Magnificent film, the best that has been set in prehistoric times.
The French Annaud directs with mastery and good narrative pulse this distant epic rolling in wonderful natural locations of Scotland, Kenya and Canada that only increase the realism of the staging, which really makes us move to that mysterious and hard time.
It is very remarkable how the French makes the images speak for themselves, because the protagonists do not articulate any understandable word for the viewer, making the film pure visual poetry, something much more difficult than it may appear.
The three actors really do it very well, highlighting the protagonist of the story, Everett McGill, with a great job in their gestures and noises, and a Ron Perlman to whom to deceive us, his peculiar physiognomy makes the role come to the little finger Nicholas Kadi is perhaps one step below the previous two but does not detract at all. Special mention for actress Rae Dawn Chong, her gestures, screams and tender facial expressions make her an adorable character and the most "human" of the whole film.
Great work both acting and technical, with excellent and award-winning makeup and an exquisite and very successful photography.
The film does not notice to show with crudeness the habits of the people of those times, how they lived, their sexual impulses, cannibalism, the violence of, the confrontations, and as little by little they are clashing societies more advanced than others and they are being destroyed or mixing, in short, an era where civilization began to take shape, with all that that entails.
Really fascinating by the way, to see prehistoric creatures such as saber teeth or mammoths, in a mythical scene and very well done.
One of my favorite adventure films and one of the best movies in history that I highly recommend.
Here is no doubt that the Spanish director Jesús Franco knew what was done by hiring the German actor Klaus Kinski to bring the legendary Jack the Ripper to life.
Kinski manages to give the magnetism, and the dark and dark aura that so sadly famous character requires. His cold look at the same time mysterious, coupled with that sense of false calm that Kinski always conveys that at any moment can become a start of brutal anger.
This is undoubtedly one of the best films of Jesús Franco, something that is denoted in its good quality both in photography, dark and hazy atmosphere of the London nebula, and a correct and sober direction by the director of Malaga.
A film that undoubtedly belongs to his time of artistic fulfillment when he was still doing serious and interesting works before entering a marked decline in the eighties where he would make a host of rather forgettable products, although today many of them considered cult.
Here Franco does a good job, with a Kinski with whom he understood perfectly, which is why he was one of the few who remembered him with affection after his death, both making a remarkable and interesting horror film despite some ups and downs of rhythm and special effects that can be improved.
An unknown film as interesting as it is entertaining.
From the beginning, its distribution draws attention.
The legendary Klaus Kinski, the legendary drinker Oliver Reed and the brutally morbid and sexy Susan George, eternally remembered for his role in Straw Dogs, by Sam Peckinpah.
A great trio for a tense story around the kidnapping of a child passionate about animals and that
mistake introduces a black mamba in his own home and that will cause terror to all involved in this dark plot.
Directed in principle by Tobe Hooper who left the shooting due to a nervous breakdown being replaced by Pies Haagard, Venom is a film endowed with a good suspense, good performances, and a worked setting.
The only but is that the title can be somewhat misleading since the plot does not rotate exactly around the black mamba, but rather it is one more element of the plot, very important, but not the central axis, since this resides more well in the character of Kinski, the brain of the whole kidnapping plan, whose perfidious machinations come to surprise and even entertain the viewer.
It is possible to say that the duel between a gigantic and intimidating Oliver Reed and the cold and calculating Kinski is quite tense, both actors did not stand on the set, since Reed, half drunk constantly caused Kinski who was angered and threatened to hit Reed , turning the shoot itself into a nightmare.
Susan George on the other hand is totally wasted, her character should have had more weight in the plot.
Undoubtedly, Jesús Franco was a clearly expressionist director, a director who liked to speak more with images than with words, something that is very clear, for example, in this film Macumba Sexual, in which a strange African princess begins to torment a beautiful girl that will go in his search merging both in a spiral of pleasure.
The argument, if there is one, is a mere excuse of Franco to show us a succession of scenes of high sexual voltage where the characteristic dreamlikeness of Franco seasoned in the powerful beauties of Lina Romay and Ajita Wilson, which impresses with her slender physical , remember Grace Jones quite a bit.
This African actress aroused controversy in her day due to suspicions that it could be a transsexual, a rumor never confirmed, which is why for example Andrés pajares refused to kiss her during a scene in a movie in Spain, because at that time It was believed that all gays and transsexuals were infected with AIDS. Ajita died due to a car accident with 37 years.
The film is a pure and hard sexplotaition, with a certain exotic air, with a couple of interesting scenes, quite well photographed but that really lacks history and plot, has that strange and at the same time interesting touch of Franco, who always gave all his movies with their crazy flat camera movements and zooms, here however their direction is rather sober and restrained.
Crushed to the fullest by almost all the criticism existing on this planet, I have to make a song in favor of this movie and say that it is not even one of the worst films in history nor is it as bad as it looks.
The film has no doubt that it has things that simply do not add up or are absurd or involuntarily comical, whether due to the "rasta" look of the aliens, a rather trite and unoriginal story, an excessive duration and a sometimes heavy rhythm or a very improvable soundtrack and many others.
But on the other hand the film is quite curious and fun in its own way. The presence of John Travolta playing a stereotyped but charismatic villain who enjoys the best dialogues and moments of the film helps a lot to the quality of a film that is not so cumbersome and compares with many current "B or Z series jejitas. Asylum roll that populate so many video store shelves. This at least has some decent Fx, and I mean it, they are not as crappy as they say.
The prota, Barry Peeper fulfills his role well. The typical sacrificed and noble hero who seeks the good and freedom of his race. It is not perfect but it is correct.
And well, in what is already the direction, production design and such ... well, that is not a big deal but it is not the worst thing I have seen, it is a film that is entertaining and enjoyable if it is not It demands too much, and I don't know why a clearly commercial product should be demanded of anything that failed in large part because of the bad reputation of the Scientology Church, since the history of the film was written by its founder, Ron L Hubbard, and in large part because of the fierce specialized criticisms that circulated word of mouth that it was the worst film of the decade and that it was rubbish, these two factors greatly affected the film he intended, as he said in his advertising posters Become a saga.
But I, who am neither a professional critic nor anything I say very clearly, is not the worst film in history, nor of the past decade.
It is simply one more science fiction film, with its eccentricities, defects and also its good moments and peculiarities and that in my opinion, it does not deserve to be dilapidated more than other bodies that circulate around and that have even made it up to a film of worship.
An army of angels renegades from God, under the command of the archangel Gabriel, fights a bloody fight against other angels, who remain loyal to the divine will of this, but this celestial war has moved to the earth, where both sides will wage his last battle to seize the soul of an old psychopathic soldier with cannibal tendencies and that is considered the most evil that exists in the world, which according to the prophecies will end this fratricidal struggle that lasts for eons, caused mainly by the jealousy of some angels for the love that God professes humans, whose survival is at stake, even if they ignore it themselves.
The distribution of the film today is spectacular.
At the head of all are Elias Koteas and Cristopher Walken, Koteas in my opinion recreates well the torment and melancholy of the character, Walken, his role as the implacable Gabriel is the most attractive of the whole plot perhaps because of that mixture of evil , irony and black humor that he distills when dealing with his brothers and with the "let's talk" and for the charisma that the actor transmits to his character.
Eric Stoltz deserves special mention, his work as the angel Simon is impressive, and he manages to monopolize almost all the attention at the beginning of the film with that halo of tragic hero aware of his end, which emanates his character, his scenes with the breeding to whom he gives the wicked and evil soul, whose magnificent work should not be underestimated, they are difficult to forget, and they are even somewhat murky.
The main cast is completed by a correct Virginia Madsen, a wasted Amanda Plummer and Viggo Mortensen as Lucifer, who with a few minutes on the screen looks great with a character that looks great.
The Prophecy is an excellent and interesting fantastic thriller written and directed by Gregory Widen, the screenwriter of The Immortals, and which debuted for the first and to date, only once in the cinema. His work is the most competent, with some fascinating camera movements and planes of these desert places where practically all the plot is developed, and that is reinforced with his accurate photography and soundtrack that only increase the messianic atmosphere and apocalyptic that breathes at all times, a good technical work without a doubt for a film that despite some ups and downs of rhythm and its modesty of means, manages to catch and entertain by its good staging, great cast and original script.
I think that the main problem of this second part is due to his rhythm problems and his main partner.
There is no doubt that the Annakin-Padme moments are cloying, boring and lacking interest to the viewer. Natalie Portman is very pretty but she is a really bland actress, and Hayden Cristiansen's good guy lags behind, that's why it doesn't work, two sosains without spark or chemistry whose moments of "hammering" don't interest, bore.
Obi Wan is the one who saves the function along with charismatic villains like Count Dokuu, his adventures on the planet Geonosis, with that army of insectoids, as well as that battle of "graders" in that Lucasian adpatation of a Roman colosseum, is entertaining, spectacular At times, the battle between Yoda and Dooku, mythical, many wanted to see the "master" of masters handling the lightsaber, and although brief the combat does not disappoint.
For the rest, maximum profusion of effects by computer, something that seriously damaged this saga, more busy in the visual, than not telling us a HISTORY, which was something that if he did in the previous trilogy, that if he could get you to care about his characters , not like here, reduced everything to a hodgepodge of visual effects that end up bored and bored
That is my impression of the attack of the clones, the slowest and most cloying of the three, with spectacular and great moments. I do not deny it, but other inflatable and boring, an Annakin, with which they were wrong with the chosen actor, a bland without charisma or energy and a Lucas who showed that as an inventor of worlds he is a genius, but as a director himself , leaves enough to be desired.
Well, many people tend to praise this sixth installment of the archifamous franchise, although analyzing it coldly, it is the weakest of the first three.
I have always liked Star Wars movies, I have never been a freaky, but as a kid, as almost everyone liked to have the dolls of the movies, posters and all that paraphernalia so well mounted by Lucas, a very intelligent uncle without a doubt in When it comes to making money.
In this third installment that concerns us, we have a spectacular start, very well done and exciting. The arrival of both the androids, as Luke himself to Jabba the Hutt's lair, to rescue a captured Leia in her attempt to rescue her beloved Han Solo herself, and who has been turned into a sexy slave with one of the most erotic outfits that have been seen in the history of cinema.
All that first initial part, until the destruction of Jabba's ship in the well of the almighty Sarlacc, is masterful, hilarious and unforgettable.
So, what prevents me from giving this delivery a higher grade? Very simple, the second half of the film with the arrival of the protagonists in Endor, hits a tremendous downturn that perhaps many do not know or do not want to perceive. Simply the whole teddy bear roll is completely left over because it is too childish and even boring. Until that time Star Wars had been a saga for an adolescent-adult audience, but the inclusion of these ewoks already downgraded it to a movie for kids, which did not have to be, but of course, greater public higher income, Lucas is Very very smart, I've always said it.
The development, well, we are told about the final echos that lead to the destruction of the second death star, by Darth Vader, ultimately redeeming himself, the death of Palpatine and the end of the Imperial dictatorship, making the republic and the Restoration of the Jedi as guardians of peace in the galaxy. All this in a spectacular and very emotional climax, with melodies by John Williams during the Luke-Vader clash that freeze the blood, phenomenal and very dark.
I, like many others, prefer the original 1983 version, in which Sebastian Shaw appeared at the end as Anakin Skywalker, and not Hayden Cristiansen's mammon, which does not stick with a deadly tail in that scene, since on top The effect is fatal and very forced. I also don't like modern fx additives in some sequences simply because they don't connect well with the visual aspect of the set. But this is just my opinion.
It is a great sequel and conclusion of the first trilogy, but due to erroneous decisions that I have commented, some teddy bears making antics and certain highs and lows of rhythm and a not very bright direction of Richard Marquand, tied hand and foot as said by Lucas , which controlled even the smallest aspect of its "toy", as Spielberg once defined it, makes it not so satisfactory and round, since it does not have the opera tone of the first two wonderful parts.
Modest though sympathetic B series film of science fiction-action and martial arts, made to greater glory of the then fashionable Billy Blanks.
Blanks is an expert in karate discipline in which he was crowned champion, in addition to mastering other styles such as Full Contact or Taekwondo.
But Blanks would become really famous at the end of the eighties thanks to a series of aerobic videos where he showed his personal style known as Tae Bo, a fusion between Taekwondo and boxing and that were sold by millions making him a sport and exercise guru .
In this film he surrounds himself with other acquaintances of the B series of the nineties like Bolo Yeung, and the German Mattias Hues as well as the beauty Boobie Philips.
The film is very modest in the media, the performances are poor, to the reluctant direction and its script has hardly any originality but it benefits from that extravagant and casual touch that has its atmosphere and continuous action but it becomes somewhat boring and missing of interest.
Curious and interesting documentary about the controversial Spanish businessman Jesús gil i gil.
Gil is a figure that today causes admiration, rejection, rejection, fascination and even nostalgia.
Of humble origin, he took advantage of the opportunities that life together with his great ambition gave him to become one or the most successful businessmen in the history of this country, president of one of the best clubs in Spain and even making the leap to politics With his party, Gil, which, of course, was a great success, becoming mayor of a humble fishing village in the province of Malaga in Andalusia, Marbella, an international tourist paradise.
The documentary goes into the origins. Gil's rise and fall, through archive images and interviews with friends, acquaintances, family members and rivals through four episodes.
In them we echo a man who, although it is proven that he used methods outside the law to enrich himself and carry out his ambitious projects, at the same time fascinates us with his unquestionable media charisma, his quirky and sometimes excessive personality, his chant with the people of any social condition, his dark past with the disaster of the San Rafael Los Angeles complex where dozens of people died, his peak of glory with his club winning the league and the king's cup and finally the end of his entire empire At the root of the Malaya operation uncovering the entire network of urban corruption and scams that will take Gil to political and personal collapse.
It is also surprising to see the loyalty of many of its voters despite the obvious evidence of corruption, embezzlement and fraud that he was accused of.
The documentary is endowed with good rhythm, being enjoyable and interesting even if unpublished videos or interviews with more characters from its surroundings are missing, it finally seems insufficient to cover the whole figure of Gil, it would have been certainly better to make one or two episodes more to tie more loose ends and go deeper into your private and public life.
Peplum of the late sixties inspired by the life of Queen Britana Boudicca, or Boadicea as the Romans called her.
Boudicca was a powerful queen of Britain who led the biggest revolt against Roman power that was ever seen on the island and was finally crushed by the then invincible Roman military machinery, but Boudicca would become a myth in Britain and a Icon for British feminism.
The Viking queen does not know exactly why it was chosen although everything points to a commercial trick to make the film more attractive, since there are absolutely nothing of Vikings because the film is set in Nero's time, more than six hundred years before The Viking era.
When it comes to the movie, it's not bad at all. It is a typical love story impossible in this case between a barbarian and a Roman officer in the midst of rebellion to tell the oppressive and brutal Roman regime.
The film is well performed by the cast and although its lack of means is noted, director Don Chaffey manages to show more or less some good sequences of battles between the legions and the Celtic British warriors and their mystic Druid leaders.
The film is inspired by the sadly famous king of Judea Herod the Great, considered a villain in the gospels for being responsible for the massacre of the innocent saints, although some historians question the truth of these events.
Regarding the film the figure of Herod, here is embodied by the Englishman Edmund Purdom, who gives presence to the character but who never manages to give true intensity to his interpretation. The same goes for the rest of the cast who fail to emerge in their characters by offering soulless and passionless performances.
Although it may seem so. This is not a biography of the mythical king, because he does not pay attention to his work as a builder and the prosperity that he brought to the Jewish people but that the film focuses only on his family dramas, there is hardly any action his always complicated relations with Octavio are touched superficially and it has become tedious and uninteresting for a historical figure that gave more of itself.
Their photography costumes and decorations recreated with some luxury are saved.
With Chuck Norris I think there is no middle ground. You love him or you hate him.
The same thing happens with his films. If you are from the latter, I do not see much sense to watch any of his films, because they will seem the same bazofia, full of topics, extra-large rations of rotating and shooting kicks, clichés and several freaks.
But Chuck within what fits is charismatic, or at least there are those that seem so. Me among them.
The reason? I don't even know it. It is something that many of us have inside. We just like to see the bearded actor handing over to all kinds of scum, with his immovable hard-faced face, tanned and challenging look and sententious phrases before and after kicking any thugs. Let's say you have a special magnetism that catches according to who.
With this film, Mcquade, the Lone Wolf, happens exactly what I just explained. At the beginning we find a marked tone of Spaguetti Western, with a wolf moving at night through a desert landscape to the sound of an excellent initial music that makes us immediately remember the Soundtracks composed by the mythical Ennio Morricone for the legendary trilogy Sergio Leone's dollar. Not surprisingly, the composer of this film Francesco de Massi, was a friend and admirer of Morricone, and presents a notable influence, for good, of the Italian composer.
Then we have Mcquade himself. A custom made Norris character. A dirty, disheveled Texas ranger, a hardened brewer, of a hard and lonely character, although not quite because he really has company, a rather imposing wolf, and completely dedicated body and soul to his work, even when his methods lead him to confront their superiors for their excessive violence and their refusal to have a partner. He has an ex-wife and a daughter with whom he tries to share as much time as possible and the only one with whom he shows a sweet and kind facet.
He will face a mafia boss incarnate in the figure of David Carradine. It's unfortunate how badly drawn his character is. Well, far from being a memorable and charismatic villain, Carradine gives life to a rather gray character with little chicha. Above the supposed final fight is rather short and not spectacular, finishing Norris with Carradine in a conventional and somewhat absurd way. Not to mention that the pole he is wearing in the middle of the desert ends up giving him a very serious menacing look.
Also the script has too many ups and downs. It begins quite well, with the confrontation of Mcquade and his gang against the wicked, as usual, in American cinema, Mexicans, then presenting the lifestyle of Mcquade, his family and such, a pretty woman who crosses his path at the same time as the evil Carradine and such. But quickly you begin to realize that in reality there is not what is said much action but that this is all in the final stretch, in some scenes that said by the way, they are not especially spectacular or exciting, rather routine.
And that is the final problem of the film, It seems to offer more than it finally ends up giving. He has a good Western look, a cool character like Mcquade, and a supposedly strong nemesis like Carradine, but all this never really ends up melting in a convincing and really entertaining way, but in many sections he becomes bored and he loses interest tracing when the action finally appears, too scarce for a film of these characteristics.
Steve Carver shows in my opinion something mediocre to carry out a really solid and energetic action film, and to offer vibrant action scenes, lacking some nerve for such scenes.
Many claim that it is one of the best in Norris. And so it is. But personally I think it is a film with successes in its setting, tone and its cast of actors, but that is wasted in a rather mediocre script and insufficient direction to enhance it. It could have been better, but for what it is, it's not bad at all.
The well-known Chinese director Lo wei, director of several films with Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan among others, directed this film, produced by Raymond Chow and his mythical Golden Harvest, in fact it was his first production shot in the United States.
The film is very little thing, it has that look and style of the seventies, which gives it a nostalgic and charming, but its plot, protagonist, characters, and most importantly, the pelas, are very discreet and uninteresting.
In addition, Norris is not even the protagonist, but the villain, and comes out few times, with a final skin that leaves you rather cold, nor is it all bad bad or very good, so that we understand each other.
However, it can be an interesting film to observe how the first martial arts productions were made in the West, but otherwise, it is completely forgettable and mediocre.
It could have been better, it could also have been worse
Sin City was a real bombshell and the most masterful demonstration of how to adapt a comic or graphic novel.
The film was almost perfect, a setting and aesthetic worthy of the best Black Cinema, Tarantinian narrative scheme, fascinating characters with intelligent dialogues, spectacular action sequences ..... I don't know if I exaggerate, but I consider it a Masterpiece and a true Cinema achievement.
Here we have, then, the second part, and I think something has seriously failed.
In itself, it is not a bad movie, but since it began, with the story of Joseph Levitt, which was the best and most interesting, and Levitt is immense and demonstrating a talent that does nothing but take hold, history is losing Some gas as it progresses. But for some reason that the story of Josh Brolin begins, something gets screwed and begins to lose its good progress from the beginning.
It is still Sin City, okay, but for some reason the intensity and overwhelming force of the stories and scenes from the previous film are halved in this one. They do not produce so many emotions but in some sections it becomes a bit heavy, not boring, but the rhythm is weak and that kills the tension and the good rhythm.
And above the action scenes are quite weak, for example the confrontation between Marv and the gigantic black Bodyguard, I expected a beastly melee, but everything stays in a couple of thrusts, two or three strokes, and Marv tearing the eye as if it were a plastic Barbie. This was the huge gorilla that was not Human? What a tease is that?
Of all the characters that appear in this new sequel, only the aforementioned Levitt, the colossal Marv and Eva Green have been interesting. Josh Brolin has been very weak, Ray Liotta is almost not seen, Bruce Willis is a couple of Flashbacks and the rest is not much to highlight, there is no time.
This time the movie is too short and there is no room to develop the rest of the characters, some are back there, but they don't say much, or tell stories with more force than those offered here.
In a nutshell, this sequel is OK, it is GOOD, but it does not reach the HEIGHT even from the first, and that is something very serious. If it does not match or exceed the previous one, will it make sense to make a third?
Highlight the scene of Levitt being treated by a half-crazy doctor embodied by the legendary Cristopher Lloyd. Just for that scene it was worth it.
Routine spin off to continue taking money from the saga at the expense of the patience and good faith of the spectators.
Rogue One can only be described as a soulless and spiritless film that is limited to repeating the same formula applied to all Sar wars films, the same schemes the same development, I operate with a single paste, the characters are heroes than ever.
The protagonist is the but of all the Star Wars movies, she has no charisma. nor anything that makes her interesting is a cold, stereotyped, typical character.
And the rest of the cast? Without comment, a blind Kung Fu teacher in this saga? It doesn't even stick with a tail. What's up, that the screenwriter is a fan of the old films of Jackie Chan and Jet Li?
The only change is that this movie is conceived more like a war story, focusing on the battle between the Imperials and the Republicans, but it is not even there that it has emotion, the Imperials shoot three hundred shots and do not hit a rebel, the rebels hit four shots and they take them all down, that's all the thrill of battle the movie sells. Depressing.
To all this this is very long and it becomes infinite, because they have to be so long ?, If there is not even an argument or what is happening or what happens, you do not know anything you only see ships, shooting jokes without No grace and pointless follies. Can't the same be done in an hour and a half? Surely the movie would have won a lot with that duration.
A movie that could have been much more than it was.
The truth is that Paul Anderson did nothing wrong and achieved a pretty attractive film at the visual level.
The strong point of the film is that it is very light, it does not insist on telling us a heavy and convoluted story, but it gives us a small but interesting introduction about the arrival of predators to the earth, to get us fully into the great clash between the two creatures, in a brutal extermination fight.
The special effects are quite decent, although sometimes you notice too much computer effects in the movements of the aliens, but they are minor defects. The best without a doubt, are the sequences of the queen of the aliens, spectacular and full of tension.
The actors are correct, the protagonist, Sanaa Lathan, is a beautiful woman and brings seriousness and character. From Lance Henriksen I can say, he is a crack and one of my favorite actors, whether his role is good or not, his presence is always appreciated.
The only problem of the film is that it lacks more ambition, since the only epicenter of the whole feature film is to see the desired confrontation between both species but this only occurs between three predators, of which two die quickly, and I think, too easily, and a few aliens, it is clear that it should have been something much more epic, with hordes and more hordes of aliens and predators destroying each other mercilessly. Here the truth is that everything is somewhat bland.
Anderson's address is correct and his work is not bad but I think that was not enough. Anderson is a less versatile director in commercial films but does not possess the genius and imagination of James Cameron or the psychological depth and sense of suspense of Ridley Scott.
In short, Alien vs. Predator is a well-made film at the visual level, with an effective but not masterful direction of Anderson, a story that should have been polished somewhat more but that works equally and a cast that although does not shine is the least solvent.
A film with some interesting ideas and sequences, but that remained rather in something failed despite being undoubtedly entertaining.
A more than fun and commendable science fiction movie.
The film is a pure B series, but in its best sense, with positive aspects such as a phenomenal couple of acts like a very young and unknown Kevin Bacon and the great Fred Ward at that time, distilling very good vibes and messing, giving the film a touch of humor that manages to make it enjoyable together with some outstanding secondary, among which is Victor Wong, the unforgettable Chinese elder of Gremlins, or even the girl of Jurassic Park.
The script without being any prodigy, is solved and straight to the point, simple and simple, but with rhythm, at times quite funny, and you could even say witty. The work of Ron Underwood can be described as correct and with some ability to print the story at a good pace.
Even the effects, very rudimentary, are very good and sometimes even spectacular.
I can only say that it is a film that really surprises for having more quality than you expect and for a story and actors that really work and make you have a great time.
One of the last classics of the B series of the eighties-nineties totally recommended.
The last years of the nineties were characterized by a noticeable change at the time of visually conceiving the films.
The great exponent and revolutionary was Matrix, who made it clear that a new era was coming in which computer effects were constituted as an important component in the film as the story itself, worth examples such as Titanic or The Mummy, who based everything his strength in the spectacularity of his images, although his stories were not too bright either, had a huge mass success for his irresistible charm and attractiveness of pure quality Blockbuster.
And in the midst of these great productions was also this curious science fiction and horror film directed by a special effects specialist, John Bruno, who debuted in the direction.
Bruno is well known for his participation as an Fx supervisor in films such as X-Men 3, Titanic, Risky Lies or Alien Vs Predator. So in the CGI field, the guy is a reputed professional, but in terms of management he was a rookie and inexperienced and that is what is seen in this film. Your address is bad bad until you say enough. It does not transmit emotion, suspense, nerve or anything like it, which is to condemn to death a product of these characteristics. I don't think he did it on purpose, but his work was dire, not directing anything else.
But of course, the fault is not entirely yours. Well, the real kit of the matter is in its script: Absolutely HORRIPILANT. The construction of the characters is pathetic, the protas completely lack charisma, depth and sympathy. Billy Baldwin is completely bland and unable to convey anything other than indifference, Jamie Lee Curtis tries it is the only one who manages not to fall into the abyss completely, and as for Mr. Donald Sutherlan is the father desponde, suffice it to say that the actor in some scenes literally laughs at how bad the movie is, seriously, and yet his character is the only one who has fun and makes the show something happy. As for the other five, the Russian girl Joanna Pacula does not do so badly, Julio Oscar Mechoso, Baldwin's compi, does not have much space to show his good qualities as an actor, Cliff Curtis with a Pee Wee aspect of Moby Dick causes more laughter than anything else, and Sherman Augustus only has a certain grace when the hole starts to go away, and Marsall Bell is totally wasted. Regrettable.
It is certainly in the visual spot where the film stands out. Both his photography and visual effects are well done and decent. The Animatronics are impressive, with several gore scenes and good scenarios. We can say that in that aspect the film does not disappoint, it is acceptable and even nostalgic. But its history, routine, predictable and copied from similar films such as Alien, John Bruno's flat, lazy and plain direction and some soulless performances and characters made her fall into the well of mediocrity, being quite forgotten today.
The Best: His Fx and Animatronics, Jamie Curtis and Donald Sutherland
The worst: Bad direction, Bad script, other characters without interest or empathy.
It is said that the producer Roger Corman was frustrated to not be the one who made the Conan film by John Milius that sought to produce his own film sword and witchcraft, the film would shoot in Argentina, to reduce costs.
Deathstalker would turn out to be a more than fun and entertaining heroic fantasy film, with a curious and charismatic prota, beautiful women, abundance of nudity and bizarre violence in abundance. The play went well and today is considered a cult film.
Said film would come in three more sequels,
This second part, with a different protagonist, is more carefree than the previous one, but keeping the essence of the previous one, beautiful girls, very bad villains, and a total will to entertain the spectator.
It shows his low budget but still there is a good picture, good soundtrack and scenarios that are false but that for some reason work, just everything you see in the film is charming, for that air of hooligan cinema that undoubtedly It covers the entire movie. Living dead, amazingly decent sword fights, a cheeky and braggart protagonist, different from the more serious and intimidating warrior of the previous one, but with the same cynicism.
There is no doubt that if you were and still are a lover of series such as Hercules and Xena, you will like this film and saga, because both series undoubtedly drank from them. The "king of thieves" is a clue.
Deathstalker was the first of the ten films that Roger Corman produced in Argentina in association with Argentine producer and filmmaker Hector Olivera, and perhaps the most memorable and memorable as it resulted in no less than three more sequels.
The objective was to make low-budget films and usually within the genre of heroic fantasy, since at that time the genre was at the peak of its popularity and Corman, who always wanted to produce a film of comic characters, Conan the Bárbaro, but it was impossible to not achieve the rights of the character, wanted to remove the splinter that had stuck making a more crappy but much more carefree version of the mythical character.
And this is where Argentina appeared, where the costs were much lower than in the United States and many other countries, as for the Argentine cinema, it was a good opportunity to boost its film industry beyond its borders.
In principle the thing was quite good because Deathstalker, the death warrior was quite successful being a very popular film in the eighties, reaching the cult category today and becoming a whole saga.
The proposal is simple, a blond warrior and hunts, must face an evil sorcerer who has expelled the legitimate king and that will have to gather the three powers of creation to participate in a bloody tournament with rivals each more extravagant and crazy .
In the movie there is everything, brawny and lustful brawny warriors, attractive women, semi naked and even more lustful, outlandish villains, strange creatures, death-fighting trolls ... what else can you ask?
Its duration is short also so it does not bore or become heavy.
As soon as the actors Rick Hill gives the hit without problems as anti-hero of the show, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson take the hiccups, and the British specialist Richard Brooker shows off his great physical qualities.
The soundtrack in my opinion is unbeatable.
The insane sequences in the tavern are engraved on the retina.
Cult movie highly recommended for fans of the genre.
Fun and delirious movie of Troma where parodies the superhero movies embodied in the figure of the charismatic and unique Sergeant Kabukiman.
The film is not as gore as others of Troma since there were disagreements about the approach of the film between Herz and Kaufman between making a film suitable for children or a more beast and wild film in the style of Toxic Avenger. In the end there was no agreement and there was a film halfway through everything, without enough violence, blood and shake to please the more lovers of the rough style of Troma.
This is due to the fact that the actor who plays kabukiman, Rick Gianasi, tried to go charac- terized as the character in the parks and squares of New York, and the result was that all the children approached him fascinated and enthusiastic towards him. The producers decided to make a film suitable for all pu'vlicos.
The film is entertaining and has its good moments of humor, the persecution of the hero dressed as a clown and the fight in the park for example, but it lacks bad temper, more ingenious and scathing dialogues, and a more interesting villain.
But it does not mean that we are in front of a forgotten jewel of Troma, films like this make us realize how serious and boring the current cinema of superheroes has become with the hrefels that current directors infuse to adaptations, here they simply take all to messing about so that the spectator laughs and forget about the dreads and nonsense that we see in so many current productions of Marvel, DC, or whatever ...
Kabukiman is what it is, no more or less than an ode to the joke and good vibes and that already makes it charming and estimable.
And by the way, incomprehensible that an anime of this character has not been made, charisma and possibilities are not lacking.
Undoubtedly, the Dutch Paul Verhoeven made his debut in Hollywood with this extraordinary film.
Robocop is a film set in the not too distant future, and to say nothing flattering, in the harsh and cold city of Detroit, a place savagely beaten by crime and with a police force practically controlled by the OCP, a powerful multinational, and whose capacity to contain criminals is practically exhausted.
In these circumstances will be Robocop, a cyborg created with the remains of Alex Murphy a good and honest police brutally murdered after a pursuit by a criminal gang led by the cruel Clarence Boddicker. Superb performance by Kurtwood Smith, everything is said.
With the body of a machine but with the heart of a human being, Robocop will be the only glimpse of humanity, justice and order in a corrupt and dehumanized city, although for that it must face both traffickers and bandits in the highest spheres.
Robocop is a violent film, but in my opinion it is not an exaggerated or exorbitant violence, but it contains its fair doses of action, blood and gore, but without reaching the absurd excess as in many films today.
The shooting during the assault on the traffickers' fortress is shot with a masterful delicacy, with a sense of epic, accompanied by the superb soundtrack of Basil Poledouris, without planes or movements that make the viewer dizzy, everything is perfectly coordinated and filmed, and that happens with all the action scenes in the movies, they are clean and shot with sobriety.
The shooting during the assault on the traffickers' fortress is shot with a masterful delicacy, with a sense of epic, accompanied by the superb soundtrack of Basil Poledouris, without planes or movements that make the viewer dizzy, everything is perfectly coordinated and filmed, and that happens with all the action scenes in the movies, they are clean and shot with sobriety.
Robocop is a sign that good action cinema simply does not exist anymore, it is practically impossible to find films that transmit and impact as much as this one today, without having to resort to a thousand explosions and computer generated effects, while most of today's movies are boring, scenes of Robocop as the murderous assassination of Murphy, the confrontation of this with a huge robot ¨rival¨, seeing one of the villains melted by acid or those ads and TV shows where literally satirizes the American society continues to make the hair stand on end, are moments that stay engraved in fire in the mind.
Robocop is a masterpiece, a must-see classic for any film lover in general, but perhaps the most amazing, and chilling of all is that the "future" that Verhoeven showed us resembles more and more our present.
Entertaining fantastic horror movie starring Chuck Norris.
The film has an interesting beginning, located in the Middle Ages in which we see the English King Richard Heart of Lion, facing a satanic sect that are called Prositans, led by an emissary of Satan, played by a terrifying Christopher Neame. After being defeated by the crusader king, the leader of the satanic cult is locked in a sarcophagus, sealed with four swords with a golden hilt, for all eternity, but the greed of thieves already in the current era, will return to unleash hell on earth.
This was Norris' second and last foray into the horror genre, and probably the most successful one.
The film has a good technical score, with a photo by Joao Fernandes, a soundtrack by George Clinton, with a catchy melody sounding regularly throughout the footage, and well-resolved moments of terror.
The story mixes how it can not be otherwise in the case of Norris, the detective genre, in this case in the Buddy movie, with a funny and casual companion who will accompany Chuck to Israel to investigate the brutal murders that took place in a Chicago motel.
Both the development and outcome are typical in the filmography of the actor, although here this production stand out a little more, to have a more realistic setting, was actually shot in Jerusalem and a villain very up to the point, which is the best of the tape, it really is scary.
In short, entertaining film and few or no pretensions, especially recommended to the fans, who are more than you think, the karateka par excellence.