Eleven minutes of this was eleven minutes too much. I wish I had a time machine, so I could go back in time and find the script for this movie. I would lock it in a lead box and throw it in the sea. The really deep part of the sea. Apparently I have to write ten lines for this to count as a review. This already means that I have now wasted fourteen minutes of my life on this excrement. If anyone reading this enjoys quality cheap Canadian horror, look no further than the classic Ginger Snaps - a cracking werewolf movie from the nineties. Now that is how you make a cheap, sexy horror film. The Last Sect? More like The Last Sh*t. No wonder David Carradine decided to kill himself. I feel like heading for the cupboard myself, and I only had to watch part of this muck.
Reviews
12 Reviews
10,000 BC
(2008)
MIndless Fun
28 May 2008
I can't think of another film which has been slated so badly by the critics for historical inaccuracy. Thinking about it, I'm not sure how entertaining this film would have been if it had been historically accurate.
90 minutes of short, hairy, swarthy guys, scrabbling around in the dirt and conversing in Proto-Indoeuropean. If you actually want to see what life was like in 10000 BC, watch some anthropology documentaries about primitive tribes around the world. They still live much as mankind did twelve thousand years ago.
I prefer to think of 10000 BC as one of a glorious old genre - the caveman movie. As such, it's more realistic than 1 Million Years BC, not as realistic as Quest For Fire, and at least it doesn't have Darryl Hannah in it.
It is a poor film, worthy only of a five, due to its rubbish script and questionable acting. But there's fun to be had, too.
I like stampeding woolly mammoths.
90 minutes of short, hairy, swarthy guys, scrabbling around in the dirt and conversing in Proto-Indoeuropean. If you actually want to see what life was like in 10000 BC, watch some anthropology documentaries about primitive tribes around the world. They still live much as mankind did twelve thousand years ago.
I prefer to think of 10000 BC as one of a glorious old genre - the caveman movie. As such, it's more realistic than 1 Million Years BC, not as realistic as Quest For Fire, and at least it doesn't have Darryl Hannah in it.
It is a poor film, worthy only of a five, due to its rubbish script and questionable acting. But there's fun to be had, too.
I like stampeding woolly mammoths.
Silent Bloodnight
(2006)
Appalling...
26 May 2008
I caught the end of this on the Horror Zone, and it has to go down as one of the worst partial films I've ever seen.
Just because Arnold is Governor doesn't give the Austrians to produce garbage like this. As crimes go, it might lag behind genocide and keeping your daughter in a dungeon for years as you ritually abuse her, but it doesn't lag far.
The script is rubbish. The actors can't speak English. The plot is nonsense. It looks like it was filmed by a horse, and edited with a potato masher. You might laugh for a minute or two, but even a cocktail of powerful psychoactive drugs wouldn't allow you to make it to the end. Which is the worst part of the movie.
This movie made me want to kill myself. But not until I had killed the two inbred degenerates who thought it would be a good idea to subject the world to such complete and utter drivel.
Just because Arnold is Governor doesn't give the Austrians to produce garbage like this. As crimes go, it might lag behind genocide and keeping your daughter in a dungeon for years as you ritually abuse her, but it doesn't lag far.
The script is rubbish. The actors can't speak English. The plot is nonsense. It looks like it was filmed by a horse, and edited with a potato masher. You might laugh for a minute or two, but even a cocktail of powerful psychoactive drugs wouldn't allow you to make it to the end. Which is the worst part of the movie.
This movie made me want to kill myself. But not until I had killed the two inbred degenerates who thought it would be a good idea to subject the world to such complete and utter drivel.
Speed Racer
(2008)
A Brave New World...
11 May 2008
I'm not sure there has ever been a movie like Speed Racer. And what continues to baffle me is how this movie ever got green-lighted.
The original Speed Racer, which ran for only a short time, was basically a campy sixties cartoon that lived on as cult television. Forty years after the show was made, thirty since it was popular in the US, and fourteen years after its aborted television revival, the reboot hits our screens. Most of its original audience are far too old to cope with the epilepsy inducing visuals and MTV speed editing. Who is this movie aimed at? I should make a point here. All of Speed Racer's achievements are technical: the visuals are nothing short of staggering, when seen on high-grade digital projection. See this movie on the biggest, best screen you can, because by the time it hits DVD it will lose a lot. Even on a mammoth TV - trust me, what's left when you strip away the visuals is a shocking shambles of a film.
And before you moan "It's meant to be corny!" or "It's for kids!", I'm not attacking the bizarre stylised dialogue and campy acting.
The story's too complex. The film is miles too long - at least sixty minutes or more. The casting is crazy - check out Spy Kids if you want to know how to fill roles like Racer X, because an actor like Matthew Fox is absolutely wrong. Goodman, Sarandon and Ricci do better, and Emile Hirsch is actually plastic enough to fit in with the rest of the synthetic visuals.
Ultimately, I can see huge appeal for the video game generation here and no one else. They're accustomed to horrible cut-scene acting, bad dialogue and having to spend hours waiting for the grand finale. And as risible as this film is, and butt-numbing as its length is, the visual achievement from the Wachowski Brothers is landmark. If you're serious about cinema, you must see this film in IMAX, or large-scale digital projection. See it to get a glimpse at the visual potential of the future.
Let's just hope it has a better script.
The original Speed Racer, which ran for only a short time, was basically a campy sixties cartoon that lived on as cult television. Forty years after the show was made, thirty since it was popular in the US, and fourteen years after its aborted television revival, the reboot hits our screens. Most of its original audience are far too old to cope with the epilepsy inducing visuals and MTV speed editing. Who is this movie aimed at? I should make a point here. All of Speed Racer's achievements are technical: the visuals are nothing short of staggering, when seen on high-grade digital projection. See this movie on the biggest, best screen you can, because by the time it hits DVD it will lose a lot. Even on a mammoth TV - trust me, what's left when you strip away the visuals is a shocking shambles of a film.
And before you moan "It's meant to be corny!" or "It's for kids!", I'm not attacking the bizarre stylised dialogue and campy acting.
The story's too complex. The film is miles too long - at least sixty minutes or more. The casting is crazy - check out Spy Kids if you want to know how to fill roles like Racer X, because an actor like Matthew Fox is absolutely wrong. Goodman, Sarandon and Ricci do better, and Emile Hirsch is actually plastic enough to fit in with the rest of the synthetic visuals.
Ultimately, I can see huge appeal for the video game generation here and no one else. They're accustomed to horrible cut-scene acting, bad dialogue and having to spend hours waiting for the grand finale. And as risible as this film is, and butt-numbing as its length is, the visual achievement from the Wachowski Brothers is landmark. If you're serious about cinema, you must see this film in IMAX, or large-scale digital projection. See it to get a glimpse at the visual potential of the future.
Let's just hope it has a better script.
Bionic Woman
(2007)
Another remake...
27 September 2007
Firstly and foremost, I have to point out that I am a big fan of the new Galactica, although I don't personally see why that should apply to the reception of a separate show. And yes, I know there are considerable crossovers in writing and acting talent, but the show still deserves to be evaluated on its own.
Secondly, rose-tinted memories aside, remember that old seventies shows have not generally stood the test of time. They were strictly formulaic, beset by comedy fashion and hairstyle, and the bionic woman itself was a cheap knock off of its masculine origin show. For God's sake, they varied the implants just so she would be different to Steve Austin.
Of course, restrictions of formula still apply. An audience that has been gobbling up 24, Lost and Prison Break for the last few years now has higher expectations of a new show. Better production values, more stylised dialogue and a greater sense of mythology pervade these shows. And Heroes has pushed the benchmark out about as far as it can go.
So any new pilot on any network is going to come under serious scrutiny. And I think Bionic Woman holds up. I will concede that the script for the pilot was a little ropey - I had the distinct feeling a pilot movie script had been seriously hacked down to size. But the performances were strong enough to hold it, and the photography and visual design showed some innovation.
The biggest problem with series (as opposed to movies) is that it can take much longer for a show to build up the momentum it needs to create its identity. The Bionic Woman had always been a family show, just like The Six Million Dollar Man. If the new Bionic Woman is going to establish itself as the same, then it will have to pitched just right.
So it gets six out of ten. Better than average. Better than a lot of shows that somehow continue, but worse than many who have fallen by the wayside. Lets just hope that NBC give Jamie Summers time to show us who she really is.
Whether it's a hit or not, for me it has already wiped another laughable 70s show off the map. Maybe they could update The Fall Guy, only it would be about a CGI artist who used his power of computer graphics to help a different woman every week...
Secondly, rose-tinted memories aside, remember that old seventies shows have not generally stood the test of time. They were strictly formulaic, beset by comedy fashion and hairstyle, and the bionic woman itself was a cheap knock off of its masculine origin show. For God's sake, they varied the implants just so she would be different to Steve Austin.
Of course, restrictions of formula still apply. An audience that has been gobbling up 24, Lost and Prison Break for the last few years now has higher expectations of a new show. Better production values, more stylised dialogue and a greater sense of mythology pervade these shows. And Heroes has pushed the benchmark out about as far as it can go.
So any new pilot on any network is going to come under serious scrutiny. And I think Bionic Woman holds up. I will concede that the script for the pilot was a little ropey - I had the distinct feeling a pilot movie script had been seriously hacked down to size. But the performances were strong enough to hold it, and the photography and visual design showed some innovation.
The biggest problem with series (as opposed to movies) is that it can take much longer for a show to build up the momentum it needs to create its identity. The Bionic Woman had always been a family show, just like The Six Million Dollar Man. If the new Bionic Woman is going to establish itself as the same, then it will have to pitched just right.
So it gets six out of ten. Better than average. Better than a lot of shows that somehow continue, but worse than many who have fallen by the wayside. Lets just hope that NBC give Jamie Summers time to show us who she really is.
Whether it's a hit or not, for me it has already wiped another laughable 70s show off the map. Maybe they could update The Fall Guy, only it would be about a CGI artist who used his power of computer graphics to help a different woman every week...
Jaws: The Revenge
(1987)
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the movies...
1 March 2004
Why shouldn't this be the worst film ever? Sure, it's in focus, and it's got Sir Michael in it, but apart from that this is absolutely the bottom of the chum barrel. Let's forget the ropey plot and the hilarious special effects. Beyond all that, we have the pain of actually watching the tortured cast struggle through the inane script. Horrible horrible horrible, made even worse for the fact that it's made as a sequel to one of Hollywood's best. I wish I could give it none out of ten. Thankfully, though, there was no Jaws five. perhaps the shark could have eaten whatever studio heads greenlighted this load of manure.
Baise-moi
(2000)
A thought provoking shocker...
13 January 2004
I've read a lot of the comments for this movie and think that many of you have missed the point. The directors claim this to be a movie about friendship - and that the bonds of that relationship have nothing to do with the circumstances from which they are born. I'm somewhat sceptical about that. If you just wanted to make a movie about friendship, it could be about nuns. Or puppies. Or just about anything. But Baise-moi (which translates as Shag Me, not F**k Me) serves to highlight very clearly the moral hypocrisy that surrounds cinema, and has done ever since the days of the Hayes Code. The irony here lies in the fact that it is the explicit sex that caused the film to be banned in so many territories. No one has a problem with the violence. Sure, the violence might be simulated, and the sex isn't - but they both occupy the same space on the screen. And while it's legal to have sex in the privacy of your home, the violence depicted could never be legal. After all, you can see worse violence in Freddy vs. Jason, and more explicit sex on any porn video you might choose, so what is it about the combination that riles people so? I'll concede that the film is flawed, and demonstrates the debutant directors lack of experience, but for the challenge it sets to our jaded set of morals in the west, it should be applauded.
Bad Boys II
(2003)
They should have saved this turkey for christmas
13 December 2003
I'm usually quite forgiving when it comes to poor movies, but after this latest dross from the world's worst director, Michael "Throw a filter in there, it'll look so cool" Bay, I have had to plump for 2 stars. Never mind the objectionable humour and non-existent plot - is it healthy for a nation that suffers from one of the highest gun-murder rates in the world to be subbjected to a film that worships at the altar of Glock? The first Bad Boys was a vaguely enjoyable buddy movie that broke convention by starring two black cops instead of the traditional one black and one white. The sequel is just a mindless sequence of destruction, violence, and profanity that eventually just succeeds in offending the viewer. Bay is without a doubt the most inept director in Hollywood. After the pain of Armageddon and Pearl Harbour, how is it that he is allowed to continue to victimise us? Please stop. If I have to see one more over blown filter shot that belongs in a Ford Galaxy commercial, I'm going to hurl. Please. Amend the constitution. Stop Michael Bay before someone really dies.
Batman Returns
(1992)
If only he had kept going...
13 December 2003
All sequels receive a certain amount of bad press, but surely after having suffered Batman Forever and the risible Batman & Robin, we can now recognise BAtman Returns as the strongest of the franchise. Shot in technicolour monochrome, the array of beautiful characters, sets, and the quirky script give us one of the few commercial blockbusters ever to be made with such a strong arthouse feel. Gothic fairytales don't come any better than this. Shame Tim Burton didn't continue to make Batman movies. Because I for one don't want to ever have to suffer as much pain as I did watching Batman and Robin.
Dune
(1984)
A world beyond your imagination, a disaster beyond your worst nightmare
7 November 2003
Just a quick comment on the Alan Smithee version which is available on dvd at the moment. The producers were left with the sole rights for this recut tv version. 3 hours long and no better for it, with a horrid mono soundtrack and fades left in from commercial breaks. Do not sully the wounderful endeavour of the original by watching this. Anything would be better.
RoboCop
(1987)
An unsung classic...
24 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Won't worry about spoilers, cause this is not really a whodunnit. Robocop remains one of the high points of Hollywood movies in the late eighties. Who let Paul Verhoeven direct it? They probably regretted it a thousand times through production, but no-one else could have taken such a ridiculous script and made it into such an admirable movie. Watch it for the satire on modern american society and Reaganism (striking, privately owned cops?). Sure, some of the effects are a little ropey now, but Weller's stand-out physical performance is one of the best mimes ever to make it onto film. I genuinely think he deserved at least an oscar nomination for this. It's so easy to forget that he isn't really a robot. With a strong stomach necessary, this is unmissable.
Underworld
(2003)
Promising stuff from leftfield!
25 September 2003
For those of us who have long watched and loved vampire movies, from the sublime to the ridiculous, now we have Underworld. It seems to have been shot entirely in Hungary, or otherwise eastern european location, giving it a lovely, gothic look, as well as a neutral setting. (My only gripe here would be the product placement for Bacardi! How does that fit in with this crazy flick?)
A convoluted plot posing vampires against werewolves in an eternal battle between races of immortals greets us here. The action is fairly well staged, and the VFX, while maybe a little cheaper than what some of us are used to, nevertheless gives the movie a style and look that many more expensive pictures miss out on. The acting is a little ropey sometimes, as is the slightly bonkers script, but overall the movie works - and Beckinsale holds things together when it seems all is lost.
If you like Blade, Buffy and The Matrix, then this is a fine way to spend the evening. Ciao!
A convoluted plot posing vampires against werewolves in an eternal battle between races of immortals greets us here. The action is fairly well staged, and the VFX, while maybe a little cheaper than what some of us are used to, nevertheless gives the movie a style and look that many more expensive pictures miss out on. The acting is a little ropey sometimes, as is the slightly bonkers script, but overall the movie works - and Beckinsale holds things together when it seems all is lost.
If you like Blade, Buffy and The Matrix, then this is a fine way to spend the evening. Ciao!
Tell Your Friends