Reviews

Previous comments about this movie is a testament to the fact that Kevin Spacey is one of the most over-rated actors in cinema. American Beauty, I'll admit was a very good job, but was still over-hyped. 'Verbal' Kint, very possibly could be the crowning achievement in his acting career. And that was in 1995. Just because a one or two dimensional actor is cast in many different types of roles, doesn't mean they can pull of a quality and believable portrayal of the character. And this film is the definitive proof of that. Spacey always has some stupid smirk on his face, and his accent makes him sound closer to a Newfie/foundlander than an Irishman. Especially when you hear the authentic brogue. It'll make you wish his role was a non-speaking part, which is inexcusable as it's the lead role. And the emotion is either so cheesy or flat that (a) It makes Clyde the Orangutan look like Laurence Olivier, and (b) Makes all the other actors seem brilliant, which is a good thing because, contrary to what you made read in other comments, it is the merry band of followers and not Spacey's lead which carries this movie. Now I know this film is supposed to be a crime-comedy, and the movie does have a few bright moments; but Pesci in "GoodFellas" was criminal that was funny; Spacey is more like a clown that is supposed to be a criminal, and doesn't emote any of the suave and charm his character is supposed to have.

I don't really mean to be so harsh to the film itself, and wanted to give it a 6, but since the character that's in your face most of the time is the one stinking up the joint, I have to take an extra peg off. Better off with 'Lock, Stock..', 'Snatch', 'Layer Cake', or even 'Rancid Aluminum' if you've seen all others.

Let me start by saying that this movie is a lot scarier to people over 30. Thats not saying it can't scare or disturb younger viewers, just that they have so much more to material to judge against. I'm 31, and I have just seen TLHOTL for the first time. Now, I can't say that it was bad, but I can say that it was different than I expected. It's not a horror movie, it's a terror movie. The soundtrack is dated, the film quality is weak, the acting is pretty corny. However, this is a low-budget affair, and at times the acting is fantastic, and the soundtrack does a lot to develop atmosphere, and also show contrast. Watching this movie, you can so see where where others in the terror genealogy come from from and fit in. You can definitely see shades of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and "Friday The 13th" in this movie, and on those accounts alone it deserves respect. I have not seen "I Spit On Your Grave", or "The House at The Edge of The Park", or "The Hills Have Eyes"(part 1), and would love to see them just to see where they fit in , in the scheme of things so to speak. I read or heard that Craven and Cunningham were told to gun for something that could rival and be "exploited", like Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". Well, what they did was much more. They opened the door to movies where "normal" humans were the monsters, not zombies(Which are my favorite), or space creatures, or humans controlled by supernatural or extraordinary means. No matter how critical one can be about the production of TLHOTL, it is definitely a classic if even based on that fact alone.

Now I know that some people will say that there were other foreign films that were predecessors and blah blah blah. Let me ask you, how available were they in 1972? Are you only even able to ask that question because this is 2005? Exactly. All this leads back to this being scarier and more disturbing for older viewers. J-Horror, Internet Porn, changes in social norms have rendered some of the themes in the movies, not so brazen and bizarre in present times. A movie like "Audition"("Odishon"-J) has a much more disturbing type of violence, not to mention isolation. Which, as my next point, is something done better by G.A. Romero, and especially John Carpenter(who can create a sense of isolation in the middle of a major city). And we have easier access to all types of films and media from all different types of places in general. That all being said,l TLHOTL is still a grass roots classic of this style of cinema which has impact and influence thirty years later.

Historical fiction, Erroneous events, bad editing, weak script; this movie garnered all it's points from the fact I like the legend of Ned Kelly. Heath Ledger is a major disappointment here. I thought for sure he would have killed this job and been perfect for the part. His role in "The Patriot" was very decent, and I felt he had shown major improvements with his lead in "A Knights Tale". Here, he makes a massive backward step, or maybe a side-step, but fudges the role up in the end. It feels like he is trying to blend John Wayne from "The Quiet Man" with Mel Gibson in "The Patriot" or "Braveheart" with the result being a very stiff and wooden performance. It was disappointing for me because I know Ledger can bring more life into a character

Orlando Bloom, trash. He has to be the one of the top arguments of why Hollywood is going down the drain quality-wise. First of all, it's hard to look at him because he's just a gross mix of that "Punch & Judy" chin and that 'Juan Epstein' curly, greasy "wetlook" crap he calls hair. And Worst of all, he wishes he had the acting depth of Hulk Hogan. He is a HORRIBLE actor. He does 3 emotions- happy, sad(witch turns into fear when he raises his eyebrows), and introspective, which he also uses for concern. His best role ever was Legolas, and why? Because the elves didn't have tremendous emotional range, so he could pretty much make one face the whole movie. And, because we didn't have to see his disgusting greasy mop. Even then, he was in every other characters shadow, except for Gimli, who was turned into a clown by Peter Jackson. For further proof, just go see the movie "TROY", where he is easily the most forgettable character.

Goeffrey Rush, total totem-pole. Maybe taking too much from his performance in "The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers", he churns out a character which is a cross between inspector Clouseau and the chief-inspector/of-police from "Young Frankenstein", albeit without any humor and endearing qualities whatsoever.

This movie could have been so much more, but as it is, it's just a mediocre product with unsatisfying results.

I saw this movie when it originally came out, but had missed a large portion of the beginning. I think I liked it and had always wanted to see all of it, especially because I wanted to see all the top 5 lists I missed. So I rented it today.

It is a decent film. I don't think it's great, or as good as I felt is was before. The main reason is that all the trials and tribulations Rob goes through, just seem like a waste of time. How can you feel empathy for a character that has the time and luxury to do all this worrying and scrutinizing? Especially when it comes out that most of the problems he suffered were self-induced. How can you forget that you dumped a girl because she didn't put out? Or not realize that someone you were dating before was a whack-job? It just seems like if any decisions that should have been pondered earlier weren't, and that again makes it tough to swallow a character who is obviously very into introspection.

Another problem for me was that we have seen so much more of Jack Black's antics since this movie was released, that his part did seem more tame this go-round. He is still one of the strongest characters in the movie however. I also didn't wholly understand Lisa Bonet's character. Was she the actualization of the 'Fantasy Girl' girl Rob talks about later, just for an emphasis in reality that the ideal is un-attainable in any sense of permanency? If not, why didn't he just stick with her.

There were some really funny parts, and it had a nice sweet ending, but I did find myself looking at the movie timer quite a bit. I now have a strong urge to go read the novel, and maybe that'll open up some things that I didn't get straight away from the film. I wanted to give it 6/10, but I guess it does have enough of that little something that I can give it a 7/10.

I would never rate this as the worst movie of all time. That is doing a disservice to truly horrible movies everywhere, and we don't wanna do that. Neither would I call it one of the best ever, or fantastic, or awesome, as some have described it. That would just be discrediting myself, my induce some form of self-hatred. And lastly, I would choose not call it the most mediocre of films, because we have a much higher standard and benchmark for our made-for-TV movies. It's a sad little film that hovers and swims around the bottom of the barrel, lacking the true substance to pridefully sink to the bottom. In this case, it's just easier to point out faults, because if I had to comment on positive points, I wouldn't be able to complete 10% of the ten text line quota for comments. Everyone got their seat-belts on? Let's go.

The cinematog. isn't utterly deplorable, and they sometimes can make the 8mm look half decent and not so "soap-opera-ishy", but other times it likes my Grandfathers hand-held tanning machine video, like the beginning of the show 'Wonder Years'. Okay, sorry, it's never that good. Really bad mixing in the beginning.music to loud, and the speech levels are not constant, but they do balance out somewhat over the film and you won't miss any dialog after the 15 minute mark. At least not in dolby surround. The bigger problems arise from poor and inappropriate uses of music to set moods. The music changes from really childish renditions of some Luis Prima type music to crappy Hip-Hop beats and baselines, and then back again. When a film does not have a big budget, and you can't afford royalty fees, unless you know some really good musicians that'll play for free, don't rely on music as a major device for anything.

This is one of the few movies where you can see extras and people on the street smiling at the camera in some of the earlier scenes. I didn't think the grandmother(Kathleen Archibald) did a bad job at all. I actually feel that any actor who was in a scene with Jenny, (Susanna Satta) that didn't puke or laugh, should get an honorary Oscar and at least a purple heart. The lead in this movie gives us what is easily one of the worst performances by any actor/actress, anywhere, EVER. You will feel like Ed Wood was reincarnated into his ideal of form: The female love-child of Valerie Bertnelli and Bert from Sesame Street. Whether its her eyebrow that a cyclops would just die for, or her hammy fourth grade caliber recitals of Don Quixote(and all her lines for that matter); You will want to take an orbital sander to her forehead, and you will WANT HER TO DIE. The scariest part of this movie is realizing that some director, casting director, or producer put her in a film that we may all be forced to see one day. This is like the Salvation Army going around to everyone's house and giving out copies of the video tape from 'The Ring/Ringu'. Someone said that she certainly didn't help her career, but also didn't hamper it. If she gets serious work in the future, thats like a girl from your graduating class performing a 'Donkey-Show' at prom, and then becoming president of the United States. An honest to goodness travesty. These B-movies all have stage actors and that does not translate well in front of a camera. On stage you have to ham it up and over do it so you can involve people in the back of the theatre. On film, it just makes you hope that you rented a 'Scanners' sequel by accident and the actors head will just start explode. The movie tries to pay homage to other horror films like 'Misery' and 'An American Werewolf in London', but it seems contrived. Which it is. I mean come on, her father got smoked by a 15 year-old girl with a beretta in the start, and Jenny lived in that same area. Who would be afraid of her with knives and baseball bats if they live in a neighborhood where the street kids have "gats"?

There are some cool death scenes, but as another commenter said, I think the brilliance in this movie may just be by accident.

The most amazing thing about this movie is that when you see the fantastic ending, and the credits roll, you will be astonished that you didn't chew through your own wrists or saw off your leg with a pizza box, just to stop the torture.

In closing, this is a broken movie. A really good plot opportunity and what was probably an very decent script get butchered and turned into some very spammish type product. Next time I'll make sure that when I rent a movie called 'Red Riding Hood', it is in fact about an Irish hooker in the Ghetto.

Oh yah, for all the people that think this movies stinks, don't bother worrying about people that say you just didn't get. They are just destroying there own credibility because it is trash. And we do get it; we got it many times before, when it was done much better in so many other films it's to hard to name. It wasn't original, or artsy. If wanna see a GREAT take on Lil Red Riding Hood, and wolfs too, check out the film 'The Company of Wolves', and see what a good movie should be. Thank you, and good nite.....

Somewhat like a watered-down version of Tae Guk Gi. Good for a TV movie, but you can tell it was a TV movie. Bill Nighy puts in a good performance here and seems almost a perfect example of the stereotypical Nazi officer. Jose Ferrer has a minimal but important role as one of the reflections of morality and decisions made around or in spite of it. Dignified as usual. John Sheas Karl seems almost Jewish in this and I don't know if that done purposefully to reflect against Helmut's uber-aryanism. Shea just reminds me of a young Ben Cross in this. The story line and pace can be a little choppy or uneven, and it could have used a bit more character development, but it wasn't hard to sit through. Except the Tony Randall scenes. Putzi made me a little queasy, and his humor was..umm.. well let's just say his timing was different. Decent Product overall.