Reviews

Perhaps they should have paid more attention to the script or the details in Frederick Exley's, A Fan's Notes.

Either way, you are on your own to form opinion on the merit of the film. It seems to value the themes from the book, but other than that, it omits certain features. I think it could have been a little more plausible if the writer was not insane. That is one example that I can think of. I did like it though, as it had it's moments. A sense of lunacy pervades it throughout. Jerry Orbach as Fred was quite capable and Burgess Meredith was in the film as well.

The details in Frederick Exley's, A Fan's Notes have been shortened obviously, as one needs to truncate certain scenes that do not translate onto the screen.

I think some people will enjoy it, others won't even understand the situation.

Either way, the copy of the film was cheap, as I bought it at a rummage sale at a Film School Archive in New York. I watch it at least every year.

Well, I can look at all the outrageous contradictions, bad cgi explosions/scope effect/fake town effect/cloud effect, etc, numskulled goofs and sheer idiotic behavior from characters in the film, and idiotic continuity from film makers, except a few. The script writer, continuity supervisor, and director should all have been fired. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) is an insult to a film viewer's intelligence.

The gang, who does'nt seem capable enough to shoot anyone very well, is so dumb that they can't stop a slow stage coach? An armored coach (+3000 lbs), complete with a Gatling gun (+1000 lb) in the back (film for teen action fans)? Yeah right, it would weigh a ton so the horses could not pull it for long, plus the Gatling gun could not be fired while moving. Easy way to stop a slow stage coach, just shoot two horses. Wow, yeah, it's that easy folks.

Fonda (aside from his hideous acting) takes a .44 slug to the gut and rides out of it, then he rides out the next day without bleeding to death? Dumb dead white guys left on rocks, left by Apaches in front of their "camp area" so that everyone knows they (Apaches) live there. Not too smart script writer. Dumb white guys camp with an open fire in Apache country and live? Apaches, using rifles, are shooting in pure darkness, wearing "war paint" and traditional feather caps, while not moving around to disguise their location? It was also an insult to portray the Apaches as "cold blooded killers" while they were fighting for their tradition, family and lives.

For one, they would not use guns. They would wait, then surprise the camp (who was trespassing on their sacred land), and use arrows and knives. This was truly laughable and degrading to Apache skills as warriors. Wade, in cuffs, in pure darkness, guts 3 Apaches??? A stack of TNT is tossed in the air, then easily blown up by lead bits from shotgun, thereby causing extensive damage to a very secure "open" drilled tunnel that is very sound. This was truly laughable.

The last scene, which is badly edited (notice people walking about during gun battle, then gone in next scene, snow on ground in a drought season, etc), was absurd. A one legged man with a shotgun outruns everyone (thanks to shaky camera), then stops in the open to unfasten the train door and gets shot in the back? Well yeah, there was a gun battle 2 minutes previous. This was truly laughable.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) is an insult to a film viewer's intelligence, especially the insane ending where Wade shoots up his own gang who was attempting to free him. That tops the heap the most. It is degrading. For one, it doesn't prove Wade was "moral", just a schizo because he's yapping about escaping in the hotel a few minutes earlier.

The script writer has little in the way of intelligent reasoning.

Inside (2007) brings nothing to the table but explicit gore and that makes for a pretty unappetizing dish. OK, so maybe this just proves how intelligent I am, but I thought this movie was really boring. I've been a hard-core horror movie fan since the age of about 2. Maybe that's why I was unimpressed. Maybe it's because I have an actual brain.

An abysmally stupid and literal bloody mess that's a by-the-book slasher nonsense, stolen from American horror then called "original French horror". Contemptible protagonist, illogical police cannon fodder, stereotypically uninteresting antagonist, this film is just as tired as the genre ground it treads. For this to work it's crucial to have a villain with psychological tales that are frightening and fun to watch; but it's no surprise that she stands alongside every film psycho of this era whose either an anti-hero or simply crazy for crazy's sake.

As for the gore it's nothing you haven't seen before. I'd heard that it was suspenseful, gory, and no-holds-barred. Yawn. It wasn't suspenseful, because after a while I just stopped caring what would happen. It was kind of gory, but by no means the goriest film ever. And at this point plain ol' gore doesn't impress me much. As for "no-holds-barred," well, yeah, a pregnant woman is the victim, so I guess that's a little edgy. Maybe. A little. But not enough to make up for the rest of this rather dull film.

I'm a huge fan of horror. I also like very well made movies with interesting visuals regardless of genre. This film was badly made and featured some very bad acting. However, the film is pointless. It lacks a plot, it lacks motive, and the ending of the film is unsatisfying (though extremely brutal). I guess if you love gore and are insane, you'll probably like it. Personally, it seemed clichéd and a bit silly. I give it zero stars instead of one because I can't deny the bad look and the bad acting, but I also can't say that I LIKE the movie.

I think the hype on this one is really getting out of hand. While I'll admit that it's certainly darker and nastier than anything mainstream U.S. horror films have offered in a long time, I just don't think it's all that good.

It had me for the first two minutes or so, but after that point, the movie decided to throw logic and credibility out the window & a dumb computer baby? Characters behaved like complete idiots. (The main character somehow doesn't recognize her own mother's voice or appearance and accidentally kills her. A police officer gives the main character a gun without asking her if she knows how to use it and then, rather than trying to get her out of the house and to a hospital, leaves her so he can try to turn the electricity back on. Predictably, he and a perp from a previous arrest he has tethered to himself (??) are killed.) Then there's the scene where a character just so happens to have everything necessary to a) set someone on fire, b) give herself an emergency tracheotomy,--by this point, we've been given no evidence that she has any medical knowledge, she doesn't appear to use any kind of tube to keep the opening from closing up, and she doesn't seem to feel any discomfort from this--and c) construct a crude spear (made from a kitchen knife and a telescoping metal tube into which the knife's handle just so happens to fit snugly) all within a five-foot radius of her.

The final shot of the movie is incredibly stupid, but everything that leads up to it is so ridiculous that it failed to affect me in the way the makers intended. I think this might have worked better as a 5-minute episode of Losers of Horror, but even 82 minutes was too long for this story.

Aside from the incompetent direction, the only other thing I can offer is that, if you're looking for a movie with tons of gratuitous gore and violence against pregnant women, here's the flick for you. Sickos.

"It's possible, but it isn't interesting," says Erik Lonnrot (Peter Boyle) early in "Death and the Compass", "Reality may avoid the obligation to be interesting, but a hypothesis may not." That line, taken straight from the Jorge Luis Borges story upon which this film is based, proves to be the ultimate undoing of Lonnrot, a Holmesian detective investigating a series of murders in an unnamed city in the future. Muddying the films' waters considerably is "Death and the Compass'" origins as a fifty-minute short that has since been extended to feature length. Much of the added footage is almost nonsensical, seeking to expand upon the idea that this future world is ruled by a fascist, bureaucratically-obsessed poseur monarchy. The end result is a film that plays like the child of "Brazil," "Robocop," and every first year film student's end-of-semester experimental short subject. Typical of Alex Cox's style, you begin to get the feeling that perhaps the screenplay, direction, casting, costumes, score, and art design were all handled by crew members with radically differing conceptions of what the film was about and who belligerently refused to share their thoughts on the matter with the other departments. It can make for intriguing viewing if you're in the right mindset, but you can't help but feel that it's a missed opportunity. Oh, and a warning: the description of the plot given on this page contains a major spoiler for the film -- the true nature of Christopher Eccleston's character is not revealed until the production's final moments. Viewers hoping for a more accurate version of the Borges story might find something to appreciate in "The Spiderweb," a 1974 short film adaptation featuring Nigel Hawthorne in the Lonnrot role, included as a bonus feature on this disc. It bears the twin virtues of being both more accurate to the original narrative, and much shorter than the Alex Cox version.

If you enjoy movies with repetitive shots of scarecrows, and the standard knife entering torso death scene, than this move is for you.

This movie contains absolutely zero character development, and while all of the characters die the same, you can't really find much of a reason to stay hooked to this move. Even the make-up effects were non-existent, I didn't expect too much, but be cautious while reading the other reviews, this movie isn't scary, funny, or even close to being so bad its good.

A heist nets 3.5 million dollars, but when one of the crew absconds with the money, the others give chase. No need, because the traitor reappears of his own accord, dead, reanimated and eviscerated. He doesn't die again easily however, so his comrades shoot him repeatedly and lop off his head. Full of wonderment over this, the crew cuts him open (a curious lot they are) and finds him stuffed full of cash. Ode to joy. So, there's the money! How did get there? No worries. His friends pull bloody cash out of every orifice, since he has more than any person should be rightfully entitled. Yep, this one's a real knee slapper. A Horrible flick. Bad dialogue. Worse acting. Was going to bring to a friends house for Halloween. I'm glad I previewed it first. Too bad too, because the premise is interesting and the scarecrows are cool looking.

However, you mostly see the scarecrows when they're hanging on their posts. Not much happens for a good 80 minutes. Clearly this was a straight to video release. I have seen tons of horror flicks from the 80's during the 80's and I don't remember ever seeing this one advertised. Heed the warning of the one star reviews unless you have really low standards for your horror flicks.

If SCARECROWS was cut down to the opening 3-minute credit sequence with the shot of the scarecrow and the foreboding piano score, this would be a really creepy film. Unfortunately, there's another 80 minutes to wade through after that and it feels more like 180. Take into account that the end credits are almost 10 minutes long and that about 20 minutes is devoted to close-ups of scarecrows hanging on crosses, a picture on a wall or just random shots of things,and what you're left with is about 50 minutes of awful dialogue, zero character development, bad acting, limp directing and unintelligible editing.

You don't even get to see the robbery at the beginning. You hear about it on a radio broadcast. In fact, most of the dialogue in this film isn't even said on screen. You hear it over a radio or what people are thinking or someone is talking just off screen. Since all the males sound alike you don't even know who's talking half the time...not that you care about these paper-thin but fully annoying characters.

Nothing really makes sense either. There's very little spatial coherence when the characters are outside. The explanation behind the scarecrows is hinted at but never fully explained. That's okay. Sometimes explanations in horror films are worse than just hinting. However, character motivations and actions are another thing. One minute someone says, "Screw the money!" but the next they're outside scarfing it up off the ground only to get gutted. One guy sees a team member get killed by a scarecrow and 5 minutes later he's screaming that the guy's coming back to the farmhouse for his gun. What? There's also a phone call that's supposed to be scary, but it was just dumb.

The only positive thing I can say about SCARECROWS is that the Scarecrow effects were good but that doesn't make SCARECROWS a good film. I wanted so badly to like this movie.

It's one of those films that I've read about in various movie review guides and assorted cinematic horror articles over the years and I put it on a personal list of films to see that "are not currently on DVD." Unfortunately, for all the talk, it had many more similarities than differences to the things we've grown to dislike bout the '80's horror film.

The scarecrows' (and their victims') actions and motives seem to change as needed to fit the story's progression. The characters' question fairly ordinary things yet completely accept some very bizarre supernatural events. Admittedly spooky and atmospheric setting (which is lessened by repeating footage of the scarecrows and the nocturnal surroundings shot in flood lights) but that alone can't carry the film. If you saw this years ago and have fond, scared memories, keep it that way and do not rent.

BOTTOM LINE: Make like a crow and fly as far away from these scarecrows as possible!

If you like wooden dialogue and indistinguishable characters, this is the film for you. Day of the Jackal is an excellent cautionary tale for the aspiring screenwriter eager to learn what "techniques" to avoid.

This movie is a disaster but fun, if you watch it from that perspective and remove your brain from your head. I gave it one star but recommend it anyway, as long as you fast forward through tons of "important" dialogue, film can-loads of extraneous location shots, cheap sets, soap opera-lit interiors, and wildly bad acting. This is like a camp version of "The Man From UNCLE." Or "Get Smart." Except it goes on way past two hours. And these guys are serious. I thought the French cops couldn't solve a bungling caper and they know who the "Jackal" is? It IS a good movie to talk back to, make jokes along the way, supply your own dialogue, fill in the blanks, balance your checkbook, call your lover, throw junk at the TV. But don't watch it all or you'll go crazy or die of boredom. In the end you won't know or care what happened whatsoever. I kept expecting President De Gaulle and his detail to turn and start firing on the production crew.

The movie takes place in France, but it's one of those movies where just so you won't have to be bothered with actually reading subtitles, everyone miraculously speaks English. Some speak English with an English accent, some with a French accent. Just to confuse things a bit, the assassin the French rebels hire actually is English. Needless to say, this may confuse some viewers a little. The English are rude snobs as usual. As far as the actual content of the movie is concerned, there's not much to say. It was an uninteresting series of scenes strung together with no real passion or originality.

Dullest thriller ever? Well, it's a strong contender that's for sure. I actually was expecting a pretty decent film but it just helped confirm by belief that Zinnemann's film for the most part is distant and lifeless. Granted I really like A Man For All Season. This film revolves around an assassin in 1963 and the job he's been hired for by the OAS. The job is to kill the president of France. For such an exciting sounding premise the film is a bore. It's directed in a disconnected manner that makes every detail of the film static. It jumps around as the assassin prepares for the job which consists of very little yet takes 2 and a half hours of film time. Meanwhile the police know the OAS has hired an assassin to take somebody out and are scrambling to find out how he is. Thing is the police just seem to magically come across information regarding the assassin's identity and where abouts, they do very little investigating and info just seems to fall into their laps.

I found the movie dull, dull, dull. BUT, if you are a foreign film buff or a Political Drama fan, or gullible then this movie is possibly for you. I remember watching this as a kid and enjoying it. Also, the "fancy pants" English assassin character is just not believable. This film has not aged well.

This 2-plus hour film was not a return on the time investment. Very dated, perhaps it was exciting or groundbreaking when it was released but today it just doesn't hold up. Some scenes drag on and on, while others (such as the ending) stop so abruptly you'd think no one went back to check the final cut. The assassin in the film is so unbelievable as a ruthless mastermind specialist killer it's hilarious. This thrill-less thriller ranks right down there with the other 1970's over-hyped "thrillers". Again, in their own time and context, perhaps these films worked. But today, not a chance.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not big on car chases and exploding buildings and all that. But yes, I do want the story to MOVE ALONG. This story moves at a snail's pace... it PLODS along... I had high hopes for it, but about 2/3 the way through I snoozed, and was glad for the relief from this torturously slow movie. In case you didn't notice, the keyword is: SLOW. Worthless.

I kind of feel like a genius; I feel like I'm the only one who saw through this fake film. I watched it three times, once with commentary, and I found myself getting annoyed at all the close-ups, all the times the screen just blacks out, and worst of all, I feel the film never really resolves anything. Yes, the priest dies, but he didn't really seem at peace with the town that gave him so much grief, or with himself. That and he was an idiot. If it weren't for the commentary by Peter Cowie which explained not only the movie but the book it came from, I wouldn't have been able to stomach it at all. I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.

Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe. Scene after scene of extreme close-ups where characters don't say anything until the camera cuts away and goes to a black out do NOT make an interesting or relevant story. How this film ever became a classic is mind boggling: it reminds me more of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Yes, Claude Laydu's performance is heartfelt and thought provoking, if you are a sadist, but this film left me feeling empty because overall it is a weak impression of the Catholic priesthood, which is an ignoble and inglorious institution of corruption. The young priest's triumph over the countess's pride is a weak scene but 90% of the film will drag you down with its dreary introspection and window into the young priest's melancholy thoughts. This priest doesn't come across so much as being humble as he does just plain pitiful.

Being that I don't speak or understand French I was looking forward to doing the English SUBTITLE thing to help understand the film. Well, the English SUBTITLE is at times impossible to view/read and the text rolls by so quickly that there was much I could not read (and I am not a particularly slow reader - I just finished Dostoyevsky in 3 days).

I really wanted to like this film . I try out everything "chosen" by the Criterion Collection, and yet can not see why in many ways this one merits some sort of critical nod. However, I sat through this entire two hour film yearning to feel some sort of empathy for the main character, and it never materialized. He just seemed like a victim rather than a fighter. And for that, I say it stunk.

What started out looking like a cool sci-fi about man's spiritual need to be connected to nature quickly became a sophomoric granola tree-hugging "Give a Hoot" commercial. (Complete with an awful Joan Baez soundtrack.) ****Spoiler Ahead**** What kind of botanist doesn't know that plants need sunlight? An eight year old could have written a better plot twist.

Very disappointing. Considering the talent involved (co-written by Michael Cimino and Steven Bochco!!), I was expecting better. The story actually is about someone who loves trees and plants more than human life. He is willing to take the lives of human beings to save his "forest" -- OK, I'm the most least ardent conservationist around, but that's way overboard! --, and he is presented as an otherwise nice guy. Unfortunately, because Bruce Dern plays him, he comes off whacko. About the one thing worth watching this for, is the silly waddling droids, which actually contain real-life double amputee monkeys. Aside from that, this film got sillier and more boring as it journeyed slowly towards its ending.

Despite its contemporary message that we have to preserve the world around us, the film shows its 1970's origin rather obviously. Maybe its the orange carpenting in space, or the fluffy hair-dos. Maybe its the racing around in little Go-Karts. Who knows? Having read Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' I could see that book's influence all over this pretentious movie. The idea itself is interesting. The Valley Forge, along with several other ships, is transporting pristine natural environments to a new home. This is the last of earth's destroyed ecology. For an unknown reason, a voice over the radio tells the crew (who all but Bruce Dern inexplicably seem to hate their assignment, nature, trees and natural food) to destroy their cargo. Dern's character rather lamely wrestles with the issue before killing the rest of the crew (not as exciting as it sounds) and hijacking the Valley Forge. Like the spaceship, the film really gets nowhere. It's an education in how the times can influence a movie and how we used to have small people/monkeys work tiny robots rather than use CGI. I was glad when this film ended. Perhaps it would have been mildly enjoyable on Mystery Science Theater. It's that type of movie. Probably made a good short Sci-Fi story. Only for those who love Bruce Dern (not I) or have an interest in film and social history.

Although it doesn't hold a candle to 2001 (which preceded it). Sappy acting, miserable soundtrack (or is it the other way around?), and a "botanist" who doesn't understand the very basics of plant maintenance...what's to like?

After seeing this crap I just could not hold myself from vomiting. My mind couldn't continue to accept and defy reason. A bunch of soccer moms, a crack head, a gardener, a tight jeans cameraman and a few nerdy scientists battle against the intergalactic equivalent of the US navy seals or the German waffen SS and win every time? Suddenly regular people know how to shoot rocket launchers and machine guns with hawk eye precision? And that blondie Sylvia Saint look alike ( she's very hot btw ) is the most unlikely leader I've ever seen. How the hell did Barbie got chosen to be the resistance leader? The resistance seems to pick their camps with gorgeous views behind, sometimes it gets so cheesy it seems you are watching an afternoon soap opera.

C'on Now, on to the invaders. How can they be so stupid? They are far too technologically advanced and superior to us and apparently they haven't discovered recycling nor farming nor animal domestication to feed their starving people on their home planet? Oh and here's the SUPER secret formula for water invaders: H 20! Plus they are the wimpiest fascists since the Italians in WW 2, they can't seem to plan or execute anything right. Everything they plan goes wrong all the time. And let's not talk about security, one pass apparently opens every door in the mother ship.... or perhaps they don't even bother to lock the doors or update their security codes up there.

V: the final battle gets more unbelievably stupid as it goes on. By the time this crap is about to end you'd expect the Ewoks or ALF to show up anytime soon. Diana continues to be super hot even with those terrible 80's hair styles and I guess there was no teeth whitening in the 80's. Many in that cast really needed one.

Very disappointing. You can see why creator Kenneth Johnson wants to scrap the whole thing. Great television turned into sappy sentiment. The Visitors come across as imbeciles rather than ruthless villains. The resistance as a gang of klutzes, I really hated the part where they resorted to germ warfare. Nobody raised a moral objection to it. Really sad. And the Visitors can't cure the red dust, stupid. Really lame. Maybe next time they'll get V right.

This is a somewhat interesting but flawed movie with simple characters and interesting scenery but a ridiculous plot, terrible acting and no story. First of all, I extend my congratulations to the cast and crew for filming this thing largely in the snow. It must have been hell to work in these conditions in Italy in the ALPS.

The outdoor scenery of the mountains, forests, etc. is spectacular. This is one of Klaus Kinski's average performances as the vicious bounty hunter who leads a gang of ruthless killers. I personally think that they should have used his own voice rather than the dubbed in one. He speaks English, although with a heavy foreign accent. I don't see a problem with that since America had plenty of immigrants then. However, the producers chose to dub in an American voice and it's terrible. If they had used his own I think it would have made him even creepier and perhaps even as good as Lee Van Cleef in Good, Bad, and Ugly.

This is a gunfighter movie but the gunfights are generally poorly staged and choreographed. Unlike Sergio Leone who has them almost like a ballet set to bullfight music or Sam Peckinpah who almost has a movie set around gunfight scenes. Other westerns like the Magnificent Seven, Gunfight at the OK Corral, even the recent Kevin Costner movie Open Range have very well thought out and performed gunfight scenes, but not this movie. That is a big minus.

Anyway, the governor of the Utah territory decides to cleanup the outskirts so he sends a new sheriff. Yeah, right, like Wyatt Earp is gonna go all by himself to clean up Dodge City or Tombstone Arizona and fight at the OK Corral. He should have sent a company of rangers to back him up, don't you think? This new sheriff, who is an inept idiot, runs into a mob of fugitives and finds that his gun won't shoot because it is frozen. Yet later Klaus Kinski retrieves a gun that he had stashed days earlier in a snowbank and is able to blast away. Why wasn't that gun frozen? In the Clint Eastwood man with no name trilogy Clint played a bounty hunter. In this movie the hero is a bounty hunter killer. Is that some kind of statement in itself? The mob of fugitives who live in the hills supposedly were once good people who only turned to a life of crime out of poverty, desperation, and want, yet they pay the gunman to murder the bounty hunters? Where did they get the money? The hero supposedly humanely spares some individuals but shoots off their thumbs to prevent them from ever using a gun again. This is humane? What if they need to defend themselves or their families in the future? How are they supposed to hold tools etc.?

I actually thought that the massacre at the end was the best part of the movie but that the hero was a damned fool moron. The alternate ending was silly. The idea that the hero was mute and the rationale for it was pointless. It could have been done better with a hero who talks only a little like Clint Eastwood. And he could have had some other type of scar, etc. Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West had a similar motive of revenge and it worked better.

The Great Silence was a dark and brooding story and the juxtaposition of blood and snow was average, it had a tedious flash back sequence, a shocking (for that time ending) and lousy music by Morricone. As a Spaghetti Western at face value it barely delivered, which at the time was what it was created for. But the rest was very far fetched. You have a gang of outlaws with sickles (looking like medieval grim reapers with their hoods and great coats) with no reason to be there, walking easily over the top of deep snow unaided by snow shoes, while at the same time horses are breaking through and struggling. It's as if it was filmed at a ski resort with packed powder, which it come to think of it probably was. The town of Snow Hill was way too small and the gang of outlaws and the gang of bounty killers seemed to out number the town.

Sergio Corbucci just wasn't a five-star director. He filmed fast and furious, and a lot of times the script was made up as he went--and it shows. His style, like a lot of guys working in Italian exploitation, is very choppy. Way too many crazy zooms and close-ups intrude on the action. You have to be prepared to forgive a lot when watching this stuff, and people not tuned in to the whacked-out world of spaghetti exploitation will be thoroughly confused. Not too mention that the guy dubbing Kinski's voice sounds like a moron.

Technically speaking, the film is impeccably stupid. The dubbed dialogue is distracting, but it hardly matters because the cinematography is extraordinarily bleak, snowy, and harsh, the characters are badly-drawn, the score, by Ennio Morricone, is absolutely mediocre. But in the end, the story has no dramatic value. There's no higher truth that emerges from the events. Yes, I know, Corbucci's demystifying the West, and apparently, his film is based on a true story. So it is with "The Great Silence," which tells a story that has no message, no dramatic arc, no higher truth, nothing, extremely well. "The Great Silence" is a spectacularly made example of Level 1 film-making. It does what it says out to do, yes, but one cannot help but wonder why so much effort was expanded on making something so nihilistic and un edifying.

In all, a very average film.

Just terrible. this movie drags and has a lot of useless subplots that add nothing to the movie. An Austrian doctor in a Mexican village? Sure, she looks great, but who cares? And talk about stilted acting, Heston really puts on a poor show. I could not even get through the whole thing.

This is probably more of note as being the last movie Director Sam Peckinpah made before The Wild Bunch turned him into a star. It has the same central themes which can be found in both The Wild Bunch and Ride the High Country: the betrayal of an old friend in pursuit of fortune/freedom (in this case, an Apache tribe); conflicted attitudes about women (Senta Berger's character--lover or fling?) Charlton Heston plays the down-and-out, but hard-as-nails Major Dundee with the same full-on bombast he has put into practically every other role we've seen him in. Richard Harris gives a good early performance. Never mind the dull Civil War plot, there's not much to it. I never saw the originally "butchered" studio release of this picture, but the newly restored version stands as a solid effort of incompetency. Don't waste your time if you're not interested in Peckinpah's career, though. Stick with the highlights like The Wild Bunch.

Many of the gaps and unexplained dead ends in the original theatrical version are restored in this newest expanded version. However, in their zeal to "improve" this movie, they did something utterly incomprehensible...they completely changed the musical soundtrack. I'll admit, the original musical soundtrack with the "Major Dundee March," with the ridiculous vocal track by, yes, Mitch Miller's Sing-a-long Gang (gasp!) needed work. It is rumored that Peckinpah hated the original music for the movie...what I guess is that he hated the VOCAL of the music to the original movie. But this new musical score is absolutely awful and terribly distracting. It does not keep pace with the tempo and emotion of the scene. Gone completely is the humor that appeared in the original score music...Someone at Sony Entertainment seems to have forgotten that THIS IS A CAVALRY PICTURE and the music SHOULD be rousing and martial. Instead, a score was inserted that is more reminiscent of an animated feature...it makes NO sense with the movie. The bonus is that you can watch the movie with the original music and judge for yourself. I will offer as an example the scene where the troop gallops off to the horizon on a diagonal (clearly an homage to John Ford westerns). The original music works for the scene--the new score is so unsuitable that it is distracting. 12 minutes were restored to Major Dundee for this version, and I'd love to have seen the other 48 minutes that are still junked or missing from Peckinpah's original. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet that prefers "The Wild Bunch" to "Major Dundee." I find the The Wild Bunch characters much more interesting and engaging, the plot more complex and stunt work that in this day and age would now be done by computer because it would be considered too dangerous to be done for real. You will feel the bone crunching pain when you really watch the stunt work. Hee Haw!

This very good movie crackles with tension. The stakes are, of course, high--will the police and Widmark, the public health doctor, apprehend the criminals who don't know that they are carrying plague before a full-scale epidemic breaks out? But smaller plot elements introduce tension in every scene--between Widmark and the police captain, between the bad guys played by Palance and Mostel, between Palance and a dying plague-stricken man whom Palance mistakenly believes is the subject of a manhunt because he has smuggled in some valuable commodity, between Widmark and his wife, and with the underlying question of whether the public is better served by informing them of the danger or hiding the situation to avoid a full-scale panic. The movie is beautifully shot by Kazan, in extraordinarily well-choreographed long takes shot on location in New Orleans, and ends in a stunning climax, where Palance flees like a rat from his pursuers, through the docks and warehouses of the city. The commentary is superb, probably the best that I've heard, covering the cinematography, the framing and lighting of shots, the production design, the casting of non-professional actors in small roles, and the ironies and parallelisms in the plot, like an insightful seminar on 1950s film techniques and film noir generally. Watch it once to enjoy the film on its own, and, if you are interested in film-making, a second time with the commentary on to learn.

I've listed all the videos below because I always like to know what's on a disc before I rent it. I figure it should help in your rental decision.

This particular DVD contains an "original sound" option and an "enhanced sound" option. Total: 18 Videos China Crisis - Black Man Ray Heaven 17 - Temptation Duran Duran - Save A Prayer Culture Club - Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? Kim Wilde - Cambodia Kajagoogoo - Too Shy Spandau Ballet - Only When You Leave Ultravox - Vienna Climie Fisher - Rise To The Occasion Living In A Box - Living In A Box Jesus Loves You (Boy George) - Generations Of Love Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science Marc Almond - Tears Run Rings Dexy's Midnight Runners - Geno Go West - We Close Our Eyes Hue & Cry - Looking For Linda Fun Boy Three - Tunnel Of Love Human League - Human So many highlights on this disc! Ultravox is easily my favorite here, followed very closely by Duran Duran. Though Save A Prayer is classic, it's not a very inspired choice, and that comes from a huge fan of them too. Also great to see on this disc are Heaven 17, Marc Almond, Fun Boy Three and amazing... a Dexy's Midnight Runner's video that's not "Come On Eileen"? That was pretty unexpected! The other videos are quite fun as well, though Human League's "Human" wouldn't exactly be my first choice, as I much prefer their earlier output. Perhaps "Mirror Man" can make it onto a future compilation? Oh, and more Ultravox, please! All in all, I can heartily recommend this disc to anyone nostalgic for new wave classics.

I saw this movie at the theaters 20 years ago, and it was every bit as good as I remember it! The special effects are as good at George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic can do, and that is saying something: for years I thought that no one could approach ILM's work. (I forgot about this one!) The characters were so much fun, the sexual innuendos are a riot, but subtle enough that this movie is fine for kids. (A bit violent!) George Peppard is so right as Cowboy (a space trucker!) and Robert Vaughn's nasty mercenary... by the end you actually LIKE him. This is NOT John Boy in space, for one thing, it ISN'T Star Wars. Star Wars was a high fantasy (with MAGIC) this one is more hard science. But it is very fun and hasn't dated at all. It goes on my "I gotta own this one." list.

By now you probably know this movie has the same plot as Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven, Seven Magnificent Gladiators, and The Three Amigos. A couple points of trivia. Robert Vaughn was asked to repeat his Magnificent Seven role in MS2 , and reminded the producers that his character had been killed in the first film. He does repeat the same role in Battle Beyond The Stars. The FX crew was particularly proud that they built a ship with boobs for Sybil Danning. Although totally predictable, the movie is good natured, has a few laughs, and is an easy way to pass an hour and a half.

Roger Corman films are generally just un-polished enough to be great. This is no exception. The "B" movies of today just don't seem to have the audience connection that the older ones do. Maybe the kids of today will look back and say the same thing about this time. If you can remember George Peppard, Sybil Danning, and Robert Vaughn, you just might enjoy this movie.

Pure Rubbish! Hmmm, good little native boy Gunga Din, played by an old man Sam Jaffe, emulates his masters who have invaded his country and are oppressing the people, raping the women and stealing the natural resources. Of course he wants to be "JUST LIKE THEM". The thuggees are actually the brave Indians fighting the British oppressors but are portrayed as madmen with wild eyes. Oh, so smart, Gunga Din gets himself killed helping the oppressors but they all live. Oh my, what a movie. How great.

Times have changed to the point that the conflicts and the way they were fought seemed so unsophisticated as to appear foolish. Imagine a battery of soldiers approaching the enemy with bag pipe, drums and singing announcing their approach. One has to appreciate the romance of a historical nature at a time when militarism, obedience, brainwashing and the stupid love of country were the motivation for endangering one's life. That aspect is idiotic and unrealistic. But the British were so noble in their pursuits.

This is one of those movies that gets a lot of credit for an average idea. The problem with this movie is the poor execution. The timing, editing, directing, acting, and writing just don't deliver. In particular, the script just doesn't fit the action or the mood of what's happening on screen. Its beyond idiotic, but that was Hollywood at the time, run by wealthy white men who manufactured junk like this.

I really can't imagine any intelligent person enjoying this rubbish.

This film is well acted with a reasonably good look and feel. It's even well written in terms of interesting dialog and character complexity. The problem is (and it is a serious problem) that the plot, character motivations, and action are ill conceived and never credible. Ben Wade (Glen Ford) is a charismatic and ruthless thief and murderer who charms the woman and disarms the men. Dan Evans (Van Heflin) is a simple farmer with a sense of justice who is hired to transport Wade to Yuma in secret and under threat from Fords gang of thieves. The two engage in a psychological battle as they wait in a hotel room for the 3:10 to arrive.

All that sounds great, but credibility is the issue. The script is too clever for it's own good. To start, Wade and company actually report their own crime after having committed the robbery without hiding their identities. No explanation is even offered for this odd behavior. Once caught (and he is too easily caught), Wade is far too smug in his presumption that his gang will save him. Evans becomes inexplicable dedicated to his task, willing to risk his own life against impossible odds even after he is released from his commitment.

Even so, Evans is inexplicably deferential to his own prisoner. He rolls and lights cigarettes for Wade, repeatedly, without Wade having asked for the favor. Evans evens tell Wade that he has nothing against Wade and is only doing his job. But Evans, seemingly so concerned with justice, actually saw Wade kill two men. Evans contradicts himself in both word and deed. At one point, Wade rushes Evans and is knocked back. His explanation: "I wanted to see if you would shoot." Please. The film is an odd and failed combination of incompatible dynamics. While it assumes the audience is intelligent enough to be fascinated by the psychological battle, it also assumes we're not smart enough to question the many absurdities. In the end it's a real eye roller.

Not a good film, especially if you're a military strategy buff. The board seems to be populated by nationalists, militarists and neo-colonialists. The slow pacing, minimal character development, and the fact that I was rooting for the Zulus the whole time, proved to me that this film doesn't hold up. At least not compared to such similar epics that advance the "British cause" like Lawrence of Arabia. And despite the fact that it was made 2 years after the release of Bonnie and Clyde, the first film to show violence in a realistic manner, everyone who dies in Zulu dies the old fashioned way... A hand grasps at a bloodless wound, and the face turns with a crinkled expression of pain as the body collapses into a peaceful slumber (aka the big sleep.) A dumb movie for it's time, it doesn't even hold much impact today unless you have a pea brain.

This is not a good one at all. First of all, although supposedly based on a real battle, it was completely stupid. A couple hundred men waiting to be slaughtered by 4000 Zulu's who they know had already wiped out 1000 of their fellow countrymen just the day before. The whole thing was so incredibly stupid! If they had a lick of sense, they'd have run out of there ASAP! The problem was this had no STORY. ALL it was, was a bunch of soldiers waiting to fight an un-winnable battle, then getting mowed down. So then you just sit through, watching people spear and shoot each other for an hour and a half, with short breaks in between while the Zulus re-group. And the battles are not even exciting, they're just boring, people sticking each other with spears and shooting, one after another.... After 30 min. I started watching the clock. After an hour I felt like I should take it out and put in another movie. After an hour and 20 min., I was wondering if this would EVER end... Then I began to feel mad at myself for getting sucked into watching the whole thing, when I knew it was going to suck after 30 minutes. One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.

Director Endfield's efforts to juxtapose the nobility of only the British are derailed by the unnecessary presence – and uncharacteristically poor performance – of many of the British actors. The battle scenes also leave something to be desired – some sequences are done on average and others are simply laughable. Sadly, Zulu fails to live up to its historical source material and only amounts to an overacted letdown. Michael Caine made his screen debut in "Zulu" as an effete lieutenant who cedes command of his troops to a slightly senior officer.

I can understand why this historic event involving less than 100 British soldiers holding off over 4,000 Zulu warriors is beloved by some, especially tea loving Brits who don't like the fact that a bunch of spear throwers knocked off their pompously inept army. Who doesn't like routing for the underdog and coming out on top? Die hard colonialists, is who this tripe is made for. However, this film does less for this 'epic episode' in its two hours than the shining reviews found here. The opening scene is by far the most interesting as the Zulus prepare for a mass wedding. Dancing and singing is the only thing of interest. From there the story unwinds painfully slow as the Red Coats demonstrate their pomp and lack of sincerity. The stilted dialogue and lousy fight scenes (when the Zulu's finally arrive) do prove entertaining, for a 12 year old retard that is, but not how they were intended to, I'm sure. I can appreciate what movies in the 1960's were trying to do with such moments in history (make white people cry about losing oversea empires) but this film was a big disappointment for diserning intelligent viewers.

If anything, the scenes point out the failure of the Zulu commander who sends in waves of 50 guys who just get mowed down by the British defenders. Attacking Zulus getting slaughtered in wave after wave, with no discernible purpose. Not such a great combat method when your total force outnumbers the enemy 40:1 and they have rifles but the script was written as pro-British. Whomever is comparing this movie to gold needs to have their head examined. Can't believe this was based on an actual event in history. The Zulus looked like a bunch of wimps, thanks to the pro-British bias. Did they not learn how to THROW a spear! There looked to be almost as many British soldiers at the end of the movie as when it started. And Michael Caine became a star based on this mess? Reminds me of dumb John Wayne westerns.

This film is naive, idiotic and moralistic in its characterization of the "brave" English colonizers protecting their fort from the "savages". The characterizations of the British range from stupid to boorish, which is quite truthful in reality. The cinematography, however, is decent. Recommended only if your idea of a good time includes watching "The Birth of a Nation" or NASCAR or waxing up your rifle collection.

In 1901, Henry C. Lavery, a self-described "profound thinker" of Superior, Wisconsin became certain that phrenology was true and spent his next 26 years endeavoring to put this science into a machine. On January 29, 1931, he and his partner, Frank P. White, a businessman who had taken his life savings of $39,000 out of stock in a local sandpaper manufacturer - the 3M company - to finance the venture, announced the invention of such a machine - the "Psychograph." The machine consisted of 1,954 parts in a metal carrier with a continuous motor-driven belt inside a walnut cabinet containing statements about 32 mental faculties. These faculties were each rated 1 through 5, "deficient" to "very superior," so that there were 160 possible statements but an almost unlimited number of possible combinations. The "score" was determined by the way the 32 probes, each with five contact points in the headpiece, made contact with the head. The subject sat in a chair connected to the machine and the headpiece was lowered and adjusted. The operator then pulled back a lever that activated the belt-driven motor, which then received low-voltage signals from the headpiece and stamped out the appropriate statement for each faculty consecutively. Thirty three machines were built, and a local office in Minneapolis flourished. The machines were leased to entrepreneurs throughout the country for $2,000 down plus $35 a month. They were popular attractions for theater, lobbies and department stores, which found them good traffic builders during the depression. Two enterprising promoters set up shop in the Black Forest Village at the 1934 Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago and netted $200,000 at their standing-room-only booth! Phrenology in Europe had been abandoned as nonsense long before this time. The brief success of the Psycograph lasted until the mid-thirties when the company closed because of increasing skepticism and declining income. The machines were returned and packed away in storage until the mid-sixties, when John White, the founder's son, and I put several back into working order.

Méliès' Phrénologie burlesque (1901) is 30 minutes. I saw it at the Prague film School library.

The darkness

Politics as human destiny

This documentary film by Thomas Tielsch, based on a fragment of Louis Ferdinand Céline's Germany Triptych, is chronologically examined from its historic center. It has at its basis, a quote written by a mystic during the war, "from a look on the other hand of time'", and that is completely literal, because it means 'trapped in time'. Much is gathered from it, above all are the natural conditions in the mirrors of these mirrors, or the physical points of land. The Hohenzollernschloss castle in Southern Germany occupies a place in the 'sigma rings', which conceive all human destiny. Being placed at the Hohenzollernschloss castle, Céline experiences a sense of mystifying episodes, as it is an esoteric place where the German leadership was at that time. Having escaped from his own country, France, Céline wanders with the pathetic remnants of the endangered Vichy government, witnessing the decline of the regime.

The physician and writer Céline discovered the last troops of Berlin marching away from him, and he knew the situation for him was becoming too dangerous. Céline had scandalized the literary world by his so-called "anti-Semitic" caricatures, appearing since 1937. In fact, they were really nothing more than humorous cynical tracts but he knew he would be tried by self righteous Frenchmen and blamed for the war.

At the Hohenzollernschloss castle, collaborator discovers collaborator. On the bridge, Céline hopes to discover La Vigue, the well-known French actor, with whom he had already first encountered on his involuntary journey to Germany made in 1944 and whom he had lost in the northeast of Germany from the air attacks on the convoy. Céline is a prominent personality in the film, certainly an honor may reside in our recognizing his precarious situation.

The text carries the film. Beside Céline's text are places and memories of time, witnesses to the horrors of war. They are always aesthetically treated with great care by strange images as well by facts from the local war annals and records, to which much is featured in operation reports, war wounds numbers, and shots of dead men in heaps, both in the hospital and in battle, this is where the hardest pictures of the film are to be seen.

This movement of the text tries to arrange the film together by the grouping of the pictures, one actually sees at least two realities, which always hold themselves in our gaze and are then elsewhere continuing to mix and be replaced as time merges together. Photographs from the time past are blended with those from the present, which affect another kind history, because one receives the impression that we are really in no place at once.

Atter sixty years Céline is left in doubt about everything, especially the war, and he views it as an almost absurd, also most ridiculous form of comprehension.

The film is a good entrance into the work of Céline. One wants to read more, and go ahead and read more.