Change Your Image
iumma
Reviews
Escape from New York (1981)
Cult film that does not stand test of time
I have to admit, I was expecting a lot more here, and as such I was disappointed. This movie does not measure up even to cult status, with a gruff, almost non-existent acting job by Russell, stupid bad guys, and terrible dialog. This would not even be a solid indie by todays standards. There are other sci-fi cult films from this period that translate well to modern day (ie, Road Warrior, also from 81'), this one does not IMO. Carpenter had a solid premise, but it gets lost with a insufficient budget, and bad acting. I cant understand why Snake became such a iconic character off this movie alone. I have not seen Escape from LA as of yet, but it would have to really be great to make up for the lackluster EFNY.
The Beaver (2011)
A VERY good movie on a untouchable subject
Lets get this straight, this movie is depressing. Why? Because it is about depression. The plague of roughly 10% of the American population, conservatively speaking. And yet this is a topic that Hollywood keeps away from with a twenty foot pole. And again why? Probably for no other reason that they think that no one will want to see a depressing movie. And you know what, they are right. This movie was a HUGE commercial flop, not helped by Mels off screen issues. And I have to say Foster probably new she was on the losing side of this gamble. But that said, the movie turns out to surprise and ultimately nail the 800 pound gorilla of depression. Nobody wants to talk about it, much less make a film about it. However the millions and millions of people that live with some degree of functional depression - the kind where you are not institutionalized or trying to find the medicated silver bullet, but you are just living your life - have to be able to relate to the story that is told here. If you believe the lie that we are all told (that is touched upon in the movie), that "everything will be OK", then you have never suffered the pain of depression, or of irreplaceable loss. This movie paints this in a very real, albeit over-the-top, way. In the end there is no silver bullet to curing oneself of depression, it can be a long, sometimes permanent road. Foster prescribes her character with the most unusual sort of medication in the Beaver, and that why the movie suffered: it was too much. The mass market could not buy it, and saw it as a fumbled attempt at a rough subject. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Fosters directing and Gibsons acting - coupled with a great subplot led by a superb bit of acting by Yelchin - made this film believable, and ultimately a memorable and solid movie. Most of the movie viewing public wont make it through the first half-hour, and I even thought I would have to shut the movie off early on. However, if you give this movie the benefit of the doubt, I think you will not be disappointed. Its not perfect, but how many movies are?
Elektra Luxx (2010)
Like a Skinimax flick without the payoff
I had the unfortunate displeasure of viewing this movie tonight, and my shock and awe at how bad it is cannot really be put into words. I got pulled in by the cover, shame on me. Gugino is a feast for the eyes for sure, and seeing Chriqui make out with another chick was a nice surprise, but those two niceities cant save this deplorable piece of trash. As with an earlier reviewer, I rarely give a movie one star, as I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming about the experience: that was not the case here. It gives off the stink of one of those late night soft-core skin flicks, but without the skin! What the hell was Gordon-Levitt thinking reprising this role? He is lucky he didn't screw up his chances landing the role in Inception. I wasn't even aware this was a sequel until I read some of the other reviews. Anyway, there is nothing else to say, this is pure garbage. I should receive some type of reward for making it all the way through...
Quintet (1979)
Currently in my top 10 list of worst movies ever!!!!!
I came across this movie by pure chance while browsing through the Netflix streaming menu. I am sorry I did. This film is most definitely one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever encountered. I counted the minutes till it was over. I am a big movie fan, and an even bigger fan of sci-fi, and I can tell you I have seen many, MANY, movies. But this movie, was just, well GOD awful. Talk about calling a movie in?? Newman was on auto-pilot the whole movie, with this constipated look on his face as he spent a good 50-60% of the his screen time simply walking around one of the most uninspired set designs I have ever seen. The fact that this movie has close to a five star ranking at this point is laughable. Why, because it was directed by and stars someone famous? You take Altman and Newman's names of the marquee and guaranteed the reviews will reflect the true quality of the movie. People on IMDb so clearly get blinded by big names. Meanwhile, IMO, having big talent crank out such a bad product makes a bad film even that much worse (vs your average B-movie with no plot and a bunch of no-names). Believe me, there is nothing to be learned here about human nature as some of the other reviews may have you believe. Except maybe that Hollywood will green light just about anything with big names attached to it. Anyway, I am not even gonna spend a minute more talking or thinking about this thing. Consider yourself warned....
Zardoz (1974)
Movie does not get a pass for containing a "message"
I felt compelled to write my very first review on IMDb for this movie, if for no other reason than the string of positive reviews I read at the start of the reviews. In all seriousness, are you people for real? I feel sci-fi movies continually get a "pass" for containing messages or commentaries on actual society within the plot of the movie. And don't get me wrong, Zardoz does just that, making some very pointed jabs at our blind faith in religion, class structures, and the value we place on the youth culture. I think that latter is the most interesting message of the film, since the premium on youth and beauty was no where near as prevalent in the 70's as it is today. The Eternals are a clear example of this. Especially in all the nubile young women in the film, with their extremely perky ta-tas. But does the mere presence of one or more statements about actual society in a purely fictional film make that film worth seeing or, dare I say it, good? Many of the first few reviews made the statement of how memorable this film is. But I cant help but feel it was memorable precisely for how BAD it is. Again, does that fact that a movie has a message excuse the director from the basic tenants of what makes a movie good, like the actual story being told, character development, dialogue, quality of the acting, etc. I had no idea this movie was made by the same director who did Deliverance until after the movie, and let me say, I was no less than shocked. And the fact that this was Boorman's follow-up film to what I consider one of the best movies of all time, cant help me feel this movie was green-lighted for no other reason than the acclaim of that film. Zardoz reeks from beginning to end, punctuated by the fact that Connery, also quite arguably one of the best actors ever (?) is left running around in a ridiculous outfit and hairy back, spouting some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard (when he does speak, which is not often in the film). The lack of character development of Zed or the Eternals to me is one of the worst aspects of the film. Honestly, I couldn't WAIT until the Eternals got what they were looking for and were killed off - stop your wining! Listen, I don't want to continue to go off on this movie, as I easily could, I just hope to appeal to one person out there who may read this, see Zardoz, and really reconsider if it is really a good or meaningful film, or an art-house piece of crap that looks like it was filmed by a director on a peyote exploration. You make the call.