Take a look at the keywords. That's what you see and more. I once watched a cannibal film to which I gave a 10 but this one gets a 1. When the woman gets cut open and body parts taken out, it did look rather realistic. Somehow I missed the pissing part. Close up you see full frontal and defecation, if you like that sort of stuff. I never did catch on to what that half-naked guy running around with a flag was there for. I had a bad copy and may have missed the final minute, but truly a terrible film where even the nudity did not redeem it. As in such films the woman looks rather nice and the men looked awful. A poorly done bizarre film. It's 39 minutes of your life I think much better spent on some other terrible film.
Alice and her older sister Manon have had a very close relationship from childhood, especially from the standpoint of Alice. Alice is lesbian and has a very physical relationship with Elsa, who is older than Manon and provides Alice with financial support. Alice fears she is about to lose Manon to marriage and motherhood and is intensely jealous. I really liked the film, but it requires close attention to detail and the reading of emotion.. I suspect that whoever wrote the plot keywords did not understand about Elsa and confused her with Manon. I fault the film in that I had to watch it twice in succession. To me Elsa and Manon look too much alike, but I think I got things straight with that second viewing. Note the hair and facial features to know who is who and to recognize flashbacks. Nonetheless a beautiful film of lesbian emotion. I also liked the music.
I don't see how this documentary could be out for over 20 years, get nominated for an award at the leading documentary film festival in North America, and get a Gold Plaque at some other competition (so the description here says), and then on imdb get only 14 voles with no user review until now with mine. It presented to me a very good and seemingly thorough history of the Children of God up to when this documentary came out. I came out of this documentary with a very positive impression of the organization despite certain "problems". We can understand its phenomenal growth and how people become wedded so to speak for so many years and even owe their sanity and well-being to the teachings of David Berg. In its first 4 years it is said to have established 130 communities worldwide with tens of thousands of members. This said, I think one should absolutely also watch another documentary, Crime Killer: the Story of Rick Rodriguez, which came out 9 years later. By virtue of viewing both documentaries we can see how people get drawn into what may appropriately be called a cult, adamantly believe in it, and how also a great many lives become destroyed and an appalling number of members or former members commit suicide as a result of their experience. Absolutely, absolutely see both documentaries. Read the article on the Children of God (now The Family International) on Wikipedia. And by all this you can learn some important things about life.
Interesting all these good reviews which does tell me something, but all I can do for it is a 1. I watched it for a look at Charles Bronson as Blue Buffalo for which a promotional photo did have him look pretty cool though I failed to spot him in the film. The story could have been written by a 10-year old kid. Completely unrealistic and absolutely corny. I could not suspend common sense or somehow enjoy the film. I realize it it a 1957 western but was stilled annoyed that "Indians" looked and acted like us white people and spoke college-level English. A number of them had body-builder physiques with only a slight suntan. A politically correct view of the Civil War and what it means to be an American for those who like that sort of thing. I did manage to get through all 82 minutes. If my comments seem in any way reasonable for a film of that period, you might do well to pass on this one.
If the synopsis given here as of this date has any validity then I sure missed something but you might let go of it totally. Instead I saw two stories which paralleled and then I saw a third (in my mind). There was a hypothesis one of a boy and then hypothesis two of a girl and then I saw myself at that age. The details of this third story were different but amounted to the same thing, a ceremony having the same power over me and not to be rescheduled. I had the same sensations and with the same ending. And it would repeat and repeat. Oh and I suppose I may have looked lost at that age to older people and for the same reason. And oh (now that I am not so young) I am now the old man saying the same things and for the same reasons.
I watched the film before reading any reviews, which turned out well for me. However, if you are unsure about watching this film, you might read the reviews where the reviewer rates the film 8, 9 or 10 and perhaps a couple without a rating. These reviews I think are well enough thought out that I need not add to them. Really a excellent and very serious film.
I really expected a predictable story in a very bad film, being that it is a sequel and with an awful rating - nearly half gave it a one. Maybe low expectations help. Maybe if sometimes you go against the crowd you may like it. I sure did. It is a film of vengeance in a very big way with plenty of gore and some, uh, rather nice but not excessive nudity. I thought it was very nicely directed, acted, and edited. I am rather mystified at all the bad reviews. Things kept surprising me and it kept my attention throughout its lengthy 2 hours and a half. The low-life red neck trash seemed convincing and there really are people like that. A very good story and you will get surprises. It starts slow but it does get better and better as it goes along. But definitely not for everyone - just for a few of us. A very few it seems.
Despite directed by Koji Wakamatsu I had this film on DVD over 10 years before watching it. Being number 6 in the series I figured that it would lack originality, but that was not the case. It was a "perfect education" and much more so than the other three that I have watched so far. The summary gives you a nice introduction and not spoil the story line. I never could guess what happens next. Excellent pacing, editing, performances, music - very nicely done. The actress for the part of Akiko is listed on imdb for only one other film but did remarkably well, and, if it is important for you, you get to see all of her and not just a time or two - you won't be disappointed in either her or the film.
I saw the first film in this series a long time back and was pleasantly surprised by it. Though I purchased the dvd for this third one in the series over 10 years ago, I put off watching it thinking I would be disappointed. Follow ups in a series tend to be inferior to the first one. So I saw it just now with low expectations. It turned out that I was even more surprised this time. Then I read the review that someone wrote over 10 years ago. An excellent review which I can hardly improve on. So read it. This is a psychological film I think too slow for many people, but I found it astonishing beautiful. Acting, music, editing - all superb. A seemingly improbable story, but I wish life to be like this (it isn't of course).
Very credible story and excellent performances by the two leads
Just finished watching the film, gave it my rating of 9, and then read the earlier review. Interesting how people can watch the same film and have such very different impressions. The father did step over a certain line for which he feels guilt, and the daughter really did have a genuine affection for him for which she will have difficulty getting over. The lead actress (daughter) performed unusually well throughout - it was as though we can read her mind. We can understand her feelings and her behavior. An unusually good script - a very credible story. But I guess there are those who have a need to toss the film into the incest category, but the film is something above that. It is an art film. Probably not a film for those who have a narrow view of life. I liked it.
I found this film to be perceptive, clever, and possessing depth. Very well done. It is also the first film which I did a review on, but at that time I put what I thought in the discussion - not knowing how to go about things and reluctant to be so positive after seeing what others had written. Since then I have watched a great many films and have become relatively sophisticated regarding reviews. This is an art film which has missed most everyone's radar. Art films often do get trashed. People don't think and anyway the general viewer is really looking for light entertainment - not something to make him think. So what is so great about this film? Of course people vary in opinions and tastes, but this film made it with me, especially in how it dealt with a couple of really difficult topics, i.e., the particular relationship the father had with his daughter and what happened between the gardener and his wife (I leave out specifics so as not to be a spoiler). The point of the film is who really gets victimized by whom and what then is the ultimate result. I realize I am vague here but I must not spoil the film. Think that certain "crimes" that grab our attention may not be all that destructive in comparison with "non-crimes" such as parental manipulation and selfish disregard. Catching what the film is about will tell you who was the white horse for whom. The gardener was not a bad person, and what was bad, really bad, was something most all of us have at least observed if not experienced. Note then what happens at the end. I was so impressed that I was anxious to see the director's next film, but sometimes art and pseudo-art clash and (so I understand) the director lost. So in short expect an art film, an unusual take on things, and those who find my review rather "uninsightful" may be advised to pass on this one.
I actually had this film (the NC-17 131-min. version) for nearly 10 years before watching it. Was I ever surprised! I saw the low rating, read reviews, and sort of expected something, well, sleazy. NC-17 or not this is now 2015. Some people must really be uptight. Elizabeth Berkley did an amazing performance. A very talented and accomplished dancer, she was tough, real tough, and who else could have done the part like her? Other performances were excellent as well. The story? Not bad at all. Well paced, and not what I would call predictable. Kept my attention. Glitzy but it is Las Vegas after all. Many in the cast were obviously professional dancers Las Vegas style. Dancing doesn't get any better than this. Sexuality? Welcome to the real world for those who don't live in a box. Ignore the negative chatter and enjoy the show.
Rather surprised by the downside comments I read in these reviews, but then I think one's evaluation has a lot to do with whatever credibility one may have towards the idea of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. After all, if the Warren Report was a gross cover-up, what does that say about a lot of things? Americans are very resistant to the notion that the system they live in may be one of lies, corruption, and cover-up at the highest level. Popping a huge bubble can have serious consequences. If you think little of talk of conspiracy, whether the JFK assassination or other notable events, you may do well to spare yourself this film, which is likely to appear a b-level production, confusing with mediocre acting, or downright terrible. If on the other hand you lie on the other end of the spectrum as I do (note I state other end), I suggest you see it and by all means avoid reading any synopsis in advance. You will enjoy it more without spoilers. So being biased towards conspiracy I found the film very entertaining, credible, and well-casted. Well written and I could not guess how it turned out.
I saw the film so unlike the other reviewers (11) so far that I feel I should write a review of my own. No sense? Bad continuity? Funny? Stupid? B movie? Trash? Watch it without thinking? Don't take it seriously? No, I saw it very differently. For a while I was thinking why am I wasting time watching this. Lots of blood. Seemed like senseless violence for a time, but I hung in there. After a while it made good sense. Being alert to detail helps. Enough work went into this film that I would not call it a B movie. Acting was quite good. Think of what wife-beating and sexual abuse by a father can do to children. There is anger. Think of disgusting male sexual behavior and what this can do to women. That this can result in aberrant behavior as well as wasted life is how the film makes sense. A commentary on modern society. What happens to people. Abused people do do things many of us would not. There is room for serious thought here. Not pleasant, not funny, not stupid, and not trashy. I would much rather people think seriously of these things. I cannot say I enjoyed the film, but I found it thought provoking. Oh, and one more thing. Plenty of opportunity to throw in gratuitous nudity. They did not, and that also means something.
This is a documentary about the ayahuasca experience at Blue Morpho, a center for ayahuasca near the city of Iquitos in Peru. It contains actual footage of people under ayahuasca (which they undergo in nearly complete darkness so the camera uses night vision) to give you a good of idea of what it is like. For those thinking of taking ayahuasca, the content of this documentary is a good "know before you go". It is not something one should take without supervision or at some place providing inadequate support. This point is clear from the footage in this documentary. For some people it can be an absolutely horrid experience, while others report it as the best thing that has ever happened to them. It has transformed (hence the title Metamorphosis) in a very positive way some people with emotional issues for whom traditional approaches have not helped. The documentary shows actual preparation of ayahuasca at the center. It has footage of the founder, Hamilton Souther, and of a professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, who among things speak of the nature of the imagery as being grounded in reality where the term hallucinogenic may be inappropriate. The idea is that, while the visions may be totally unlike anything ever seen in real life, they may have a connection with a reality beyond what we commonly perceive. There also is footage of people talking about their experience with ayahuasca, some of whom you also see undergoing it. Note that in just an hour and a half a documentary on ayahuasca cannot be expected to be very comprehensive. This documentary focuses on the more dramatic effects as I think it should. What is not covered is how the experience varies considerably. For some the effects may be profound but with relatively little imagery, and some may experience extreme imagery but virtually nothing else. Some may feel transformed to a greater or lesser degree, while others not at all. Little is mentioned about the influence of diet, which can be of considerable importance. Also I do not recall mention of aftereffects or a connection with energy levels in the body during and after the experience. There was no mention of how ayahuasca is counterindicated for some people. I learned of and saw this documentary today less than a month after a 9-day retreat at a center some distance from Blue Morpho under conditions similar to those at Blue Morpho. Though for me there was no "metamorphosis" and it was without dramatic effect, it was indeed a powerful experience where I got it with "both barrels". Considering my experience, this documentary is a good introduction regarding what to expect from the ayahuasca experience.
Slow moving and not for those seeking an escape from drab reality (partial spoiler)
Somewhere here someone mentions that you should see this film knowing hardly anything in advance. I agree. Better no idea, but how can you know you should see this film to begin with? Not a film for a lot of people. So I shall constrain my review so not to spoil it. I do not see any allegory as some apparently have. It tells a simple story. A man and a women stay in a motel in 29 Palms, California, and take drives out in the desert. They are lovers. They speak in both English and French. They make out and have their spats. Much of the film is slow moving. We get a heavy dose of drab reality as life is for so many of us, and what eventually later happens is another heavy dose of reality of something which does happen to a few of us. A film of nothing really beautiful. Drab, petty, slow, and then something happens. In a sense there is a certain meaninglessness throughout the film, but isn't life like that? Not a film for those depressed seeking something with which to feel good. Now there is matter-of-fact graphic nudity, which is the nudity most of us are familiar with more from life than from film. One thing it did for me is that I have resolved to have certain something with me when I go driving out in lonely stretches of desert. Definitely an art-house film, not for most of us, and not for sheer entertainment. More a film for those in a life of escapism who can use a heavy dose of reality.
I must have had this film at least three years before I finally watched it. Films of the 1930s seem so dated, and I read where Clara Bow was the "It" girl more than anything. However, this film for me was not dated as others have been, and it gave me a nice glimpse of the early 1930s. And as for Clara Bow, I saw her as a very talented dramatic actress. So talented that it is sad her life later went downhill. A very good story and very worthwhile film. I won't drag out my review repeating what others have written, but I suggest to skip any spoiler. Better to see it without knowing what happens. Watch it and you'll be glad you did.
I tend to avoid writing a highly negative review about a film people rave over. Why rain on peoples' parade? If people like it, if they enjoy it, if they find the film exciting and creative, then to that extent for those people the film is successful. And if people enjoy it, that's fine, but if I think the film is terrible and say so (and of course give some reasons) this may save some people a few bucks and utter boredom some evening. So what was so terrible? You have a few people trapped on a space ship with a horde of flesh-eating mindless monsters. And that is basically it. Oh, there is something a crew member must do to save the ship, so a story of sorts along with cliché after cliché of fighting monsters over and again last moment this and last moment that ad nauseam. Really. Just that. The film is very Hollywoodish from beginning to end (if that means anything). So well okay it's a matter of taste. The female lead of sorts was kind of nice so I thought to add a star, and I suppose I hung in their thinking well maybe some skin at least to reward my perseverance, but no not even that. For me a monstrous film.
Going into this film I did have expectations. After all it was directed by Sergio Corbucci (director of the original Django), music by Ennio Morricone (who hasn't heard of him?), and has an all-star cast with Franco Nero (original Django and a lot more), Jack Palance, Tony Musanti, and even Giovanna Ralli. So there is the amoral and self-serving Pollack Sergei (Franco), the immoral bad guy Curly (Palance), idealist revolutionary Paco (Musanti), and revolutionary idealist female Columba (Ralli). And look at all these raving reviews here. Hey, and even nudity. So what can go wrong? Well I did stick it out (sigh) but the story is really downright ridiculous where I was utterly bored stiff. So much so that I thought to write its first really negative review (as of this writing) to balance things out and warn those who have tired of ridiculous westerns. It is 102 minutes of your life, and there is a whole slew of westerns that I think are much more worthy of these 102 minutes. But on the other hand you might like a ridiculous story where the impossible keeps happening over and over and over. So it's just my take, it's just my opinion. Oh, and if you are looking forward to the nudity, no it's not the luscious Giovanna Ralli, it's a full-nude of **Jack Palance** (from the rear). And well a brief look at a Mexican hooker's (?) fanny.
As of this writing I see two other reviews here, both well written, so I will avoid repeating things but add a few words. Mona, Anna, and Ruth serve in different capacities and yet stay in touch. There are also men in their lives. Since the film follows each one, it can be very helpful to make mental note of who is who or even jot down their names, identifying characteristics, and service capacity so you can keep them straight. The sentimentality is not for everyone. A film with serious content. At times I would press the pause button and think a bit about the way war affects lives of so many people. And remember the sacrifices made by them.
gem of a film, a treasure, though you may need a "map" to find it
This film is a unique adaptation of Treasure Island as one might expect knowing that it is Russian and filmed in 1937. The basic Treasure Island story is intact. The Benbow Inn and young Hawkins, Billy Bones, the black spot, Doctor Livesey, the Hispaniola outfitted by Squire Trelawney, the voyage to Treasure Island, and the fight for the treasure. Many of the pirates familiar to us are there as well, including John Silver, Israel Hands, and George Merry. I won't spoil anything but I should mention some differences. The Benbow Inn is on the coast of Ireland, young Hawkins is Jenny Hawkins who goes on board as cabin boy "Jim", Doctor Livesey is an Irish rebel fighting for Irish independence from the English, Squire Trelawney as a rich landowner is a money-grubbing bad guy, and the Hispaniola sails out of Dublin. The purpose of the voyage is to help fund the Irish rebellion of the 1790s. I have seen over a dozen Treasure Island dramatizations and found this one particularly unique, entertaining, nicely filmed, and well performed, though very dated and in the style of films in the 1930s. Part musical with 4 songs, you see pirates singing and dancing. English subtitles do exist.
I have to give this film 10 stars. I can't very well fault the film on anything, but yet I understand why so many 6's and 7's. Things happen that you don't want to happen, and easy to see why a human mind may seek fault in what happens. A tough film in which I never could guess what happens next, much of which I can't say I liked, but it does make sense and a lot that happens in life is just that way. At the very least you do see some terrific mountain scenery, vertical cliffs, all well filmed. Very good character development. That fantasy-fest backdrop in the village fit the film well. A very good film for tough viewers who like things tough, but gentle souls may do well to pass on this one.
More than boobs and blood, more than the ultimate in catfights
An entertaining film. I about gave up on it a time or two, but I hung in there and it redeemed itself. Better than any Russ Meyer film I have seen, and maybe even a notch above Tarantino. Much effort went into this film especially by the three female leads, well chosen for their role. There were the boobs and blood and all-out raucous catfights. If Tarantino style turns you off, you may not like it, but if not I suggest you watch this one and watch it to the end. The plot twists and ending are worth it. And a worthwhile and revealing view of women which one of the female trio expressed as "We are all just bitches in the end". I like that and late in the film a quote from a several hundred B.C. Chinese text which begins "All warfare is based on deception . . .", a thoughtful commentary giving a certain meaning to the film and raising it above the usual grindhouse fare for those paying attention to more than just the action.
I noticed that many did not like this film but I thought to watch it anyway and decide for myself. First the good part – the visuals were well done, CGI and all - Jason Momoa was an excellent Conan. But the story. It could have been written by a child, and that is what spoiled it for me. Illogical, clichéd, hackneyed fight scenes, gratuitous violence, Hollywoodish. It seems that a lot of work went into the visuals, settings, costumes, makeup, camera-work, but why can't they get a decent story? Are good scriptwriters that hard to find? This happens time and again in this kind of film. Fantastic artistic potential. A good writer should be able to handle it, even including magic and sorcery if that's what the producers want, and still have it appeal to a broad audience at no more than a fraction of the cost of one of the scenes. Reading the reviews here and having watched it, I think that what ruined it for many, spoiling even the visuals, was a very bad story. I also found it hard to follow and had to read the first part of the synopsis on Wikipedia. It should have been edited better so you don't have to strain yourself to catch key lines. But maybe you may like it better ignoring the actual story and scripting it yourself using your imagination. Maybe then you might enjoy it. Pieces of it anyway.