Reviews

This movie is not deserving of the high praise it has recently received. While this was not a bad, unbearable movie, it was a good idea that could have been better. I like the premise of the film, two yuppie divers left floating in the ocean. Yet so much more could have been done with it. The shark sequences build up and build up then go no where. The whole film seems like a group of anticlimatic scenes. Even the end was not very satisfying.

The production value, particularly at the beginning, was nothing special, it looked like something a high school film student could make. However, the in water sequences were well done. The diving sequences were on par with something one might see at an IMAX theater. For the most part though, I just was not impressed. There were several scenes before the stranding that came out of left field, particularly a nude scene that was unnecessary; welcomed, but still unnecessary.

In the end I was not impressed. The movie was not even ninety minutes, and still had padding. The "scary" scenes were anything but that. Besides and interesting premise and some cool underwater scenes this movie has little going for it. However, as I mentioned above, this movie is not horrible. But it could have been so much better, and this distracts from what is happening on screen. Certainly not a must see, but worth watching if the story interests you or you're a fan of movies without all the big special effects.

OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.

On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.

My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.

I watched this film while I was in Italy as it is hard to find in the states. I only heard about it due to a Oscar spotlight on some cable channel and it peaked my interest. I viewed it with high expectations and was blown away by everything about this movie. The cinematography and script were great. Even the first time performances by the actors were impressive. However, most important is that I actually cared about the characters and story after the movie was over. Other good movies, such as the Lord of the Rings movies, were engaging yet during the end credits reality returns and you're back to your life. This is not true with City of God. The people, places, and situations are all real and the film really opens your eyes to a different life. Although graphic, the film is never gratuitous. Yet more sensitive people may not be able to view this movie. My only complaint is that it was a little slow in the very beginning and it took me a while to sort the characters out. The rest of the movie more than makes up for this flaw though. Definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen, and I implore you to give it a try if you have not already.

A lot of people really hate this movie. Probably because it was featured on Mystery Science Theater and if its on the show it has to be bad right? Well not necessarily. I love MST it always cracks me up, but those involved with the show openly admit that sometimes films are chosen because they can obtain the rights to them not because they are bad. I found Bloodlust to be a solid movie. The plot was good, the dialogue interesting, and it was fairly suspenseful. Negatively, there were some plotholes, the acting was nothing special, and the ending was rather weak, but still an overall enjoyable film. Still it was crap compared to the good suspense movies of its day (any Hitchcock). Not worth renting but maybe a lazy saturday on cable tv if you're into that sort of movie. Oh and the MST version was hilarious, definitely worth watching.