price：$2.99
Universal Studios
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (The DVD is nearly unwatchable) 『Based on the highly-lauded Broadway production of the 1970s that starred Frank Langella, director John Badham's version of "Dracula" might be the last traditional horror film ever made before the genre was hijacked by aliens, slashers and monsters made out of latex rubber. While not critically respected at the time of its release, it at least offered some good, creepy scenes (including an effective recreation of the wall-crawling sequence from the novel), had atmosphere galore, and presented Langella as an ultra-smooth, romantic bloodsucker. It also offered the spectacle of Sir Laurence Olivier cutting a juicy slice of Black Forest Ham as Professor Van Helsing. Even the much maligned ending was at least startling. That, however, was the theatrical film. The picture on the DVD, unfortunately, has been altered to the point of unwatchability, and by Badham himself! Usually it is others who ruin a director's films. The shtick of the Broadway show was that the set was designed (by Edward Gorey) in black and white, with one drop of crimson somewhere on the stage. The movie was shot in normal color, but now it has been desaturated as to be virtually black and white. The problem is that this now makes the picture look like it was filmed through a welder's helmet, with many scenes so dark that the action is barely discernable. This kind of noirish mood has to be intentional from the get-go, and not imposed digitally later. If you can see "Dracula" on the big screen somewhere, it is still worth it. This DVD, however, is not. 』
(This is the best Dracula movie of them all) 『I really like this 1979 Dracula movie. Personally, I like it much better than Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. I personally think Frank Langella is a great Dracula who portrays the character the way he should be portrayed - evil, mysterious, dark, romantic, stylish. He possesses supernatural powers, almost as if he uses The Force, like in Star Wars. The atmosphere in this movie can't be beat. For one thing, Dracula's castle is one wicked place. There is a gothic quality to this movie that is unmatched. The atmosphere is outstanding. The props are outstanding. The costumes are outstanding. The special effects are outstanding. The script is outstanding. The musical score by John Williams is outstanding. The acting is outstanding. Gothic Transylvania was captured brilliantly. Sure, this movie doesn't follow the novel exactly, but I say...who cares. Take the movie for what it is - a Dracula movie with a great gothic atmosphere. It takes place in the early twentieth century.
This movie also stars Donald Pleasence (Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI), the red hot Kate Nelligan as Dracula's bride Lucy, and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, the vampire hunter who is out to put an end to Dracula's dark deeds. Everybody gives good performances. The ending of the movie is cool and will leave you guessing.
A lot of people complain about the color being deliberately dulled in this DVD transfer. Personally, it doesn't bother me. It's still in color, no doubt about it. I understand why some people are upset about it, because when the movie came out in '79 this movie was praised for its brilliant colors. Director John Badham originally wanted to film this movie in black and white, but then chose color instead. Some 25 years later when it was time to put the movie on DVD, he decided he wanted to tinker with the color to make it duller so it would flirt with coming close to being a black and white movie, which is what he originally wanted to film the movie in back in '79. But even with the duller color, it's still a color movie.
If you want to watch a really good undated Dracula movie that has held up extremely well over the years, then I highly recommend Dracula 1979.
』
(Best Dracula Movie) 『I was really surprised to see so many people that have a poor opinion of this movie. The movie is dark, because most of the scenes are at night, but I had no doubt it was in color, not black and white. This is my absolutely favorite Dracula movie of all time. I love the castle, I like that Dracula is handsome and sensuous, and I really like the way they unfold the story. To me, this is how the Dracula story should be. This is the one I watch every year at Halloween. I just don't see the things others are complaining about.』
(Still scary) 『[...]. I just want to add my thoughts on what I think is the single most scary scene in a movie adaption of Bram Stoker's classic so far. The scene were Van Helsing and Seward confront what was once Mina, Van Helsing's daughter in the catacombs underneath the graveyard scared the living hell out of me when I was a kid. Too bad they drained the color from the movie in its new version...All of you who know the original will know what I mean. This scene sent me and my buddy vampire hunting on our local cemetery with self made wooden pickets. When we entered the cemetery gates after dusk some graveyard candles that very much reminded us of Mina's glowing eyes in that particular scene sent us running homeward, [...]...A true classic :o)』
(I wanted the full color version, which is why I bought the VHS) 『instead, I got the same washed-out film as on the DVD. I have no idea why John Badham thinks that bleeding the color out of this film was a good idea. The rich colors added to the overall sensual and dangerous vibe that Langella projected so well. Making this colorless--not the same as black and white--simply robbed the film of its vibrance. I thought to avoid that by ordering a VHS, but this one must have been made from the film used for the DVD somehow--I am not a techy and have no idea how this was done, but the VHS film--to my deep disappointment--was bleached out and lifeless and I could just spit with frustration. I really want to own this film in all its glorious color, but I have no idea how to do that. The sleeve showed scenes in rich color, but the VHS did not deliver.』 『The vampire count scales walls and visits bedrooms at an english manor: van helsing investigates. Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (mca) Release Date: 10/19/2004 Starring: Frank Langella Donald Pleasence Run time: 109 minutes Rating: R Director: John Badham』 『Chalk this one up as something that seemed like a good idea at the time. Frank Langella had just taken Broadway by storm in a revival of the play based on Bram Stoker's classic vampire novel. He was tall, elegant, and almost painfully romantic--all qualities that failed to translate to this garish, tarted-up film version. The story remains the same, if told in greater length than in Bela Lugosi's version. The film even offered Laurence Olivier as vampire-hunter Van Helsing (in one of several roles he played during the period that required a middle-European accent) and a young Kate Nelligan as the woman whose love (and blood) Dracula most wants. But director John Badham, working from W.D. Richter's clunky script, makes a hash of most of it, relying on special effects to do the heavy lifting.--Marshall Fine』
price：$7.99
Code Red
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Kudos to Code Red for Creepy Classic Release) 『I remember when this was re-released in the early '80s as DEAD PEOPLE. The ads in the newspaper alone used to scare the tar out of me. To my surprise the actual movie is a surreal, creepy mini-masterpiece with tons of moody set-ups, hot chicks (especially '70s cult fave Anitra Ford!) and three of the greatest horror scenes EVER (seriously, check out the scene in the supermarket). Thanks to Code Red for rescuing this flick from public domain hell with a brand new, enhanced-for-16:9 disc with plenty of extras. My one quibble would be that I wished a little color correction was used for the final product but this is as good as this film will probably ever look on home video. Don't throw away your old pan-and-scan DVDS though. This new version omits the ridiculously dated theme song, "Hold on to Love" (which I kind of like but totally agree that it's superfluous here) and I might be wrong, but I seem to remember a bit more gore in a few scenes. No matter Code Red's new disc is a no-brainer, must-have for fans of '70s horror.』
(Code Red DVD Is Great!) 『The 5 stars is for the new Code Red DVD that was released on October 27 not for all those PD eyesores! This movie is now available in its OAR (2.35:1) with tons of extras!!! A Must Buy!!!』
(Classic 70's Horror Movie) 『If you remember the Horror movies of the 70's especially the early 70's, you will like this double feature, they are not scary but rather funny and you will think back and remember, this used to scare me as a child. The acting is subpar, the plots predictable, the directing will not win any awards, but you will be entertained. The Devils Nightmare has pretty graphic sex scenes, so be careful not to let the young ones watch it without supervison. The stories center around the concept of Good VS Evil and both have a good concept of a good horror movie, but it is obvious they did not have the budget to pull it off. Still, two movies you can put on at midnight and eat some pop corn and remember back to the good old days of sitting in a drive in with your date.』
(DEAD PEOPLE) 『Double feature DVD with THE DEVIL'S NIGHTMARE / MESSIAH OF EVIL, also known as DEAD PEOPLE (1973).
DEAD PEOPLE is brilliant. A one-of-a-kind film.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing with THE DEVIL'S NIGHTMARE (La plus longue nuit du diable (1971)). It's disorienting, awful, and cliched. Get ready to sleep.』
(Late to the party but....) 『I agree with all the other reviews that this is a fantastic double-bill of two over-looked and underappreciated horror films. This is probably the best and cheapest bargain you can find at Amazon. Two really good old-school horror films for $4?! Add to cart now.
Anyway, too many good reviews already written so i'll just say i think Messiah of Evil is the better film with a couple of really great scenes(market, theater) that are good at building up tension and scares. Devil's Nightmare is the more exploitive of the two horror films with a great lesbian scene and reminds me of what a Hammer film might be like if an Italian director made it. Both films though are quite entertaining but for different reasons as Messiah is rather serious and moody while Nightmare is more playful and conventional.
So, if you're tired of cgi-filled action movies posing as horror films nowadays, you should definitely give this one-two punch a try. If you enjoy old-school horrors that try to give you that sense of eerie chills and atmosphere, then you can't go wrong with this $4 combo. Highly recommended.』 『Beware when the moon drips blood! Carnivorous zombies will prowl the night! Worms will ooze from their mouths! And blood will drip from their eyes! Terror will reign when he returns. And now, after 100 restless years, the Messiah of Evil will wreck havoc in a small ghostly town!
Considered by many as one of the most horrifying and well received zombie films ever made, and as one of the least herald yet haunting of 1970's horror film. Contains number of masterfully scary set pieces by Tim Lucas, written and directed by the acclaimed writing team of Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz (INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, HOWARD THE DUCK) and starring cult actors like Marianna Hill (HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER), Michael Greer (FORTUNE IN MEN'S EYES), Joy Bang (NIGHT OF THE COBRA WOMAN), Elisa Cook Jr (THE MALTESE FALCON) and starring Benny Robinson as Albert the Albino, MESSIAH OF EVIL: THE SECOND COMING will scare your life away!』
price：$1.50
Dimension
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (what kind of a mask is that?!) 『6.8 THE FILM ITSELF 5.0 VISUALS 7.0 SOUND 6.0 PACKAGING 1.5 EXTRAS
What have they done to the Halloween franchise? From the cover alone, when I saw LL Cool J, I rolled my eyes. I know, I get it, you're trying to capitalize on his "fame" at the time and bring more teenagers to the theatres. But, the worst part is he has no impact on the film! His role is completely useless and he couldv'e been played by anyone else.
But back to the film. Obviously, as the title tells, this is 20 years after the the events of Halloween 2. The storyline is a bit shady and kind of clumsy in its execution and how it's put together, but most movie-goers won't notice what's different and what might not add up. But the film itself contains the usual: dumb characters, moments of above-average teenage dialogue (thank the writer here, he went on to create and write Dawson's Creek, which I love, but the dialogue isn't right for the age-group), the killer that never dies and the characters that do the same, and the life lesson at the end.
But the most horrific part of this film is the new mask they gave Michael. What a terrible idea, and whoever made it, okayed it, and allowed it and still didn't understand how horrible it looked should be fired immediately. Why do we see his eyes? Why does the mask fit so freaking tight? Why does it seem to show him smiling at times? And why can we see so much of his skin under his eyes?! You never see his eyes before! Why now?! I laughed in disgust several times when I saw a close up of his face, and that ending... wow.
The series will eventually hit a low(er) point that this (sadly), but for fans of the franchise, it's still something fun to watch from time to time. Nothing that you'll want to watch more than once a year probably, but at least it has Jamie Lee Curtis in it again. And Michael's head coming off? What will happen next...?
5.0 VISUALS There's little here besides just seeing the characters. Little death scenes and very little blood. But that ending, where Michael's head gets chopped off couldn't have ever looked worse. Embarrassing for such a classic franchise.
7.0 SOUND They overuse the Halloween theme (you hear it about every 5 minutes) and I even think they did some "remake" work on it at times, which really made me roll my eyes. No use of surround sound and nothing to write home about. Typical horror movie sound.
6.0 PACKAGING I gave this a 6.0 because I felt bad for this DVD release. The main menu is cheesy, but at least the cover shows us almost absolutely everyone who was in the film.
1.5 EXTRAS Only 3 extras and they are almost completely useless. The first is "Unmasking the Horror", in which the title has abolsutely nothing to do with what we see. They talk about the soundtrack and the legacy and how the project got started. So why is it called "Unmasking the Horror"? No idea.
Next up is a Creed music video. Now we're talking! Who doesn't love Creed!? Now I can sit up alllllll night and watch this awesome video with one of the worst bands of the 1990's in the desert singing. Er, trying to sing. This is the best extra feature I have ever seen on any film. Legendary. (end sarcasm).
Last is a "trivia game" which asks you the most obvious of Halloween questions. I'm surprised there wasn't a question that says "around what holiday do most of the films take place?", and when you get a question right you see Michael get hit with a fire extinguisher. And when you guess wrong, Josh Hartnett gets stabbed in the leg and lets out a hilarious howl. 10 questions. Fantastic.
IN CLOSING A passable, mildly amusing film with alot of problems compounded with terrible special features make this a horrific (no pun) DVD set. Obviously the studio takes no care in a once-great property.
4.0/10 "POOR"』
(Vengeance Is Coming...) 『Following the original "Halloween" from director John Carpenter in 1978, this franchise had for all intents and purposes succumbed to the very same pratfalls that have befallen virtually every other horror franchise in existence. What this means is that the series that birthed the very sub-genre it exists within had become nothing more than another lame slasher franchise cranking out useless sequel after sequel, paying little attention to the fact that the stories were fast becoming old and tired.
In 1995, after the sixth film in the series massively disappointed audiences, the future for the franchise no doubt lay in question. Not to mention, the impending twentieth anniversary of the original "Halloween" loomed on the horizon, and it was looking as if the date would be remembered with little to no fanfare. However, all of that changed in the summer of 1998, when original star Jamie Lee Curtis reprised her role of Laurie Strode for the seventh installment in the series, "Halloween H20: 20 Years Later".
"Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" is essentially summed up by the title. Basically, 20 years after the terrible events that victimized Laurie Strode, she continues to live in fear of the possibility that one day her killer brother may finally find her. Living under assumed names, Laurie and her 17-year-old son (Josh Hartnett) are doing their best to keep their dark family secret buried, while carrying on with some semblance of a normal life. However, some secrets are too powerful to be kept hidden forever, and Michael is determined to finish what he started all those years ago.
Over the course of the 17 year gap that separates "Halloween 2" and "Halloween H20" there was numerous other installments released as a part of the franchise. With the release of "H20" all of the sequels beyond the second movie have been omitted from the series' accepted continuity. For those who are curious, the reason is that movies 3 through 6 did not feature Jamie Lee Curtis or her character Laurie Strode; instead, the focus shifted to Laurie's orphaned daughter (apparently Laurie died in a car wreck or something like that) who is now being hunted by her dear old Uncle Michael. Even though some plot threads from those previous films were somewhat promising; in the end, it was easier to disregard them for the story in "H20" rather than to rewrite some of the history. While all of this was not incredibly important, I did feel that some exposition was needed for those who may not be aware of why the plots from movies 3 through 6 are never even touched upon, and in fact, most are contradicted by events in "Halloween H20". Anyways, that's a basic rundown on the history of the "Halloween" franchise.
If you ever watched any of the previous sequels, then you undoubtedly noticed that the quality of writing took a serious nose-dive from where the series began (which in itself wasn't exactly brilliant from start to finish). Along with the massive slate cleaning that "H20" brought to the series, the writing for this sequel was much stronger than all of the previous installments thanks to screenwriters Robert Zappia ("Five Days to Midnight") and Matt Greenberg ("Reign of Fire"), along with some re-writes by Kevin Williamson ("Scream").
The overall plot for the film is relatively solid, albeit with a few head scratching moments as most horror movies tend to have, but more on that later. The story took a mature approach to the ramifications of that horrific Halloween night and how even after all this time Laurie still lives in fear of her brother's possible return. Even though at first glance the premise that Michael has supposedly been waiting all this time to come after his sister once again seems a bit far-fetched; the manner in which that plot point was handled was surprisingly effective. I also appreciated the attempt to bring a potential resolution to the conflict set up so long ago between Laurie and Michael. If for no other reason, that portion of the story alone is worth watching for longtime fans of the original who have always wanted to see brother and sister come face-to-face once more.
It has become quite clear that the success of horror hits such as "Scream" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer" made an impact on the characters' interactions in this film and almost any other horror films that have followed them. The banter, especially between the teenagers, is fast-paced and loaded with innuendo and pop culture references (as are most teenage conversations). I also noticed that when the adult characters were on the screen the slick, fairly well-written dialogue didn't just disappear or become stale, as is so often the case; instead, it matured (without being too heavy-handed) to tackle the bigger issues that the adult characters, most notably Laurie, were facing throughout the movie.
Now, as I alluded to a moment ago, there were some weak spots in the story though. The biggest weakness this film had was with some of the characters. It seems that ever since "Halloween" started this sub-genre of horror that every other film of this kind must feature the same basic cast of characters in some form or another. You've got the rebellious guy, the smart girl, and the horny guy and his female equal, and so on and so forth. While this cast is smaller than many other horror films, it still fills most of the roles with standard stock characters. The only difference here is that in the case of Josh Hartnett and Michelle Williams, they actually appeared to be trying to bring some depth and realism to their characters; thus, serving to elevate their status above all the others in the pantheon of unoriginal character archetypes in horror films. But beyond those two, the rest of the teenaged characters were typical carbon copies left over from previous horror movies.
Another couple of issues with this film revolved around the improbability of how Michael either knows to be in certain places to kill someone or somehow catches up to a person running, despite the fact that he's walking as slowly and methodically as possible. Those two faults are not exclusive to this series rather they are common issues in almost every single horror franchise in existence. It does not matter what horror franchise you look at, this is a problem area that is universal and has always irritated me. What I want to know is, "Why most directors choose to go along with this obvious absurdity?" And lastly, the pacing early on in the story was a little on the slow side. I enjoyed the opening moments of the film that served as a set-up for the remainder of the movie, but the 15 to 20 minutes that followed struggled to keep things going strong. Note to the writers of horror films, the key is to always keep the audience on edge, it worked for John Carpenter in 1978, and I'm willing to bet it still does even now.
As for the performances in this movie, let us begin by discussing the return of Jamie Lee Curtis to the role that made her into a household name. Jamie's performance as Laurie is much more mature and refined here than it was in the original film, and let's just forget about the colossal waste of time that summed up her appearance in the initial sequel. Jamie skillfully portrays the radical change in her character from a woman who continues to be victimized by her memories to a woman ready for a final showdown with her tormentor. From the quieter moments between mother and son, to her soul-bearing confession as to who she really is, to her inevitable moment of truth; Jamie Lee excels in every respect and the movie definitely benefits from her terrific return to the series.
In the supporting roles are mostly up-and-coming talents, although some of these talents are obviously stronger than others. Leading the way for the supporting cast members, as I noted earlier, are Josh Hartnett ("Pearl Harbor") and Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain"). Both appeared to be committed to their roles, not willing to sit idly by and just speak the lines and hit their marks in as uninspired a fashion as possible; instead, they opted to let their characters emotions and motivations shine through naturally. Plus, their characters' onscreen chemistry seemed more genuine than most in horror franchises, resulting in their romantic relationship becoming more believable than one would expect.
Next, we have LL Cool J (TV's "NCIS: Los Angeles") as a mediocre security guard with lofty aspirations. LL has proven in several other projects since his role in this movie that he clearly has acting talent; however, in this role he is merely average. At times his portrayal seemed a little shaky as if he couldn't quite get a handle on the character; however, this problem could be more a fault of the script than the actor in the role. Still, despite a potentially weak character arc, LL should have been able to do more with the role; instead, he seemed to rest on his laurels causing his performance to suffer as a result.
Bringing up the rear in the performance category are Jodi Lyn O'Keefe ("The Crow: Salvation") and Adam Hann-Byrd ("Jumanji") in the heavily clichéd roles of the sex-crazed teenagers in the movie. Both roles are only included in the movie to fulfill some prerequisite that apparently stipulates that every horror film have at least one promiscuous couple within the cast. While almost every movie has one or two meaningless roles in their lineup, horror films always seem to make sure those roles are the most irritating to audiences; all the while, finding their way into more scenes than they deserve within the movie. I will admit that at least the writers seemed to attempt to flesh out Jodi and Adam's characters. Yet an over-reliance on sexual puns and unoriginality within the roles overshadowed all efforts to elevate the characters above being anything more than typical throwaway horny teenagers.
"Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" is the first sequel in the franchise to even come close to rivaling the original in any respect. While the film is stronger in some areas than the first "Halloween", it still never manages to recapture the atmosphere and style that was so integral to that one's success. Until someone can either channel John Carpenter's directing choices and abilities into another one of these installments or coax Carpenter into returning for another round, I doubt we'll ever see a movie in this franchise reach the level of the first one.
"Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" is rated R for violence, language, and sensuality.』
(Huge Fan) 『I am a huge fan of the Halloween Movies and was unable to find this movie anywhere else for the low low price. Thanks Amazon!』
(Great End To The Trilogy!!) 『If you ask me,I thought Halloween H20 was a pretty good film.It mostly relies on modern fluid effects for the scary cinematics,like ruffling curtains in the wind and stuff.That instantly gets the movie to appear like 90's thrillers such as Scream and Scream 2.That was a pretty nice effect for the movie.Jamie Lee Curtis makes a nice comeback as well for the film.As for the rest of the film its standard stuff.The movies ending was perfect and suprisingly unexpected! Skip 3,4,5,&6 this is the 3rd and final!!』 『This smart and suspenseful thriller scares up a bone-chilling good time with original scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis (TRUE LIES, HALLOWEEN I&II) and a hot cast of hip young stars! Now the headmistress of a private school, Laurie Strode (Curtis) is still struggling with the horrifying, 20-year-old memories of the maniacal killer Michael Myers ... when he suddenly reappears with a vengeance! And this Halloween, his terror will strike a whole new generation! Laurie's rebellious son (Josh Hartnett -- THE FACULTY), his girlfriend (Michelle Williams -- TV's DAWSON'S CREEK), and the school security guard (LL COOL J -- WOO, B.A.P.S.) will become Michael's newest victims unless Laurie can conquer her greatest fears and put evil in its place once and for all! The time has come again for you to experience the frightening fun of HALLOWEEN -- the motion picture series that totally redefined terror!』 『Halloweenis one of the great modern horror films, but as a franchise its track record has been spotty at best, painfully bad at worst.Halloween H2O: Twenty Years Later, directed by horror vet Steve Miner (Friday the 13thparts 2 and 3,House), won't displace John Carpenter's original but it might help you forget the films in between. Miner certainly has: the film begins as if sequels 3 through 6 never happened. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, reprising her role for the first time in almost two decades) faked her death and is now a single mom and headmistress of an exclusive California private school. She's also a secret alcoholic who lives in fear of her homicidal brother-bogeyman Michael Myers. Guess who decides to show up for a family reunion? The film begins with classic horror-movie exposition (the deserted college campus, Michael's escape, Laurie's waking nightmares) accomplished with some humor and style, but it's all setup for the second half, a driving roller coaster of stalk-and-slash thrills. There's little of the self-conscious genre referencing ofScreamand at times the film is a little far-fetched--it is a slasher movie about a knife-wielding homicidal maniac who won't stay dead, after all--but Curtis transforms Laurie from a shrieking victim into an empowered, determined horror-movie heroine who's learned a thing or two from the previous films. Adam Arkin, Josh Hartnett, and TV cutie Michelle Williams (Dawson's Creek) costar, and the script received uncredited polish fromScreamwriter Kevin Williamson; Curtis's mom, Janet Leigh, pops up in a cameo.--Sean Axmaker』
price：$9.99
Universal Studios
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (the unborn dvd.) 『I thought the film was pretty straight forward, and easy to follow. I did a fair job of explaining the phenomenon, and why it was occurring. I thought it was a better film than Mirrors, which came out recently, and was also, a supernatural horror film.』
(Unborn, and unresearched...) 『This movie has an excellent premise: the "twin" fetus that died in utero so that the heroine/main character could survive now wants its own chance at life. Perhaps bringing in the Jewish concentration camp survivor was a good idea; I'm not sure. It seemed to make the plot a little foggier. Had it been the spirit/consciousness or ghost of the unborn twin rather than a long-lived, erm, Monster-Demon? I think I'd have found it more interesting. But since they did go with a Jewish demon, and required a rabbi and a Hebrew "exorcism"(Spoiler alert -- quit here if you haven't seen it and want to be surprised -- although after the first half hour surprise is unlikely)they should at least have done a few things right. Did anyone else notice that they read the secret Hebrew book from front to back, and each page from left to right? Hebrew, like Arabic, is written from right to left, and books are read from what readers of English and European languages consider back to front. OK, so I'm picky. But when the plot is thin to begin with, it doesn't take much to break the suspension of disbelief. That broke mine. And the ending? She's pregnant, with TWINS? Could it be more cliched? I think not. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't a scare fest. The best thing about it was that it relied slightly more on suspense and fear than slashing and splattering (the latter seems to require little to no plot at all these days). The acting was so-so, better than a lot of recent movies, but if you're looking for a good tight plot, you won't find it here.』
("How Big Is The Universe?" ~ Blurring The Line Between Science And The Occult) 『The horror film 'The Unborn' falls into the regrettable category; 'so much potential, so little realization'.
Just look at the positives: 1- Odette Yustman (does anyone else out there think she could be Megan Fox's twin sister?) was a great choice for the female in distress role. 2- Gary Oldman is one of the best in the business. 3- The decision to try something different from the overused Catholic priest/demon scenario and go with a seldom if ever explored Judaic mysticism/dybbuk storyline was genius. 4- The special effects were adequate and the film was overall successful in creating an otherworldly atmosphere that was both intriguing and believable.
So what went wrong? The first indication that the film was losing steam and direction was its inability to supply the audience with sufficient back story information on Jewish lore and the concept of the dybbuk. This blatantly missed opportunity to explore such a rich and obscure tradition was unforgivable. To be honest this omission may not be as bothersome to the majority of viewers, it just happens to be a subject matter of great interest to me.
Be that as it may, to a larger degree the storyline ultimately met its Waterloo during the exorcism sequence. I don't know what the makers of this film had in mind, but whatever it was the film lost all coherence at this juncture. Instead of staging a classic confrontation between the powers of good and evil they opted for a massive carnage scene which literally destroyed the continuity of the film and left the storyline and characters no where to go.
The storyline of 'The Unborn" is something I'd like to see revisited and thoroughly explored again sometime soon. Hopefully next time by someone who knows what they're talking about.』
(Waste of Time) 『Thinking of watching this movie, dont think long, i would like the 1hr and 30 minutes of my life back on this one. First off the trailer is the best part of the whole movie, it shows all the scary stuff, it is dragged out alot of jib jab about what is coming to get her but the show never really gets you there. I was looking forward to this but it was a bust, save your money or rental on something better.』
(horrible ending) 『this movie had me waiting to see what was going to happen next but after it was all over I was very disapointed . it had some chilling scenes that reminded me alot of the "Grudge" which was good , then it had deamons jumping from body to body almost like the movie "fallen" which at first was ok but then it started geting a little old. but even after all of that I probably would've given it a higher rating , the problem lies in the end . it's one of those endings where it goes off and you say , "is that it ?" I even guessed the ending halfway through the movie without even knowing it , I just said I bet , blah blah blah and at the very end I was right and didn't even realize that was the whole reason why they were after her . I mean I figured that was why but they made it look like it was supose to be a surprise ending. if you've seen the movie you will understand what I'm talking about , I just don't wanna give to much away . but anyway, it's not worth $20 , I would say probably around a $5 movie.』 『Enter a world of unrelenting evil as terror finds a new form in The Unborn. From the producers of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the co-writer of The Dark Knight comes this shocking supernatural thriller about a young woman (Odette Yustman) plagued by chilling dreams and tortured by a demonic ghost that haunts her waking hours. Her only hope to break the debilitating paranormal curse is in an exorcism with spiritual advisor Sendak (Gary Oldman). See what lies beyond the doorway of our world in this non-stop nightmare of the undead…』 『Gary Oldman as an exorcist in an evil-twin movie inflected with Jewish mysticism? You're already halfway there, right? Hold on, becauseThe Unbornis one of those horror movies that sounds more intriguing in synopsis than it plays. Pity unfortunate babysitter Odette Yustman (Cloverfield), who begins experiencing weird visions just about the time she learns she had a twin that died before birth. Said ghostly twin is suddenly popping up everywhere, leading Yustman to visit a rabbi (that's Oldman) who suspects she is haunted by a dybbuk, a spirit of Jewish legend. All of which is a reasonable set-up, but the movie that results is so ham-fistedly written and played that a few good early shocks dissolve in general ludicrousness. Writer-director David S. Goyer, who worked onBatman BeginsandThe Dark Knight, displays a tin ear here--the presence of a surprisingly decent cast (Jane Alexander, Idris Elba) simply demonstrates how bad the dialogue is: if they can't speak it, nobody could. The movie's biggest reach is tying its half-baked creepy-kid act to a backstory that includes Auschwitz--well, you can't say Goyer lacks nerve. There's always Oldman, who never backs down from a little scenery chewing if the cause is already lost. It's not enough to salvage this one.--Robert Horton』
price：$4.99
Dark Sky Films
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Mabey I'm Jaded) 『but I found most of this quite boring, of course the demon doll in the end is great, but I would've enjoyed the movie alot more if he had been running around terrorizing people the whole film. I would recommend the Ray Bradbury set over this one same feel, look and era but better stories and alot more for your money.』
(It amazing how we remember the original) 『For years, my wife had been going on and on about how great this movie was when she was a kid. "The best horror movie ever!", I think was her standard quote. One day she conned me into buying the DVD. I did. While the quality of the DVD was quite good, the impact on the audiance (my wife) was less than stellar. I think my wife was a bit dissapointed when she realized that viewing this movie through the eyes of her childhood was quite different than viewing it as an adult.』
(1975 great terror movie) 『I watched this movie along time ago it's a great movie, they don't make movies like this anymore.』
(Classic horror movie) 『"Amelia" is the best part of the movie. Just plain "brilliant" back in the old days. Turn off the lights for this movie.』
(Fights, and Terror every way you turn!) 『" In this Terrifing picture, Dan Curtis made sure you would not be bored! Twists and turns, around every corner as Karen Black Plays 4 diffrent Women! You'll want to make sure your not alone the next day!!! "』 『
Legendary producer / director Dan Curtis (DARK SHADOWS, THE NIGHT STALKER) teams up with writers Richard Matheson (I AM LEGEND, THE TWILIGHT ZONE) and William F. Nolan (LOGAN’S RUN, BURNT OFFERINGS) to present three tales of horrific suspense in this made-for-television anthology that also showcases the tremendous acting talent of Karen Black (FIVE EASY PIECES, THE DAY OF THE LOCUST), who plays no less than four distinct roles. In "Julie," an aggressive college student seduces and ultimately blackmails his seemingly shy English professor. In "Millicent and Therese," two polar-opposite sisters become increasingly hell-bent on the undoing of one another. And in "Amelia," a woman falls prey to a murderous Zuni fetish doll.
』 『Dan Curtis, the creator and producer of such out-of-the-ordinary TV classics as the willfully offbeat gothic soap operaDark Shadowsand the proto-X-FilesseriesThe Night Stalker, remains best known for the Zuni fetish doll that terrorizes Karen Black inTrilogy of Terror. The wild-eyed doll, with its snapping jaws and screeching yells, borders on camp, yet its relentless attacks and single-minded, homicidal drive make it an absolutely terrifying figure in the climactic chapter of this trilogy of short films based on stories by Richard Matheson. In the first story, "Julie," Karen Black plays a mousy college professor blackmailed by an obsessed student, and in "Millicent and Therese" she plays sisters consumed with an intense hatred of one another that comes to a head when their father dies. Both of these films conclude withTwilight Zone-ish twists and are more clever than gripping, kept alive mostly by Black's gleefully theatrical performances. With "Amelia," however, Black delivers an almost solo show, playing against the famous Zuni fetish doll, a wooden statue that comes to life when the a protective chain slips off the figure and releases the evil spirit. Curtis turns her apartment into a claustrophobic cage trapping the increasingly hysterical woman as the unstoppable figure hacks at her legs with a kitchen knife and chomps down on her arms and neck with the relentless intensity of a bulldog. It's still a classic of small-screen horror.--Sean Axmaker』
price：$8.98
Starz / Anchor Bay
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Superb!) 『This DVD set is just superb, full of juicy extras to complement the sheer joy of watching Slegde Hammer back in action. A must see for all Sledge fans!』
(Sledge Hammer is a laugh a minute!) 『I have loved this show since it first aired on TV back in the mid-eighties, and it is still just as great today as it was back then. David Rasche plays the title character Sledge Hammer and he is excellent as the parody of Dirty Harry style law enforcers. Harrison Page is fantastic in the role of Capt. Trunk, who's main gag is losing his cool and exploding in anger at the antics of Sledge, who you can guess is always causing trouble. Anne-Marie Martin is wonderful as Sledge's sidekick Dori Doreau, and she brings some much-needed balance and brains to the team. She also kicks some serious butt now and then too. Even the supporting cast is great. I cannot say enough good things about this show! In the famous words of Sledge Hammer, "Trust Me, I know what I'm doing!", and trust me when I say that you'll love Sledge Hammer! 』
(Sledge Hammer Rules Again) 『If you remember this show from the '80's, then you know it was a cult classic. This was a spoof of the cop shows and movies of the '70's and '80's. Lots of humor and not very socially or politically correct. Very nice set of DVD's with commentary and additional footage. This is something you need in your collection. Buy it now...."trust me, I know what I am doing".』
(Sledge Hammer) 『The show is funny. I had forgotten what the show was like and it is very funny.』
(Underated TV Classic) 『WHen I was 10 I thought Sledge Hammer was the funniest show on TV and all these years later it still is. A cult classic for those who remember it and even better now without that annoying laugh track. Comedy just isn't good anymore and with the popularity of celeb/reality TV I doubt it ever will be again. The only thing that sucks is that they were only able to do two seasons but these DVDs bring it all back and the creator gets it and has made a DVD that cult fans of the show will be pleased with.』 『It would take more than a nuclear explosion to stop everyone's favorite violence-loving lawman! David Rasche returned-along with co-stars Anne-Marie Martin and Harrison Page-in the surprising second season of the series that Entertainment Weekly calls "absolutely hilarious" These are the infamous final episodes featuring such guest stars as Richard Moll, Ray Walston, Edy Williams, Bud Cort, Bernie Kopell, Adam Ant, Davy Jones and more, in the "sitcom for people who hate sitcoms" that remains one of the most dangerously funny shows in TV history.』
price：$3.99
Warner Home Video
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Two different visions that create one united front...) 『When I saw that these two films were not available separately I initially was reluctant to review them at all, but then I decided that it might be kind of fun to give a collective review, comparing the two and pitting them against one another. What is so remarkable about both features (released ten years apart) is that they really complete one another. Separately neither film hits all the marks needed to make a great film, yet when paired together they create a complete vision of what this impressive tale could be seen as.
So, let's pick this apart a bit.
I think the most appropriate place to start would be with the actors portraying Jekyll and Hyde; Fredric March and Spencer Tracy. Both takes on the character were very different from one another. March had an almost regal take on Jekyll, yet his Hyde was a ferocious almost macabre creation. Tracy made Jekyll very human, very relatable. His Hyde, for me, was like Alfred Molina impersonating Jack Nicholson's interpretation of Fredric March. It had this crazed almost campy personification that reminded me of Nicholson's `Joker'. March's portrayal was much more `horrific' in that the macabre aspects added layers of complete insanity. He reminded me of a character out of a 70's horror film, like one of the members of the grotesque family depicted in `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. For me he gave the better (or more effective) Hyde, but Spencer Tracy just blew me away with his version of Dr. Jekyll. The '41 version of `Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' is very much a film about Jekyll, and so the film really relies on Spencer's humanization of the doctor. His take on Hyde doesn't bother me; it just isn't as terrifying as March's.
Still, if I had to choose a performance, I'd go with Tracy in a heartbeat.
Then we have the objects of Jekyll's (and Hyde's) affections. In the '31 version these roles are tackled by Miriam Hopkins and Rose Hobart. Hopkins delivers one of my all time favorite supporting female performances of all time, so we know who wins this one (in a cakewalk). Her devilishly seductive qualities are only matched step by step by her gradual and realistic spiral towards fearful insanity. She is utterly brilliant. I also really adored Rose here, who captured Muriel's loving support yet fearful suspicion of her fiancés work. The women of the '41 film don't fare as well. Ingrid Bergman (one of my top ten favorite actresses of ALL TIME) is way out of her comfort zone here, and while she captures the seductiveness needed to carry the character of Ivy (and that close up shot of her teary-eyed face as she faces Hyde for the final time is just utterly gorgeous) she doesn't quite get a firm grasp of the entirety of the character, the full arc. Her accent work is atrocious, and that takes away from the character development for me. Lana Turner is effective, but an afterthought for me. She works well, but she doesn't pop (and I love her work generally). For me, the biggest standout in the supporting cast was Donald Crisp who just sizzles with commanding presence as Beatrix's father Charles.
So then we have the plot. Both films are very similar in plot, yet the '41 film, for me, really expounds on the basic material. The beginning especially sheds a lot of light on the man that is Dr. Jekyll. Like I said, the '41 version is focused on Jekyll, and the '31 film is more about Hyde. That is why the films need to be seen together to really appreciate them fully. A lot of the center portions of the film are very similar to each other, but their strengths definitely lie in separate areas. I can't really say which is better (I prefer the '41 for the mere fact that is fleshes out Jekyll so well) because they are so obviously focused in separate areas.
The direction is also very different for each film. The '31 film is much darker in tone and construction. The way in which film was made then (almost gritty and grainy by default) add layers of terror to the scenes, even those that are simply not meant to be fear-inducing. The glossed over direction of the '41 version dampens the fear a tad, but it is much more beautiful to the eye (the use of fog mixes very well with the black and white, almost grey tone to the film). Visually, the '41 film is more appealing and almost more easily appreciated, but I have to go with the '31 here, for it really captures a desired tone effortlessly and carries that tone without ever once losing it.
In the end, neither film is perfect. Neither film would make my ballot for best of the year, but both films would litter my ballot in other areas. Like I said, Miriam Hopkins is a revelation and would win my supporting actress award in '31, and her co-star Rose Hobart would get a nomination. I'd also nominate it in Directing and a slew of technicals (if I really gave much thought to those races). The '41 version would get three different major nominations from me, in supporting actor (for Crisp), lead actor (for Tracy) and adapted screenplay, for it definitely has a stronger screenplay in my opinion.
If I had to judge the films separately I would give the edge to the '41 vehicle mainly for the added depth to the screenplay, but both films have their strengths and weaknesses. So, as far as my grade is concerned, I struggled with what to do. Do I give the DVD an A, since when watched together the films complement each other in a way that creates a sense of completed vision, or do I grade the DVD based on the actual films involved and give it a B, since when viewed separately the films are incomplete?
As you can see, I went with my gut and gave my film grade, thus the four star review.』
(Well-Crafted) 『Everyone knows the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll is a scientist who believes each man has two sides, the good and the bad. He concocts a potion that brings out his brutish side, who he calls Mr. Hyde. Mr. Hyde then becomes uncontrollable, and a menace to Jekyll.
This is definitely a literary adaptation, so the action is slower than one might expect. Rouben Mamoulian created more of a legitimate production rather than a sensationalized Hollywood flick. As a result, the craftsmanship of the movie is superior. The transformation from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde is impressive, especially for 1932 before the days of computer animation. The photography is quite haunting too. The scenes of Dr. Jekyll escaping to his laboratory are very memorable, as is the grand finale where Mr. Hyde runs down the streets away from the angry mob as their shadows loom on the walls behind them.
However, not everything is exactly the same as the book, which is rather short.
There are also pre-code elements that fans of the genre will enjoy. Ivy is a prostitute after all, and references of her immorality and the things Hyde does to her are quite shocking. The most memorable image is Hopkins practically nude in her bed beckoning Jekyll to return to her.』
(Voluntary Evil) 『This review is primarily about Frederick March's 'Jekyll and Hyde'. I've seen the Spencer Tracy version but, other than the wonderful young Ingrid Bergman, I find the March version far more interesting and disturbing.
March undergoes a number of hideous physicaal transformations as he degenerates into the ultimate, completely depraved Hyde persona. Interestingly, in doing so, the producer/directors make a deliberate effort to take us backward in human evolution. Hyde becomes not only psychologically bestial but, physically, he reverts to something like proto-Homo erectus. This probably isn't fair to our ancestors. They might have been a rough crowd but it is unlikely that they were evil and destructive in the 'Hyde' sense. Otherwise the human race would have disappeared 600,000 years ago.
Also March, as Jekyll, is not a particularly sympathetic figure [at least I didn't find him sympathetic]. Yes, his initial transformation is more-or-less an accident and, later, the transformation comes over him although he wishes it otherwise.
But this simplistic viewing of it misses a major point. Somewhere between his first dose and his subsequent uncontrollable changes, he apparently takes the pottion time and again. Knowing that he will go back to sexually abuse, torture and humiliate Hopkins, as the dance hall girl, he takes the dose ANYWAY. He enjoys being depraved and evil and his evil leads him to murder.
Fortunately, for the sake of London and the sake of the world, Hyde is shot dead. Too bad the dance hall girl didn't think of that one, herself.
About the same time I was seeing this fascinating film, I watched Brando's 'Last Tango in Paris' and immediately noted the distinct similarity between the Hyde and the Brando character. They are both sexual sadists and both deliberately abuse and humiliate a young girl. The difference is, perhaps, in level of consent. Intitially, at least, Brando's female victim is entirely complicit in her own degradation. Slowly, gradually she comes to the realization that things have gone very wrong and she absolutely must escape. In both cases...Hyde and Brando...the only escape is death.
The Hyde victim is less consensual but, initially, at least, her mistake is that she does, at a certain basic level, agree. Rather than leave the dance hall with the bestial Hyde, she can kick, scream and make a commotion. She doesn't. She goes with him and, later, when she has some bare possibility of escape, she doesn't. Both the Hyde and Branco victim are similiar indeed.
Ron』
((3.5 STARS) Not the best Adaptaion, But Still Worth Watching Because of the Stars) 『Looking back from now, the 1941 version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" looks more like a psychological drama (or melodrama) with a love triangle in it than a horror movie. As far as I know, this MGM version has been, decent as it is, overshadowed by the 1931 Paramount adaptation starring Frederic March, which many rightly consider the best adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson novella.
Though Stevenson is credited as the writer of the original work, the 1941 adaptation is actually a remake of the 1931 version, which was based on the 19th century play adapted by T.R. Sullivan. The original's story about the strange experiments of the brilliant doctor Jekyll and its horrifying consequences basically remain the same, but the rest of the originally novella was considerably changed.
In the slow-paced MGM film, while Doctor Henry `Harry' Jekyll (Spencer Tracy) is engaged with lovely, pure-hearted Beatrix Emery (Lana Turner), his evil alter ego, sadistic Mr. Hyde dominates and abuses the barmaid Ivy Peterson (Ingrid Bergman). Director Victor Fleming attempts at making a tense psychological drama between Jekyll / Hyde and Ivy - the latter claims she cannot run away from Hyde, as if hypnotized) - and the direction works to some extent. The cinematography is impressive, using the contrast of light and shadow effectively. Still, though his acting is not bad, Spencer Tracy is not the best choice for the role and Lana Turner is not required to do much.
One thing is certain, however. Ingrid Bergman is surprisingly effective as the ill-fated barmaid Ivy. She looks gorgeous as a tempter, and then painful as a victim. Of course her role doesn't appear in the original novella, but surely she is the reason for us to watch this 1941 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Also, don't miss the film's bizarre "hallucination" sequences.』
(Two versions of the Stevenson classic!) 『Double-sided disc contains both the 30's and 40's version of the Stevenson classic. As a student of film a great aid in studying the same subject filmed roughly 10 years apart, and seeing Fredric March in his Oscar-winning portrayal. Picked up at a great price, purchasing the "Centennial" mini-series at the same time, qualifying for free shipping as well. A great deal on both items.』 『Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 09/13/2005』 『Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(1931) Fredric March won an Oscar® for playing the protagonist (and antagonist) of Robert Louis Stevenson's story. Dr. Henry Jekyll is an honorable man of science, albeit frustrated at the enforced celibacy of a delayed wedding date. Hyde is the fearsome creature he turns into after drinking a potion, and Hyde's appetites (mostlyexpressed with Miriam Hopkins's Cockney dance-hall wench) are decidedly unrestrained. March's performance is pretty theatrical, but it's fun to watch; his Hyde twitches and squawks and lopes around like an ape in a tuxedo. Rouben Mamoulian's direction has plenty of the brio of early-thirties Hollywood, and the transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are ingenious for the time. This film followedDraculaandFrankensteininto theaters by a few months, and it stands well with those horror classics--and it's a darn sight more fun (and much more down and dirty) than the 1941 MGM version of Stevenson's tale.--Robert Horton
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(1941) Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in 1941, and in fact its production ofDr. Jekyll and Mr. Hydeended up looking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in Spencer Tracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role, although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde are convincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story is the young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy ofCasablanca. Bergman was cast in the good-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in her Hollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thus securing a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in the more respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a little number calledGone with the Wind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influenced his work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose with the kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, which won Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather than Hyde.--Robert Horton』
price：$7.19
Turner Home Ent
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (The original. The best.) 『The original King Kong (1933) is very impressive considering it came out in 1933. This is a black and white movie with very impressive special effects. It stars Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, and scream queen Fay Wray as Kong's female obsession. This movie has it all - a giant ape, a good looking damsel in distress, a lost isle with dinosaurs and native inhabitants, and New York City.
I like the 1976 remake, but nothing beats the original. Haven't seen the 2005 Peter Jackson remake. Some of the things I noticed about the 1933 movie is that Tyrannosaurus Rex walks completely upright. This is the old school way of thinking. In recent decades it has been suggested that T Rex probably walked hunched over, with its back pretty much parallel to the ground. This shows how old this movie is, but at the same time it's fascinating to see this. At times Kong appears two dimensional, but this is completely acceptable because this was 1933 technology. Kong fights and kills several dinosaurs, including T Rex, a raptor, and a serpent-like creature. The battle between Kong and T Rex is epic and goes on for quite some time. You'll also see a Stegosaurus, although Kong does not battle it. When Kong is brought to New York City, he escapes captivity and goes on a rampage. The finale to the movie where Kong climbs to the top of the Empire State Building and battles biplanes that are shooting at him is classic.
Compared to Jessica Lange in the 1976 version, Fay Wray is pretty much terrified of Kong for the whole movie, whereas Jessica Lange warmed up to him quite a bit.
Special features of this DVD include audio commentary by Ray Harryhausen and Ken Ralston (visual effects) and interpolated interview excerpts of producer and director Merian C. Cooper and Fay Wray. This movie has been restored and digitally mastered for a clear picture and sound.
If you want to watch a classic monster/horror movie that is still well respected three quarters of a century after its release, then see the original King Kong. I first saw it on TV when I was probably five years old and I still think its great. So will you.』
("Why'd you think I brought all those gas bombs?") 『To be perfectly honest, I always have mixed reactions about all three King Kong films: the original 1933 version, the 1976 remake, and the 2005 remake. I love 2005's special effects and the perfected image of the giant ape, but having it set in '33 again didn't make it all very special. I found Grodin's performance in 1976 very over-the-top, but the chemistry between girl and ape really improved. Now with 1933, it's also a mixed bag. Yes, it's am absolute classic and it brought an entire galaxy of upcoming monster movies. Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, and Bruce Cabot gave terrific performances. The music is authentically primitive. The special effects are still spectacular and revolutionary, even if they do look very outdated in our modern time. But why did I give this movie four stars instead of five? Well, it's because, since it was still a very early time, King Kong and Ann Darrow are both very . . . two-dimensional. Here, Kong is just a monstrous ape, and we see him only as a plain antagonist. At least 1976 and 2005 gave him a slightly better personality: he's a beast who finds himself someone that he has fully cherished for the first time. Ann Darrow does nothing but scream whenever she's with Kong, and since it was way back in 1933, she's really a typical damsel in distress, and she finds nothing fascinating about Kong.
So yes, I have mixed feelings for all three Kong films. I do like them all for very specific reasons, but I don't consider any of them as a favorite of mine.』
(One `monster' of a classic...) 『I guaranty you that when `King Kong' was released way back in 1933 that no one, and I mean NO ONE, even entertained the notion that it would turn into a classic to redefine classics. Sure, they probably thought it would rake in the big money and that the special effects (which are quite unbelievable even today) would be the start of something wonderful, but to become a cinematic staple; I highly doubt that idea was even considered. But, regardless of their initial thoughts, `King Kong' has become as legendary as the title character, and for good reason.
Now, I will let you know this right off the bat; I have seen both this film and Peter Jackson's 2005 remake and I firmly believe that Jackson's film is superior. Know that, because, while I am going to praise this '33 classic I am also going to try and point out the reasons why Jackson's is the better film.
Please, devoted fans, don't click the `unhelpful' button just yet.
Most everyone knows the premise of `King Kong', but here is a quick rundown. Carl Denham is a movie director who wants to give the public something they've never seen, and so he gets a large crew to travel to a distant island no white man has ever seen (well, except the one that gave him the map) to film a moving picture with the mythical beast known as Kong. When they arrive his leading starlet, Ann Darrow, is taken hostage by the natives and offered to Kong, who falls in love with her.
What this '33 version does extremely well is take the standard `movie monster' formula and perfect it, with state of the art effects that are still mind blowing today. Don't get me wrong, there is no way that these effects can technically hold a candle to those of today, but they are still impressive. I couldn't believe that these came out of 1933, they are truly remarkable. Most of the older films suffered from the lack of reality in their special effects, but nothing is taken away from this film at all. The action sequences are all superb, and there are a lot of them; each one as exciting as the last and completely engrossing. The acting is also quite good for a film of this nature. One has to remember that you have to understand the genre before you can critique a film. Monster movies are made much differently than dramas or comedies or epics and so you have to judge accordingly. For a monster film, the acting is spot on. Fay Wray is totally believable as the wide eyed damsel in distress and Robert Armstrong is fabulous as the greedy in-over-his-head director; and macho man Bruce Cabot makes good use of his character to create a hunky (and even realistic) hero.
So, for a monster film this one is top, top notch.
But, and here is that dreaded `but', this is just that; a monster film. Now, I admit to having seen Jackson's film first (how did THAT happen?) and so I was expecting something else from this version, but regardless of what I was expecting or what I saw first I feel my opinion would still be the same. What is so glorious about Jackson's reinterpretation is that he takes the genre and adds so much warmth and depth. Devoted fans of the original have attacked the '05 film rabidly, but I feel that is unfair.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENJOY BOTH FILMS PEOPLE!
Yes, Jackson's film is three hours long but what he does with those three hours is phenomenal. I don't understand the complaints about the beginning, for Jackson actually establishes these characters as real people and makes us like or dislike them depending on their depictions. We get to know who they are, which helps us to follow their storylines later in the film; and his reinterpretations of Skull Island are impeccable (those graphics are TO DIE FOR), and the pacing is flawless, that final Empire State Building scene is flawless (and one of the best scenes in cinema this decade) and the fact that he actually gets a deep rooted emotional response from the audience based on the love blossoming from a woman and an oversized monkey is just remarkable.
So, I don't want to review Jackson's film (I'll do that later) but I just wanted to point out that they are two separate films. In the 30's you just didn't make relatable monster films. The point for `King Kong' was not to reach out emotions but to excite and thrill us, and it did just that, but as Jackson (and many other modern filmmakers) has proven, today you don't have to make a conventional anything anymore. It is possible to blur the lines between genres and offer us something that excites all of our senses, giving us something funny, scary, moving and all around engaging without slacking in your delivery.
Yes, the original `King Kong' is a classic, and deservedly so; but Jackson's `Kong' is a much more complete `film' in every sense of the word.
And `YAY ME' on review #1,000!!!』
(Incredibly Dated? Sure, But That's Part Of IT's Charm) 『King Kong was groundbreaking on all counts, but one would probably realize that this movie may not be a movie that has held up. I digress on that one. The special effects may be incredibly dated, but unlike some bad effects, the obviously slow and stop motion look gives it an incredible charm. Besides, I have always loved stop motion (really made famous by The Lost World, which by the way is another film worth watching), so King Kong actually benefits from stop motion.
Another thing that makes it great to watch is the plot actually holds up. Like Gary F Taylor said (on a different version of King Kong), it's got a good story to see why this movie is entertaining. Sure, it's a rip-off of the corny and boring beauty and the beast fable, but that's not a real big deal. It's still great to see a Monkey (portayed as a monster) to actually show a bit of compassion (come on, I know that word and I have it, even if it doesn't seem like it). And there's plenty of action scenes, as watching a stop motion dinosaur attack a crew going down the will never lose it's charms. Never.
Still, King Kong is not without it's weak points. The stop motion isn't a big deal, it's just some of the scenes that are utterly mundane and boring. When the monstrous ape isn't even on screen, the scenes tend to drag a bit, and, such as the beginning or whenever they are on the ship, the movie turns into a borefest. The wooden dialogue (not in part of the actors, the script) are about as interesting as watching paint dry. Sure, it's supposed to move the story, but at that time, I was hurrying up the story. Thankfully, there aren't a whole lot of this, but it's still boring as _____.
I'll admit I admire the film more than I enjoy it (to think this kind of movie was made in the Great Depression!), and my high rating comes from that (which kind of makes it obsolete for it to climb anywhere in a personal list of my favorites). King Kong is still an important film, and still is quite entertaining. I was intially skeptical about watching this, considering it was mostly for historical facts and nothing else beyond that, but it's not that. Besides, I was actually quite surprised how much I enjoyed watching King Kong come to life. Certainly a lot better than watching him come alilve in CGI, I think (not to knock Peter Jackson, but still).
*B+』
(THE GREATEST GIANT MONSTER FILM OF ALL TIME!) 『I am a huge fan of stop motion effects and what better example of this process than King Kong! Harryhausen would take over as king of Stop Motion, but without Kong, there would be no Harryhausen!
This is one of my favorite movies of all time and the DVD is nothing short of spectacular! Not being old enough to have seen this iconic film in a theater, I was finally able to watch it in my home theater on a 10 foot screen! As the movie began I was amazed how clear the print was and I noticed little things I had never seen before. This is pretty amazing considering I've seen this film over 100 times. The sound is mono, but it's very clear and would be hard to really improve on this. The film holds up amazingly well and is the definitive giant monster movie!
King Kong is the ultimate adventure film and I doubt it will ever be surpassed. One of the most intriguing things about this film is that Kong is a rampaging monster and never steps out of character, but in the end when he's being attacked on top the Empire State building, you can't help but feel sorry for him! Never has an eighteen inch puppet ever evoked so much sympathy! It truly is a masterpiece and I can't even imagine never seeing this film!?
The second disc in loaded with wonderful bonus features including two long and interesting documentaries. I bought the box set which includes the original Mighty Joe Young and Son of Kong on separate discs, which are sold separately for those who only want certain films in this set.
All three films are great examples of Stop Motion, so it's an essential set for fans of the genre. The set includes the same 2 disc special edition of King Kong and two other classic stop motion films! All the films have been re-mastered and look better than ever!
I know that many were disappointed that the original "spider" sequence was not included on the Kong set, but the footage has yet to be unearthed! They did the next best thing and it is interesting to see the re-constructed scene.
I had reviewed this film several years ago, but somehow it disappeared!?』 『Seeking a backer for his movie, Merian C. Cooper approached a top Hollywood mogul. "You know what a 50-foot gorilla would see in a five-foot girl?" the mogul asked. "His breakfast!" The studio chief wasn't buying but the public was. King Kong saved RKO from bankruptcy and became an all-time classic, ranking 43rd on the American Film Institute's list of Top-100 American Movies. King Kong teems with memorable moments: a moviemaking expedition on a fantastic isle filled with dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures; the giant simian's lovestruck obsession with the film shoot's blonde starlet (scream queen Fay Wray); Kong's capture; his Manhattan rampage; and the fateful finale atop the Empire State Building, where Kong cradles his palm-sized beloved and swats at machine-gunning airplanes. "It was beauty killed the beast." But in these and other great scenes, Kong lives forever.』 『"Now you see it. You're amazed. You can't believe it. Your eyes open wider. It's horrible, but you can't look away. There's no chance for you. No escape. You're helpless, helpless. There's just one chance, if you can scream. Throw your arms across your eyes and scream, scream for your life!" And scream Fay Wray does most famously in this monster classic, one of the greatest adventure films of all time, which even in an era of computer-generated wizardry remains a marvel of stop-motion animation. Robert Armstrong stars as famed adventurer Carl Denham, who is leading a "crazy voyage" to a mysterious, uncharted island to photograph "something monstrous ... neither beast nor man." Also aboard is waif Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) and Bruce Cabot as big lug John Driscoll, the ship's first mate.King Kong's first half-hour is steady going, with engagingly corny dialogue ("Some big, hard-boiled egg gets a look at a pretty face and bang, he cracks up and goes sappy") and ominous portent that sets the stage for the horror to come. Once our heroes reach Skull Island, the movie comes to roaring, chest-thumping, T. rex-slamming, snake-throttling, pterodactyl-tearing, native-stomping life.King Kongwas ranked by the American Film Institute as among the 50 best films of the 20th century. Kong making his last stand atop the Empire State Building is one of the movies' most indelible and iconic images.--Donald Liebenson
DVD features Not surprisingly, the eighth wonder of the world’s DVD treatment is nothing short of spectacular. The newly restored, digitally mastered print of the 1933 version ofKing Kongis sharp, well balanced, and given that this film is seventy years old, has very few scratches or blemishes. The restoration is nothing short of amazing. What may frustrate some is the audio. Though crystal clear, it is still in 2.0 Mono. The soundtrack onKongis such an integral part of the film you really wished they could have pulled it out to at least 2.0 Surround; but this is a minor criticism. The bulk of the commentary track is by visual effects veterans Ray Harryhausen and Ken Ralston joyfully discussing the special effects of the film and discussing whyKing Kongis such a favorite and important film to the community of visual effects artists. Spliced between their commentaries are colorful and humorous anecdotes from director from Merian C. Cooper and Fay Wray. The two documentaries on disc two run over three and half hours long.I Am Kong! The Exploits of Merian C. Cooperis an engaging documentary on the renegade, Hemingway-like director. It is fascinating to learn that Cooper was every bit the adventurer that the fictional director Carl Denham inKing Kongwas in the film.RKO Production 601: The Making of Kong, Eighth Wonder of the Worldis a two and a half hour documentary broken into 7 parts: "The Origins ofKing Kong," "Willis O'Brien and Creation," "Cameras Roll on Kong," "The Eighth Wonder," "A Milestone in Visual Effects," "Passion, Sound and Fury," "The Mystery of the Lost Spider Pit Sequence," and "King Kong's Legacy." Also included is complete footage of the legendary "The Lost Spider Pit Sequence." Presenting the segments are various film historians and filmmakers including Rudy Behlmer, Cooper biographer Mark Cotta Vaz, the Chiodo Brothers (ofTeam America: World Policespecial effects fame), and directors John Landis and Peter Jackson. Here you will learn everything you would ever want to know about the making and importance ofKing Kong, including that the producer/director team of Cooper and Schoedsack played the pilots who shoot Kong off the Empire State Building. The highly anticipated, long-awaited release ofKing Kongwill meet most viewers' expectations, and exceed everyone's else.--Rob Bracco』
price：$5.99
Warner Home Video
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Hypnotic textures, worth a serious look) 『A subtly, deeply enticing, luxurious, elegant, often bloody yet not excessively violent, infinitely intriguing, mildly shocking film. What a mouthful, but it is all that and more. I just saw it today and REALLY enjoyed it. David Bowie, despite his acting limitations, is reserved and ice cold, also very charismatic and compelling on film, and does great work here. Catherine Deneuve is casually phenomenal, so soulful, effortlessly projecting a somewhat forlorn, aristocratic sensuality. What a beautiful woman. Susan Sarandon is of course a perfectly attractive sparring partner in this extremely high arena of sensual projection. The interiors and textures of this film are interesting in so many ways. Tony Scott was an early and obvious great talent, and not surprisingly this is a fine complement to Ridley's Blade Runner, and/or Someone to Watch Over Me. I just love the elegant textures and moral quandaries of all these films. It should be noted that the actual kisses between Ms. Sarandon and Ms. Deneuve are rather chaste! I suppose they weren't overly keen on making out, perhaps, so it's not the flashpoint, at least not for me. I think you will absolutely sense incredible smoke and multiple fires in the atmospheres, soft conversations and mannerisms that precede any eventful embrace, though. Good heavens, it's sexy! That speaks greatly to the charismatic intelligence of both the actors and the director, I believe. The nature of the story is not thorougly satisfying--I saw no good reason for the relationship NOT to develop, but that's just wish projecting onto someone else's baby. I suppose I root for ALL vampires. They could use a bit more solidarity, couldn't they? Anyway, I highly recommend this for cinephiles and of course vampire completists, who I'm sure already know plenty about it. Extreme bonus points for seeing a very serious Dan Hedaya with hair (love that guy), and an opening sequence with Peter Murphy of Bauhaus, strangely gesticulating to 'Bela Lugois's Dead.' What a film!』
(The Hunger, no just style over substance) 『If creating the feeling of death is vacous, then everything else must be vacuos as well. The style is the substance.
The death slowly picking away at these people.
The sense of isolation as time passes.
The desperate need to survive, even at the expense of youth.
The sexual ownership, to escape the nothingness.
This film is not the most profound ever, but it does have points to make and certainly is not vacous.
Try to view it like music, like Barber's Adagio for strings. it is the feeling, the atmosphere, the picture that is the substance.
this is what the modern film should be like, and I don't care what anyone says, Tony Scott you are a genius, even if you sold out (but considering that even now they still knock this film as insignificant, I don't blame you).
This is perhaps the most important modern film (anything I guess made after 1977), it's use of technique, as in image (the killing of dead space is as good as Von Sterneberg), it's use of montage (the start is a sublime sequence, one that Eisenstein would have loved), it's use of sound is startling (the synthesised score is perfectly melded to the image, and the repeated scream at the end I will never forget).』
(The hunger in you is a hunger in me.) 『Beautiful, intelligent and seductive, Miriam and John Blaylock, outside looking in, appear to have it all. That is, until their bloodlust locks onto you, and from them, there is nothing but horror and death.
As the companion to the ageless Miriam, John is but a mere mimic, who soon finds out the truth of the blessing and curse that is Miriam's gift, and her false promises of eternal youth and eternity with her. As he begins to rapidly age, Miriam realizes the eventuality of his demise and begins to seek a new companion, in the form of a doctor specializing in aging disorders, and in essence, attempting to unlock the very thing that Miriam possesses: immortality.
Dr. Sarah Roberts is approached by John, who desperately seeks her aid in reversing the aging process but is quickly dismissed--until she sees him literally age before her eyes. But it's too late, John leaves, frustrated and terrified. When Sarah locates the Blaylocks in their Manhattan home, she is instead greeted by the sensuous Miriam, and ensnared. And in her newfound freedom and loneliness, it is Sarah who Miriam chooses.
The Hunger, based on Whitley Strieber's book (and will now be reading), is a goth-punk but intriguing take on the vampire lore, that could be very sentimental, but more sexual than romantic, and mostly unapologetic, focusing on the base and animalistic ritual of prey and predator. The familiar facets of vampirism, and some which are missing (such as sleeping during the day and aversion to sunlight, etc), are all there but with a grittier and more sinister pall, and a jaw-dropping sexual encounter between the captivated Sarah and the gorgeous Miriam.
Tony Scott's debut film makes for an atmospheric and luscious dark delight, with a very moody, stylish and artsy flare, but with well done horror. To set the mood, is a stunningly rich and wonderful score, with punk-rock to start off with, but with mostly symphonic music throughout, that is both melancholy and haunting, intoxicating and sublime. It's the kind of score that really makes this film doubly unique and also a must buy.
That said, while I always enjoy watching this film, in its entirety, it is a confusing, choppily put together and jumbled telling. Pacing is not very smooth, and the transition between scenes at times harsh, going from quiet to loud, bright to dark, abstract imagery, or moves too quickly and you're not quite sure what you just saw. Clearly, the scenes were put together more for effect, over telling a compelling story. While the idea of love, loneliness, aging and immortality is the underlying theme of the story, Scott does little to actually question the existence of Miriam, her callousness and love for her human companions and damning them to a horrible end, or why she seeks Sarah as her next victim, besides letting the audience assume the obvious. Scott uses the backdrop of the vampire myth as his story and to explain the nature of these characters, which I found that somewhat lazy and careless of Scott. Rather than incorporating a stronger story line besides Miriam's hunt for a new companion, it merely displays and idolizes the eroticism and allure of the vampire--which is why I'm going to read the book. Then again, it is obvious early on that this is purely a sensory film.
The extras are a must. Stills from the production, cast pictures and behind the scenes, while not necessarily brilliant, are fun. What you should really go for is the audio commentary by Tony Scott and Susan Sarandon, which was actually insightful, both are articulate and interesting commentators.
Catherine Deneuve as Miriam is the perfect seductress, infusing a timeless worldly beauty and eloquence to a character that really deserves nothing but due justice. Surprisingly, David Bowie's role as John was both subtle, chilling, and unexpected. Both are believable as modern day vampires and effortless as mainstream vampires in the new age. What surprised me was Susan Sarandon. While she did an excellent job, pitted against two Europeans, the American in her at times clashed. While she is at times brash and ineloquent, both John and Miriam are always so cooly aloof but passionate. Or maybe that was the point. It was hard to imagine that someone like Miriam, who is that otherwordly and could have anyone she wanted, would pick such a stubborn and independent intellectual, while her choice of John is totally believable. Despite that, and the problems with this adaptation, I always find myself picking it out every once in a while, during an evening when I need some vampire horror and blood, but with a twist. This cult classic from the 1980s is one that every vampire and horror lover should watch.』
(The Hunger) 『I received this item very quickly - with no problems. I have discovered from the person I gave it to - that it was a different version than what was seen on TV - but the opposite of what you would think - on TV more was included than on this dvd - which really surprised me. If there are different versions out there, I was not aware, since I was searching for this movie to give to someone who really liked it. But this person was still very surprised and liked the gift.』
(Best seducion scene ever!) 『The scene where Miriam seduces Sarah while playing Lakme on the piano is the BEST seduction scene in film history! Miriam's subtle facial expressions, cleavage, and soft voice are delightfully erotic. Catherine Deneuve is genius, erotic, and gorgeous in this scene. Sarandon played her part perfectly as well, innocent yet willing as the seduction began to draw her in.』 『The egyptian vampire lady miriam subsists upon the blood of her lovers. In return the guys or girls dont age.. Until miriam has enough of them. Unfortunately thats currently the case with john so his life expectancy is below 24 hours. Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 09/13/2005 Starring: David Bowie Dan Hedaya Run time: 100 minutes Rating: R Director: Tony Scott』 『Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie are rich, beautiful, and oh-so chic as denizens of the night. Dressed in sleek outfits and stylish sunglasses, they haunt rock&roll clubs on the prowl for young blood, whom they bring home to their impossibly luxurious mansion for a late-night snack. Being a vampire never looked more sexy, but there's a price: Bowie starts to age so fast he wrinkles up in the waiting room of a doctor's (Susan Sarandon) office. The agelessly elegant Deneuve, evoking Delphine Seyrig's Countess Bathory fromDaughters of Darkness, is perfectly cast as a millenniums-old bloodsucker who seeks a new mate in Sarandon and seduces her in a sunlight-bathed afternoon of smooth, silky sex. Tony Scott's (Ridley's brother) directorial debut, adapted from the Whitley Strieber novel, revises the vampire myth with Egyptian inflections and removes all references to garlic and crosses and wooden stakes--these bloodsuckers can even walk around in the daylight--but the ties between blood and sex are as strong as ever. Scott's background as an award-winning commercial director is evident in every richly textured frame and his densely interwoven editing, but the moody atmosphere comes at the expense of dramatic urgency. At times the film is so languid it becomes mired in its hazy, impeccably designed visual style. In its own way,The Hungeris the perfect vampire film for the '80s, all poise and attitude and surface beauty. Sarandon talks candidly about the film in the documentaryThe Celluloid Closet.--Sean Axmaker』
price：$4.96
The Weinstein Company
Usually ships in 24 hours Core2Duoノートレビュー 's review (Now What?) 『So I just got watching Martyrs and I came to Amazon to give my seller negative feedback. When I ordered this movie I was under the impression that I was getting an American film with a foreign cover. Well I got the foreign film that it is. Obviously I did not pay attention to the site when it told me it was in French. Now that I got my stupidity out there, you might not want to read any more of this review, as I am apparently not all that bright.
I won't relive the story as many other reviewers like to do. I read the product description (minus Language: French). I am sure you have done the same and don't need me to repeat it here...like so many other people like to do.
And now we are to the whole review part. Umm, yeah, different. Wasn't expecting that. Waste of my time? No way. Good flick. Well printed. Well acted. Not a slasher movie by any means. Yes there was some killing, but not the typical, "I'll be right back..." kind of stuff. Blood was abundant, but appropriate when used. I found myself getting caught up in the images so much that I would have to rewind the movie just so I could read the dialog. I saw someone write that the ending was less than acceptable, and I would have to agree. It was almost a comical ending. I think the writers got tired and were probably pressured by a deadline for them to cut it short the way they did. The movie did drag on at times. I had to check the timer to see how much movie was left..."What? It is only at 45 minutes? Seems like it has been at least an hour!"...Not saying it was boring. It kept my attention. I was just so wrapped up in it that I lost track of time. Kinda saw one part of it coming near the middle, but, for the most part, I just let the movie take me where it wanted to and sat back to enjoy the movie(as much as a normal person can "enjoy" a torture film). No it wasn't easy to watch but that is what makes this movie such a good buy. People don't buy torture movies because they want to laugh or cry or even be scared. They want to be disturbed. They want their bubble to be popped. They don't want to be comfortable. They want their views of the world (as well as life in general) to be challenged. Or they make a mistake and buy the wrong movie. After a few minutes the mistakers (I just made that up...you like it?) should turn off the movie as quickly as possible and press on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. There is no need to review a well made movie simply because you are not comfortable with the subject. Wait that sounds like I am into torture. I am not. Hmm...where was I going with that? So anyway, I am now bashing people that bashed this movie so this review has taken a turn for the worse.
My movie is over and I am left with the feeling of what now. What am I supposed to feel based on what I have seen over the last 90 minutes? Am I outraged? Am I saddened? Am I supposed to feel intensly sorry for the women tortured? Am I supposed to want to save the world or am I just supposed to know that this kind of weirdness is present in the world? I am left with this cloud in my head...not sure what is in there. I will just have to feel around for a while to get my bearings.
BTW, I saw on this page Amazon says there is an intro. I didn't get that on my version of the DVD. Hope you enjoy it.
Bottom line: Would I buy the movie again? I have bought duplicate movies (let me refer you to paragraph 1), but if I had lost my copy of this movie or had rented it, the answer is yes I would buy this movie.』
(Buena pelicula) 『Buena pelicula de horror, del tipo de: "Hostal" o "Rec", si quieren salir del clasico terror Hollywoodense, les recomiendo la pelicula.』
(Normal is an ideal fiction) 『There are certainly twists in this film I did not expect to see (then again, I don't think anything could have prepared me for the 2nd half). It is brutal, cruel, sadistic, and yet very real. We hear about these kinds of things happening, yet rarely have 1st-hand experience (thank goodness for that). I guess it goes to show that, in the lack of a soundly edified social structure keeping a close eye on one's actions (or better yet, when micro-societies possess the power to recreate their own set of rules), the ideal excuse for releasing the primitive beast inside is rendered. Could we all be seeking silently for that one instance in which all repercussions are lost, and sadistic impulses redefine our very course of action? Within the context of a very well encapsulated delusion envisioned by an obviously deranged person, the breath of existence is reduced to satisfying the whims of ignorance. Now, the most important thing to resonate, no matter how utterly humiliated and physically/psychologically fragmented one becomes, the absurdity of reality will obviously take care of everyone, but one can still muster up the power to have the last laugh, as is evident in this film (without giving anything away, especially since this conclusion is highly subjective). Anyway, it is a very difficult film to endure, and I think that it allows one to see beyond their own taboos.. but then again, isn't that the primordial objective of watching movies in the first place?』
(What movie are those people talking about?) 『This is a copy of my Netflix review.
This movie sucks. It starts out with little Lucie escaping from...well, somewhere, then shows us how she bonds with Anna, another girl at, presumably, an orphanage. Then it skips ahead to when they're both young women and Lucie's tracked down the people who kept her prisoner earlier. Then.... I watched this whole thing just to see what the point of it all was, and guess what? THERE'S NO POINT!! This is nothing but torture porn, sort of like FUNNY GAMES but with fewer laughs. Man, those Europeans really give Eli Roth a run for his money! Avoid this film, not because of the violence, but because it's simply a big waste of time....』
(The most brutal and twisted horror movie I have ever seen.) 『Martyrs literally has to be seen to be believed. Forget the Saw's, forget Hostel, forget any other horror film you have ever witnessed. This is the most brutal, intense, twisted horror movie I have had the pleasure of experiencing. If your a die hard fan of messed up stuff, you have to treat yourself to this. Easily my favorite purchase this year. 』 『Lucie, a 10 year old girl, is found wandering in the streets, bruised and bloodied. Unable to say who did this to her, or why, she is placed in a hospital where she meets Anna, another young girl who had been abused. Fifteen years later, with Anna s help, Lucie sets out to get revenge on her attackers. When she believes she has found the couple who abused her, she confronts them ...and that is when the terror truly begins.』 『Avoid, if you can, reading anything aboutMartyrsbefore viewing--this ultra-intense Canadian-French shocker benefits from discovering its horrors cold. In that spirit, we'll be discreet, except to note that only the most hardcore patrons of 21st-century torture cinema need apply for this one. A prologue depicts the escape of a child from an apparent house of enslavement, and one thinks of notorious real-life cases of people keeping children locked away in basements. But writer-director Pascal Laugier has a larger idea in mind, which we begin to discern when the story skips ahead 15 years. The kidnapped girl, now played by Mylene Jampanoi, is bent on a violent rampage of her own; her lifelong friend and minder (Morjana Alaoui) comes upon a bloody scene too late. The film takes too long to get to the next revelation, but when it does, a series of secret chambers begins to unfold in the narrative, and you might just feel your head spinning (if not your gorge rising). It would be inaccurate to call this pleasant, or even entertaining, but Laugier does at least have a serious purpose and some interesting ideas. The horrifying images he creates, however, raise the question of directorial judgment gone haywire. Give him credit, though: the DVD ofMartyrsincludes a brief introduction by Laugier in which he (good-humoredly) apologizes for the movie--fair warning for the faint of heart.--Robert Horton』
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 -- -
>,Frank Langella,Laurence Olivier,Donald Pleasence,Kate Nelligan,Trevor Eve
