Reviews

It's a very beautiful bunch of scenery with lonnng, sllloooowwww pans, pauses between dialog and every trick in the book to draw out a highly predictible ending. Perhaps it is psychologically terrifying to some but the plot direction, events and even who dies was telegraphed from the very beginning.

I'm disgusted with not this documentary but all the exploitative films, podcasts and movies that profit off others misery. I'll never feel sorry for any woman named Britney. She's just another rich white twaht that takes advantage of others while they take advantage of her. BOO HOO POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL

No it's not a screwball comedy. STIR Crazy is a screwball comedy. It is quirky. But not in a good way. The acters frequently recite their lines like in a school play with no emotion. Flat, dull and emotionless. ALL the acters. Clearly no one was getting paid much. The premise is interesting but would be better suited for a short film. And oh you don't even get a resolution at the end just a chick waiting at a table for a loser to stab his eyes out.

If you haven't seen "Push", I strongly recommend it. If your a fan of genre films, you'll get a lot of pleasant surprises seeing acters playing very different roles than what you're possibly familiar with. The story is very much science fiction with a good balance of action, plot and character development. There's flaws but nothing so major to ruin the experience. Production values are actually good because the money saved filming in Hong Kong (which is done as integral part of the story) went to a large cast of good acters, believable special effects and a decent if not memorable soundtrack. It doesn't deserver the rating it has on IMDB, which comes mostly from people who don't understand the plot. Why do so many people don't understand the plot? I don't know. It's not the most complicated I've seen. There's some holes but most things are explained either through dialog, flashbacks or visual cues. Perhaps the biggest "flaw" is the movie doesn't spoon-feed it's plot to the audience in tiny amounts with lots of repetition and "Oh hey let's repeat everythin 5 times so the audience can figure it out". For the *serious* nerd, comic-book fan or SF fan you'll find a lot of familiar plot elements. You need to watch *and* listen. And you need to keep names straight. But hey, there's another really compelling reason to see this movie now. Seeing "Push" for the second time, I realized it's something rather unusual... A reverse ensemble film.

while it's now nearly a decade old, the movie frankly still holds-up well in terms of effects with nothing to really significantly date it. Perhaps "Push" didn't get as good a rating on IMDB as it could because of how many ratings occur when a movie is first released. After all, Chris Evans in 2009 was known for having played Johnny Storm in the first two mediocre Fantastic Four flicks. It was two years before he became The First Avenger. Yet even though "Push" isn't a super-hero flick, it's all-about the super-powered. It's a genre film with a very high cross-over to the Marvel universe.

Take Ming-na Wen who plays a small role of an enhanced person, someone who can touch an object and tell who held it, where they are, and what they've been doing. You may know her better as Agent May in the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." series on ABC which didn't start until 2012(?). Then there's the sinister glasses-wearing bad guy Harvey Carver, played by Djimon Honsou who you see as the second speaking character in "Guardians of the Galaxy". He's the angry dude who doesn't recognize Starlord or even Starlord's name. Man, poor Starlord...

But hey, it's not just the Marvel Cinemeting Universe that gets a represent. Cliff Curtis of Fear the Walking Dead pops-up as an enhanced. And Corey Stoll, the alcoholic CDC employee turned vampire hunter in "The Strain" plays an agent out to catch our protagonists. The amount of genre acters and characters is getting a little lopsided now but thankfully there's Maggie Siff, the bad-ass Dr. Tara Knowles from "Sons of Anarchy" in a small role as, well, let's not give too much away... But now that's *six* acters in "Push" who went on to become famous for roles they started shortly after this movie. Which poses an interesting question: What would have happened if there'd been a sequel? I'm trying to not have any spoilers in this review, but the movie ends in such a way that a sequel, or spin-off TV series, might have been possible. But once Chris Evans became Captain America that was all over. But maybe somewhere out there on an Alternate Earth, Chris Evans is famous as the Pusher Nick Grant, fighting against the tyranical efforts of The Division.

I caught this on TV one night and was initially interested, but eventually found myself wanting to fast-forward through it.

1) Dull

2) Meaningless

3) Out-of-touch with reality

The cinematography was great. The actresses were pretty. But the premise and plot were just total crap. I had no sympathy for the girls, and the movie as a whole completely belittles suicide and what it does to people's lives.

And why exactly do I need to leave a 10-line comment? This movie doesn't deserve ten lines of commentary.

I'm amazed it has such a high rating. all I can guess is fans of Coppola or the original book are overrunning it with praise...

Watched the premiere episode "Curse of Deathklok" last night on my TiVo. It was everything I hoped it would be. The music is amazingly well done for a cartoon short. Fans of heavy metal and/or death metal will definitely get a kick out of it.

Fans of Brandon Small's "home Movies" will probably be disappointed in the show as it's not comparable in anyway. Animation, sound, story, characters, they are utterly different. However, I'm sure Brandon will pick-up many new fans with this production.

Definitely not suitable for little kids. Or for any teenagers who aren't well-adjusted (i.e. no fantasy from reality).

Cartoon Network apparently has this episode in its extensive Hanna-Barbera library. They just showed an episode of "The New Adventures Of Huck Finn" on their Saturday morning program "Boomerang". The episode was entitled "The Eye Of Doogerah".

Unfortunately, the Boomerang program just shows random episodes of old Saturday morning cartoons, but at least this rather unique (if not odd) program has been preserved for now.

This movie was based on the short story "Overdrawn At The Memory Bank", written by John Varley in 1977. You can find it in "The 1977 Annual World's Best SF", edited by Donald A. Wollheim and published by DAW.

John Varley has won both several Hugo *and* Nebula awards for his work. One of his most famous stories is "Persistance Of Vision" (also the title of a short-story collection). This was not the only story dealing with the idea of peoples minds being transferred. Guess how they do sex-change operations?

The funky names of the characters come from the short story, so you can't blame PBS for them. However, the plot of the PBS movie differs significantly in many ways from the short story. THe basic premise remains the same, but they really messed with it too much.

Also, I saw the original production of this on PBS when I was a teenager, and didn't think it was absolutely horrible. Frankly, the digital effects were state of the art for the time and for a TV production.

(I may be one of those rare individuals who has seen MANY of the MST3K titles in their original form back when I was a kid).

Being a big fan of John Steakley (albeit his works are meager in number), I was pleasantly surprised to hear about the film version of his book. But while the first 15-20 minutes of the movie follows the plot of the book closely, it quickly diverges until there is little sembelence between the two.

Which is too bad, because the book had plenty of tense scenes going for it. However, there amount of dialog probably wouldn't have translated into an action flick as easily.

John Carpenter has done worse ("They Live" was just a pathetic joke) and certainly better ("The Thing", "Halloween", "Escape From new York"). If your a big fan of Mr. Carpenter's work (especially his music), then this is definitely worth a look-see. You won't be disappointed for graphic violence, at least.

On a side-note, if you were disappointed with the movie, let me assure you the book is MUCH better! And you may also want to check out one of John Steakley's other books, "Armor".

This isn't so much a commentary on the movie, as on some of the comments on ROTLD that appear here. Some people have panned the flick with simple whining about it being boring, ruined by "bad" music, etc.

> Don't pay attention to those comments. The fact is, if you don't generally like horror movies, or you detest gore than YOU SHOULDN'T BOTHER WATCHING A MOVIE WITH THE NAME "RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

*ahem*

Instead, I recommend you give special attention to the longer, detailed commentary from folks who actually *like* the genre and listen to what they have to say.

As for myself, I'll say I saw the movie in the theatre and it kicked butt. I loved it and at the same time it disturbed me. There's a lot of humor in the movie that you won't get unless you've seen Romero's "dead" trilogy. And the movie never takes itself too seriously.

And lastly, I'll just add that the sequel is *not* that bad. It's far more humorous and self-parodying, so it may not be a good choice for those who take their horror seriously. But if you *loved* the Evil Dead trilogy you'll probably at least get a chuckle out of ROTLD Part II.