was totally dysfunctional. He grew up in a shack, that had nothing more than a dirt floor. The father being a legless alcoholic, literally as well as figuratively. The mother worked as a prostitute. Henry was also forced into sexual activity with her clients. They forced him to dress as a girl and then would proceed to have sex with him. He was a child that grew up being raped.

He then grew up with such an intense rage that he became a serial killer. Are we surprised? Now, I am not trying to justify his behaviour. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that these people do not just fall out of the sky. There is no such thing as an inexplicable evil. That is, the person is just evil because they are. Yes, there seems to be some genetic evidence for psychopaths. However the majority do not become killers. The ones who become killers are made. If you are truly interested in what makes a psychopath, I suggest you read, 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity ' by Dorothy Otnow Lewis. Serial killers are often portrayed as being like Hannibal Lecter. Smart and talented creatures that have suddenly lost their moral code. The truth is most are a psychological mess. Losers that are full of conflicting emotions. There is also strong evidence to suggest that these people are made by a specific form of brain damage. Basically when you combine trauma in childhood and frontal lobe brain damage, you end up with Henry.

This movie is what happens when people are treated in an utterly horrific way. Michael Rooker is excellent as a psychopath who seems normal but deep down harbours a psychotic rage against society. He and Otis travel around killing. Why? Why not? The pointlessness of their lives is perfectly captured. People complain about the lack of plot. I think it perfectly captures the plot. It shows the emptiness of these characters. In fact Henry and Otis feel nothing unless they are killing. The emotional side of the characters has been like killed off by previous abuses against them. They are not unlike the living dead. Even when Otis's sister shows some affection towards Henry he cannot reciprocate. He can't relate to people, he can only get off on torture and death. Yeah, this is shocking. But it is also incredibly sad.

Here in New Zealand there are many shocking drunk driving ads that they play to try and get people to stop this behaviour. I feel that this movie is like that. The movie is an ad for psychopaths, who they are and the dysfunctional psychological world that they inhabit. It is a film that honestly looks at these kinds of people. This certainly does not glorify these people, which is a criticism that has been levelled at the 'Silence of the Lambs' series. This is why I think it shocks people. The serial killer kills for visceral, physical pleasure. As Ted Bundy stated, 'I killed because I wanted to.' Maybe, this is where the film falls down. That the characters motivations are not explained well enough. But either way the viewer is given a shockingly realistic interpretation of a serial killers world.

Obviously this is a film that was made on a budget! But this just adds to the bleakness. In fact Chicago looks dirty, grimy and not like somewhere that you would visit. The performances of the rest of the cast are pretty average if not bad. So the film has some definite flaws. The exploitation factor is there. But then I think of films like Baise Moi and this film has nothing on that!

Overall I think this is an objective look at a world that those of us who come from normal backgrounds will find horrific. A world that we prefer would never exist, but however does exist. Maybe one day, as our society matures these people will cease to exist. Stories like these will become completely fictional. I really hope for that day. 7 out of 10.

This movie is so bad! It is absolutely terrible. I wish Sylvestor Stallone would do us all a favor and get out of movies altogether. His movies suck, he sucks and his films will always suck. I got the DVD version of driven. I listened to the audio commentary to hear how Stallone could justify the existence of this appalling film. At one point in the commentary Stallone states how a scene where Stallone's character and Burt Reynolds character argue was very hard to write. Then he states that he finds that ALL SCENES ARE HARD TO WRITE IN MOVIES!!! This is the level of incompetence that we are dealing with here.

All of the acting, if you can call it that, is inept. Kip Pardue has a constant blank expression and looks like he has been sniffing the petrol that his car runs on. Although, there does seem to be sexual tension between Pardue and Til Schweiger. Obviously they can't express their love for one another so they need to use Estella Warren to do this. She jumps from one man to another, like they are playing pass the parcel. Warren acts like someone dropped her on the head as a child. She has a blank look that rivals Purdue and she even seem to consider blinking to be acting. Keanu Reeves would be proud of these actors and their complete lack of skill. You even have Stallone as the mentor who shows Purdue, ahem, the ropes. Did he use lubricant? All this to capture Schweiger's heart. I hope he appreciates it. Reynolds even develops a tear in his eye....awwww.

Not that the actors have much to work with. Stallone writes the characters in such a two dimensional manner that cardboard cut ups of Mr T and William Shatner seem more multi-layered and emotionally complex. Stallone even has a very fruity looking Burt Reynolds as the voyeur. He loves to watch young men with their shirts off racing each other. He wants to race and envies the young racers as they make love passionately. We know this because STALLONE SPELLS IT OUT AT LEAST THREE TIMES FOR EACH NEW PLOT STRAND!!! There is no ambiguity here. The viewer is handed everything on a platter.

The track becomes the symbol where Pardue tries to prove his love for Schweiger. What should be happening in the bedroom is actually happening on the track. With the fast cars slipping, sliding and banging each other. Yep, this film is as gay as Top Gun! The last scene is hilarious. The characters hold phallic symbols of bottles of champagne and everyone showers frothy champagne over each others bodies. In one last big homosexual orgy! Awww, how sweet, we knew these guys would get together.

Then there is the issue of female representation. Gina Gershon is the ball busting ex wife and Warren is that girl from special school who is still wearing nappies. Retards and bit**es. Hmmmnnn.. surely gay men think of women more than this.

The film is not even saved by its special effects. The special effects of the race is tacked on. It seems to jump from a playstation racer game then back to the movie.

Its all just to horrible and only worth watching for its camp value. I give 2 out of 10 and just cannot believe that Kip Pardue is an actor.

Crash caused a huge stir in the United Kingdom. Many conservatives were outraged by the combination of sex, already an issue of danger because of aids, and traffic accidents. Dangerous driving is like smoking, a subject that you just can't touch without many moral watchdogs chasing you through a hellish puritan junkyard.

I remember seeing this and a middle aged to elderly man in the theater began to quite obviously...ahem...trouser cough. This was one hell of a way to clear the cinema! That moment is pretty much like this film. Crash has weird sex and masterbation, stuff that you do not really want to see. But David Cronenberg with the help of James Ballard drags us into a world that just takes the whole 'I love cars' boy racer thing way too far! It is just not healthy...

Ballard writes in a bleak monotone. A monotone that Chuck Palahniuk seeks to imitate unsuccessfully. All of his characters are alien because of their lack of emotion. Cronenberg takes this aspect and runs with it. This makes the film good not because of the familiarity and sympathy that the viewer can build with the characters. It is actually quite the opposite, the film strikes the viewer because of the sheer UNREALITY of what is happening. The complete and utter icy way that everything is presented just leaves the viewer going 'what?' Am I watching a bunch of jellyfish here? The characters are so jaded. Trying desperately to experience emotion in an industrialized emotionless world. A world that has become nothing more than a production line. Good Ford! Sorry, Huxley joke. Nerdy but necessary.

Also, Cronenberg is presenting a discourse that the famous intellectual Donna Haraway puts forward. That basically the human race has become cyborgs. The the human form is constantly changing. That machines are changing our humanity and crash seems to say that our own sexuality can mingle with the mundane machines that we hold so dear. Oh no! I am getting flashbacks of the crazed artist Stellarc...no...no...no! Besides I bet in the future, terminators would make much more money as sexual partners, rather than as assassins. Imagine that, a beautiful spouse who always thinks your right and never argues with you. I LOVE THE FUTURE!

Sex is considered to be the ultimate joining of two people. The most intimate way that human beings can connect to one another. Wrong! This film suggests that sex means...well, nothing really. Procreation and a simple physical reaction. This is shown by James Spader and his wife's, Deborah Unger, relationship. These two are so jaded they tell each other their sexual adventures for attempted excitement but feel absolutely nothing. Certainly not some sought of emotional closeness to one another.

This film is just so incredibly empty. But it is also a comment on the human condition. How we make almost suicidal attempts to attain pleasure. If this was a film about heroin for instance, about junkies, this film would be much more understandable. Ballard has taken this addictive, self destructive behaviour and replaced it with an everyday object. The motor car. It is a brilliantly simple idea! But look at how many people it has horrified and offended! C'mon people, are we really this stupid? Sex and drugs, sex and violence. Sex, drugs and violence. These things are all o.k. Portrayed constantly in Hollywood movies. Van Diesel anybody? But sex and car accidents, how dare you? What kind of a sick freak are you??!! Consider how hypocritical this is when you watch something like Fast and the Furious.

This is also a film that features the psychological nature of fetish heavily. Instead of having the common fetish for breasts or bottoms, which again people might find more understandable. The fetish is actually for wounds and crash test dummy videos! That scene with Rosanna Arquette, ewww! Would that work? This is definitely something that no one should try at home.

David Cronenberg really deserves credit for making this film. He really has some big balls and respects the intelligence of the audience, which I however do not. All of the actors deserve much credit for taking on some truly difficult material. They must really trust the director. I'm surprised no one said 'no David, you are out to lunch on this one!' This film could have become a parody so easily. Never have I seen a film where everyone in the audience seemed so uncomfortable with the material. In fact, when I saw this film without the trouser coughing, people still walked out. It hasn't been since Salo that I have see a movie upset so many people. I give this 8 out of 10 for sheer weirdness. A great moment in a major auteur's career who is not afraid to take risks. Hollywood take note!

Despite what one reviewer states here, 1984 is an extremely important literary work. It explains to the reader what the ultimate facist state would be like. This story is never more important than now, with the world in crisis. It is an absolute must that people read or see 1984. Other films have been made about fascism. One of the most notable examples being Pier Pasolini's Salo. But the problem is hardly anyone is going to see that except for weirdo's or film buffs. This is because of the graphic nature of the film. Besides, Salo was explaining the inherently depraved, decadent nature of fascism. Orwell's 1984 explains the mechanisms that invoke totalitarianism.

John Hurt is excellent as the main character. I am quite a fan. The film is also very well made. The bleakness of the book is perfectly captured by the director. You feel sympathy for the characters even though they seem far away because they appear so weary, yet willing to hope. Transcendence is hinted at when there is a scene where Hurt looks out and sees a wilderness instead of a prison. Hurt's character, Winston looks like he is about half dead! You really hope that Winston and Julia can pull off a passionate love affair. Although you know that it is doomed and is more of an act of rebellion against big brother than anything else. The setting is a land that is half destroyed because of the constant wars. The wars being yet another method of control. They tell us in psychology that in war, depression and other similar disorders actually go down! Interesting eh? The start where everyone sits watching the screens and begins to scream at images of the enemy. This is a great moment in the film that shows a kind of utter conformity through extreme social norms. The most effective form of brainwashing.

The problem with the film, like the book, is that people will find it too bleak and horrific to really appreciate it. It is depressing but this is the horror of totalitarianism. The material is not intended to be a walk in the park. One of the most striking and horrific instances of 1984 is the 2+2 does not equal 4 scene. The torture and brainwashing too achieve utter obedience. Richard 'my voice competes with Orson Welles' Burton, who normally pontificates and chews up the scenery is remarkably restrained here. This restraint is the key to a very good performance. These torture scenes are horrific and Hurt really shines. This guy should have got an Oscar! The scenes had me gasping...When I originally read the book it took a while for me to get over the rats. EWWWWWWW!

Looking at the overall rating of 1984 I am just totally surprised that this film has such a low rating. Maybe people would rate the novel exactly the same way because of the material. This brings me too my other quibble. The film does not TOTALLY cover all of the novels themes. In fact, although Suzanna Hamilton puts on a good performance, her character is not completely captured. Viewers must remember that literature and cinema are two completely different mediums. There is no such thing as a 100 percent adaption. Therefore you must rate the film on the usual cinematic features. But the main thing is how well the overall message of the story was transmitted. This film powerfully demonstrates Orwell's message!

What is weird is one of the reviewers here states that they did not like the nudity. Well, I'm guessing the director was going for a Adam and Eve state with their being naked out in the woods. This is obviously the complete opposite of the unnatural state they have to live in. It does not cheapen the film and points more to the reviewers own repressed desires. Reaction formation perhaps? Besides no one is going to get this for naked bodies when porn is so freely available from your local video store!

Consider how relevant this story is. How propaganda and public relations has never been more prevalent. How public relations has overtaken journalism, causing journalism to become more and more watered down. How the political economy of the media is now being hugely influenced by being based in a monopoly economy. A few now control the flow of information for the general population in western nations. This is not conspiracy theory, this is fact. True investigative journalism is at an all time low and the media itself is in a shocking state of affairs. Like everything in our capitalist system, it is controlled by money. Ever read Michel Foucault? Dominant hegemonies, discourse analysis, bla bla bla. I don't want to get all crusty and academic here. But Rupert Murdoch is rubbing his hands together. Time and time again, the United States has been shown to be patently false about why they engaged in conflict with Iraq. Just read John Pilger! Yet many Americans supported the conflict. Even believing chemical weapons were used on American troops, when no such event took place! Why? Because they were manipulated by a sophisticated propaganda machine.

Knowledge is power. That is why in 1984 language is being systematically destroyed. This denial of language is the denial of thought itself. Reality is then more easily shaped by the oppressor. Remember dictators, such as Pol Pot destroy the educated first. This is why the film and book are so important, they are still very RELEVANT! In fact I think the progression of western society will become a mixture of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and 1984. Either way we are being manipulated and controlled and these books show you how. America has the 'Patriot Act' that was rushed through congress although human rights groups had many serious doubts about the act. In New Zealand we have a Government that is similary becoming too involved in the regulation of peoples lives. BIG BROTHER IS STILL ALIVE!

I give this film a 10 and think the last scene with Hurt looking so haunted in the bar/coffee place was awesome! GREAT, GREAT BOOK! GREAT, GREAT FILM!

I have had a bit of a rant here...But hey I really like the book and this version of the film! So why not? This is a film for rebels!