Reviews

As a friend of mine said: "This is apparently what happens when you let the SCA make a movie". The sheer presumptuousness evidenced by the producers of this film is simply appalling - everything's been re-done in a sort of "Oh, it's a swords-and-sorcerors film, so everything has to look and work like every other monsters-and-magic movie in existence" sort of fashion - Celtic-sounding music and accents, and stock mediaeval costumes and backdrops.

The reworked plot and characters bear no resemblance whatsoever to their counterparts in the original novels. I could forgive the film-makers a *bit* of artistic licence, but the origins and motivations of the principal characters have been altered to the point where LeGuin's original Ged and Tenar are simply missing in any size, shape, or form from this film.

The writing is wooden - it's like a bloody junior high school play. The dialogue lends new meaning to the word "cliché". Everything is over-dramatised, and LeGuin's award-winning prose is just *gone* - there's nothing left of it.

Greatly obscured if not removed altogether is LeGuin's message that all people are capable of good *and* evil - instead, we have cookie-cutter evil plotters superimposed on a story that does not need them.

Equally disappointing is that the *magic* of the original trilogy is also gone. We're denied Ged's discovery of true names and their power and instead it's just splatted out there in front of him (and us). After 5 minutes after this (and about fifteen minutes into the film), I simply quit watching.

I give this film a 3 because it's just stupid, silly, and awful, but without sufficient substance to merit being deemed "vile". I'm not even sure if it is capable of supporting MST3K-style satire. It's just really... quite... bad.

Unless you're one of those people who really enjoy an evening wasted with formulaic fantasy Oooooh Kewl It's Got Magic 'N' Monsters & Stuff fare, do yourself a favour: Give this abortion of a film a very wide berth, and go read the Earthsea novels instead.

Theresa Russell plays her character with an amazing degree of depth and variety in this film. She's sexy, vivacious, fun-loving, wanton, capricious, headstrong, and yet vulnerable to the soulless, self-serving shrink portrayed chillingly well by Art Garfunkel. Theresa's character is very lifelike and (despite the character's flaws, both obvious and subtle) also quite sympathetic.

This is not an easy film to watch. For one thing, it's rather non-linear, and flits around between several different times and places. Rather than telling a story as such, it's more of a jigsaw puzzle, the pieces of which are revealed and placed one at a time. For another, it's actually rather unnerving to watch the process of her dissolution, both due to how realistically it's shown and the fact that we want to like Malena (or at least I did).

If you're at all a fan of Russell, I think you'll find that this is one of her best performances ever, and the direction and staging are first-rate.

(It was also a bit weird to see Harvey Keitel with long hair.)

Okay, this movie has rote acting by nobody memorable (with one exception), and the plot would be better if the movie HAD no plot because the one that it comes with epitomises lame, hokey, contrived, and Just Plain Dumb(tm). Think of the worst possible way you could rip off the first movie, and then prepare yourself for something ten times worse. So don't worry about this review containing any spoilers, because there's really nothing to give away.

These things being said, it does have Alyssa Milano looking very provocative indeed, and leaves the absolute bare minimum to the imagination as regards what she wears and does. It's about as far as you can go and still get on broadcast TV. (I understand they cut a couple of minutes from the air version, but I've never seen the video, and even though I've no girlfriend at the moment, I'm still not that inclined to rent it and find out.)

The one other point in this film's favour is that there are a couple of interesting bits in the soundtrack. What the heck - even though I hate Charmed, I kinda like Alyssa, so I'll give it a 6. With the understanding that, if I'd actually had something better to do tonight, I'd've probably dropped that to a 4.

Well, there's Charles Bronson near his prime and heaps of nice female limbs in this film, so there is that going for it, regardless of your sex or preference, I suppose. There are other visual attractions besides the leads, though - some nice settings and camera work.

The problem is that, whilst the basic plot itself is somewhat plausible, it's just not handled to the depth that it could be. Bronson does a passable job as the writer who tries to be Hubby but ends up feeling more like Daddy half the time, but it is not his best effort by far. He really does better in thrillers like "Telefon". Susan George (as well as most of the actresses playing her friends/peers) comes off as being fairly vacuous, and acts more like she's 11 than 16. Perhaps this is meant to help us share some of Bronson's character's discomfort - but then he married her because she guilts him into it, or he guilts himself? Or what? I'm not buying it. Perhaps if there were some genuine deep chemistry and passion between the two, but I don't get that. The entire relationship comes off more like a long, uncomfortable play-date.

Okay, maybe it's supposed to - but then, what's the point?

And whilst as a male with the typical appreciation for the female form I can't say I really object strenuously to this, but hey - she wears a miniskirt in *every* scene, even in NYC in the wintertime? C'mon...

The soundtrack is also fairly hokey, even given when this film was made, and makes it feel even more contrived.

I gave this film a 6 of 10 because it's pleasant enough entertainment for the I've-no-date-tonight circuit, and because I'm a Bronson fan, but no higher because it really never draws in the viewer, and fails to make any lasting statement or impression.

Bill Murray plays another incarnation of the same persona he does so well, the needy con man who instinctively knows how to exploit everyone's weak points to wreak havoc whilst making his antagonist look increasingly unreasonable and WHO JUST WON'T GO AWAY. In this film, he's a psychiatric patient who uses his plethora of neuroses (and his pet fish) to con his way right into his therapist's family and to drive the good doctor crazy (and thereby engender a deft role reversal) in the process.

Murray is a master at creating characters who simultaneously irritate us *and* endear themselves to us. What's wild about the way he does it is that Bob projects the utmost innocence and sincerity all the while. Any fan of Murray's work will instantly see the parallels between Bob and his roles in movies such as Ghostbusters or the SNL Awful Lounge Singer.

Dreyfuss plays a surprisingly excellent straight man as Bob's (not entirely) hapless "shrink", given that Dr Leo is himself a bit of a caricature (a bit obsessive about his book, for instance). Also liked seeing Julie Hagerty (Airplane), who does a good job as the Doctor's wife.

This is basically an 80s film that didn't bother getting made until the 90s -- and boy oh boy, this movie's got it all: Cardboard characters, a plethora of movie clichés, a classical Not-Really-Very-British British villain played by none other than Stacy Keach, a thoroughly annoying Boy Wonder, a quasi-wholesome teenybopper jiggle interest, lots of byplay and banter twixt Boy and Girl, fine literature (an Ancient Papyrus and a Teenage Girl's Journal), a Hidden Treasure, more clichés in the form of supporting characters/roles, heaps of I'm-So-Acting acting from a bunch of nobodies (excepting Keach, of course), and a script that's flatter than the proverbial pancake.

Oh, and it's got Stacy Keach as the Villain and he's got a black beard AND an Evil Henchman known as "Scorpion", and they delight in making schoolgirls shriek in terror.

I gave this film five stars but this should be taken as an *average*: If you're looking for a film to be taken seriously, that's a 1. If you're looking for something to riff on and rip apart à la Joel (or Mike) and the Bots, it's an easy 10. Fine fair for a Saturday afternoon when you don't feel like watching the footy and you're looking for any excuse to let the lawn grow just a bit longer.

Ooh ooh ooh -- and did I mention that Stacy Keach plays the villain?

Caught this when it was rerun whilst I was working on a Sunday afternoon. The summary sounded mildly intriguing so I let it run.

I really liked the fact the the characters seemed real. They were just ordinary working women with a (somewhat) ordinary job, who succumbed to a temptation that I'm sure any of us in a similar situation would at least feel if not give into ourselves. And who's to say that you or I wouldn't, under those circumstances? No attempt was made to "glam" up the principals, either, which I appreciated.

This film's greatest strength is that the story was allowed to *tell itself* with realism and a bit of humour. Not exactly a classic, but still it's a mighty good yarn, done in a competent and believable manner.

Fans of The Bill might recognise Melanie Hill (Liz) - she played the looney Marie, who met copper Jim Carver whilst he was counseling her over the murder of her daughter and subsequently was (briefly) married to him.

(Hey, we watch the ABC here in Bris-Vegas, too, ye know.)

This is a fairly pleasant film, a light comedy that's easy on the eyes and ears. Not a terribly deep or unusual plot; yet another variation on We'll Band Together and Preserve Our Little Rustic Paradise Against the Modernist Interlopers and of course, Let's Get The Kids Involved. Some quite nice scenery at times, and the singing isn't of a grating quality. (Okay, some it's actually pretty good.) Not a great movie, but it's agreeable enough. Technically, it's pretty good for something shot in the late 1950s.

There are some funny characters in it (I particularly liked the policeman for some reason) and it does have that folksy/Scottish flavour to it -- I guess I like hearing the accents.

"It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and maybe - just maybe - you'll learn something about yourself..." ...Seriously!

This movie just blew me away on so many levels. First level: Being a longtime fan of the Kids and getting to see many familiar characters once again was a gas. Not to mention some of the new ones they cooked up for the film. Second level: As an exercise in the absurd (Cancer Boy, the gay guy coming out in a big neighbourhood production number, the German psychiatrist). Next level: Satire and stereotype (the CEO screaming, "MY... EMPIRE... IS... CRUUUMMMMBLINNGG!", the punk rocker, the talkshow hostess). Yet another level: Makes a HUGE statement about the corporate-media-industrial complex and its usurpation of contemporary culture and mores. And so on, and so on...

Finally, the film, while purporting to be a comedy masking itself as a tragedy (or is it the other way round?) and beneath that pretending to send a negative message about the human condition (like the cabbie says, "This is not a happy story"), manages to have a positive message as well.

This movie is an enigma. And as such it's basically indescribable: It'll move you in about six different directions at once. And it might even make you think about a few things.

If you've never seen it, get out and rent the bloody thing already.

Like anyone else who reads Slashdot.org, I've seen the "GNAA" posts on that site promoting this flick about a zillion times over the last two or three years. So, late one bored and sleepless (and sober) Saturday night, I actually fired up my BitTorrent client and downloaded the thing.

It's good for a few chuckles, but not nearly as risqué as I'd been expecting it to be. It's basically a slew of 70s-style clichés (crap special effects, tight white trousers with zippers in the back, big goggly plastic sunnies, snatches of the theme from "Shaft" playing in the background, Ukrainians mining dirt) stacked atop one another. Not sure it qualifies as cult-classic material, but I might actually burn it to a CD and keep it around for a laugh.

I suspect that this film would be considered wildly funny if viewed during the later stages of a drunken party for those of university age, after the lightweights have passed out and been carted home, the neighbours have complained about the music a couple of times, and those looking to hook up have either scored or gone looking elsewhere.

A knowledge of basic spoken German will help, BTW.

I'm pretending that I'm about 21 or 22 years old again, and that I'd had a few when I watched this, and giving it a "7".

I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.

I believe that this film helps set the pattern for most of not all of the "classic" horror films of the 1930s/40s/50s, or at least Karloff's films and those of his imitators. It is best appreciated when viewed in context, and was likely even a bit radical for its day.

Very effective use of light and shadow, which is particularly noticeable in the outdoor night scenes, and some interesting angle and closeup work here and there. Good orchestration (not overblown as in later films of this genre). There's even some genuine acting in this film, although some of it is somewhat contrived -- but this is a horror flick, after all. There's also some bits of humorous byplay which are actually fairly subtle for a film of this type and era.

Karloff's makeup job isn't bad, either.

All things considered, I found it quite interesting and even entertaining. I'm giving it a 9.

Normally, I quite enjoy a Bad Movie now and again, but to refer to this film as "wretched" does a disservice to the term "wretched".

I'll give it a 2 rather than a 1 since the concept was almost interesting. However, the film itself has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No plot, no acting, and not even horrible in that MS3TK sort of way that'd make it amenable to some creative razzing.

Never have I been so unmoved by an endless stream of blood and gore; it didn't even disgust me. It just left me with a vague feeling that I was a bit glad I had an old crappy paperback detective novel to thumb through whilst (not really) watching it.

This *is* a funny movie, with gags in virtually every scene. Those who diss it must not have grown up in the same USA that I did. It's a amazing collage of forgotten/misplaced kitsch and cultural clichés. In the same way that the Ghostbusters movies are a tribute to New York City, this movie's a tribute to eastern backwoods America.

In all honesty, I'd probably only give this film an 8.5 or 9, but I gave it 10 stars due to all the undeserved 1's and brain-dead "worst movie I've ever seen" comments.

Ackroyd obviously spent a lot of time and effort in crafting the role of the wacked and wicked J.P. and constructing his environment.

Others have mentioned Mr Bonestripper, but my personal favourite bit has got to be the condiments train that plays "The Wabash Cannonball".

I also enjoyed seeing Taylor Negron, and Demi Moore is an interesting casting choice.