Reviews

Everyone who wants to see the brutal reality of a slaughterhouse, at least circa 1949 in Paris, should be open to seeing this film. Although some people seem to have come away thinking this is was an anti-meat movie, that is only their point of view. Yes, you see horrific images of horses, cows and sheep butchered. It will likely turn your stomach. But I doubt this documentary was made with the intention of turning people off meat.

The director focuses on the people too: the man whose own leg had to be cut off after an accident, for example. And it is clear that this business is just a job to many of the workers, and there is no moralizing about it.

It is difficult to watch. But it is the truth (I guess); and really, if you think about it, the animals in this film are arguably treated better (killed quickly) than in that recent undercover PETA video of downer cows.

Great imagery in this film...the animal skulls, the bread that sprouts nails, etc. Very interesting to look at, even though the animation itself isn't really that great. However, the pacing is SOOOOOO SLOOOOOWWWW, and the repetitive "said the white rabbit" mouth is so frequent and annoying, this film is almost unwatchable. I think the basic problem is that there is no plot, just a series of weird events, and once you're done being awed by the visuals there is no reason to keep watching...you don't give a damn about what happens to Alice, because she has no noticeable personality. Would have made a great short.

I'm not completely against remakes. They can be good, like The Thing or The Fly, or they can be OK, like last year's Texas Chainsaw. This one, Dawn of the Dead 2004, is one of the most unholy God-awful piece of s**t remakes I've ever seen. None of the humor, social commentary, sense of dread or awe or loneliness that made the original so great is present here. The characters are the kind of stupid idiots usually found in a Friday the 13th film, who go wandering off by themselves to investigate noises totally unarmed. It takes them way too long to realize how zomibifaction (?) is spread, and they fail to take simple obvious precautions that anyone would take. The mall fails to feel like a real place, partly because we never get a sense of its size like we did in the original. This is really just an inferior version of 28 Days Later set in a mall.

I'm giving this 3 out of 10. I'll give it higher than a 1 just for the scenes involving Andy (the rooftop neighbor) which are clever and give us some trace of the original's charm. Plus, the early scenes where everything starts to go to hell are done well. Otherwise, this stinking zombie pile smells even worse than Resident Evil, and that's pretty bad.

Along with Alien and The Thing, Signs deserves to be considered one of the scariest alien films of all time.

The best thing about Signs is its intensity...this movie builds suspense smoothly and steadily, never letting up for a minute. Unlike many films, there are almost no "filler" scenes here. You're glued to your seat the entire time.

Sound and bare glimpses of the aliens are used to great effect. The film feels real, the characters believable. Some don't like the kids, but I think they're both great...although the girl is better than the boy, who is a little too much like the smart little boy in Sixth Sense (a movie I didn't like as well as Signs).

The only drawback to Signs is the ending...which I think is a little silly but doesn't ruin an otherwise great film. And yes, Signs does have more than its fair share of haters, just like The Ring (another very scary film), probably due to some people's habit of hating very good films that are also very popular (think Titanic). The only people who could truly hate Signs are people who think movies are supposed to be an intellectual experience rather than an emotional one. 10 out of 10.

Gets a 5 out of 10.

Imagine Psycho crossed with an Italian giallo thriller from the 70's, add a young Dennis Franz playing essentially the same character he became famous for in NYPD Blue, and you've got Dressed to Kill. There really isn't any reason to see this film at all, because chances are, you've seen every single moment before in some other movie or TV show. It's not poorly made, but it's nothing special either.

The only sequence that had any magic at all was the museum scene, but De Palma ruined that by making it go on too long.

I think the only thing noteworthy about this movie is that it probably has the most obvious body double ever seen in the history of film. Sure, Angie Dickinson, we BELIEVE you had a body like that at age 49, sure...

...there's something not quite perfect about Kill Bill. For the first hour I went back and forth between liking it and not liking it, especially between the first fight scene (which is wonderful, especially when the school bus appears) and the anime sequence. The movie is missing something in that space...maybe it's too slowly paced, or takes too much time explaining a plot that is so simple it could be explained in 5 seconds.

But starting with the anime sequence, Kill Bill was unflappable. So much of this film is a homage to other films, and yet it manages to be one of the most original films I've seen in years. The images and music in some scenes, such as the final swordfight in the snow, are simply beautiful. Exquisite, even. And even the minor characters, such as the sushi chef and the Texas sheriff, are interesting people you want to know more about.

It IS violent and bloody. Most of the blood is so over-the-top, it's just a geyser of red and not very disturbing. But some of it IS disturbing, and although I've seen much more gory movies like Dead Alive/Braindead and Day of the Dead, I actually wish Kill Bill had toned it down a touch. It's so bloody that many people have focused only on that aspect of the film, which is a shame.

Kill Bill has moments that are among the best ever filmed, but I don't think the film as a whole is as good as Pulp Fiction. I give it 9/10.

This is one of the few movies out there that I would LOVE to see a remake of. The premise of this movie is really interesting...the living dead are treated as a social problem, like the homeless, rather than deadly brain-eaters. I understand that George Romero's fourth Dead film was going to have a similar premise. Anyway, it's a great idea, and brings up all kinds of interesting questions: How should the dead be treated, if they are basically just normal people without pulses? If the only disadvantage to death is a little rigor mortis now and then, what's there to fear in dying? And would the world really be worse off if everyone was dead?

The movie also gets high marks for an inventive shower scene and a jaw-dropping scene that can only be described as "gun-porn."

However, it must be said that this movie has lower production values than many student films I've seen, and the ABSOLUTE WORST ACTING EVER. I'm serious. The acting in this movie reaches depths previously unreached. I think most people's home movies have better acting. It's also more than a little slow-paced. Overall, I give it a 5/10.

First off, don't expect this to be a straight "zombie movie." It's really a supernatural horror film about the gates of hell opening and unleashing...well, I don't know exactly. Evil. In general.

There are zombies, but they are able to teleport and seem more interested in squeezing victim's scalps than eating them. The gore is minimal compared to The Beyond (but it's still a gory movie compared to most), which is also faster paced and more entertaining, even if it is an equally "bad" movie.

In City of the Living Dead, you'll get the pleasure of seeing mossy Savannah stand in for the fictional town of Dunwich, which seems to be built on old Salem...or something like that, it isn't really important. Fulci seems to love using the Old South for his Italian horror films...New Orleans was perfect for The Beyond, and now Savannah gets splattered. The atmosphere doesn't work as well in this one, and the pace drags somewhat. Overall, I can't recommend it, unless you really loved Fulci's "Zombi." This is not a film for non-Italian horror fans.

Man, oh man, did I want to like this movie. I enjoyed El Mariachi and LOVED Desperado. But the problem is, Once Upon a Time in Mexico is not really a sequel to those films...for one thing, it's not really a film, it's digital video. And boy, does it look like video. The fire from explosions is freaking ORANGE, for cryin' out loud. Ugh. There's not a single shot in the movie that truly looks good.

Which I could forgive, if the storyline had been entertaining. But too many plot twists, double-crosses, double agents, look-alikes with plastic surgery, supporting characters by the dozen...I'm sorry, but this movie simply had TOO MUCH PLOT. That's not a phrase you hear often, but I think it applies to Once Upon a Time. El Mariachi is a supporting character in his own film, and Agent Sands (by far the best character) isn't given enough screen time, even though he probably has more than any other character. We watch an endless parade of supporting characters betray each other, until we give up any attempt of figuring the whole thing out.

I did like Agent Sands. And I liked some of the humorous dialogue, especially in the first 30 minutes. And the action scenes are cool, even if they look like s*** because it's on video. But this is still a big disappointment.

I don't need to say "ONE OF the scariest ever" for this movie. This is it. #1. It's scarier, to me, than The Exorcist, The Shining, or either version of Ringu/The Ring (which were obviously influenced by The Changeling). I'm not going to tell you anything about the plot, because you'll enjoy it more without knowing too much...just know that it's a haunted house movie, and leave it at that.

With no gore and limited special effects, The Changeling focuses on creating fear through sound, music, and identification with the characters. And perhaps most amazingly, it's a fast paced thriller that is scary right from the first 10 minutes on...the first hour has to be the most intense of any film. It's pure nail-biting entertainment. WATCH IT!!!

Man, I thought I'd seen some boring overrated movies before, like Polanski's "Repulsion," but this one must be the worst. After a nice opening scene, "Don't Look Now" proceeds to show some characters, who are mostly uninteresting, walk around and have little day-to-day type problems, have a little sex, blah blah blah. Oh trust me, there's no story at all. And there's not a trace of suspense or surprise until the very end, which comes out of left field and is very silly.

This is the kind of movie where normal, everyday events are supposed to be scary merely because a stinger was added to the musical score. If you watch it with the sound off, I guarantee you will fall asleep in minutes!

The other really annoying habit of this movie is its tendency to show something innocuous, like a broach, and zoom in on it as if this is something important that we're supposed to be interested in. In every single case it turns out to be completely irrelevant. As a result, the viewer is actually conditioned to ignore the movie's details...if the director won't play fair by giving these scenes a payoff, why bother paying attention at all? Overall, the only emotion this film can create is confusion and a deep, deep desire to shut the damn thing off half-way through. 3 out of 10.

And the appeal of this film is supposed to be what exactly? OK, the photography is beautiful, I'll give it that. But the acting, makeup, story, dialogue, score, and pacing are all terrible. This is one of the few movies I've turned off halfway through, due to the simple fact that I realized I did not give a hoot what happened next (I did finish watching it the next day). Steele is supposedly very attractive, but that's pretty subjective...she has a certain chipmunk look IMHO. I'd say this film is remarkable just for one thing -- it manages to look about 25 years out of date.

Between this and "Bay of Blood/Twitch of the Death Nerve," the other Bava film I've seen, I think I'm writing Bava off forever.

Does the world need another Cannibal Holocaust comment? Maybe not, but I'll add one anyway.

This is easily the most disturbing movie I've ever seen. Not the goriest (that would be Dead Alive or Terror Firmer) or the most violent (Hard Boiled, perhaps?), but definitely the most disturbing. Why? Because unlike putrid trash like Cannibal Ferox or I Spit On Your Grave, this movie is actually pretty well made. The dialogue is reasonably intelligent, the acting (at least by the documentary filmmakers) ranges from acceptable to good, and the hand-held camera keeps all the nastiness looking believable. On top of that, the score is curiously haunting. It sounds ridiculously childish at first, but provides a strange counterpoint to the action that is quite effective (especially in the hut burning scene).

If you read enough of these comments, you'll hear more than you need to know about the animal deaths. They should never have been allowed to happen (the poor harmless young boa constrictor being hacked up was especially disturbing to me, but that's just because I have a pet boa). For another thing, I'd like to know what kind of turtle is killed...it's one big honkin' turtle. I'll bet it was an endangered species to boot. The turtle killing is probably the single most disgusting thing I've seen put on celluloid. Makes "Day of the Dead" look like an episode of "Iron Chef."

Indeed, the outrageousness of the cast of "Cannibal Holocaust" in killing these animals recalls the outrageous conduct of the filmmakers within the story who rape & kill the natives. Deodato hammers into our heads over & over that the filmmakers are the real cannibals, the real savages, because of what they did to the natives, merely for the sake of their film. But didn't Deodato do much the same thing to the animals, merely for the sake of his film? I think this is either an incredibly stupid oversight of hypocrisy by Deodato, or a brilliant touch of irony.

Overall, I can't say I "enjoyed" the film. Honestly, I hope NO ONE "enjoys" it. I don't want to see it again anytime soon. It's effective and interesting, like dissecting a frog in biology class, but I'd be a little wiggy about someone who called this one of their favorite movies.

I would warn those of you (probably most of you) who are reading these comments and want to see this film because of its reputation not to build up your expectations too much. If you learn too much about its shocking scenes, they might lose some of their shock value. And frankly, the true horror would be watching this movie WITHOUT being shocked.

I think this movie could give somebody heart palpitations. It's easily the fasted-paced movie I've ever seen, with each scene crammed to the gills with as much action, skimpy outfits, and humor as possible. In a normal movie, the action scenes are interrupted with at least OCCASIONAL scenes of relative calm...not in this flick. Every moment has something loud going on. What makes this work is that it doesn't take itself too seriously, and the humor is actually funny...making all the ridiculous action much more entertaining than, say, in "2 Fast 2 Furious." "2 Fast" failed because the characters were annoying and the film tried to present them as real. "Full Throttle" keeps its tongue planted firmly in cheek, never once even attempting realism, and is massively entertaining. In many ways, "Full Throttle" is the exact opposite of the ponderous "Hulk," which was more interested in giving a psychology lecture than entertainment.

Now, I'm not saying "Full Throttle" is a great movie. But unlike the other so-called "summer movies" so far, this one is actually entertaining.

...this film comes along to pump more life (bad pun) into the genre. This is a very, very weird movie. To me, it didn't feel like an Italian horror movie at all...so if you're not a fan of Argento or Fulci, don't be afraid to rent this film. The characters and plot of the film have some obvious connections to Dead Alive/Braindead and Evil Dead 2, but has more than a touch of "Vertigo" and "Clockwork Orange" thrown into the mix. Very interesting and unpredictable. It's not as laugh-out-loud funny or as literal as Dead Alive or Evil Dead 2, but this helps distinguish the film from the others. The copy I saw looked awful and had Japanese subtitles, so I'm looking forward to a new DVD release. Hopefully they'll use the real title; "Dellamorte Dellamore" sounds so much better than "Cemetery Man."

This movie was quite different than I expected. I rented it having heard of it, but not knowing much of anything about it. The title and the corpse on the cover made me think it might be a gory horror movie a la Zombie 2 or Dawn of the Dead, but it's more like a "Murder She Wrote" episode with some bright red corn syrup tossed around. Mind you, it's not a bad episode of "Murder She Wrote" Argento has made here. The soundtrack is great, the use of the children's song is good, and the ending is certainly not predictable. However, in my opinion, this is an extremely overrated film. The @120 minute version is long and talky in spots, occasionally boring, and leaves a lot of unanswered questions (how did the killer know where that guy was going to be the last time?). And why did Argento include all that stupid romantic comedy banter? It's also not scary in the slightest, but maybe that's just me.

Wow. I mean, wow. My jaw hit the floor and stayed there for most of this movie. When the movie begins with a live fetus ripped out of a woman's belly, and then the woman fights with the attacker for the fetus, playing tug-o-war with it...you know you're in store for something special. I've seen some other Troma movies, plus Italian zombie movies, Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, etc., but this one is probably the most entertaining and imaginative. Mind you, I still don't think it's as good as Toxic Avenger, and certainly not up there with Evil Dead 2 or Dead Alive (aka Brain Dead) in terms of overall quality, but for pure perverseness this takes the cake. Any fan of splat-stick should see it.

Someone needs to write a dissertation on the audience reaction to this movie. When it came out, almost everyone loved it and many people saw it multiple times, yet after it won the Oscars, suddenly you weren't cool unless you hated Titanic with a passion. I don't understand this at all. Maybe it was too successful for its own good, or maybe it was just Cameron's a-hole acceptance speech, but the way the audience has flip-floped on this film is amazing. Personally, I think it's a great movie. The dialogue is bad, but otherwise there's nothing terrible about it. If you don't like it, I can see rating it at 6 or so, but how could over 7,000 people truly believe Titanic deserves a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10? I mean, COME ON!

It's interesting to see this movie for only two reasons: 1) the fun of spotting scenes directly ripped off in later movies like Friday the 13th Part 2; 2) the ending, which comes out of left field and manages to be both shocking and funny. However, merely being "the first" slasher movie does not make you the best. Maybe if there was a shred of character development this wouldn't be such a yawner. Oh, and if you are going to see this movie, PLEASE get a subtitled copy...the dubbing is so bad you literally can't hear half the dialogue.

...but for anyone who likes a great movie and doesn't mind some gore. Don't think of this just as a "Zombie flick"...it's one of the most entertaining movies ever made in any genre. Scares, laughs, thrills, action, drama, basically everything you could want in a movie (except romance or sex, I suppose). The film sucks you in right from the start and never lets up. Some have said it is dated, but I disagree; given the current fear of bio/chem attack and WWIII, this movie -- with the zombies' ability to contaminate others, taking over an everyday location such as a shopping mall, and people barricading themselves inside -- is VERY timely.

Why on earth is this movie considered a horror masterpiece? It's boring as all heck. Absolutely nothing happens for 40 minutes, then we watch a mute woman go insane. If we had any reason to give a hoot about her character, maybe this would be interesting, but since she appears to be almost comatose right from the start I never once cared what happened to her. Her character never seems real or plausible (how has she lived this way for so long if she's always been so crazy?) and her actions lack any motivation we can understand. Oh, and the bonus for sitting through this endless bore-fest is a "climax" that takes 10 minutes to build up to...nothing. The only redeeming features of this movie are the brief scares (cracks in wall, rape scenes) which are affective at waking you up every now and then, and the rabbit. If Polanski made the rabbit the main character maybe this would have been more entertaining.

A truly awful movie. Every cliche you would expect is here twofold, the computer effects are obvious and constant (they even use CGI for a rat at the beginning where they could easily have used a live rat), the plot is 100% predictable, the sets are just boring alleys and rooftops that look lifted directly from the outtakes of Spider-Man, and the dialogue gets many an unintended laugh. The only worthwhile thing about this movie was the trailer for X-Men 2 that preceded it.

I am amazed at the number of people on this site who apparently did not find this movie to be scary. Everyone in the theater I saw it was was completely horror-struck, as was I, and I've seen plenty of horror movies. I would honestly say this is one of the 10 scariest movies ever released in an American theater, and the scariest I've seen since The Exocist was re-released. As for the Japanese original, I've never seen or heard of it and I doubt many other Americans have either, but I'll definitely try to seek it out now.