An American mystery directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Teresa Wright and Joseph Cotten.
A long absent uncle goes to visit his relatives and is trailed by detectives who think he is a murderer. The family's eldest daughter tries to learn the truth of the situation.
Dull. An hour and 47 minutes seemed to pass slowly. I had to force myself to be interested in the plot because I was watching this for film class at school. Nothing of consequence happened until the last few minutes. Characters were stereotypical of the era: the dorks, businessmen, housewives... The whole thing was based mostly on dialogue that was not very interesting. I think that the actors did a professional job of playing their roles. Sets and costumes looked like an early sitcom. It seemed to be a prototype for I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver. The suburban town, men in suits, women in dresses, everything looking the same. Camera-work was not as bad as the rest. Hitchcock is known for shot variety and this delivered on that, if nothing else. The audio was actually mixed quite well. I could hear dialogue, music and sound effects at the correct levels, with nothing clipping into distortion. I would describe the style best as gentrified and stuck in first gear. This got 8/10 on IMDB, Roger Ebert gave it 4/4 and it has 100% tomatometer, 90% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 92.5% A grade average seems a little high for something so uninteresting. I rate this tolerable because it was just plain boring.
A British Australian children's science fiction directed by Matt Drummond.
A boy from the present brings a crystal on an airplane and wakes up on a beach after a storm. Wandering in a nearby forest, he encounters dinosaurs and is saved by a girl from about 60 years in the past. Together, they are captured by a tribe of children and escape as the boy tries to find a way home.
Crappy. An hour and 20 minutes felt like forever and a half watching a flick made for kids. There was a definite lack of plot. It seemed like there were CG dinosaurs with a thin veil of plot carelessly draped them. The characters were annoying to no end because their dialogue was poorly written. Acting was even worse. Shit having been talked, it was a technical masterpiece. Sets and costumes looked convincing (mostly CG), camera-work and editing were beautifully done and obviously, special effects were the main attraction. The dinosaurs looked alive and featured an incredible level of detail. Audio brings us back to shit talk again. No matter how epic the symphonic string section gets, I won't buy this farce of a plot. It also included the voices of the 2 main characters. This has 3.4/10 on IMDB and 21% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. I agree completely with this 27.5% average grade. I have to rate it bad because I didn't turn it off. The only way to save it would be to edit out everything except CG dinosaurs.
An Italian exploitation adventure directed by Umberto Lenzi, starring Ivan Rassimov.
A British man is captured by a rural tribe in Thailand. He has initial difficulties with them, but is accepted and marries one of the women.
A Man Called Horse 2 would be a better title. It was too similar to even merit a full review because I already did that for the film that this copied. So, what was different? I think there was more female nudity and I know there was more animal cruelty. Apparently, they really killed the animals in this. This had less creative use of camera-work and editing, with no compositing being used. The color balance was better too. Although there was lots of green, it didn't spill over onto non-green items like orange/brown did in A Man Called Horse. Audio was better too. I didn't hear distortion on any of the dialogue. The ending was also different. This was much clearer about the main character's plans for the future. This has a 5.5/10 on IMDB, 1/5 AllMovie rating, 2.5/5 user rating on AllMovie and 39% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 41% average is not a good grade. I rate this o.k. because what it was copied from got adequate and this only made minor changes from the source material.
An American comedy directed by Malcolm D. Lee, starring Regina Hall, Jada Pinkett Smith, Queen Latifah and Larenz Tate.
A quartet of women who were friends in college reunite in New Orleans.
Way to perpetuate racist stereotypes! 2 hours was too long to have to watch this. I had to watch the whole thing too because it's for school. Yes, this is part of a college curriculum. The simplistic premise had fickle, little sub-plots to fill time and add fuel to white supremacist fires. There is only 1 word to describe the characters: niggers. I saw them engaging in every negative aspect of African-American activity and culture that could be fit within the film. Same goes for dialogue and acting. The sets were not bad. I liked the zip line over the street most and it was the only joke that I found almost funny. Costumes were stereotypical, but I kind of liked the vests for the main characters. Camera-work and editing were not bad either. There was plenty of shot variety, with some dollying around characters. There were 2 instances of clear special effects. These were the zip line and some creative editing in a club scene. The audio was not to my liking because of musical genre and annoyingly insipid dialogue. This won 6 awards and has 6.3/10 on IMDB, 3/4 stars from Roger Ebert, 71% on Metacritic and 90% tomatometer, 80% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 76% average C grade is astronomically high for what I saw. I rate it bad because it was annoying, insipid and racist. Coming from the guy who finds race-based stereotypes funny, it has to be REALLY racist for me to label it as such. This makes Bamboozled (2000) seem unprejudiced by comparison.
An American adventure directed by Terry O. Morse.
A boy's dog comes back from the war and has trouble remembering life at home. Just when it seems that the dog has remembered, he is kidnapped by a neighbor and "The Orange Man".
The main problem here is plot hole logic. At only an hour and 4 minutes, it passed quickly enough. The plot was implausible. Allow me to explain: Why would the army take a dog away from a small child? The child actor was 15 years old when this was filmed, but is clearly portraying a younger child. It is stated that the dog was away for about 2-3 years. It thus follows that the U.S. army took a dog from a 10 year old boy. The boy's older friend was in the war as well, but that doesn't help to explain much. Everything that happened was also predictable. I saw the baseball going through that window from miles away. I also knew that the boys would dump their bikes at the climax when they needed to move fast. Plot hole and predictability aside, the characters were not developed all that well. The antagonist showed more development than the protagonists! Dialogue and acting were extremely dated. "Gee, but you're a swell pal!" is almost a foreign language compared to modern American English. The sets and costumes were very mundane. The only special use set pieces were a barn with a ladder and a backyard with a fence bordering on a sidewalk. Camera-work was less than creative, but kept directional consistency. The audio was not so great. Dialogue mic volumes were clipping and all of the soundtrack music seemed major and happy. Everything about this film is very much of the time in which it was made. It has 6.7 on IMDB. I rate it tolerable because it wasn't pleasant enough to be called quaint.
A Canadian slasher directed by Richard Ciupka, starring John Vernon and Samantha Eggar.
An actress intentionally gets admitted to a mental hospital to do research in order to play the part of a crazy woman. The director does not have her released as agreed and invites other women to be cast for the part. Someone starts killing people, as always.
Another crappy movie... An hour and 26 minutes seemed like a long time. I don't think the plot was clearly communicated. There were dreams, imagination sequences and missing time, none of which were clearly identified. Characters were pitiful, except the female lead and she was just barely 3 dimensional. The dialogue was not written all that well and the acting was not bad, but not good either. Sets and costumes were pitiful too. "We got this ugly mask, let's write a plot around it!" Camera-work and editing were actually not too shabby. I liked the scene when the woman gets out of the car to examine a doll in the road. Good framing and composition were seen in various areas. The ice skating scene also looked good. There was some special effect blood, as with most slasher flicks. Audio was mixed decently. I would have raised the dialogue just a tiny bit. The soundtrack piece for the ice skating scene was very much of the time. This has 5.8/10 on IMDB and 60% tomatometer, 39% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 52.3% average is just slightly low. I rate it poor, mostly because it failed to hold my attention.
An American horror directed by Lewis Jackson, starring Jeffrey DeMunn.
Watching his parents have sex on Christmas eve drives a boy insane. As an adult working at a toy factory, he is still obsessed with Christmas. He makes his own Santa suit and goes to reward and punish people as he sees fit.
Not really the best thing I've ever seen. The hour and a half duration seemed to go quickly. The plot was a little disjointed and poorly written in some areas. There were constant references to "playing a tune" that were never explained. The characters were shallow, except for crazy Santa. Dialogue was a little uncreative, but again, crazy Santa was the best actor. Sets were pretty standard locations, but the toy factory looked alright. It included large numbers of copied toys. The main character's Santa suit was a pretty decent costume. The beard and hair looked professional, even after he had gotten dirty and roughed up. Camera-work and editing were pretty basic. I didn't really notice anything worth mentioning there. There was 1 special effect at the end, but I won't spoil it. Audio is where this really fell apart. It was mixed fine, but crazy Santa humming Christmas songs was really annoying. Other critics have praised the editing and camera-work. It has a 5.3/10 on IMDB, 3/5 AllMovie and user rating on AllMovie and 83% tomatometer, 32% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 57.6% failing average grade seems right to me. It also seems that every film gets 3/5 on AllMovie. I rate this tolerable.
An American comedy directed by Carl Gottlieb, starring Ringo Starr and Dennis Quaid.
A physically weaker, but more intelligent caveman is cast out of his clan. He meets other outcasts and forms a new clan with them, but they are always opposed by the main character's former clan.
I'm glad I watched this, but wouldn't watch it again anytime soon. The hour and 25 minute duration seemed to go by quickly. Although the premise was simplistic, many sub-plots and various adventures were included. It was all communicated very clearly. I liked that the hero was the intelligent one against a Bluto-esque adversary. Dialogue and acting are an interesting subject for this film. The dialogue was all in nonsense caveman words, although the Asian caveman knew proper English. This could not have been pulled off without expressive acting. Call it over the top, absurd and comical, but the actors did a great job. Apparently, my sense of humor belongs in the late '70s and early '80s because I found this quite funny. Sets and costumes reminded me of classic caveman flicks like One Million Years B.C. (1966). The camera-work was mostly very straight forward and I could tell that it was meant to showcase the jokes more than provide accurate indication of geographic relationships. The dinosaur special effects were comical stop-motion and, again, reminded me of classic films of the '50s and '60s. I won't spoil it, but the best stop motion dinosaur is during the climax. Audio was pretty standard of the time. Everything was mixed right, but I found the soundtrack a little cheesy, hokey and cliche. Roger Ebert gave this 1.5/4 stars, it has 5.7/10 on IMDB, 3/5 of both ratings on AllMovie and 24% tomatometer, 54% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 49% average is not good by any standards. I disagree with other critics on this. I thought it was funny because I've seen the all old caveman movies and got the jokes about them. If you don't understand what is being mocked, you will never find the joke funny. I rate this adequate.
An American science fiction directed by Adam Simon, starring Diane Ladd and Clint Howard.
A scientist who is genetically engineering chickens makes dinosaurs.
Crappy like a Syfy channel flick. An implausible, threadbare and inconclusive plot was filled with shallow characters whose dialogue was poorly written as they gave bad acting performances. I was unimpressed with most of the sets and costumes. The laboratory was not bad and they did have guys in yellow jumpsuits. Camera-work and editing looked low budget and Syfy production to me. There was some fire used, but the main special effect (the dinosaur (image)) was shoddy. Even a child could tell that it was made of rubber and moved in an unnatural manner. It would actually have been better to show less of the dinosaur. One good head puppet and some big, jointed cardboard to make a believable shadow would have worked and probably have been scarier. Audio seemed to be mixed right and the soundtrack seemed to fit. There was an annoying sound in the laboratory that sounded like the "DROOOOID" android ringtone. This has a 3.5/10 on IMDB and 11% tomatometer, 23% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. A 23% average is like marking "C" for every answer on a test. I rate this bad because it shows a lack of thought. What makes it even worse is that this was supposed to compete with Jurassic Park!
A Chinese action film directed by Jackie Chan and Eric Tsang, starring Alan Tam and Rosamund Kwan.
A former musician has sold an antique sword that is demanded by people who have kidnapped his ex-girlfriend. Her new boyfriend goes with to retrieve the weapon and save the girl. They are opposed by a group of evil monks who have the other pieces of the set of armor that the sword belongs with.
This is the film in which Jackie falls out of a tree and hurts his head. The hour and a half duration was apparently not enough because the plot was inconclusive. It did hold my interest with action. Something was always happening. How does a musician become a kung fu master/adventurer/treasure hunter? I did not find the back-story of the characters believable. Dialogue and acting were overlooked in favor of action sequences as well. This included some great sets and locations. Right at the beginning, Jackie slides down a mountain as he is being chased by a tribe from whom he stole the sword. The lair of the evil monks was expertly done as well. When he fights the high heel fighters, there is a "double boob punch" that I thought was worth mentioning. Camera-work was not bad at all. I think it looks less impressive than it really was for the camera crew to find placement in odd areas and do moving shots to follow the action. I couldn't tell if it was a real cave or a fabricated set. Stunts made up most of the special effects. Falls, jumps, slides, fire and sparks are pretty standard in a Jackie Chan flick. Audio was not the best. The dubbing looked and sounded really fake and the soundtrack was really cheesy. This won best action cinematography at the 1988 Hong Kong film awards. It has 7.1/10 on IMDB, 4/5 AllMovie rating and user ratings on AllMovie and 78% tomatometer, 62% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. I agree with the 74.2% solid C grade. It's an average, but decent Chinese action film of the late '80s. Nothing else to say but rate it o.k.
An American horror directed by Fred Walton, starring Ken Olandt.
A group of college students go to stay at a friend's house on an island. People start getting hurt and dying.
What a load of crap! An hour and 26 minutes is far too long for this, even though the pacing was brisk. The plot seemed like a normal and oh so cliche slasher flick until the end when it got even worse. The characters were shallow like cardboard cutouts, dialogue copied and pasted from other slasher flicks of the time and acting uncreative at best.Sets and costumes were a sham. They just found the correct location that included all their plot elements and wore regular clothing. Camera-work and editing were very straight forward. I don't even think they used a dissolve between scenes. the special effects were standard '80s gore and a little on the light side. The monster in the jack in the box was the best part (image). At least the audio was mixed correctly. The only problem there was repetitive music. This has 6.2/10 on IMDB, 38% Tomatometer and 47% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes for an average of 49%. I agree with that miserable, failing grade. I rate this bad because it's a cliche and crappy movie with a stupid ending.
A Chinese wuxia horror comedy directed by Ching Sui-tung, starring Leslie Cheung, Joey Wong and Jacky Cheung.
An innocent man is imprisoned because of mistaken identity, but his cellmate helps him to escape. Upon reaching freedom, he accidentally steals the horse of a Taoist magician. The 2 meet later at an abandoned temple that turns out to be haunted by a demon. Political rebels also show up and are trying to free the father of 2 sisters, 1 of which looks like the main character's lost love, Sui Sin. The main character, romantic interest, comic relief, rebels and demon all clash at the temple.
This was much slower than the first film in the series. The plot was also far more complex. An hour and 37 minutes is too short for something this cool, but there's still #3 left to watch. Even though there were too many characters with intertwining plot motives, I was actually able to keep track of them relatively well. I can't say much for translated dialogue, but there was a joke about the main character wanting to write on the hands of the sisters and them thinking he wanted to have sex with both of them. The sets were very similar to the first in the series. There was lots of darkness with colored lighting, mostly blue. The decrepit, old temple looked like it was actually old and falling apart instead of being designed to fall apart. Camera-work was very similar to #1 as well, but with much slower editing pace. The demon is not a spoiler. He happens pretty soon and was created quite well. His claws and fangs were obviously the most important part. We also had flying people and weapons and a stone stairway that split apart. There were also magic fire and freeze spells. The audio was easier this time because they slowed it down to a pace that I could read subtitles at. Style was similar to #1 of course. This has a 7/10 on IMDB, 3/5 on AllMovie and 64% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 65% average is still a failing grade, which I disagree with. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I liked this and see it as a valuable part of the series. I rate it adequate and can't wait to watch #3.
An American action film directed by Andrew Davis, starring Steven Seagal, Pam Grier, Sharon Stone and Henry Silva.
Steven Seagal plays a "loose cannon cop who doesn't play by the rules". He is on a case involving drug smuggling, illegal immigration, explosives trafficking and assassination.
This was on a kung fu list, but there was very little fu that got kunged. An hour and 36 minutes of yet another LCCWDPBTR was too much for me. Shootout, chase scene, computer hacking in DOS and cheesy '80s music made it very cliche and stereotypical. The plot failed to hold my interest because I of how many times I have seen this type of thing before. Reiterations of the classic cop flick characters did not entertain me either. Their dialogue could have been copied and pasted from the gargantuan amount of similar films that preceded this one and the acting was as cheesy as the music. Sets and costumes consisted of regular '80s clothing in a city. The only unique set was the martial arts dojo in the beginning. Special effects consisted of blanks for the guns and squibs for people getting shot. There were also some falls from tall buildings. The audio was mixed correctly and the music, although cheesy, was from a time when musical virtuosity was still driving creativity and before Kurt Cobain wrecked rock. Hal Hinson of the Washington Post said this was "woefully short on originality". It has 6/10 on IMDB, 53% Tomatometer and 48% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 53% average failing grade seems about right to me. I rate this poor because I have seen much worse than cliche and repetition.
A Chinese wuxia fantasy directed by Wilson Yip, starring Louis Koo and Kara Hui.
The tree demon's servant from the original has a thing for mortal men. One of them stabbed her in the head with a magic dagger to make her forget him, so she falls in love with another one. Her new romantic interest and 3 demon hunters work to defeat that same tree demon again.
This is obviously not part of the original series. The hour and 36 minutes seemed a little long in comparison with the original film's hyperdrive speed. The plot wandered aimlessly through love affairs, magic and violence that all became a big, muddy mess. Characters were very identifiable, but all of their dialogue and acting was very similar. It was sets and costumes that made this worth watching. Everyone had different clothing and hairstyles. The tree demon even got a hair color change at the end (oops, I ruined the whole plot). The magical locations had the best sets like inside the tree and a sea of leaves. In special effects, we had CG snakes and hair (among other things) as well as people and items flying. Audio had clear dialogue, a good mixdown and a sappy musical score. Although more modern and technically superior to the original film, this lacks its namesake's style and flair. The China Post gave this 2/5 stars, it has 5.7/10 on IMDB and 32% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. 43% average is a little worse than it deserves, but not much. I rate this tolerable because I like the genre, but realize that it's totally lame and hollywooded.
A Chinese kung fu directed by Jeong Chang-hwa, starring Angela Mao, Michael Chan Wai-man, Dean Shek and Sammo Hung.
A woman gives birth to a daughter in prison after being raped by a government official. Her husband had been killed by a gang of kung fu masters and she tells her story to a fellow inmate before dying. The daughter is brought to an abbey, learns kung fu and gets kicked out for being too violent. She then goes to live with the woman who brought her out of jail and revenge her mother's husband's death.
Bellicosity? To start with, the title was incorrect. No oaths were broken. A better title would be "Scorpion Girl Revenge". The hour and a half duration was pretty standard, as are most aspects of this film. I thought that the plot was very clearly presented, the only major element that separates it from the crowd of other kung fu films. The main character had a signature move, using a cloth to put scorpions on people. Everyone else was extras. The abbess used the word "bellicosity" to describe the main character, meaning that she was violent. Why such an obscure word? Sets and costumes looked like authentic ancient China (standard). The camera-work and editing on this were just enough above standard to make me notice that it looked decent. Special effects were used to make items fly, but not people. There was also a man who could breathe fire. The audio featured a very major sounding, almost jubilant theme song at the beginning and end that did not fit the serious tone of the film in between. I could hear the dialogue well enough, but the subtitles that I got were just slightly off-time. This has a 7/10 on IMDB. I would agree with the C- grade because it was mostly very standard. I rate it o.k.
