Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (She is green with envy) 『Fantastic cast (JOHN SAXON, BASIL RATHBONE, JUDI MEREDITH, and DENNIS HOPPER.) This formula program uses a standard threat that you have seen from the old 50's sci-fi and even pops up now and then today. Check out the 1990 technology such as a reel-to-reel tape recorder of which many of today's viewers have never seen. If you only had $50,000 to make a movie you would bring your home tape recorder also.
In the year 1990 a technically advanced society has crash-landed on Mars just prior to our plans to go there. We sped up the process to see if we could help the survivors. I will not go into details however at one point the female alien (Florence Marly) looks up and find the female astronaut owns three male food containers and she is green with envy. What great threat can this being pose to earth? Worse still she seems to have her eye on a young Dennis Hopper.
Reluctant Debutante - JOHN SAXON』 『(1966-USA) COLOR. With JOHN SAXON, BASIL RATHBONE, JUDI MEREDITH, DENNIS HOPPER. A talented cast sparkles in this unique and riveting combination science fiction-horror epic. Indeed, after watching it, you may never ever want to stare into the eyes of a beautiful woman again! The year is 1990. Mankind has long ago explored and conquered the moon. The primary question about outer space remains unanswered: Does life in any form exist on other planets? To find out, plans are under way to send spaceships to explore the planets Mars and Venus. The institute has received some special signals relaying a message that a spaceship from a faraway galaxy has been dispatched toward our planet. Meanwhile, an "unknown object" crosses the moon and is headed toward our planet. It reportedly is not the spaceship in question. Various events quickly follow, highlighted by the blast-off into space of a rocket headed to Mars. What is found there is utterly shocking: a gorgeous "queen! bee" vampiress who, in order to survive, must feed off the blood of earthlings! The special effects are imaginatively devised and frequently eye-popping, and it is fascinating to note the manner in which the filmmakers perceive everything from space flight to international relations in the "future" year of 1990! It also is great fun to see young Dennis Hopper in his role as Paul, a space pioneer who is one of the astronauts on board the flight to Mars. This film was produced for only $50,000, using footage from a Russian film made seven years earlier and writing the script around it. Even more astonishing, this is the second Basil Rathbone film to use this same footage!』
Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Not quite as bad as it looks) 『I know, I know...
Gaping plot holes, cheesy lines, ridiculous coincidences, hammy acting, lack of faithfulness to the novel (which, although no classic, was apparently much more sensible than this)....'Battlefield Earth' is certainly not a good movie. However, the reviewers slamming it as the worst movie ever made are wrong. It is certainly deeply flawed, but it does have a certain cheesy attraction.
The biggest problem lies not so much with the film itself, but the fact that it takes itself so seriously. If 'Battlefield Earth' were simply another pulp blockbuster like 'Independence Day', you could probably forgive alot of the stupidity on display here. But this movie so obviously sets out to be something "Big" and important. Check out the "making of" section of the DVD; the cast and crew really do seem to think they're making the next '2001' here. So instead of being able to laugh off the implausibilities in the story, the movie's self-important seriousness forces us to notice them, emphasising over and over again the leaps in logic and cavernous holes in the plot. The gap between the creators' ambitions and the eventual outcome is hilariously wide, and you can only wonder why nobody thought to ask how cavemen can fly a plane in a week, or books and fuel kept for 1000 years are in perfect working order.
Many people bag John Travolta's role, but I actually think his slightly self-conscious hamminess comes closest to what the film should have been. It's Barry Pepper's leaden performance that really drags this film into the depths, making ridiculous scenes even more cringeworthy with his po-faced earnestness. You just have to laugh at his deadly serious attempts to teach cavemen trigonometry, for example. Even worse, the director seems desperate to make a major artistic statement (because this film is going to be the new '2001', remember?), so he employs a variety of tilted angles, extreme close-ups, partial-scene, and other distorted camera effects which are just annoying.
So if you are after a genuine, thought-provoking sci-fi film, then look elsewhere.
However....'Battlefield Earth' is entertaining to an extent, provided you just take it as a cheesy B-grade sci-fi flick and not the big budget flop it was. The movie works alot better if you just surrender to its stupidity instead of fighting it.』
(This is a great movie! Think about what is happening now!) 『It doesn't have to be aliens or ETs that shut you out of your world and take over. It just could be the international bankers, the private FED, and the corrupt US Federal Gov. Why do you think that they spend so much money to get elected? How are they going to pay back their "friends" that donated those funds? Where do you think that money comes from? That's right! - From you! Watch this movie again with this perspective in mind, and you will see a whole new world! Yours! Then go see this 5 minute wonderful clip created on[...] from the movie "V For Vendetta"... "V's Message for the U.S.A" [...]』
(Interesting Movie) 『Battlefield Earth brings to the screen a futuristic scenario where aliens are in control of Earth and humans have been reduced to a mere slave-race. It is the year 3000 and the Pshyclos, an evil race of aliens, have taken over planet Earth to satisfy their need for raw materials. Subsequently, humans have become an endangered species... Don't look for the movie to make much sense; it doesn't. John Travolta, Forest Whitaker, Barry Pepper, and the rest of the cast carry out their performances well though the acting is nothing extraordinary. The setting, the (full of holes) plot, the (weak) dialogues, the special effects, and the music make for an amusing film. In a nutshell, it's probably not a movie you would want to add to your collection, but it will provide for an evening's entertainment (especially if intoxicated and/or in a silly mood).
』
(WHAT PRICE SCIENTOLOGY? WHO CARES?) 『Well, poodles, Once more I returned home after a relaxing facial and manicure only to find that little Jimmy jr. had yet again poisoned the family DVD player with some heinous assault called BATTLEFIELD EARTH. How he managed to bribe his Germanic governess Mrs. Whipcrack to remove his fetters and take him to the local video store is still under investigation. (I would have thought this beyond her. She claimed to be former Gestapo on her resume.) With my freshly painted nails digging into my palms, and a growing concern for the I.Q. of my youngest son, I sat down to witness what could quite possibly be the worst movie of the new millennium.
Released to scathing reviews in the summer of 2000, one could only hope that BATTLEFIELD EARTH was, as many paranoid trogs would have it, a subliminal recruitment for the L. Ron Hubbard religion/carpetbagging operation, because then it might have some purpose. Otherwise, it is a brain-baking travesty, a Hollywood laughingstock that must inevitably damn at least some of the careers wrapped up in it. It's difficult to imagine how John Travolta, (whose personal project this was in one way or another), got away with his reputation and price tag intact. As a Rasta-coiffed alien in six-finger fur gloves and big Gene Simmons boots prone to drinking what looks like Gatorade at his local alien gin mill, Travolta utters dialogue only LOST IN SPACE's Dr. Smith could get away with, including multiple exclamations about Earth being "this horrid planet!" Much to his hammy dismay, Travolta's Terl is stuck on Earth monitoring its security after the Psychlos have essentially wiped out civilization and are busy strip-mining the planet.
Jonnie (Barry Pepper) gets captured by the Psychlos; when Terl decides to surreptitiously have "man-animals" mine gold for personal profit, he slaps Jonnie into a brain-educating machine, not realizing that Jonnie has a Captain Kirk-like need to be free. The revolution takes forever to happen, and director Roger Christian's 45-degree angles, hyper-closeups and hemorrhaging slo-mo shots virtually comprise a textbook in how to make an irritating, ineffective and dull action film. Unarguably the dumbest sci-fi novel ever to be a bestseller in this country (if it was one - anti-Hubbardians think there's a warehouse full of paperbacks somewhere), BATTLEFIELD EARTH makes it to the screen with its nova-sized plot holes (caveman learning how to formation-fly Harriers in a few days!), glaring inconsistencies ("Six Psychlos coming fast!"; cut to six aliens walking very slowly) and slackjawed foolishness intact.
Don't even get me going on the Fort Knox debacle, or Kelly Preston's cameo as an alien trollop with a foot-long tongue, or Pepper's portentous reading of the Declaration of Independence. I haven't seen such a laughably incompetent summer movie since summer movies became summer movies some years ago, and that's saying a pantload. As to Mrs. Whipcrack, we have a special room in our basement for people who don't follow orders. Perhaps she might enjoy a little visit down there next to our sloppy gardener Mr. Chu.』
(Better than I expected) 『I went into this movie fully expecting for it to be horrible. Mike Nelson of MST3K fame did a RiffTrax on it, it is constantly made fun of. Even the cover indicates stinkitude: the only review on the back of the case is (literally) from JoBlo's movie blog! It can't get any lower than this. So naturally, I had to see what the fuss was about.
I have a personal theory on this: the writer(s) of this film had ADD. Hear me out...
The first hour is absolutely incomprehensible. They introduce our protagonist, who has no name, rides a horse, and attempts to attack a mini-golf dragon and is dragged into an abandoned mall and is captured by John Travolta, who is given a name almost instantly (Terl), and makes him do things with other captured people with absolutely no explanation. The writer is clearly hyper at this point, but I suspect at 42 mins realizes this and takes a pill to calm himself down.
From 1:00 to 1:30, the movie begins to make sense. Our protagonist is given education, and all of a sudden he begins to make sense and you learn what the heck Terl is up to. They discover Fort Hood and Harriers. The protagonist is even named! The pill is clearly working.
But the pill clearly wears off from 1:30 to the end, the nonsensicalness/hyperness of the plot returns and the film becomes a blur of SFX.
At the end of my first watching, yes, this is dreck. However, for kicks and background noise, I put on the commentary and watched it again immediately afterwards. And I realized a number of things:
1. The movie was trying to follow the book, methinks, very closely. 2. It makes sense for the first hour that your confused as all get out. Because, our protagonist is. The last 30 minutes, though, cannot be excused. So the plot is horrendous and the writing is to blame. 3. It's kinda funny; a number of jokes are made on the lack of knowledge of future humans. 3. The director of this film has an impressive history (Star Wars ep IV as set designer), wanted to make a film on a book by LRH, and had a very small budget. He somehow got a Canadian crew and SFX team to make a B- movie with big name actors on a shoestring budget, and the commentary revealed this, and it was really neat to learn about all of the work he put in. His academic integrity and ability to explain what was going on was really informative. He also explained a lot of subtle jokes that were made about the humans not understanding common skills we have today.
So while I wouldn't consider this movie entertaining, it is informative.』 『WhenBattlefield Earthwas released in May 2000, this inept sci-fi epic qualified as an instant camp classic, promptingDaily Varietyto call it "theShowgirlsof sci-fi shoot-'em-ups." Other reviews were united in their derision, and toy stores were left with truckloads ofBattlefield Earthaction figures that nobody wanted. As the film's star and coproducer, John Travolta must have felt an urge to enlist in the witness protection program.
Recklessly adapted from the novel by sci-fi author and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and set in the year 3000, the film is no worse than many cheesy sci-fi flicks, but the sight of Travolta as a burly, dreadlocked alien from the planet Psychlo provokes unintentional laughter from first frame to final credits. As Terl, the Psychlo security chief who conquers Earth and hatches a secret scheme to steal all the gold from Fort Knox (which sits conveniently in wide-open vaults), Travolta hams it up as if he knows he's in a camp-fest. (In a cameo as a long-tongued Psychlo seductress, Travolta's wife, Kelly Preston, only adds to the absurdity.) Barry Pepper (the praying sharpshooter fromSaving Private Ryan) tries his best to convey charisma as Jonnie, the human slave who leads an uprising against Terl's tyranny, but he's adrift in a foolish plot that makes even smart humans look stupid.
The decrepit look of a dreary future is convincingly established (the ruins of Washington D.C. recallLogan's Runon a grander scale), but in the wake of its ludicrous climax, the best thatBattlefield Earthcan hope for is aDune-like fate: itmightimprove in a longer director's cut--but that's wishful thinking.--Jeff Shannon』
price：$4.99
DVD)
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Lame...Boring, Too much ... Circus Benny Hill Music) 『I have already watched the new 2009 version and really liked it. This original version is boring, i actually fell asleep 4 times. I had to stop it and come back to watch the rest the next day. This is supposed to be a horror/thriller movie, but then the benny hill type circus soundtrack is horrible. Some of the scenes are even humorous, like the police officers trying to hitchhike after they ran out of gas. The new modern version is much better. Oh ... and what's with their daughter refusing to wear a bra and showing her breasts in front of her father ... ? That was creepy.』
(Primal Instincts) 『Horror is so broad now as to have an unpredictable turn of events that have the potential to rape your mind and soul while you are passively entertained. Yea, we all wanted revenge, the rape scene as long and vivid as it was did not add to the hard justice delivered in the end and only demonstrates the level of depraved morality we are expected to believe.』
(EXTREMEMLY UNEVEN IN TONE, BUT HAS ITS MOMENTS!) 『I saw this film at the drive-in many years ago and despite its following I have never been a big fan of this film. Watching it now I have confirmed my earlier opinion that this is not a great film. It's a low budget mess with horrible acting and an inappropriate music score that makes this film almost completely un-watch-able! That's not to say that this film doesn't have its moments, it's just too little too late.
The film is full of inconsistencies and goes from truly disturbing to ridiculous comedy in the blink of an eye. This is really sad because this film could have been so much better if Wes Craven had kept the tone more even. The rape and killings are pretty brutal for when it was released and it isn't an easy film to watch at times.
I also have to compare this film to much better horror films from the same time period such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which is far superior and even though it's a low budget film it really works for the most part and the actors seem to be more believable. I realize that this film came out a couple of years before it, but Chainsaw is a much more satisfying horror outing.
I give some props for being one of the first films of this nature, but it isn't as good as its reputation. I don't know anything about this special edition nor do I care. If this is your cup of tea then by all means buy it!』
(Last House on the Left) 『I has seen this movie when it came out in 1972, this was suppose to show "never before seen scenes" ! Well it didn't !!!! There were scenes left out ! This was the worst purchase I ever made,,,I was real dissappointed.』
(Dumb) 『I've heard quite a bit about Wes Craven's 1972 debut film "Last House on the Left" over the years and finally decided to see what the hoopla was all about.
PLOT (Spoilers!): "Last House" is a simple rape/murder/revenge horror flick about two Connecticut girls who go to the big city to catch a rock concert, but they look for pot in the wrong place and end up kidnapped, humiliated, tortured, raped and killed. When the father&mother of one of the victims find out they set out to take revenge; the culprits aren't hard to find 'cause they're, coincidently, overnight guests in their house!
This is, apparently, a loose remake of Ingmar Bergman's "Virgin Spring" (1960), albeit in a modern America setting.
WHAT WORKS: Aside from the brief Manhattan scenes, the woodsy Connecticut locations are great (Westport&Redding); the three female actors are cute; and the diversified score (by the actor playing Krug) is entertaining even while a lot of it is incongruous with the material. In addition, the film can be appreciated as an early 70s period piece/oddity or if you're a Craven fan.
Also, if you're a gorehound there's some significant gore, in particular a bloody disembowlment sequence.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Wow, this story is really DUMB. I'm not referring to just the goofy aspects, i.e. the two rural policemen, but to the complete implausibility of the storyline: [SPOILER ALERT!] The criminal gang just so happens to break down right in front of the rural house of one of the victims? Why sure! But there's more, way more: After breaking down on some desolate country road the gang decides to take a frolic in the woods where they torment, rape&murder the girls; their clothes are completely bloody but they're able to fully wash up in a scummy pond and deck themselves to the hilt. Where'd they get the soap and towels, etc.? (I didn't see any) Where'd they get the nice dress clothes? Didn't they just escape from prison? Then they knock on the door of the closest house, the house of one of the victims (which they don't realize yet), and her parents cluelessly allow this suspicious foursome to stay overnight, a couple of 'em in their daughters very room -- unbelievable! Keep in mind that their daughter has been missing since the night before and they should be seriously concerned about that, but they're okay enough to allow four weirdo adult strangers to occupy their home -- Why sure! The revenge of the parents is just as ridiculous. [END SPOILER]. As noted above, many of these scenes are combined with an unfitting goofy score, which makes them all the more absurd. Really, the story is so ridiculous it's as if a 13 year-old came up with the plot but, no, it was written/directed by Wes Craven, a full-fledged adult with degrees in writing&psychology -- unbelievable.
With this understanding, how can the viewer possibly take the story serious? Which is why I find it strange that some people call this "the most disturbing film ever made," etc. If the material is absurd it can't truly be disturbing because it can't be taken seriously. Is the violence in the Road Runner disturbing? No. Why? Because it's a cartoon and it's preposterous. "Last House" may not be a cartoon but it's the same principle because it's just as preposterous.
The reason 1978's "I Spit On Your Grave" works, for what it is, is because it's presented to the viewer in a serious, realistic manner (well, except for parts of the revenge scenes in the last 20 minutes -- but even those sequences are believable compared to the inanities of "Last House"). Consequently, "I Spit On Your Grave" is disturbing, "Last House" is not.
One may defend the film on the grounds that it was the first of its kind as far as gore goes. I don't think so. "Night of the Living Dead" came out four years earlier and has more gore, albeit in black&white. "Night" is a thousand times more disturbing and horrifying because, again, it takes the material serious.
Some may object to how sick&sadistic the criminal scumbags are, but they're supposed to be appalling because this is a rape/murder/revenge horror flick. It comes with the territory.
BOTTOM LINE: I generously give "Last House" 2/5 Stars for the positive elements noted above but, really, this is one of the dumbest flicks I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe it ever got a green light. You gotta see it to believe it, meaning it's definitely worthwhile as an early 70s curiosity.
The film runs 84 minutes and the original cut 91 minutes.』 『FutureNightmarecreator andScreamweaver Wes Craven's film debut is a primitive little production that rises above its cut-rate production values and hazy, grainy patina via its grimly affecting portrait of human evil infiltrating a middle-class household. The story is adapted from Ingmar Bergman'sThe Virgin Spring, but the film has more in common with Sam Peckinpah'sStraw Dogsas it charts the descent of a harmless married couple into methodical killers. A quartet of criminals--a distorted version of the nuclear family--kidnaps a pair of teenage girls and proceeds to ravage, rape, torture, and finally brutally murder them in the woods, unwittingly within walking distance of their rural home. The killers take refuge in the girls' own home, but when the parents discover just who they are and what they've done, they plot violent retribution.
Along with George Romero'sNight of the Living Deadand Tobe Hooper'sTexas Chainsaw Massacre, Craven helped redefine American horror with this debut--all three movies portray modern society crumbling into madness and horror. But, unlike his fellow directors, Craven gives his film an uncomfortable verisimilitude, setting it squarely in the heartland of modern America. While at times it's awkward and inconsistent, with distracting comic interludes, his handling of the brutal horror scenes is unsettling, and the death of the daughter is an unexpectedly quiet and lyrical moment.--Sean Axmaker』
price：$4.96
DVD)
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Well Done) 『Well done movie. Obviously one that the Catholic church would not approve of. High quality acting, suspenseful, well-done but not overly done special effects.』
(Stigmata Non Grata...) 『When STIGMATA first came out, I avoided it. I figured that it would be another hokey, religious / supernatural mega-dud like END OF DAYS. Years later, I finally watched it, and was pleasantly surprised. Patricia Arquette is both tough and vulnerable as Frankie Paige. She is bewildered by what's happening to her, without losing her modern cynicism. Gabriel Byrne (Gothic, Spider) makes a believable, world-weary Father Kiernan, who goes from skeptic to believer in due course. Jonathan Pryce is subtly eeevil as the pompous Cardinal Houseman. If you like religious horror / thrillers that aren't (overly) dependent on cgi or insulting to your intelligence, then STIGMATA should be a hit... P.S.- I prefer the director's darker, more powerful alternate ending over the "happily ever after" hollywood bilge...』
(excellent) 『http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6305718954/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_title I recieved my Stigmata Dvd very promptly and it was in the condition it was expected to be in.』
(A Good Buy) 『Stigmata was always one of those movies that I loved and never got around to buy and was very happy, because Amazon was the place to get Stigmata a good price and very good condition. Thank you once again as always』
(SPLIT A PIECE OF WOOD, AND I AM THERE... LIFT UP A STONE, AND YOU WILL FIND ME...) 『I saw this film years ago when it was first released and enjoyed it. I saw it again recently and enjoyed it even more the second time around. I had forgotten that the film was based upon the Gospel according to St. Thomas, a gospel that is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and is not included in the New Testament. The Gospel according to Thomas is not about the life of Jesus. Rather, it is about the things that Jesus said. There are one hundred and fourteen such sayings that have been translated. One of those sayings is at the heart of this film. "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up a stone and you will find me."
The film is about an investigative Jesuit priest, a young atheist who suffers from the stigmata, and a conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to suppress a certain gospel, as if fears its destruction should that gospel become public. The investigative priest, Father Andrew Kiernan, is played with appropriate gravity by Gabriel Byrne, a serious man with a faith issue, as he is not just a man of the cloth, he is also a scientist with a degree in chemistry. He travels around the world investigating alleged miracles. The young atheist suffering from Stigmata is Frankie, a twenty-three year old hairdresser played with great sincerity by a young and nubile Patricia Arquette. Cardinal Houseman, the politically savvy church official seeking to suppress the perfidy of the Church, is played with zealous determination by Jonathan Pryce.
I loved everything about this film. While there are elements of horror intertwined with its underlying intellectual theme, these two odd bedfellows merely make the film more interesting. I certainly did not find the juxtaposition of these two elements incompatible. The special effects do not overwhelm the film, but, instead, serve to enhance the experience of the viewer in understanding the film's themes and message. The film also boasts a wonderful soundtrack that meshes perfectly with the film and adds to its drama. Moreover, the film boasts stellar performances by its entire cast.
This is a very entertaining film that is well worth having in one's personal film collection. I loved this film!』 『Gabriel Byrne plays Father Kiernan, a young Jesuit priest whose degree in chemistry makes him a sort of priest/detective as he investigates weeping Marys and the like around the world. Meanwhile, Frankie (Patricia Arquette), a rave-generation Pittsburgher, is afflicted with the stigmata--holes that appear in her wrists, resembling the wounds of Christ. The young woman's symptoms filter back to the Vatican and Father Kiernan is assigned to the case. The priest is puzzled by Frankie's atheism; usually the stigmata only appear on the devout (hence the age-old controversy of miracles vs. hysteria). Other manifestations appear on Frankie, and the priest's cardinal (Jonathan Pryce) is brought in, leading to political maneuvering within the Church hierarchy. The film owes a large and obvious debt toThe Exorcist(at one point, Frankie's bed scoots across the room and she levitates into a crucifix position), but to term it anExorcistrip-off would be to shortchangeStigmata. The premise and screenplay are more cerebral than in the l973 film, and the source of the phenomenon is coming from a completely different place.
Unfortunately, amidStigmata's high-octane editing and slick technique, the chills ofThe Exorcistaren't there, giving the movie a sort of identity crisis: horror movie or intellectual thriller? Several elements of the film challenge basic tenets of the Catholic faith, hence the brief furor that erupted at the time of the film's release; if nothing else, the internal workings of the Church are shown in a very unflattering light indeed. Byrne excels as the skeptical priest, as does Arquette as the tortured young woman. All told,Stigmatais a rather uneven effort, but one with a thought-provoking combination of theology and thrills served up in a thoroughly modern, stylish package. Fans of TV'sAlly McBealwill recognize Portia DeRossi in a supporting role.--Jerry Renshaw』
『In this taut thought-provoking thriller a young woman is being mysteriously attacked by supernatural forces and its up to a vatican envoy to find out whether the incidents are divine or demonic. Special features: directors alternate ending subtitles in french and spanish deleted scenes and much more. Studio: Tcfhe/mgm Release Date: 08/28/2001 Starring: Patricia Arquette Jonathan Pryce Run time: 102 minutes Rating: R Director: Rupert Wainwright』
price：$7.98
DVD)
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Devilish dish...) 『Set mostly in Florence, Italy, "Hannibal" follows the life of Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) ten years after "Silence of the Lambs". Hannibal, going by the name of Dr Fell, is now living as a curator/scholar of a library in Florence where he gives lectures on literature. Once Inspector Renaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) discovers that he has a notorious serial killer in his midst, and that there is a huge ransom for his capture, he secretly goes about trying to bring Hannibal into custody. But this is a big mistake. In the meantime FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Juilianne Moore) is recruited by the wealthy, and sadistic Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), to track down Hannibal. Verger was horrifically disfigured by his own encounter with Hannibal. Earlier on we have the Justice Department official Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) making unsuccessful advances on Starling, and unjustly lays blame on her for a bloodbath with various criminals in a gun fight. One thing leads to another as Hannibal eventually makes his way back to the United States and back into the life of Starling.
The movie is based on the novel of the same name by Thomas Harris, and was directed by Ridley Scott. Perhaps one thing that makes this movie work is the exotic location of Florence with its rich history. Renaldo Pazzi is portrayed as a character who, himself, has a rich ancestral history in Florence, and Hannibal makes use of this history when he confronts Pazzi. There is something darkly comical about this movie, from the ridiculously scarred Verger, to the follies of the henchmen who fail so miserably to capture Hannibal, to the delicatessen meal near the films end. It seems that Ridley Scott thoroughly enjoyed creating the devilish dish of a film.』
("This Film Floors You!") 『I recently watched "Hannibal" again and I realized I forgot how good a film this is. Directed by Ridley Scott (most famous for "Thelma and Louise") "Hannibal" stars Anthony Hopkins in the role that made him a household name. As Hannibal Lecter Mr. Hopkins is sophisticated, articulate, and most of all terrifying in his attempt to keep the FBI from recapturing him after escaping police custody in "The Silence of The Lambs". I'm not a fan of sequels but this movie works. With an excellent script "Hannibal" is one of those cinematic masterpieces both in story content and look. A lot of the film was shot in Europe and the background adds to the mood of the film. Julianne Moore replaces Jodie Foster in the Clarice Starling role and it is evident, but according to reports Foster couldn't be persuaded to return. Five minutes into the film, however, you forget a different actress is playing one of the biggest parts which is a testimony to the wonderful actress Moore is. "Hannibal" was also a boxoffice smash grossing over $350,000,000. This exquisite two disc set features an array of bonus features that will pleasure the most ardent Hannibal fan. Included is an alternate ending, commentary by Scott, over 35 minutes of deleted scenes, a great featurette on the making of the movie, TV Spots, and more. "Time" magazine calls "Hannibal"..."Thilling". There are also two prequels to "The Silence of The Lambs", the first of which is called "The Red Dragon" that recounts the story of how Lecter was originally captured and there is "Hannibal Rising" that documents Hannibal at a young age and how he became a monster. Both films are worth purchasing.』
(HE DID NOT CUT OF HIS OWN HAND!!! ARE YOU ALL THAT DAFT?!?!?!) 『I was really enjoying this movie until the final "climactic" scene between Clarice and the good doctor. David Mamet and Steve Zaillion were absolutely arrogant in changing the ending that Hannibal's creator, Thomas Harris, wrote in HIS book. It is an insult to the character to have him cut off his own hand when, in the book, he just keeps Clarice as his "companion" forever. The alternate ending is a bit more palatable (pun most definitely intended) but still... HE DID NOT CUT OFF HIS OWN HAND!!! To quote Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda"... DISAPPOINTED!!!』
("Is This Coincidence Or Are You Back On The Case? If So, Goody-Goody.") 『The long-anticipated sequel to the Academy Award winning suspense thriller "Silence Of The Lambs" is here...and it's a well-crafted story. I have not read the novels, so I can't compare them. The reviews I read (mostly from newspapers and Christian websites) said that this was a really gory movie, so I was expecting that. I was a trifle disappointed that there really wasn't very much blood (and that a pivotal flashback sequence was barely visible, though the audience gets the idea from the blurred images in the scene). That's my only complaint. Oh, yes...why were there scenes in the trailer that were deleted from the film? Really stupid practice, that is. Excellent movie. The film SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RATED "R." The acting is top-notch on every level. If you love "Silence," you'll enjoy "Hannibal."
Ta-ta.
H.』
(Absolutey, positivly, Gross.) 『They went totally overboard with the blood and gore factor for this so called sequel to " The Silence Of The Lambs". As much as I admire director Ridley Scott, he got into the blood and gore way way too much. If you're a hardcore Hannibal Lecter Fan, stick with the first film " The Silence Of The Lambs", and if you haven't checked it out yet, see the prequel to it " Red Dragon". If you have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie. I don't have a weak stomach, and I gagged at the part where Hannibal cuts the guy open and he hangs him from the terrace and the guys intestines fall out on the ground, The infamous brain scene was sickening to. Not a worthy sequel to "The Silence Of The Lambs".』 『Yes, he's back, and he's still hungry. Ten years afterThe Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, reprising his Oscar-winning role) is living the good life in Italy, studying art and sipping espresso. FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Jodie Foster), on the other hand, hasn't had it so good--an outsider from the start, she's now a quiet, moody loner who doesn't play bureaucratic games and suffers for it. A botched drug raid results in her demotion--and a request from Lecter's only living victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), for a little Q and A. Little does Clarice realize that the hideously deformed Verger--who, upon suggestion from Dr. Lecter, peeled off his own face--is using her as bait to lure Dr. Lecter out of hiding, quite certain he'll capture the good doctor.
Taking the basic plot contraptions from Thomas Harris's baroque novel,Hannibalis so stylistically different from its predecessor that it forces you to take it on its own terms. Director Ridley Scott gives the film a sleek, almost European look that lets you know that, unlike the first film (which was about the quintessentially American Clarice), this movie is all Hannibal. Does it work? Yes--but only up to a point. Scott adeptly sets up an atmosphere of foreboding, but it's all buildup for anticlimax, as Verger's plot for abducting Hannibal (and feeding him to man-eating wild boars) doesn't really deliver the requisite visceral thrills, and the much-ballyhooed climatic dinner sequence between Clarice, Dr. Lecter, and a third unlucky guest wobbles between parody and horror. Hopkins and Moore are both first-rate, but the film contrives to keep them as far apart as possible, when what madeSilenceso amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling, but it's unfortunately too little too late.--Mark Englehart』
『Dr. Hannibal lecter escaped from the asylum in baltimore to florence italy where he has become one of the curators of the palazzo vecchio and has learned to stop eating human flesh all the time. But his cover is broken when cop rinaldo pazzi will turn dr. Lecter over for money to mason verger. Studio: Tcfhe/mgm Release Date: 10/16/2007 Starring: Anthony Hopkins Gary Oldman Run time: 131 minutes Rating: R Director: Ridley Scott』
price：$6.74
Mira
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Crashed and Burned) 『While I thought that Rose did a fairly good job of grabbing your attention initially, about two thirds of the way through, I had the fleeting thought that the book should end, now.
Her characters were two dimensional, as a result, I really didn't care about any of them that much, except for Sabina. I wanted to see what would happen when Josh found her in the present. I wanted to know who she was going to be. What an irony that the only intriguing character was the one that Rose did not bring into the present. She just teases us with the main character's obsession with Sabina, constantly reminding us of her every time Josh experiences a "lurch". But, Rose committed the greatest betrayal any author can. She leaves us hanging. She leaves loose ending dangling all over the place. Frankly, the whole book crashed and burned in the last pages.
It was painfully obvious who the "villian" was going to be. It was also just as obvious, without revealing too much to those who might not have read the book yet, who the child was going to be. What about Sabina? What about the stones, how do they work? Rose just gives us some symbols and a vague mantra...so what. What about all the side characters, or should I call them token characters, cheap decoys, since they just disappear.
I also have to say that Rose fell flat on her concept of Karma! The child did not die in the past, so why the author thought that saving the child should wind up the karmic center, I have no idea. It should have been Sabina. It was Sabina and her fate and present identity that tortured the main character, not some shadow child!
I was so irritated when I finished the book. I felt cheated. I would not recommend this book.
』
(Lurches Through TimeReviewer: Thriller Lover N.YC.) 『Josh is the character who describes his past-life experiences as"lurches," and it felt to me as if the book was doing the same. the parts about his life as Julius were interesting, Percy not so much, and Josh not at all. There was little suspense and certainly no thrills. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters except Julius and Sabine; the rest were only cardboard cut-outs. Also, the villain was obvious, and the herrings weren't red enough to obscure him\her. The writing was fairly pedestrianand nothing ever rose to the heights that the author and the blurbs promised. Interesting premise and could have been a better book if it had been written by a better writer, or if it had even had a better editor. The worst part of all was the ending - there wasn't one - at least not a REAL one. The author just stopped. I've seen that done by the writers of some of those trash series where the author just wants you to buy the next book, but that wasn't the case here, sunce it doesn't seem that the author is planning to do anything further with these characters, except for Malachi, who shows up in THE MEMORIST, I gather. I'm not planning to read it. This one was a disappointment.... Not recommended, even for free.』
(the reincarnationist) 『Ridiculously bad writing makes it impossible to lose yourself in the story. Characters are poorly drawn and unbelievable. The plot, such as it is, utterly fails to make up for stylistic deficiencies. Everyone involved in the publication of this book should be embarrassed, particularly its editor.』
(What can I say about The Reincarnationist besides FABULOUS?) 『After an accident in Rome, photojournalist Josh Ryder begins experiencing flashes of past memories¯from another life, another era. As these flashes intensify, he's drawn back to the time of ancient Rome, Vestal Virgins and the mysterious Memory Stones. Through the eyes of Julius, he is reunited with a powerful love for Sabina, the Vestal Virgin he has sworn to protect and would willingly die for, a woman whom would be buried alive if their secret love were ever discovered.
In present day Rome, Josh assists at the Phoenix Foundation, an organization that explores and researches claims of reincarnation or incidences of memory flashes, especially in children. Led by impulse, he finds himself at the edge of a freshly unearthed tomb and witnesses a murder.
His search for answers, for the Memory Stones stolen from the tomb of the Vestal Virgin Sabina, for the truth about what happened in ancient Rome, leads him to two women¯Professor Gabriella Chase and Rachel Palmer, a young woman who is haunted by her own past life memories.
Is either of these women the Sabina he once knew? And will Josh ever reconcile his past with his present? These are just some of the questions I found myself asking along the way. I found the premise of this novel intriguing. I couldn't put the book down once I started it.
Author M.J. Rose tells a compelling story that weaves history and religion into a fateful adventure filled with intrigue, romance, murder and deception. Her writing is detailed but not overloaded, just the right mix of fact and fiction to make me a believer and her characters are ones I'll remember for a long time. The flashes of past and present are so seamlessly woven yet clearly defined, that I was never jolted from the story, but swept along and taken on a ride that left me breathless by the end.
I highly recommend this novel to anyone interested in the theory of reincarnation or anyone who enjoys a suspenseful, thrilling journey to the past. It would also make an exceptional read for a book club.
The Reincarnationist is the inspiration for a new television series that will be airing soon. I can't wait to watch Past Life. If it is anything like M.J. Rose's novel, it is going to be an adventure of a lifetime.
~Cheryl Kaye Tardif, author of The River 』
(It Was Ok....) 『This book was ok, not great. I just felt like I was reading the Davinci Code or something, and I didn't like the Divinci Code. I was bored about midway through.』 『A bomb in Rome, a flash of bluish-white light, and photojournalist Josh Ryder's world exploded. From that instant nothing would ever be the same.
As Josh recovers, his mind is increasingly invaded with thoughts that have the emotion, the intensity, theintimacyof memories. But they are not his memories. They are ancient . . . and violent. A battery of medical and psychological tests can't explain Josh's baffling symptoms. And the memories have an urgency he can't ignore -- pulling him to save a woman named Sabina . . . and the treasures she is protecting.
But who is Sabina?
Desperate for answers, Josh turns to the world-renowned Phoenix Foundation -- a research facility that scientifically documents cases of past life experiences. His findings there lead him to an archaeological dig and to Professor Gabriella Chase, who has discovered an ancient tomb -- a tomb with a powerful secret that threatens to merge the past with the present. Here, the dead call out to the living, and murders of the past become murders of the present.
International bestselling author M.J. Rose offers a spellbinding, psychologically riveting epic thriller of secrets, history and murder that will challenge the way we think about who we are and who we were.』
price：$3.50
Company
Usually ships in 24 hours 『This study examines the major works of contemporary American television and film screenwriter Joss Whedon. The authors argue that these works are part of an existentialist tradition that stretches back from the French atheistic existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, through the Danish Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard, to the Russian novelist and existentialist Fyodor Dostoevsky. Whedon and Dostoevsky, for example, seem preoccupied with the problem of evil and human freedom. Both argue that in each and every one of us "a demon lies hidden." Whedon personifies these demons and has them wandering about and causing havoc. Dostoevsky treats the subject only slightly more seriously. Chapters cover such topics as Russian existentialism and vampire slayage; moral choices; ethics; Faith and bad faith; constructing reality through existential choice; some limitations of science and technology; love and self-sacrifice; love, witchcraft, and vengeance; soul mates and moral responsibility; love and moral choice; forms of freedom; and Whedon as moral philosopher.』
The scallop of large satisfactory ! northern countries and - [ of how much ] botan shrimp are ! tightly.
getting to know the technique of motorbike expensive sale -- Ta -- if -- -
>,John Saxon,Basil Rathbone,Judi Meredith,Dennis Hopper,Florence Marly
