TrickTaylor

An episode of The dark Side of Porn has been repackaged as a separate documentary called Debbie Does Dallas Uncovered. This is supposed to be the behind the scenes look at the most controversial porn movie ever made. Instead it's a poorly constructed shamble. Only the DVD extras keep this from being a total waste.

The "documentary" portion tries to tell the story of Debbie Does Dallas, the 70's spoof porn that exploded into the general social consciousness and is now a classic. The main problem with this film is that it is not about the movie so much as it is about the people who starred in it. Almost all the male leads are interviewed and went onto considerable fame in the porn industry. Almost none of the female actors are interview (not for lack of trying). This makes for a sad and one-sided viewpoint.

DDD is famous for Bambi Woods, the girl next door starlet who played Debbie. Nobody seems to know her real name or where she went after filming only 4 porno movies. This film tries in vain to make the disappearance seem interesting, but they don't try hard enough. A real documentary film crew would have worked until they solved the mystery of Bambi Woods.

The rest of this mess deals with FBI investigations and shady underworld porn mongers. It is all cut and pasted together in confusing fashion. Trying to be all things at once we end up not caring about any of it. This film is mismarketed and hopefully Netflix will put a disclaimer of some sort. Warning: This "movie" is just a poorly done TV documentary that goes nowhere.

There is a DVD extra called "Diary of a Porn Virgin" that is quite good. It follows 2 women as they enter the porn business. It really sheds light on the male dominated sleazy world of porn. Things turn out badly for one woman and the other is a potential star. This added extra to ten times better than the feature documentary, and almost makes the whole thing worth watching.

This film came out 2 years ago, so sharing my thoughts on such a popular yet relatively old release is purely an exercise in boredom. Good thing I'm not the only one who could be accused of that here.

Unlike many who have submitted comments about The Departed I have not seen Internal Affairs, so I had nothing to base the movie on but itself. In an era of really bad movie making it was a pleasure to view this film and realize that there are still people trying to make impactful mainstream movies. The Departed is far from perfect, but it is top quality movie making with a top quality cast.

Please forgive the random nature of my thoughts on this movie. First, for some reason I enjoy star-studded casts. It is fun to see so many recognizable actors apply their craft together. I thought Leo DiCaprio was sensational as William, but it is still hard for me to watch him as anything other than Titanic boy. Nicholson's role was beefy, a great opportunity for Jack to ham it up a bit. Ironically, if anyone gets lost in this film it's him. His quirks were eluded to, but rarely shown on screen. To me, that made Costello too one dimensional.

The script was gritty, but not without its holes. The female psychoanalyst subplot seemed trumped up, and I am not at all convinced any professional in her spot would strike up a relationship with William. I also agree with a previous post that said that the film could not decide if Costello was a big time crime lord (micro-processors) or a small time hood (lunch counter shakedowns). Maybe it was hard to swallow the sensational when the film tries to be real and gritty.

The final scenes have gotten a lot of discussion and I agree that the conclusion seemed rushed. Everyone gets shot and that's it? I would have liked the movie to go back to Walberg and Baldwin's characters for a little closure.

The Departed is no Godfather, but it is a nod to classic, raw 70's gangster movies. Despite some questionable plot decisions it still delivers like few movie of its ilk can.

Any film that proposes to portray sex in a raw and unfiltered form runs the risk of becoming somewhat of a curiosity. On the other hand, very few filmmakers attempt to portray the essential function sex has in our lives with any sort of honesty. John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus ends up being both a curiosity and an attempt at sexual reality. For the most part it works.

The film follows a straight sex therapist who has yet to have an orgasm herself, a gay male couple, and a dominatrix with human connection issues. Their struggles are mostly played out at Shortbus, a sex salon in New York.

On a larger scale, the film is about breaking the chains of sexual repression....about escaping what is holding you back, and about being true to what you need sexually. The sex salon is an absurd yet decent vehicle to allow the characters to do this.

The writer seems to think that sexual freedom equates to getting it on with different partners. Maybe this is just his fantasy played out within the film. If this film leans one way it leans towards the gay lifestyle. The depictions of gay male sex are much more graphic of that of the male/female scenes. It feels like a gay themed movie, even though there are heterosexual story lines. Maybe the writer didn't think a gay sexual awakening movie would play to a large audience.

The dialogue in Shortbus is witty, but rooted in 20/30 something NYC hipster culture. Therefore it doesn't always feel real. Maybe the film would have worked better if they could have involved people from all over the country. Another underlying theme is the love of New York City. "New York is where everyone comes to be forgiven" is a great line. Maybe Shortbus could only happen in New York. I don't know, I just had trouble relating to it.

Shortbus will be a bit raw a graphic for most people and that's too bad because it has something to say under all the sex. This film is a celebration of sexuality and personal freedom. It advocates for growth and indulgence, and ultimately personal discovery. It is a risk well worth taking.

Boy oh boy did I want to love this movie. I am fascinated by the secret lives of everyday people, especially those who seemingly have been forgotten by society. The story of Henry Darger and his massive, secret work of fantasy should have been a sure thing. Unfortunately, the movie had precious little to work with and came off as confusing and slow.

What makes this movie intriguing is also its biggest barrier, and that is that there are only 3 known photos of Darger, and few, if anyone, who really knew the man. You could feel the struggle as the filmmaker tried to tease 80 minutes out of 3 photos. Darger did leave behind an autobiography and more than 15,000 pages of a fantasy novel, but I wanted to see Darger, and that could not be provided.

Darger is notable for leaving behind said volumes, and the fact that nobody knew he was working on it. What a surprise it must have been to realize that the forgotten man had produced such wondrous works. The film does a nice job of weaving personal accounts from Darger with details about his story. One can clearly see that he used the story as an outlet to deal with his own confusing existence. Unfortunately, the story isn't enough to hold one's attention, and eventually turns into ramblings of a recluse. I would have liked a sturdier thread holding this together. The good stuff was there, just not told very well by the filmmaker.

In the end, In the Realms of the Unreal was interesting in spots and far too tedious in others. The main character could never be illustrated fully and we are left to learn about him through his confusing stories and the flimsy accounts from people who barely knew him. What began as prime subject matter melted into a desperate exercise to make a full length movie.

Brother's Keeper is the gripping story of 4 "simple" (read: functionally mentally retarded) brother farmers, and the firestorm that is touched off when one of them dies. The filmmakers focus on the story of the death, and the trail that takes place after one brother (Delbert) is accused of doing the killing. Was it a mercy killing, or was it a killing at all? Even when the movie concludes we aren't totally sure what the answer is.

The real story here are the brothers themselves. It is amazing, even in 1992, that 4 brothers would be allowed to live in such conditions. They are farmers, but live like little boys frozen in time. The townsfolk seem to rally behind the brothers, despite the hints that before the death of Bill, the town pretty much shunned these simpletons. The brothers are, for all intents and purposes, retarded...barely functioning. The images of them taking the tractor into town are hilarious. The images of them in their "house" are heartbreaking.

This film is clearly sympathetic to the brothers and paints them as poor idiots. The case is made that the brothers, all illiterate, were coerced into signing confessions and statements. One observer states, "He's so illiterate he can't tell time." And you believe him.

Brother's Keeper is an excellent documentary, but it does seem to get a bit involved with the plight of the brothers. Maybe that was the intention. The film works on many levels. One as a crime story. Two as a case study of forgotten souls. And three as an illustration of small town America. Highly recommended.

Jess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.

Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the "Big White Chief" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.

Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.

As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually "Lita" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.

This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.

I must admit that I was drawn to The Bridge because of the debate over showing people jumping to their deaths off of the Golden Gate bridge. I knew it wasn't going to be a "Faces of Death" style exploitation, but beyond that I was not sure what to expect. What I found was a well done look at lost souls and the measures some choose to take to find peace.

The first thing you notice about the movie is the lack of narration. The stories are all told from interviews of friends and family of the people who jump. The footage of the jumpers, pacing, and contemplating, is intertwined with interviews, so one gets a real sense of the personal struggles that lead to one unfortunate moment. And yes, most stories end with footage of people jumping to their deaths.

This film is a study in contrasts. Beautiful scenery and an impressive, iconic bridge provides the background, but we are jolted out of that safety by seeing people jump. After the jump, all is beautiful again. makes on e wonder if the jumpers make as big of a splash as they hoped.

This film certainly opens itself up to an ethical debate over filming people in their darkest moments. Personally, I think it is better to use such footage to shed light on the issue of mental illness than it is to shy away and act like it does not happen. Yes, The Bridge is sensational in spots. The suicide of Gene is told in much detail and that is because the footage of him pacing the bridge is extensive and his actual jump is quite breathtaking.

I think this film is a must for anyone seeking to understand mental illness as it relates to suicidal thoughts and actions. As a disability professional myself, I found myself saying "yep, I know people like that". The interview footage with the families is quite interesting in that they all seem at peace with the decision their loved ones made. As if they know that there was no real help and that the decision to jump was empowering in a way. Do I believe this? Tough to say, especially after viewing The Bridge.

Got this as part of a Grindhouse double feature DVD and found it to be a fun representation of 70's exploitation. The movie tag line says something about the teacher (Diane, played by Angel Tompkins) corrupting the school with her "lessons". In fact, during the movie, the fact that she is a teacher is very much downplayed. This is not a movie about a horny young high school teacher who screws her way through the male students. It is actually a love story/soft-core/stalker drama.

The movie is very awkward in places, especially the love scenes, and the fight sequences. Remember, this is still a "B" movie. The plot deals with a teenage boy (Sean) fresh out of high school and the hot teacher who comes on to him. For suspense they add a storyline about a dead friend and the friend's demented brother who is in love with the teacher as well.

The whole thing is harmless really. Liberal breast action from Ms. Tompkins keeps things titillating, but the acting is totally ham-fisted by all, especially Sean's father. Much has been made about Jay North's role, but I think the movie would have been better without him. He basically sucks.

Thirty plus years later seeing The Teacher gives one a good idea what kind of seedy movies teens were trying to sneak into in the early 70's. There is an innocence about the movie that is refreshing. It does not set out to shock and it is not mean spirited. Just an interesting way to spend an evening. The Teacher is a must for 70's exploitation buffs not looking for a major shock, but rather a slice of sleaze gone by.

I too got this movie from the Tales of Voodoo double disc. The movie itself is a bizarre mish-mash of Asian rituals, repressed love, and sterile sex scenes. From the box I expected an Asian cannibal movie, but cannibals have very little to do with this flick.

The story is some convoluted mess about reincarnated loves, rituals of the occult, and a snake god. The main character is looking for her long lost love who was killed 20 years earlier. Why only 20 years? Trust me, it is not worth it to delve into the specifics of this movie's plot lines. Through it all we get horny cousins, Asian men in Speedos, and 2 old wizards cut straight out of the worst old kung fu movie. The whole thing is a bit of a blur since the captioning was not formatted to fit the television screen.

The most unique part of the film was the mysterious white fuzzy dot that would cover the female pubic area during the sex scenes. In one particularly acrobatic scene the little white dot gets quite the workout. There must be copies of this movie floating around that provide the fullest female frontal this side of porn. Breasts are a plenty, but all full frontal is fuzzed out.

I knew going in the Curse would be more of a curiosity than anything else. It was fun to see what Philipinos view as sexy and scary. The obvious ties to Asian beliefs are interesting, if not hard to follow. Gorehouds avoid since this one provides very little blood, save for the last scene.

I must say that I hate these cheaply shot direct to video turds. They are most often found on the DVD multi-packs with 3 other crappy movies from the same company. On one hand I respect the little guys trying to make fun horror movies. I just wish they weren't so bad. This one is particularly awful. The acting, especially by the lead male, is ham at its worst. It is clear that the actors are given very little to work with, often asked to draw scenes out well beyond their logical conclusion. The premise of "quiltface" lacks any imagination at all, and we are given no reason to feel suspense, let alone horror. I'm not even sure why I am reviewing this as a normal movie. It plays like a sub-par film school project, and should be treated as such.

The Pumpkin Carver is yet another one of the recent attempts to apply the tried and true slasher formula. And as so many do, this movie fails to deliver. The plot is plain stupid as are most of the stock characters. You have the fragile hero (whiney is more like it), the drugged out party dudes (annoying as hell), and the token asshole jock type. These are the party-people, and yes, they are destined to get killed.

The movie would have us believe that some evil pumpkin carver is killing kids at a Halloween party.....in a pumpkin patch! Actually, the movie can't find a plausible reason why this thing is killing kids. The premise is very confused and ultimately hurts the movie. The ending is plain awful....I still don't know what really happened.

The kills were low budget all the way, which is unfortunate given the polished look of the film in general. Really not an ounce of clever to be found here. And as one reviewer has pointed out, no nudity despite saying otherwise on the box.

One bright spot was Minka Kelly, a pouty lipped poor man's Jessica Alba. She was stunning and I anticipate seeing a lot more of her. Overall, I say avoid the Pumpkin Carver.

Granted, we all know what I Robot was supposed to be, a blockbuster with dazzling special effects and a star turn by Will Smith. Nothing too heavy, just a plain good popcorn movie. As is too often the case though the blockbuster gets lost in lofty ambitions and bad performances. In the end I Robot is messy and unsatisfying.

Will Smith's character (Spooner) hates robots.....robots who just happen to be out in full force thanks to US Robotics. For some reason Spponer has a friend at USR who kills himself. And that gives Spooner an avenue to explore his distrust for robots. Nobody believes him, so he goes it alone, and sure enough, the robots are trouble. There you have the base for the scenes in this heap.

My first complaint is that the robots don't look real. They are presented as a confused jumble of animation and mechanics. I would have preferred if the robots looked more mechanical, or more like humans. Never did I actually believe that these things were robots, or a threat of any kind. That kind of takes the suspense out of the whole thing.

Will Smith hams it up during this whole film, ultimately becoming some macho action stud towards the end of the movie. This isn't really in keeping with the character. And his performance in general is inconsistent, likely due to the script he was given.

I suspect the story was supposed to explore prejudices, second chances, and the nature of being human. That intention was stunted by a lack of suspense and plausibility in the script. There was no doubt in my mind that Sonny the robot was anything other than sympathetic. There was never any doubt that Spooner would find a way to save the day. No suspense whatsoever. Avoid this paint by numbers action dud at all costs.

Let me begin by saying that I was a big fan of the first two installments of the Oceans franchise. I loved the wit and chemistry the big names brought to their performances. I was able to suspend my disbelief because the scripts allowed me to. Just barely, but they did. Then came Oceans 13, and apparently all pretense of reality has been chucked out the window.

As expected, fate and back-stabbing brings our lovable crew together again. Yep, they all show up. Yep, their task is impossible. And yep, somehow they are able to pull it off. The first sign of silliness is the new mega-hotel where the whole thing is set. The computer generated shots make it look like a space casino in Star Wars. This is the first sign that things in "13" will be totally over the top.

The casino's security system is some superpower artificial intelligence.....no problem. Cause an earthquake! What? Are you going to have me believe that not one, but 2 chunnel digging machines will be available and nobody will notice the friggin digging going on under the damn Vegas strip?!? Heist movies succeed because there is an aire of reality to them. If you start making stuff up that is too outlandish, then the drama of the situation is ruined. It is disappointing that the script writers had to go to such lengths to up themselves...leading to situations that are completely unbelievable. Ellen Barkin looks good, but she is completely wasted. The movie struggles to find stuff for everyone to do...again leading to stupid situations.

My hope would be that the Oceans films continue...but with a more organic script that focuses on creativity and character/situation development. Clooney, Pitt, and Damon et al can carry a movie without all the grand crap that went on in Oceans 13. Put them in a situation where everything is not at their disposal and you will have a better movie.

Every so often a major slice of American pop culture just passes me by. Such is the case with The Warriors, a movie that took me almost 30 years to see. Luckily I watched the Director's Special Edition with enough little documentary features to let me know just how big of a stir this little gem caused.

Having never seen the original, I have no idea how the Director's cut differs. Seems strange that the original wouldn't try to lead the audience to the belief that this takes place in an alternate future. It clearly is not meant to represent real life in any way.

What strikes me the most about the Warriors is how it is shot, using locations that give the viewer the ultimate glimpse of New York City in the late 70's....a dark, dirty, violent place with an energy all its own.

Funny how the leader of the fight home is an Andy Gibb look alike. Maybe the gritty realism has been lost over time, but I saw this movie as nothing more than a cartoon. The situations were grand, but the lack of detail and intelligence within the script often frustrated me. For example, the whole city knows the Warriors have to take the train home...and none of the rival gangs can read the map good enough to head them off? I'm sure the finer points of this epic have been hashed, bashed, and re-heated within these comments. Yes, it a fun slice of scummy movie making... an art perfected in the grindhouse 70's. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to fall in love with it before the silliness of it all came through. Glad I saw it, but no need to go on and on about it.

Normally, Wild Hogs would be the kind of movie I would gladly tear apart. In fact, it wouldn't be the kind of movie I would ever choose to go and see. But life sometimes forces us into theaters we don't expect, so Wild Hogs it was. I wanted to hate it. I expected to hate it. But the truth is that Wild Hogs is a guilty pleasure, fun way to spend a couple of hours.

The City Slickers on motor bikes plot does not warrant elaboration. You have you typical stock characters in your typical stock situations. I must say that Tim Allen does this type of family friendly comedy very well. Actually, the whole cast works well together is an odd sort of way.

I will say that the homophobic base for a lot of the jokes seem outdated, and the cartoon violence during the final scenes really lessens the impact of the movie. Just watch IFC or a hockey fight to see what multiple punches really do to a person. That's why I call this film confused. It wants to be a harmless male mid-life crisis movie, but feels it needs to infuse bad gay jokes and over the top cartoon violence. Too bad, because it could have been decent on its own premise.

Marissa Tomei is smoking in this. Where the hell has she been? Wild Hogs will likely appeal to the majority of the common American film goers. And that's fine. For me, I file it under guilty pleasure, as a movie I enjoyed despite myself.

I saw an edited for TV version of this film last week. Pointless to comment on a TV version of a three year old movie? Maybe. Based on the comments here, it could be that the edited version better allows the viewer to catch the character development in Bad Santa.

The plot points have been well documented here. The setting and scenario are a bit unrealistic, even for a way out comedy. I kept thinking, why don't these guys get caught and why would any mall hire a scrawny drunk Santa? Suspension of disbelief does not always work. Actually, the film leads the viewer to many of these questions. Why would a hot waitress gravitate towards such a dirt bag? Can a man actually drink that much? When is child welfare going to be called? Billy Bob's performance is quite good, but is handcuffed by the narrow way we are asked to see Willie. It lapses in cartoonish way too often for us to believe that an actual transformation has happened. Marcus is a great character, but I would have liked to see more for him as well.

Ultimately I feel the filmmakers cheaply tried to push the envelope instead of actually going all the way with this movie. Swearing is not stunning after the first 50 F-bombs. You could see the story line with the kid coming a mile away. You hoped it would truly be a movie for adults, but it shied away at the last second, becoming just another neutered R-rated comedy with swearing.

To fix this movie I would have built more on the characters around Willie and Marcus. Make it a true ensemble piece. Don't have Willie turn soft. Rather, have the kid and the waitress team up to bring him down. Soften up on the F-bombs and write in cutting humor focusing on everything the characters are exhibiting.

Bad Santa is a fun movie to watch once. Some great laughs, but lacking in a true identity.

I have a vague recollection of seeing this movie on cable. Not exactly an "erotic thriller". Mostly a rehashed Mickey Spilane type plot that finds a grizzled private eye protecting a teenage Lolita for some reason. The reason it is still somewhat memorable is that Elizabeth Barry was smoking. See the love scene where the light of the fire exposes her naughties through a sheer dress. Possibly one of the hottest things I have ever scene on film. Nothing else to recommend this film unfortunately. I have never seen this available on DVD, and it is very hard to find on VHS. Probably for cheesy crime thriller completists only. Too bad Ms. Barry didn't do more.

So it has come to this. The recent horror movie boom yields it's worst spawn since House of the Dead. Black Christmas only confirms my fears that Hollywood sees horror as a way to make a quick buck, and has little investment in furthering the genre or providing the viewer with plausible scripts or adequate acting.

Black Christmas is a confused jumble of violent slasher movie, a whodunit, and a teenage girl sass-fest. The set-up is inconceivable, the characters are stock, and often introduced and discarded recklessly, and the pacing is horrid. Numerous slasher clichés are stolen, and used without wit or homage. The movie story has so many holes that the viewer finally gives up trying to make sense of it all. In short, Black Christmas lacks the effort and and humor to warrant a major market release.

My main beef with Black Christmas is the slapped together feeling the movie has. The script jumps around in the beginning, painfully trying to introduce characters, and loses the story setting almost immediately. The movie tries to be darkly humorous, but fails. The movie tries to titillate, but fails to deliver, even though a bevy of comely young girls are there for the exploiting. The violence is loud, but at times bashful, like there was no special effects budget to actually show the good stuff. The kills were abrupt and poorly thought out. Strictly by the numbers kill fest that would have been better sent straight to video.

Hollywood has become masters at creating scary trailers for sub-par movies. We the movie going public need to rise up and demand that the actual movies deliver as well. See The Devel's Rejects if you want a good starting point. Avoid Black Christmas!!

First off I think this film may have been marketed badly. Ed Gein isn't so much or a horror film as it is a character study of the man himself. Anyone expecting an all-out splatter fest might be disappointed.

The film follows the story of Ed Gein, a simple and socially inept Wisconsin farmer, and his descent into strange perversions after the death of his mother. Steve Railsback, who plays Ed, does a masterful job portraying the little boy lost in an old man's body. Ed Gein was not your typical serial killer, and this movie respects the true facts of what made him do what he did. In the end Mr. Gein becomes almost a sympathetic character. His atrocities are offset by the viewer knowing he likely suffered from mental health problems that couldn't be addressed at that time.

To me Ed Gein (based on this portrayal) is no different than countless impressionable young people who have mental illness. Without support, and left to their own devices, bad things are likely to happen. Yes, Ed Gein committed savage acts and he deserved to be in jail for life. But this movie shows that his curiosities were misplaced and his illness untreated.

The production values are top notch and the script is solid. As mentioned before, Mr. Railsback becomes Ed Gein, and played him without camp or overacting. Great cast, great locations, and great era appropriate props.

Be aware that Ed Gein is not your typical horror movie, but it is an enjoyable study of one of the most shocking string of murders in US history.

In this golden age of DVD where anything and everything is seeing a release, movies like SCALPS are hoping to find new audiences. To achieve this, these oldies are getting slick packages complete with crap like 'The most shocking horror film of its time", or "Banned in 30 countries". As a consumer of classic exploitation and horror I know that there are plenty of gems for me to discover from the olden days. SCALPS is not one of those gems.

A flimsy plot line gives us the usual brood of pretty and hunky (for their time) coeds who find themselves digging for artifacts in the desert. Evidentially they are not supposed to be disturbing the sacred place, which looks like foothills about a mile from the freeway. Some strange force turns one of the hunks into a zombie Indian scalper and the hunt is on.

A real horror director with a budget could have taken advantage of the built-in suspense such a scenario provides. Not in the case. The tone is low budget and campy. Despite some decent effects on one scalping, the kills are unimaginative. Exploitation value is low with little nudity. The watcher is given no reason to care if the coeds live or die. Frankly I chose die, because I wanted the whole thing to end.

If this is an example of what the "classic" days of slasher horror had to offer, then I need to look elsewhere to be interested. Beware of slickly packaged DVDs touting scenes of uncompromising horror and depravity. Most of them are filled with garbage like this.

I really can't say anything about this piece of garbage that hasn't already been said on these pages. Based on a frigging video game, House of the Dead is misleading on many fronts. Beautiful people go to an island near Seattle to attend a rave only to be terrorized by zombies. The last batch of kids arrive only to find the rave sight completely empty. Do the filmmakers give us the scene where the zombies wipe out a whole rave? Nope, not really. I an instant these idiot pretty things turn into wise crackers, expert marksmen, and kung fu fighters. Add a story line that somehow supplies them with enough weapons to kill an army, and a soundtrack lifted from the most annoying club you've never been to, and you have 60 minutes of mindless, insulting, crap.

I would like to be a fly on the wall when this thing was green-lighted. Somebody lost their job over this one I guarantee. Only redeeming factor is a campy turn by Clint Howard, and a few pair of really nice breasts. House of the Dead is not worth a rental, even it's a choice between this and The English Patient. Go fishing. Play some cards. Learn to cook! But don't watch this movie.

The first clue to the quality of such a movie as this is found right on the movie box. One can tell that it is shot on video tape rather than film. Bad sign. This isn't porno. I'm not sure exactly what they were going for here, but I'm guessing the budget for this puppy was about $25,000, most of which went to the actress who was willing to bare her breasts. The story is some convoluted mess about a murder, 2 lovers, and a house that possesses one of them. Tortue comes to the girl, and to the watcher, with endless amateur video tricks and shots of trees, lots and lots of trees. One is never really sure what is going on because the characters don't speak. Narration is done by the voice of a slain woman what had died in the house previously.

This maybe one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but the sight of the guy crawling out of the vagina made of sticks is one that sticks with you (no pun intended).

Chalk this up to one of the number of horrid horror films that are being made for no money, have no production values, and are being released to an unsuspecting public. Too awful even for die hards.

I had been waiting to see this film for some time, and finally broke down and bought the re-released 2 disc version. All the stuff I had read about this being the mother of all sicko films had me expecting a completely over the top film experience. Maybe I watch too many sick and depraved horror and exploitation flicks, but I must say that Cannibal Holocaust did not deliver the knockout punch I was hoping for.

The plot needs no major highlighting here. Let's just say that the story follows a college professor and his guides and they attempt to find a lost group of young filmmakers who had set out to document elusive amazon tribes. The professor manages to make it through several encounters with various tribes and finds film canisters revealing the fate of the first party. It is the viewing of these canisters where the tension is supposed to come from in this movie. I will say that the idea is unique for the time and was obviously ripped off for Blair Witch Project.

The first party of young filmmakers end up being total assholes who ravish and manipulate their footage, trying to show the savagery of the primitives, but only end up revealing their own violent nature. You guessed it. The primitives turn on them and horrible things ensue.

To it's credit, Cannibal Holocaust takes itself more seriously than other cannibal movies, therefore it has higher production values and a decent story line. The scenes of savagery are nasty in some cases, with the adultery punishment ritual being particularly disturbing. My gripe is with the way the younger filmmakers were disposed of. The film goes out of its way to shock, only to have what should have been a long gruesome death turning into a quick slash em' up. They really missed an opportunity to let the cannibals show the full extent of their brutality on the film crew who obviously deserved it. A real let down after some decent build-up.

Cannibal Holocaust is more vile and disturbing than 99% of most movies out there. But for me it just missed being a classic of forbidden cinema.

Many many movies are labeled as "exploitation" or "Sleaze", yet only contain brief moments of nudity or violence to back up the claim. Emanuelle in America on the other hand more than lives up to the billing as one of the most notorious exploitation films ever made. The bottom line for me is this, if a movie is too sadistic and sleazy for me to show my wife, then it's an exploitation classic. One feels like they are breaking the law when watching Pedro the horse get pleasured, or the snuff film scenes. Again, the mark of a movie that not only pushes the envelope, but rips it up and burns it as well.

Don't expect much from the plot, even though there is a thread that holds this movie together. Don't expect much from the acting, even though it is much better than most films of its type. Do expect sexy scene after sexy scene under the most unusual of circumstances. The much talked about hardcore scenes are just that, hardcore, and give this film the extra push into total infamy. Being a fan movies that are unafraid to go for the throat I enjoyed Emanuelle in America for the boundaries it pushes. If you are looking for quality film making with life affirming messages, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a sleazy good time and the ability to say you saw a real exploitation gem then find this and enjoy.

It is stunning that in this day and age of movie tie-ins, that the creators (or better said owners) of the Thomas the Tank Engine franchise couldn't find a better major movie outlet for their goldmine. Face it, if they would have put 2 seconds of thought into this clunker it would have been huge. Basing it on the Shining Time Station theme was the first mistake. Why not have a nice little movie about the Island of Sodor and its engines? Why insult the audience by creating human characters that are DREADFULLY acted? Again, a simple little movie would have made a mint.

It has been 6-7 years since this movie came out and I wonder why another attempt at a Thomas movie hasn't been made. This is the most popular character for children ages 2-6. Parents (like myself) would kill for a decent big screen adaptation to take children to. Seems like somebody is missing the boat here.

As for this movie, it has all been said within the previous comments. The acting by Peter Fonda is downright embarrassing, and the storyline is confusing. More focus should have been put on the engines and less on wooden human characters. It gets a 3 from me because despite all its flaws, my 3 year old loves it, therefore giving daddy a much needed rest from time to time.

Time for another try at a Thomas movie. Anybody up for it?