childrenwithknives

Blind Terror, A.K.A.- "See no Evil" has some truly wonderful moments within it but it's ultimately a generally entertaining little movie but nothing more. This film set's up the entire analogy very nicely for the first quarter of the entire 90 minutes. We are first introduced to our stranger in the cowboy boots at the onset. We quickly learn a great deal about him as he exits a movie theater in the very beginning of the film. This theater is showing what was then to be considered tabu films that within the titles suggest violent and sexual X rated material. For the majority of the film our "Stalker" is rarely shown from the waist up. As he walks the dark English streets at night after exiting the movie theater, subtle images of war and violently related material are backdropped. This gives us some clue that our booted stranger may have interests in psychotic and ghastly sorts of things and possibly spends much of his time dwelling on thoughts that are relative to this. Then we are introduced to our main character portrayed by a very young and unusually beautiful Mia Farrow. We quickly learn that she has fallen victim to some sort of an accident while riding a horse which seems to suggest she some how unfortunately lost her eye sight as a result of the ordeal. She returns home for a visit, and this is when we are treated to the best parts of this movie. As Mia's Character learns to find her way around and re-adjust to life in a world of darkness, she characterizes these aspects so well that it really makes us think about how it really must be to suffer the scourge of blindness. She is quickly associated as a person with a great sense of will and determination, so when she is asked by one of the other characters in the film "What's it like?" we nearly expect her to say "It really isn't so bad, you get used to it". Instead she declares "It's bloody horrible". I really admired the script for allowing us to see this plight in a more realistic manner. For anyone robbed of their right to see I really doubt they would find it anything but a terrible misfortune that it would indeed take much time to adjust to. Mia Farrow lovingly creates a wonderful performance. She's superb and believable as a vulnerable blind woman in peril. Mia Farrow is one of those very unique people that seemed to fit just barely into the Hollywood idea of a starlet. She could have easily ended up doing dove commercials for the rest of her life. But she has always had this earthy, doe like quality to her. She's so sweet and innocent that she fits well into these characters being pursued in horrible ways because she is so delicate that the audience wants so badly to reach out and help her. Of course once she was offered much more challenging roles we all got the chance to find out just what a truly wonderful actress she is. And they certainly broke the mold after they made Mia Farrow. This movie survives only because of her. She is breathtaking to watch in this role. The movie seems to end so suddenly however that ultimately it turns out to be a big let down in the last few minutes. But the film does have some wonderful acting provided by most of the cast, and there are some extremely beautiful shots of the English countryside in the fall season, and much of that is superbly shot. But the only real weakness of this film is that we discover who the killer is so suddenly and then it's all over too quickly. it comes off at that point to feel fairly bland. It's really invigorating watching Mia farrow work her way around the issues and problems a blind character would certainly face, and that in it's self is a real gem. But again without her presence this movie would have probably been a total flop.

I must admit I really enjoyed this remake of the original 'Omen' for numerous reasons. Primarily this is one of those films that really works where the majority of remakes of prior films are ultimately dreadful, as has been evident with so many movies. We pretty much would all agree that remakes rarely even equal the original. In the case of 'The Omen 6.6.06', the result is truly unique. The film works well on virtually every level even though this remake rarely dwells far from the material of the original script. One would think that this very fact might have well doomed this remake to a complete waste of time, money, and celluloid. But here are just few reasons I think this film works and works well.

The sets are always impressive as is the art direction through out this movie. The supporting musical score is rich with texture and mood through the entire movie without ever going in the direction of predictable or cheesy. The score is also never over bearing for even a second. I also found it interesting to see that scenes when violent moments take place, the film makers chose to take the direction of down playing the gore and possibly topping the original with predictable and silly over the top blood and carnage. As well as these observations, I felt the film was surprisingly well cast and acted. When first being introduced to the various characters my first feeling was- "Oh boy- here we go. This guy just doesn't fit this role". Well as character development continued I am happy to say I was wrong about this perception, especially in the case of Pete Postlewaite's interpretation of the tormented priest. A superb and better than average actor nicely fit into this role. As did Mia Farrow in her part. I was happy to see a classic veteran actor like Farrow finally having the chance to play an evil character. The only side note about her part is not so much the part it's self but realizing that she is still breathtakingly beautiful despite her elder age, and even the less than appealing makeup, clothing, and hair design couldn't hide that fact. There are some superbly shot dream sequences that add a little more scare factor to the film that were not present in the original movie. All in all I felt that there were moments of the original that make it somehow better than this version, and at the same time there was plenty here in this outing that I frankely felt topped the original. And let's face it, the original isn't always perfect either, especially in the earlier character setups of the film. There is an almost "aw-shucks" kind of mood to some of the early portions of the original and I found myself saying "God how cheesy". Moments such as the interrelative sequences between Gregory Peck and lee Remmick after they move into their new English home. It does get a bit hokey at times- let's face it. And the supporting lighter spirited music at times almost gives those scenes an 'As the world turns' sort of flavor. Another example of this is when Damien is wandering outside with his parents and he disappears. When they find him and realize he's OK the music nearly ruins that scene, it's downright silly. Beyond this though the original is a superb horror classic, and after all it was made a pretty long time ago, so it get's a pass for the few and far between weaker moments. So basically I feel that this remake is a solid movie with a great deal of detail, creepiness, and style. it's worth seeing and I think it's much better than many horror movies made over the past 20 years.

Both Ebert and Roeper gave this movie a thumbs up? Now I really enjoyed 'House of 1000 corpses'. Sig Haig's antics even in the DVD's menu's is worth the price of the DVD alone. Truly hilarious!. Then the film it's self was down right terrifying at times, and creepy as hell. I expected the same with 'The Devil's Rejects'. what i got was frankly very disappointing. The whole thing takes place in the day and in the desert regions, so it comes off as more of a crazed killer action movie somewhat and not the least bit scary. There are some good effects here and there and one gory scene that is so well executed it looks as real as real can get. Some of the imagery of death are pretty convincing too. But I felt the film is simply uneven and tends to at moments look like amateurish film making, the kind that normally goes straight to the video rack. Now I have to admit I never liked 'White Zombie', but agree that they added a little something new to the mainstream of music in the mid 90's that seemed refreshing yet darkly unique.But having been deeply involved in the underground goth scene myself since 1993 bands doing the kind of music white zombie was doing were everywhere, so hearing their music in the goth context sounded like nothing new. It shows that all it takes a bunch of visual gimmicks to make you famous and people swallow it so easily. Visually Rob's 'White Zombie' looked very different from anything most people in the normal world had seen before. But to people like me most of the bands ideas were ripped off from other long established goth and industrial bands. So to me white zombie was a big yawn. So the same thing with Rob Zombie's solo work. His talent is obviously good and for mainstream America it seemed to be cutting edge. But there were already hundreds of bands out there for nearly a decade doing the same kind of music and usually it was better. Zombie was just lucky he used the visual gimmicks to get somewhere just as Marilyn Manson did. Both he and Manson are smart. They both know that all you need is a gimmick and people by the millions just swallow it like a nest of hungry birds. So I not just feel but know Rob Zombie is very smart, but is also pretty much over rated. I admire his courage to move into other technical talents. And it started to look like he could very well be a top notch director as'House of 1000 corpses' shows he has more talent as a director and writer than anyone could have ever expected. I didn't think that film was anything really special, but it was a pretty well made horror film and got the job done. But 'The Devil's Rejects' just didn't deliver what I was looking for. It was cool to hear some classic songs in the soundtrack, and often they fit in just right while other tracks simply didn't fit. The final sequence is well shot, but the whole affair left me saying. "God is that it? I'm sorry but this movie sucked." I'm no stranger to Horror and crazy Characters. I love Tarantino movies. But horror movies often suck now days. few really scare me at all. But this movie isn't a horror film at all. It's not awful, but 5 minutes after I watched it I forgot all about it and felt it had nothing worth remembering in it.

I have always really enjoyed Winona Ryder's performances. Once again she took what could have easily been a very conventional role and gave it some real humanity and depth. I have always been amazed at how good Winona Ryder has been in nearly every one of her performances. It surprises me that she hasn't yet won an Oscar. Though I suppose it is really something to even be nominated anyway. And I think perhaps for her it is probably better that she didn't. I have always felt that Winona Ryder possibly could be described as a "genuine, down to earth person trapped in an actors body." perhaps she's someone that might have chose a different life than that of an actor if she had it all to do over again. She has always appealed to me as the sort of person who just wants to be an average joe...oops- I meant "jane" who happens to act for a living. She certainly would be an interesting person to just sit and talk to about anything that has to do with 'nothing important'. The sort of person I could certainly identify with. I wish she lived in my neighborhood. I would love just to call her up and invite her to denny's for some simple coffee and chatter. There are not many actors nor people of any fame that I would feel comfortable trying to connect with. But somehow it isn't hard to see that she would really make a good friend once you sat down with her a few times and forgot about the her notoriety. I might also add that if she did indeed Rip off sacks 5th ave. I think it only helped reveal the fact that she is simply a human being. One with problems. One that is anything but perfect. One who has fears, and has trials in her life just like all of us. Winona seems genuinely to be the sort of person that has never let her fame go to her head and I think this is what makes her such a passionate performer. In some off beat way perhaps she shows the world a real part of herself coming through in her roles in film. The part of herself that is vulnerable, sometimes fearful of the world around her. Perhaps the sort of person that maybe would give anything just to be accepted as a regular person. As always her performance in 'Reality Bites' was brilliant. You can see that she both carries and strongly supports her fellow acting participants, and is often clearly carried and supported in the same way. The result is that you realize there is allot more to this woman than simply beauty. There is the obvious attractive characteristics that she has been lucky to be born with, but more importantly she sometimes allows us to see what a truly beautiful person she really is from within when she is willing to let us see it. There is no one like her in the world,and I for one feel pretty dammed cheated for not having the chance to get to know her. But not for who she is on the level of fame, but for who she is in her heart- a genuine person. And luckily I am grateful to at least sometimes see just a glimpse of it on occasion through the mist of what we call 'film'. Winona Ryder is unique and I for one am glad she is...simply by sharing her gift of humanity through her wonderful performances, I am a happier person in some small way knowing there are people like her in a world gone wrong.

I was a very young 13 years of age when I first saw Brian De Palma's 'Sisters' when it first arrived in theaters in 1973. I was captivated and intrigued by the warning included on the theatrical poster outside of the movie theater. The caption within an inset box read-"No one will be seated during a special 'shock recovery' period". Of course this had me feeling ill before I even entered the auditorium in nervous expectation. Well from the very opening of the film we find our leading man lisle Wilson the unknowing subject of a surreal game show 'peeping toms'. The lead in music by the always brilliant Bernard Herrmann creates an unsettling and frightening mood. You can almost taste the psychologically evil direction of the film from the very beginning. Further through as we are introduced to our two main characters played by Wilson and Margo kidder we are carried through this with a very smooth dreamlike and creepy feel thanks largely to the incredible soundtrack Herrmann had created here. Once the terror hits us we are not exactly clueless that it is going to take place. But certainly de palma created the the first murder sequence this way intentionally. We know it is going to happen but we pray it doesn't. Well it does- and to terrifying results. The murder of our short lived leading man has to be one of the most shocking scenes ever filmed. The violent and relentless way in which this demonic 'alter ego/other sister' perpetrates murder is to suggest that the way in which she murders her victim is without any restraint and completely sadistic. This scene is certainly carried to terrifying depth through Bernard Herrmann's electrifying score, and now we see the ranting, jerking of the insanity of a serial killer... At only 13 I thought my heart was going to stop, I was mortified. De palma still leaves plenty for us as the audience to think about. Is the other half of these separated siamese twins real or imagined? Is she dead or is she perhaps possessing the body of her sister that is still living? These are questions that give us the mystery we are looking for. The always mystical and beautiful jennifer Salt (daughter of writer and producer Waldo Salt) portrays a reporter named Grace Collier, who witnesses this murder. The police are at odds with her, and for reasons that are quickly revealed. They have reason to question if her claims of a murder in the apartment across the way are real or some scheme grace has cooked up. For the rest of the film Grace plays the part of detective to attempt prove that the murder really did happen aided by a private eye (Charles Durning). What Grace finally finds out is truly terrifying. 'Sisters' is filled with plenty of good scares, creative split screen sequences, and plenty of dreamy nightmarish images. And then there is de palma's ala- hitchcock, which at times is more hitchcock than hitchcock. Bill Finley is especially superb as a quirky and creepy ex-husband. I can hardly understand why some people didn't care for this movie. 'Sisters' may have lost some of it's freight factor after 32 years, but it is still one of the best psychological thrillers ever made despite some moments that are less than perfect. I highly recommend this scary masterpiece. I highly recommend 'Sisters'

'Guinea pig: The devil's experiment' is simply the worst piece of garbage I believe I have ever seen, and I'm no spring chicken here when it comes to gore and gruesome footage. Simply put, this "film?" (more like a badly shot video)is so unconvincing that Ed Wood could have done a more honorable job doing it. From start to finish this little bit of nothingness looks as if it were done by a bunch of high school kids. It's that cheap. Not at all disturbing in the least bit unless you are someone who is not familiar with films like 'In the realm of the senses', 'Cannibal Holocaust', or perhaps even 'Nekromantik'. This 45 minute piece of footage isn't anywhere near as disturbing as the torcher sequence shot for 'Reservoir Dogs'. The fact that anyone would think this is real or even realistic as a gore film is hard for me to understand. Constantly through the entire film the "Actors?" seem to be doing everything they possibly can to make the whole thing look fake. With the exception of one scene that is a little convincing near the end, it is simply not effective on any level, nor is it worthy of any mention at any level. It's just a cheap attempt at trying to use video footage to rake in a few bucks simply on the value of expectation much as was the case with the movie 'snuff'. This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. Compared to this 'Plan 9 from outer space' could be Oscar worthy. trust me it's crap plain and simple! My only concern is in the area of moral-ism. What the hell is wrong with this world anyway that people want to make crap like this?

Tens of thousands of feet of film were shot during the making of 'U2: Rattle and hum', Most of it in black and white. Some of this was intentional, but allot of it was due to the fact that director Phil Joanou had a limited budget to work with and black and white film at least at that time was less expensive. Shooting in 16mm as well as 35mm was another reason that this film was shot almost entirely in black and white. About 90% of the footage was done in that format rather than color. From Watching the final cut of the film it would seem to suggest that it was more like 80% of the over all footage, but keep in mind there was allot more black and white footage cut from the film than color. I obtained a great amount of the footage that was never seen in the original version of 'U2: rattle and hum', 480 minutes of it to be exact. When I first saw 'U2: rattle and hum'

In 1988, I was fortunate enough to see it at a 'century theater' complex in San Jose Ca. On the biggest screen they had out of the 2 blocks of 'century theaters' lining one side of Winchester blvd. There in San Jose. They even had a special concert PA system temporarily installed for this special feature. It was truly the best way to see this movie, and the experience has stuck with me ever since. For many years I have felt that this movie could very well be the best film about a band ever made. Maybe even possibly the best music related film ever made with the exception of 'Woodstock' or perhaps 'The last waltz'. The movie has at times a real gritty look to it due to the 16mm footage. It feels earthy, grounded, cultural, important. Especially the portion of the film where U2 put on the 'Free the yuppies' concert at the 'embarcadero center' in San Francisco. This was the portion of the film where the band performs 'All along the watch tower'.

This concert was monumental (no pun intended) for the history of music in many ways. For one this concert was announced 2 hours prior to the performance over San Francisco's 'Live 105' fm alternative station. The concert was not scheduled prior to the two hour announcement. Bono, the edge, larry mullen jr., adam clayton as well as their management decided to put the show on the day before it actually took place. I was living in San Jose at the time and heard the announcement on the radio that day. I didn't have to work that day so I could have easily made it but a problem came up and to my bitter disappointment I was unable to attend the show. The entire show is truly wonderful (I have the entire performance on video). The monumental thing about this performance was of course the point in which Bono paints the Monument erected many years before in the embarcadero square by a french artistic designer.

The now infamous "rock and roll stops the traffic" slogan that bono spray painted on the monument is one of the greatest moments in music history. What most don't know is that bono never left the stage during all along the watch tower, the monument was painted during another song. which one was it? Well you'll have to find out for your self, I'm not telling. I went to see the monument the next day late at night. A friend and I climbed the thing to see the painted area. It was already painted over but you could see where it had been painted from the color shades being off a bit. I did make it to the performance at Oakland Stadium the next day. This was of course the 'Joshua tree' tour. Bono managed to find the french artist who created the monument that bono had spray painted just the day before. After a short 'wave hello' the artist proclaimed "U2 can spray paint anything I create any time they want!". This was in retaliation to the mayor of San Francisco who banned U2 from returning to San Francisco for the deed. Later the ban was lifted. But now back to the footage cut from the final film released through 'Paramount pictures'.

It is anybody's geuss as to why some of the best footage was cut from the film. Most notably 'the voices of freedom' performance at 'madison square garden'-performing 'still haven't found what I'm looking for' with the band. It is truly touching and would have been 'hands down' the best part of the entire movie had it made the final cut. directly after the group of church singers leave the stage U2 kicks into a rare live performance of 'Spanish eyes'. It is really a shame that these performances were left out of the fianl cut. I have 40 minutes of footage of U2 on their van ride to the church where they were to first meet the 'voices of freedom' as well as 40 minutes of footage after they arrive at the church. Also the entire graceland tour was filmed which I also have. I can understand why joanou left most of this out, it can be rather dull to watch, but it was interesting to hear allot of U2's questions and comments as they went along the tour. Hours of other precious moments are also seen in the deleted footage. 'U2: rattle and hum' is a true classic music film, but if phil joanou and U2 wanted to share those precious moments with the rest of the world they might think about releasing the entire thing in a directors cut. I had to pay allot of moola for the footage I have, and I mean allot!, all 480 minutes of it. Having seen it for myself in my opinion it is a crime to hide this footage from the public. U2: 'rattle and hum' is a great movie, a complete directors cut would make it a landmark in the history of the cinema.

The only thing interesting about this film is sitting there and thinking to myself "Man Anton Lavey must have been thinking, "what the devil have I gotten myself into anyway?, No one told me that william shatner was going to be in this thing!, That was never part of the deal!!" ". For those who have been hiding under a rock and didn't know, Anton lavey was the actual founder of the 'church of Satan' in 1966. He served as technical adviser in the film, and is also seen in the ritual scenes twice, wearing a mask over his upper face however. Not long after this movie was shot Anton went into hiding and was rarely seen in public up until his death in 1997...or was it 1998? The poor guy probably went into hiding once he found out how dreadful this movie really was. Anton- I geuss the blessings of Satan just weren't with you on this one fella! If you want a good laugh then this movie is for you.

I just saw 'tombs of the blind dead' several hours ago for the first time. A friend and I had planned to watch 'legend of hell house' but he mailed that one back to 'netflix'instead of the one we had already watched ('the devil's rain') the night before. He had won this turkey off of ebay and was trying to get it for years. He built this thing up to the point that he had me believing this was one of the greatest horror films ever made, and that might be the reason why I didn't really care for it very much, or at least part of the reason....

The good: This film does have it's moments of real creativity. One thing I felt that the director was wise in using is every scene in which the dead knights rode on horseback were done in slow motion photography and the same creepy soundtrack music was used during each of the several scenes where the zombies are riding on horseback. All of these scenes were done in the night sequences and the sets ad to the creepy feel of those scenes. Another bonus now that I have mentioned it is that the music score is excellent during the grimmer scenes. The templer nights that have risen from the dead over all look pretty creepy too with the exception of their fingers that looked very silly. The bad: So what's so bad about it? Well I'll tell you. Bad acting, bad voice over's (even though the film isn't dubbed in English), a horribly bad script, uninspiringly bad characters like the lead male role- the guy looks like a cross between armand assanti and eric estrada. And especially the dope that played 'pedro', what a bland character and an even more unconvincing actor.

The film often feels like your watching something on 'telemundo' in it's lighter moments. The characters constantly do the stupidest things. Like the girl in the beginning of the film: " I get raped by a lesbian, so for no reason what so ever I'm going to jump off a train and walk with no direction to the first place I find. Oh what's this? -I found a graveyard or something. I think that I might actually sleep here in the middle of nowhere even though this place is creepy and no one in their right mind would stay here if their life depended on it. Then I'll gather a few twigs and out of that I'll have this huge fire that should have burned out in two minutes cuz I made it out of a fist full of twigs and I know there wasn't any other wood around. Wait... what was that noise?....Oh my God it's a zooommmbieee!! I can see they move real slow but I think I will walk slow too and back myself into an inescapable corner even though there are a thousand different directions I can go in, and geuss what- I'll do it slowly so these old geezers can catch me.

I know I really am very stupid, but the director told me to do it that way." The cheezy: bad gore effects (except for the nub on eric estrada's severed arm), cheap hands on the zombies, tombstones and what-not move like they are made out of cardboard, The zombies rose once- why did they rise again later in the movie?, why did I waste my time on this lame movie? This is not the worst movie I have ever seen- 'plan nine from outer space' was worse than this was. If you like your horror serious and looking like it isn't a cheap Spanish telemundo TV program, don't waste your time ( 1 star *)

I saw 'the innocents' when I was a child and it scared the living s**t out of me. everything about this film is pure poetry. And I agree with the user that reviewed it just before me. read his review for more details, actually very well written. The thing I love about this movie is in a word- "everything". Sets, costumes, acting, script, adaptation, lighting, mood, film stocks, sound, and everything in between. I also liked very much the fact that this movie is very creepy even though there is no violence in the film. Most of all this movie has more atmosphere than any horror film ever made in my opinion. Kerr is absolutely breathtaking to look at through the whole film as well as having turned in the best performance of her entire career. The only question I have is why hasn't this been mastered to DVD? HINT, HINT, NUDGE, NUDGE!! Obvious to fans of this movie, 'the others' with Nicole Kidman was pretty much heavily adapted from this or perhaps from 'turn of a screw' which this film was an adaptation of. If you are looking for a horror film with real mood and texture. if you want your atmosphere very heavy, this is the movie for you. a perfect, classic horror movie. 4 stars ****

As being one among many that waited quite impatiently for the release of 'Kill Bill Vol.1' being in less than well tempered expectation, hearing what buzz I could lend my ear to about what was to be of this film, When all was said and done I found this film both refreshing and disapointing at the same time. It seems that Tarantino has been plagued with heavy expectations from audiences ever since 'Pulp Fiction'. Just as most fans of 'Pulp Fiction', I keep hoping that somehow Quinten Tarantino could top that masterful achievement. But I have come to the conclusion that Tarantino found the right chemistry, actors, and ideas that put 'Pulp Fiction' in the category that many other films have been placed in. That rare film that becomes a classic against all original odds. 'The Godfather' would be a prime example of this. Francis Ford Coppola had little experience, he was in constant danger of being fired from the project, Al Pacino was bitterly hated by Paramount executives early on, Danny Thomas wanted to buy Paramount pictures so he could play himself as Don Vito Corleone, Studio executives constantly butted heads with Coppola on just about every detail, Time was rushed every day of the shoot back in 1971, and the budget was very tight. Nobody including Coppola himself ever expected that he would pull it off with anything less than b-film results. All is history now and 'The Godfather' has served as a blue print for countless projects that were to follow. Yet even more amazingly Coppola pulled it off again and did an even more impressive job with his handling of 'The Godfather pt. II'. The interesting point of this is that situations, examples like Coppola's two Godfather films and the success there of is seldom achieved. Of course who can argue with the success of other classic achievements as well like the films that George Lucas, Stanley Kubrick, and Steven Spielberg. That being said it is becoming tougher and tougher for rising new directors to cut a true place in the history of film now days. Then along comes Quinten Tarantino. A director who has made the unconventional-conventional. Just as Kubrick did with 'A clockwork orange' and '2001: A space odyssey', Tarantino achieved this with his first two outings. However in Kubrick's case as an example, most of his films have been percieved as classics and rightfuly so. Since the first two Godfather films and possibly 'Apocalypse now', Coppola hasn't made anything that has managed to reach those lofty hieghts since. These films are perfect examples of pure directorial magic. Once a director makes a strong impact in hollywood with an exceptional film, the gloves are off and the true challenge begins. That is to say-"can this guy top his opus?". Perhaps 'Pulp Fiction' may remain tarantino's opus, perhaps not. But until then we have the refreshing talents of a cutting edge director to debate and marvel over. That being said...

I held my excited expectations for 'kill Bill vol.1' to a minimum as best I could hoping for a real masterpiece and a true winner of a film. I bought my ticket and kept my fingers and toes crossed. As the film opened it seemed that my expectations might just get met. The opening credit sequence was absolutely wonderful! And from there on there was allot more magic. But the bottum line is that it was for the most part not the sort of magic that makes a movie a legend. what I saw was refreshing, exciting, and beautifuly executed. But yet there just seemed to be something missing. I pondered this for a minute at at time even as I watched the film further. I noticed alot that wasn't there. Allot less humor, less interesting characters, and over all allot less of what made 'Pulp Fiction' a classic. I left the theatre both fulfilled and dissapointed at the same time. Once I dedicated myself to expect both less and more from Tarantino and excepted the film on it's own terms, I went to see it again and really loved it. If you look at it as a whole the entire movie is a homage to everything from sleaze cinema to martial arts b-films, yet it never wavers in originality. I was particularly impressed with the animation sequence, it caught me totally be surprise, and let's be honest, how often do we see films anymore that can achieve the element of surprise with any real success? I think Tarantino deserves at least a peanut butter cup for that .Looking at it in one way I might feel compelled to suggest that perhaps 'Kill Bill vol 1' deserves four stars, on the other hand the whole affair still seems less impressive than a true classic. In my opinion critics should see this movie more than once before rendering any judgement. I would have originally have felt compelled to give this movie 2 1/2 stars, but the way I see it now anything less than three of them little twinklers would be a harsh example of poor criticism.

See the movie twice and then throw your stones if need be.

If you have never seen Pasolini's 'Salo:The 120 day's of sodom' and after reading all of the reviews of this film you still feel confused about this film and have some doubt as to the validity of the reviews you have read here, for what might amount to many reasons, I have applied a no-nonsense approach to reviewing this film that will simplify and in the easiest terms to understand, clarify the truth concerning all of the controversy over this film. I won't waste anymore time in presenting the storyline or what there is of a storyline in this film. For that you can simply read some of the other reviews herein. If you are a hardcore gore hound looking for something even more horrific and frightening considering the premise that the vast number of these reviews has layed out, promising the most repulsive and sadistic things imaginable are presented in this film. Or you as all of us are are seeking out the forbidden fruit and are hopeful that you will have the shock of your life, you will more than likely walk away from this film dissapointed. many of the reveiws I have read on the subject of Salo lead the reader to believe that this is the most horrendous display of gratuitous sickness that has ever been committed or displayed to a film. The fact is that this is misleading in a big way. Let me put it simply... If you have seen 'Caligula','Cannibal holocaust','Nekromantik', or 'Eraserhead', you will proabably be greatly dissapointed in this movie for it's so called "shock value". 'Cannibal holocaust' disturbed me allot when I saw it. It's brutality and inhumanity was staggering to me. I was never to even come close to being effected that way by seeing Salo. This is partly because the film fails to provide the atmospheric edge and mood that might convey a sense of hopelessness and doom that was very real and present in 'Cannibal holocaust' provided mostly by a very well executed music track that accompanied the film, and by the gruesome depictions of actual animal killings. 'Caligula' was far more shocking due to the fact that actual gratuitous sex acts were being inacted all around world renown actors such as Peter O'Toole and Malcom McDowell as they presented thier characters with such depth and perciseness. It is a real shock even now to think that such renowned performers would allow themselves so freely into the world of real pornography. 'Caligula' is filled with real sex acts including Homosexual oral sex, water sports, and even fisting. In truth 'Caligual' was a masterwork of artistic creativity in film making plunged head first into the very real world of porn. It was the very first film to truly cross definitive boundries of decency and morality, and the result left audiences then and now equally repulsed. Salo on the other hand attempts to do the same perhaps with less than believable results. The sex acts are no more revieling than the average 'R' rated film of today. The violence is weakly shot and unconvincing, especially the infamous "eye gouging" scene. If you look closely the eye pops out even before the knife makes contact with it. The tongue that is torn out (shown on the cover of the dvd) looks like a piece of sponge, and the consumption of feces in the "circle of shit" segment is shot at a distance and very short. it is also no more nausiating than watching someone throw up or a baby who finger paints himself with his poop. But Salo does succeed on a couple of other levels. As a tale of the level of perversity that man is capable of, it is a sobering reminder of what mankind can, has, and will do, and that morality is one our most important attributes that we must somehow hold fast to. morality has become all but lost as we subject ourselves to the constant bombardment of depictions of depravity, violence, and inhumanity in films and television. Salo is a warning of what men are capable of in the worst of all situations. The movie is masterfully shot, the art direction is good, and the camera work deserves merit. The acting is excellent for the most part as well. 'The Exorcist', Andy Warhol's 'Frankenstein','Night of the living dead' and even films like Brian de palma's 'Sisters' had the abiltiy to truly shock audiences through the combination of direction, music, camera work, lighting, ect. to truly shock. The elements of those films worked well in their time. Salo has none of those elements, though it would have us believe it does. However I disagree with many in their insistance that the film holds no clear messege or point of questioning our own morality. by whatever level we are repulsed or not by this movie, Pasolini in my opinion made the point loud and clear. 'Salo:The 120 day's of sodom' is a sobering reminder of what we have and are slowly becoming as human beings. But I cannot recommend this movie. Though I feel it isn't trash all together, it remains ultimately- boring, silly, laughable, and maybe a bit twisted and depraved if you allow to be so. Save yourself the time and money and pass on this one.