You may also like
Man on a Mission: Richard Garriott's Road to the Stars torrent reviews
Will G (nl) wrote: My sister in law picked this one up at a failing video rental place, which in retrospect seems appropriate. This movie reeks of desperate, go-getter, succeed-or-die, Filmmakers who try so hard that they ruin what could have been a fun movie. I say this because the writing actually isn't all that bad. That is if you go under the assumption that they were going for a tongue in cheek approach (which I believe they were). There are some chunks of time where the ticking clock of doom seems to take a time out to give way to not so bad camp dialogue with some ok one liners. But, aside from that the pacing is... You know what I take it back. The writing is awful. It's the dialogue and characters I find charming. But the acting is SO overdone that it makes what they're saying hard to focus on. The Cop is particularly guilty of this.It's a movie about a zombie uprising in a small university town, but the amount of time spent with zombies... Oops... Sorry... "Cadavers" (wouldn't want copy write infringement?). Anyway the amount of time spent with "Cadavers" is barely worth the effort of calling this a "Cadaver" Christmas.The film is chalk full if obvious influences (or rip offs) from such films as Planet Terror, Evil Dead, Creepshow, Dawn if the Dead, and that's just to name a few. Bottom Line: it's a terrible film. But it's the kind of terrible I would watch again for fun. So, I find myself recommending this film to anyone who enjoys a "So Bad It's Funny" horror film.
Jonathan S (fr) wrote: Not exactly Batman or To Catch a Thief.
Cameron J (jp) wrote: Well, it appears as though someone recognizes Algerian struggles, although we might not need the reminder, because if we're looking at a place where the primary language is Arabic, it should go without saying that it is destined to be a place of brutal warfare. This is a very multicultural story, because it involves the French, and the Arabic of North Africa, and, just for good measure, it's a film by the Italians who weren't even involved in the Algerian War. I can't help but notice that the French are not involved in this production, so Italy and Algeria don't have anyone to censor their union to show how big of jerks the French can be. Maybe Italy is just working the competition, which would be great and all if there was actually some Italian being spoken in this film, which I'm sure plenty of people think is, in fact, French. The best hope the filmmakers have is that some jerk will recognize this as part of the neorealism movement which was distinctly Italian in its being unafraid to get as nitty and gritty as it can with harsh material. I don't know who would recognize that sooner than Algerian struggles, you know, unless someone is pretentious enough to actually know what the Italian neorealism filmmaking movement was... like me. Well, don't worry, people, because even though I like this film just fine, I'm not pretentious enough to lie about the problems in this film. The film isn't able to keep a firm grip on its originality, as it has a tendency to return to tropes as a guerilla war drama, and get there in a somewhat limp manner. Reliant on slow-burn tensions when it isn't simply meditating upon not much of anything, Gillo Pontecorvo's direction delivers on plenty of cold spells which all but stiffen a sense of momentum which is even retarded on paper, through repetitious dragging that you'd figure would be in limited supply, considering this film of weighty subject matter's running only about two hours. The film manages to break even by meeting the dragging with developmental shortcomings, for although the motivations can be understood, few, if any characters feel truly distinguished, making it hard to get invested in accessible role, especially within an uneven storytelling style. The film alternates between pseudo-documentary structurings which are objective in feel, and dramatic intimacies whose subjective value is diluted by the stylistic unevenness, and even by a lack of realization to subtlety. About as often as anything, this film is too subtle for its own good, what with its being so limp and undercooked, but when the subtlety lapses, although it doesn't beat you over the head, a sense of genuineness is lost in the wake of melodramatics and an overemphasis on themes that, honestly, are a little problematic to begin with. There are occasions in which themes regarding terrorism feel a bit glorified, and that ought to be disconcerting enough to general audiences, when the film's other ambitions - in uniqueness, thoughtfulness and style - don't lapse and drive the final product very much short of what it could have been. Still, when ambition is adequately fulfilled, the drama ought to engross, even through a somewhat thin script. Gillo Pontecorvo's and Franco Solinas' script is flawed, offering undercooked and unevenly present, but intriguing characters behind arguably tight set pieces which, with its gritty realism, draws you in, with the help of a unique storytelling style. Sure, the storytelling structure gets formulaic from time to time, and the pseudo-documentary approach to the plotting is distancing enough when it doesn't conflict with the subjective value of the more intimately dramatic aspects, but there is still something fresh about it that helps in making things feel real, which isn't to say that the stylistic highlights end there. Pontecorvo's directorial style is always worthy of some praise, with visual style that is anchored by Marcello Gatti's cinematography being dated, but with a handsomely fitting grime that helps in selling the chill in the air, like, of all things, some nifty audio style tricks. The style orchestrated by Pontecorvo also has its more effective minimal touches, primarily through plays on Pontecorvo's and Ennio Morricone's tasteful scoring, if not on biting somberness which transcend shortcomings in subtlety and pact with anything from tension to resonance. Yes, the subtlety lapses feel propagandist, and of such questionable themes as the possible glorification of terrorism, while realized moments feel balanced enough to be effective in selling the value of the subject matter. In terms of storytelling, there's not much to praise, but engagement value is very much in the story concept, which offers an intimate study on the rise of guerilla warfare during the Battle of Algiers, backed by themes regarding the power and dangers of terrorism, and a social state which might inspired terrorism that might very well still be relevant to this day. They at least remain interesting to this day, because no matter how much this film tries your patience, it ought to hold your attention comfortably enough to engage adequately, even though it could have done so much more. When the battle is done, there are formulaic occasions and many a moment of dryness throughout an overlong, undercooked and stylistically uneven course of limited subtlety, until enough momentum is lost for the final product to collapses as underwhelming, but there's still enough effectiveness to the writing, stylistic and directorial highlights, and to the worthy subject matter to make Gillo Pontecorvo's "The Battle of Algiers" a fair, if problematic war drama. 2.5/5 - Fair
Mads D (es) wrote: En fremragende western med altid super John Wayne og ikke mindst Dean Martin. Historien holder, og spndingen er indtakt til det sidste. Absolut en must-see western fra dengang man kunne lave film.
Andrew M (ca) wrote: On the surface, a remake of Romeo & Juliet (or West Side Story, depending on your values), but stunning cast (save the near-wooden but attractive leads) and Ferrara's brilliant, sleazy and dangerous New York City atmosphere make it breathe and live. I am totally in love with Ferrara's New York...He makes me actually believe it IS the centre of the universe, whereas other filmmakers merely piss me off with their city's self-promotion. A great film.
Crusader (fr) wrote: Louise Fletcher was perfectly cast for the grandmother role in this movie. Been decades since I read the book this is based on, but it seems to follow the storyline in the book as I remember it.
Art S (nl) wrote: Watching this directly after DePalma's 1983 Scarface shows just how much that later film stuck to the genre "rules", if you will. Here we see the same story -- Edward G. Robinson rises from the gutter, a small time hood, to take on first one boss and then subsequent bosses to run the organised crime business for the North Side (of Chicago). Like Pacino did later, Robinson creates a larger than life character with obvious flaws (need for power, attention, and then subsequent paranoia). The film succeeds largely because of his charismatic performance. Of course, Rico (aka Little Caesar) also makes the tragic mistake of not trusting his friends and this leads to his downfall at the hands of a persistent cop (not present in DePalma's film). Of course, to viewers of the 1930s this was all daring in the way it so clearly referenced real-life gangster, Al Capone, and the violence, seemingly so minimalistic by today's standards, was likely shocking.
Joseph C (es) wrote: My first name is Joe, and if this movie said the name Joe one more time, so help me....