Reviews

I am not going to spend very much time on this review, but I just came out of the theater from watching this film and can assure you that it is not worth the time or effort or money of anyone involved.

Apparently, when writing the script, the screenwriter forgot to include jokes. When a plot was considered, nothing new or original or interesting was even looked at. When casting was considered, the directors must have just said "put that American Pie dad in." *sigh* I have never been a fan of Steve Martin, but he must have just been sucked into this one by accident of some sort. Not only are the laughs (or even attempts at laughs) few and far between but and resemblance to hilarity is not even close enough for the movie to shake it's ugly stick at.

I feel ripped off for paying so much to see such a horrible movie. I hate to sound like the "old timers," but if this is any indication of where cinema is going, leave me out.

Following up on his low-budget smash hit from 1968, Night of The Living Dead, Romero decided to make Dawn of the Dead. Little did he know that he would change the course of horror movie history, starting a long string of spinoffs, rip-offs, and semi-sequels.

1978, just one of those years where supposedly everyone danced disco and smoked pot (although survivors of the era know otherwise). George Romero films a medium budget, mainly independant movie that takes the film world by storm. Dawn of the Dead is the story about four people who, during an era where zombies walk the earth, lock themselves up in an abandoned shopping mall to survive and try to live somewhat normal lives.

This is eaiser said than done however, because soon a bunch of outlaws ruins the perfect lives and loots the mall, allowing zombies in.

That is the basic story of Dawn of the Dead, so at this point you may be wondering what makes up the rest of the movie. There are two ways to look at this: literally and philisophically.

Literally, the movie starts out explaining the charicters backgrounds, strengths, and weaknessess. Through an exciting scene in an apartment complex, we find out that this is not your parents movie, as in it uses violence to make a definite point.

When our charicters are united in the mall, each of them has issues to deal with and work out, but those ideas are pushed out of the way when they have to lock up the exits to the mall, one by one, while avoiding zombie attacks (a constant theme thoughout the film, oddly enough)

When all of the zombies around are killed, the group of looters allows in all of the zombies in the mall, and many of the looters are killed slowly, painfully, and very graphically. The violence throughout the film is remarkably high, and for good reason. The ending has some of the charicters killed and some escaping from their doom only to see if they would survive another day.

Philisophically speaking, though, the movie goes deeper than that. Not only does the film follow the charicters, but the rest of the United States to well. It raises a huge "what if..." question that could only be answered though Romero. The charicters represent a viewer from outside, looking in to the world as it destroys itself because it cannot deal with the stress or different ways of life with the zombies. They watch this all on televeision till it happens to them though the looters. This would be society finally destroying itself. Some escape, to find that they may perhaps may have to save the human race.

Should this be taken Literally or Philisophically? Your choice, thats what makes the movie great. Do you like horror or deep thinking? Perhaps watch the movie twice or more, from differenct perspectives every time. The point is that this is one of the greats and a must see for all times.

While Fellini's Satyricon cannot in any way be considered a good film, there are worse. But on the other hand, this is quite possibly the weirdest film I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot over the years. For those who have never seen a Fellini film: Don't start with this one. Try some of his more accessible films at first, then move up to Satyricon if you like those.

The plot, if you want to call it that, is not exactly told chronologically, or in linear form, or just about any form from what I can tell. While every nature of the film is experimental, you can't help but wonder why the film makers even tried it. Fellini's psuedo-realism style is evident, and nothing really makes sense, from the beginning speech to the final credits.

Don't bother trying to make any sense of it, I tried that. It's one weird story to another, told in the oddest of ways. While some may consider all of this "art" not many people are impressed. The content, which revolves around a lot of mature content, won't even please fourth graders looking for a scene they shouldn't be watching. They won't get it, and you probably won't either, so my theory is: Don't Try.

I'm sure the average movie watcher would take a look at some of the reviews on this page and wonder what in the world these reviewers are talking about, so here goes a simple explanation. First of all, understand that with Fellini, nothing is for certain. The prefix psuedo- fits extremely well with the director, because nothing is ever for real. While this definitly hurts some of Fellini's films, it helps 8 1/2 very well. The lines are blurred slowly throughout the film, till there are no lines. Hope I haven't lost anyone yet. The movie, about a fairly well-known director with no clue what he is going to film, manages to display the chaos of the directors life very well. While the director's conflict at first seems simply to be a case of over-hyped writers block, it turns out that it is much deeper. The director goes through more conflict than anyone around him knows, and soon the man starts having psuedo-flashbacks (there's that word again.) Remembering events from his joyfull and sometimes sad childhood helps the director escape from his chaotic everyday life. Fairly soon the line between dreams and real life are blurred, and it becomes impossible to tell what is real and what is not. The life becomes more and more downhill in a spiral motion till the end of the movie. While it is highly hinted that the movie is autobiographical, maintain a critial eye while watching. Some of the footage may be based on the life of Frederico Fellini, but most is probably not. Should you go see it? Yes. Should you like it? Some do, Some don't, I can see from both perspectives. But in this case I'd still give it 4 out of 5.

I have to admit that I've been waiting for this to come out on DVD for quite a while. First of all, when it did, the second part was nowhere to be found. Second of all, this is not Robocop 4 by any stretch. Hopefully someday there really will be one, but this is a miniseries, not a movie. It would be like saying Terminator 2: 3-D was in fact Terminator 3. But anyway, I only got a chance to see the first half of the two part miniseries, but I think that is enough.

I am not impressed at all. The casting, acting, directing, and writing in this make me want to wish I wasn't a Robocop fan, although I am. The opening sequence will tell anyone watching that this is not the best of films. The dialouge and acting is some of the cheesiest ever, and the charicters I guess are supposed to be interesting, but they're so cliched that you'll guess they're fate in a minute.

About the dialouge. From the mindless laughter of the "villian" to the really annoying recorder that the bad guy uses to record all of his really important messages (at one point he says something to the effect of "Bad Decisions make bad judgement.")

The actor playing Robo is just plain laughable, partially because he doesn't even measure up heighth wise. He's shorter than just about everyone in the film, so he looks pretty pathetic.

I don't know, maybe it gets better in the second half of the mini, but I don't know if I'll push myself to check it out when it comes on video. I hope the Robo legacy won't end with a fizzle like this, though.

While most folks would look at you funny if you told them about the Spanish version of Dracula, many horror buffs across the nation would be impressed by the fact that you even knew it existed. What many people don't believe is that this version is actually better than the English version. Yes, I said it, and I don't regret it.

O.K., so you say that you don't know what this all about. Why is a Spanish version of Dracula any different from the English version you say? Because this is actually a different movie. Back in 1931, subtitling was possible, but actually considered "cheating." So basically the only alternative was to make a different version of the movie, this time in Spanish. So the same script and sets would be used, but different directors, actors, and styles would be used (some say that the Spanish version also had a different producer than the credited Carl Laemmele.)

So why is this version better than the English version? As explained on the Dracula DVD (which I highly recommend), the English crew would film in the morning, and the Spanish crew would film later in the day. The Spanish crew would have the opportunity to see what the English crew shot that day, and would try to make it better. Therefore in the end, the result was that the Spanish film was better.

Also, some info for runtime freaks like me, the runtime of the Spansih version runs MUCH longer than the English. Not real sure right now on the differences, but maybe I'll post that later. Anyway, I gotta highly recommend this one for everday watchers and the horror fanatics alike.

While this movie in no way could be compared to the greats like Godfather or Star Wars, keep in mind that it had very little money. Stuart Gordon does a spectacular job of trying to maintain a big-budget realism with a very small budget. Not only does he do that, but he also makes a fairly entertaining film as well.

I saw this one a long time ago, and have since bought the tape. It really is a true guilty pleasure. While this is not as good as Stuart Gordon's other movies such as Re-Animator, it does beat out the awful Castle Freak. While many say that this is possibly the worst ever, they have obviously never seen a really bad film before.

The plot, which is actually fairly original, focuses on a "Robot Jock (Jox)" that is torn between retiring or continuing to fight for his country in a giant man made robot with specially made weapons to against the interesting, although cliched, Alexander. Add in genetically engineered fighters, and you have yourself one heck of a final fight royal.

The music score, done by some no name composer I have never heard of is actually quite good. I was very very impressed. The score really cought the mood of the action to me.

Overall, it's worth a rental, and if you like it, buy it on tape. I love it, but can see why others would call it average fair. But considering the budget and the company (It was made by the same guys who made Full Moon Studios) it scores pretty high on the zombie meter- 3 1/2 out of five

I look at this page, and it seems disapproving to me to have to listen to someone ramble and rant at a real classic. Sure, I agree to let everyone have their opinion, but here's mine:

This movie should not be missed by any classic horror watcher, and should be seen many casual viewers around the world. Sure, it has lost some of it's flair and greatness with age, especially in todays world of CGI effects, but that's not why you should like it.

You should like it because it actually is a scary movie, even for today's standards. It's overall ickyness will creep you out just as much as the original audiences, so don't slam a classic if you haven't given it a chance. Watch it, but not with a critical attitude. Watch it to have fun, how it was originally intended.